Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 4: Good morning, Welcome to Breaking Points, Crystal. How are you
Speaker 4: doing today?
Speaker 1: So far, so good? Still early?
Speaker 4: It is the last Breaking Point show before the holiday.
Speaker 5: Butt wait, there's more.
Speaker 1: Yes, we do have a lot of good content for
Speaker 1: you guys posting over the Thanksgiving holiday, and premium subscribers
Speaker 1: are going to get early access to all of that.
Speaker 1: So Soccer and I were both busy yesterday. I recorded
Speaker 1: a long interview with Norman Finkelstein, asking him a bunch
Speaker 1: of you guys's questions that you sent in and some
Speaker 1: questions of my own, by the way, and Sager was
Speaker 1: busy recording a long interview with Jocko, also about Israel
Speaker 1: and Gaza. So we will post all of those early
Speaker 1: for you guys if you are premium subscribers. If you
Speaker 1: want to get early access to that content, make sure
Speaker 1: you sign up Breakingpoints dot com. We're going to post
Speaker 1: a couple of little teaser clips too early in the
Speaker 1: week so you guys can get the sense of what
Speaker 1: those interviews are all about. A lot to get to
Speaker 1: in the show this morning. We have updates on Israel's
Speaker 1: war on Gaza, including escalating risks of a potential wider war,
Speaker 1: and the Biden White House being pressed both on whether
Speaker 1: Israel is committing war crimes and also whether they are
Speaker 1: perpetrating a genocide, so we'll write that down for you.
Speaker 1: We also have some new troubling developments with regards to
Speaker 1: journalists both here and in Israel and Gaza. We have
Speaker 1: quite a rant from the one and only Cardi B.
Speaker 1: Cardi for President. In my opinion, she went off on
Speaker 1: Eric Adams, mayor of New York. She went off on
Speaker 1: his budget, because she went off on Biden. She went
Speaker 1: off on the two wars that were tempting to fund
Speaker 1: and fight right now. So we've got some of those
Speaker 1: highlights and we will get into everything you need to
Speaker 1: know about Cardi B's thoughts on the world. We also
Speaker 1: have a really wild new president of Argentina. We're going
Speaker 1: to bring in Ryan Grimm to help us understand how
Speaker 1: he came to power, what his appeal was, and what
Speaker 1: it all means. We've got Jen Hyuger, presidential candidate in
Speaker 1: the Democratic primary, of course, back on the show to
Speaker 1: talk about how his campaign is going. And we've got
Speaker 1: a little nice, lighthearted Thanksgiving segment. Some new polling showing
Speaker 1: that most people super not into talking to their friends, family, relatives, etc.
Speaker 1: At the Thanksgiving dinner table about politics. That has probably
Speaker 1: never been more true than right now, when tensions and
Speaker 1: feelings about what is going on in Israel Gaza are
Speaker 1: so high, and we ask you guys to give us
Speaker 1: some thoughts from your Thanksgiving dinner table of whether you
Speaker 1: will be broaching political subjects or not. Let's go ahead, though,
Speaker 1: and start with some of the updates coming out of Israel.
Speaker 1: And we had a number of very disturbing developments in
Speaker 1: terms of the risks of this sparking a wider regional war.
Speaker 1: So first let's put this up on this green Hesbola
Speaker 1: just struck and apparently destroyed this is per this video
Speaker 1: and other reports on the ground. Much of this is
Speaker 1: an Israeli military site called Beer Neet. It's near the
Speaker 1: Lebanese border, but it is in Israel. So this is
Speaker 1: a major cross border attack from Hesbola on an Israeli
Speaker 1: military location. This of course creates giant risks because Israel
Speaker 1: will no doubt respond. What does that response look like?
Speaker 1: Part of the escalation is not only in terms of
Speaker 1: the size and scope of the attack, but in terms
Speaker 1: of the actual weaponry that was used here. And you
Speaker 1: guys know this is not my specialty, but what they
Speaker 1: said is that HESBLO forces carried out the attack using
Speaker 1: Burkhan short range rockets, which can have an explosive payload
Speaker 1: of up to five hundred kilograms. This comes as Hesbela
Speaker 1: leader Hassan Masrela had previously announced this month that HASBLA
Speaker 1: forces had started to deploy those weapon systems for the
Speaker 1: first time. So this is emily the first time that
Speaker 1: we have seen that particular weapon being used in this conflict.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and again to your point, you never know what
Speaker 4: the sort of spark that lights something even wider is,
Speaker 4: and we actually like are learning that on a day
Speaker 4: to day basis, which I think is partially what's so
Speaker 4: frightening about this news. You know, you just don't know
Speaker 4: what comes next. And we have troops, so what are
Speaker 4: we up to? Like dozens of attacks on American basis.
Speaker 4: So we have about ten bases that have been hit
Speaker 4: so far about sixty one times, and that's led to
Speaker 4: about sixty one injuries. Some of them have been serious,
Speaker 4: some of them have been reportedly traumatic brain injuries. And
Speaker 4: that's how fragile the ecosystem is, not actually just in
Speaker 4: the Middle East, but around the entire world right now, Crystal,
Speaker 4: it's really touch and go every single day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you all will recall Nzuela, the head of
Speaker 1: has BLAG, gave a much anticipated speech that I had
Speaker 1: a lot of people on edge about what they would
Speaker 1: be announcing. I believe this was like two weeks ago
Speaker 1: at this point, and it ended up being a lot
Speaker 1: of typical saber rattling, but no commitment to escalation. But
Speaker 1: as you see the Israeli ground offensive and bombing campaign
Speaker 1: continue in Gaza, obviously that continues the risk of escalation
Speaker 1: on heswla's part and on the Israeli part. At the
Speaker 1: same time, that is not the only group that we
Speaker 1: have to be concerned about. Put this up on the screen. Okay,
Speaker 1: so what you're watching here is Yemen's hoo Thies taking
Speaker 1: over a ship that has some ties to Israel, so
Speaker 1: a ship hijacking in the Red Sea. They all apparently
Speaker 1: had cameras with them to record this takeover. They had
Speaker 1: previously warned that they would intercept any sort of ships
Speaker 1: that came through this area close to Yemen that had
Speaker 1: any sort of Israeli ties. None of these individuals who
Speaker 1: are on board, by the way, are Israeli. Not that
Speaker 1: any of that would make any of this okay anyway,
Speaker 1: but you can see once again the risk of escalation.
Speaker 1: And let's put this next piece up on the screen
Speaker 1: of how this is already impacting, you know, travel in
Speaker 1: terms of our shipping lanes. Two ships divert course away
Speaker 1: from the Red Sea area after that vessel was seized
Speaker 1: by Houthi's. Two commercial ships had to divert their course
Speaker 1: in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aiden that
Speaker 1: were connected to the same maritime group whose vessel was
Speaker 1: seized by Yemen's Houthis, according to shipping data. Israel on
Speaker 1: Sunday said the Houthis had seized a British owned, Japanese
Speaker 1: operated cargo ship in the Southern Red Sea, describing the
Speaker 1: incident as an Iranian act of terrorism. The houthis having
Speaker 1: ties to Iran with consequences for international maritime security. And
Speaker 1: so even the connection to Israel's a little little.
Speaker 5: Far.
Speaker 1: Is not that closely connected to Israel. But apparently there
Speaker 1: was a beneficial owner of this ship that at one
Speaker 1: point was an Israeli billionaire, So I guess that's the connect.
Speaker 4: Right, So the British ship, the company that owns the
Speaker 4: ship is partially owned by an Israeli businessman and just
Speaker 4: being right now leased out by the Japanese. So again,
Speaker 4: you know, that's completely different connection than I think a
Speaker 4: lot of people immediately.
Speaker 5: Suspected because Israel.
Speaker 4: When the news broke, I don't think it was even
Speaker 4: clear how many's the what's the right.
Speaker 5: Term when you are the distance from Crystal's not multiply
Speaker 5: degrees of separation? There you go degrees.
Speaker 4: I was trying to think of the Kevin Bacon right,
Speaker 4: like you're a six degrees. It wasn't clear what it was, yes,
Speaker 4: and that was really scary.
Speaker 1: Well, and part of what makes it scary is, you know,
Speaker 1: if this had been Israeli nationals on board this ship,
Speaker 1: and now you have an additional because we still don't
Speaker 1: know where this ship is. We don't know where these
Speaker 1: people are being on. I mean the people who were
Speaker 1: on the ship are being held captive now effectively. So
Speaker 1: imagine we had Israeli nationals or American nationals who were
Speaker 1: now being held captive by the Huthis and the potential
Speaker 1: escalatory spark that that could provide. So all of these
Speaker 1: things are extraordinarily dangerous and they will continue to be
Speaker 1: extraordinarily dangerous so long as Israel's war on Gaza continues.
Speaker 1: You also have within the Defense Department here in the
Speaker 1: US put this up on the screen from the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: a real split emerging as they say Biden struggles to
Speaker 1: deter attacks on US troops. This is what Emily was
Speaker 1: just referring to a surgeon. Attacks on deployed US forces
Speaker 1: has roiled some within the Defense Department, where officials, frustrated
Speaker 1: by what they consider an incoherent strategy for countering the
Speaker 1: Iranian proxies, believe responsible acknowledge the limited retaliatory air strikes
Speaker 1: approved by Biden have failed to stop the violence. There
Speaker 1: is no clear definition of what we are trying to
Speaker 1: Deter said one defense official. Are we trying to deter
Speaker 1: future Iranian attacks like this? Well, that's clearly not working.
Speaker 1: And what they point to is the fact that since
Speaker 1: October seventeenth, US troops in a Rock and Syria facing
Speaker 1: the new daily assaults from rocket fire and one way drones,
Speaker 1: recording at least sixty one incidents and about as many
Speaker 1: injuries in that span. This is per Pentagon data that
Speaker 1: was obtained by the Washington Post. This is not something,
Speaker 1: by the way, that the US government is really advertising.
Speaker 1: It took them being able to obtain this data to
Speaker 1: report out what the actual figures are. It shows the
Speaker 1: attacks of targeted ten bases used by American personnel who
Speaker 1: are spread across both countries. The Pentagon said the houthis
Speaker 1: destroyed a thirty million dollar US Reaper drone over the
Speaker 1: Red Sea. In recent days. US warships have in the
Speaker 1: past few weeks intercepted weapons fired from Yemen in the
Speaker 1: direction of Israel. As the attack count has continued to climb,
Speaker 1: so too has the concern that is only a matter
Speaker 1: of time before one claims a US service member's life.
Speaker 1: And again, as long as this conflict is ongoing, as
Speaker 1: long as there is no ceasefire or even any humanitarian pause.
Speaker 1: You have risks of escalation all around, from the Houthis,
Speaker 1: from Hezbollah, from the West Bank. You have US troops
Speaker 1: being targeted in a rocket Syria by these groups. And again,
Speaker 1: the possibility that a US service member loses their life
Speaker 1: in one of these attacks continues to be extremely high.
Speaker 1: And then what does that mean in terms of an
Speaker 1: American response. So this is something we all have to
Speaker 1: keep our eyes on because remember, Emily, there was that
Speaker 1: reporting that came out that even the US administration is
Speaker 1: fearful that actually Israel wants that wider war. It's kind
Speaker 1: of an analogous situation to Ukraine, where Zelenski very much
Speaker 1: is wants that wider war to fully draw the US
Speaker 1: in on their side. There's a similar situation unfolding here,
Speaker 1: or at least concerns that there's a similar situation unfolding here,
Speaker 1: and comments by Netanyahu recently have done nothing to allay
Speaker 1: those fears. Let's take a listen to what he said
Speaker 1: in a recent interview.
Speaker 6: We're destroying their infrastructure, their command, pulls their rockets, their
Speaker 6: underground tunnels, and we're going to win because we have
Speaker 6: to win. This is a battle of the forces of
Speaker 6: civilization against the forces of barbarism. And if barbarism wins
Speaker 6: in our part of the world, Europe will be next
Speaker 6: and America will be next, because the axis of terror
Speaker 6: of Iran, Hamas, Hizbala, the Jutis and their other minions
Speaker 6: will imperil the Middle East and then spread their barbarism
Speaker 6: to the entire world. Israel is fighting our war, but
Speaker 6: it's also fighting America's war.
Speaker 7: It's fighting your war.
Speaker 1: So actively making the case that this is America's war
Speaker 1: something yes, indeed, and trying to stoke fears here that
Speaker 1: Hamas an organization that has never had an interest in
Speaker 1: global jihad the way that say al Qaeda or Isis
Speaker 1: did that that would be a genuine risk to us here.
Speaker 1: I mean, I will tell you that I think the
Speaker 1: longer that this conflict continues, and the more made in
Speaker 1: America stamp bombs are dropped on innocent civilians in Gaza, yeah,
Speaker 1: that probably does put us increasingly at risk.
Speaker 4: The longer this continues, well, and the benefactors of Hamas
Speaker 4: and the Huthis and Hezbollah absolutely do have more global ambitions.
Speaker 4: They see the world in a difference. It's not so
Speaker 4: much just about Gaza for Iran, it's about Netanyahu might
Speaker 4: have better luck actually making a point about that. It's
Speaker 4: not just about Hamas, but people who have funded Hamas,
Speaker 4: that support Hamas. And that's where when we see how
Speaker 4: our troops are fanned out across the Middle East and
Speaker 4: you have operations by Hesblah, you have operations by the Huthis,
Speaker 4: that's where I think you really see the risk. And
Speaker 4: Neta Naho, I think saying we're fighting your war is
Speaker 4: not going to go over well.
Speaker 5: With the American people.
Speaker 4: I don't think that makes anybody feel better about this
Speaker 4: conflict whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Well, one thing that polling shows really clearly is that
Speaker 1: no matter whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or independent, there
Speaker 1: are widespread concerns about the US getting drawn directly into
Speaker 1: this conflict. And I think what you can see from
Speaker 1: these events and these potential sparks and these potential steps
Speaker 1: up the escalatory ladder is that those fears are far
Speaker 1: from unfounded. The longer that this continues, the more of
Speaker 1: a risk of a wider regional war. And when you
Speaker 1: have someone like net Yahoo, who is the head of
Speaker 1: the Israeli government, who again even the Biden administration fears
Speaker 1: they actually want that wider war even if the US
Speaker 1: government wants nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that things don't spiral out of control and we all
Speaker 1: end up somewhere that that we do not want to be.
Speaker 4: And I think that's why your war language is especially
Speaker 4: grading here in the US, because that means we have
Speaker 4: lost control that if this is our war and it's
Speaker 4: being waged by Netan Yahoo in this way where he's saying,
Speaker 4: you know, you're not fighting your own war, I mean
Speaker 4: that's the implication of what he said, You're not fighting
Speaker 4: your own war. We're fighting a war on your behalf
Speaker 4: here in the Middle East. Yes, you lose control, and
Speaker 4: you lose control over some major decision, and I know,
Speaker 4: you know we do have obviously, we know that we
Speaker 4: have a lot of control over how Israel is conducting
Speaker 4: prosecuting this war at the same time, not total control.
Speaker 4: And I think net Nyahoo saying this is not entirely
Speaker 4: a war being fought by you, even though it is
Speaker 4: your war, that doesn't go over well.
Speaker 1: His language is also again very reminiscent of Zelenski, who says,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm fighting on behalf of civilized nations, on
Speaker 1: behalf of democracy. This is the case that he has
Speaker 1: been laying out too for why we should send him
Speaker 1: everything that he wants and we should back him no
Speaker 1: matter what, and also part of why he has wanted
Speaker 1: to draw us in more directly to his defense. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's very similar. It's a very similar case.
Speaker 1: It's hey, listen, if we don't stop Russia here in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: the next they're going to move to Europe, and who
Speaker 1: knows where the Eastern you know, beyond Ukraine further into Europe,
Speaker 1: and who knows where it's all going to end. That's
Speaker 1: basically the same case that net Nya who is making here,
Speaker 1: and we should be very dist and we should listen
Speaker 1: very carefully through the implications of what that all means.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 4: And actually it also reminds me a lot of David
Speaker 4: from and George W.
Speaker 5: Bush in two thousand and two.
Speaker 4: This conversation about obviously access and allies is not just
Speaker 4: about Iraq, and it's not just about now, but this
Speaker 4: idea that you know, in order to prevent future wars
Speaker 4: that are even wider, you have to fight a wide war. Now,
Speaker 4: I mean, and it is absolutely true that these groups
Speaker 4: are connected. There's no question about that, that they also
Speaker 4: share some similar ambitions, that they share similar enemies for
Speaker 4: similar reasons. I think what we've learned over and over
Speaker 4: and over again over recent decades, let alone the last decade,
Speaker 4: let alone the last two decades, is that's not a
Speaker 4: wise course of action, this idea that you can just have.
Speaker 5: A quote global war on terrorism. I mean, have we
Speaker 5: learned nothing? Clearly?
Speaker 1: We have not. I think that much has become incredibly
Speaker 1: clear given our lack of ability to or lack of
Speaker 1: desire really to reign in Israel. And you know the
Speaker 1: fact that Israel is repeating and amplifying every single mistake
Speaker 1: that we made in the wake of nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: You know, we just brought up Ukraine, and one of
Speaker 1: the things that the US claimed that we were standing
Speaker 1: up for in Ukraine was the quote unquote international rules
Speaker 1: based or right. This was the case that we made
Speaker 1: to the American people of why we should be all
Speaker 1: in with Ukraine because we have to make sure that
Speaker 1: the international rules based order stands, that we consistently apply
Speaker 1: these principles. Well, now when it comes to Israel, you
Speaker 1: we have US officials being pressed on whether effectively we
Speaker 1: are enabling Israeli war crimes and whether potentially we are
Speaker 1: also enabling Israeli genocide of Gaza. Take a listen to
Speaker 1: these responses. Are you confident in Israel as following international law? John?
Speaker 1: Just yes or no?
Speaker 9: There we are confident. That is our position that needs
Speaker 9: to When we have seen issues that are raised based
Speaker 9: on incidents on the ground, we raised them privately and
Speaker 9: directly with the government.
Speaker 8: John.
Speaker 1: Let me just you're saying, you're saying that Israel.
Speaker 9: Judge and jury on this question.
Speaker 5: Yeah, let me just follow up quickly.
Speaker 1: You said Israel needs to follow international law. Are you
Speaker 1: confident they are following international law?
Speaker 9: What I can say is it is not our position,
Speaker 9: certainly my position as a policymaker to play real time
Speaker 9: judge and jury on the question of any particular incident.
Speaker 9: When we see things that concern us, we raise them.
Speaker 9: We have done that during the course of this conflict.
Speaker 9: We will continue to do that. And again, just to
Speaker 9: restate it, it is our position that all countries, including Israel,
Speaker 9: including the United States, need to adhere to laws of
Speaker 9: armed conflict. Hamas, by the way, does not only not
Speaker 9: hold itself to that standard. It openly boasts about its
Speaker 9: willingness and its reality of violating those standards. So that
Speaker 9: is the challenge.
Speaker 10: But this war genocide is getting thrown around in a
Speaker 10: pretty inappropriate way by lots of different folks. What Hamas wants,
Speaker 10: make no mistake about it is genocide. Yes, there are
Speaker 10: too many civilian casualties in Gaza, Yes the numbers are
Speaker 10: too high. Yes, too many families are a grieving and
Speaker 10: yes we continue to urge the Israelis to be as
Speaker 10: careful and cautious as possible. That's not going to stop
Speaker 10: from the President right on down. But Israel is not
Speaker 10: trying to wipe the Palestinian people off the map. Israel's
Speaker 10: not trying to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel's trying
Speaker 10: to defend itself against a genocidal terrorst threat. So when
Speaker 10: we're going to start, if we're going to start using
Speaker 10: that word, fine, let's use it appropriately.
Speaker 1: Well, the Biden administration previously had no problem using that word.
Speaker 1: They used it without hesitation to apply it to Russia.
Speaker 1: So that's number one. And when it comes to war
Speaker 1: crimes as well, you now have every single Biden administration
Speaker 1: official when they get asked this question, or Democratic member
Speaker 1: of Congress. This is their response. Well, I'm not judging jury,
Speaker 1: so I can't say. But once again, when it was Russia,
Speaker 1: they didn't need to be judge and jury. They were very,
Speaker 1: very very willing to call it what it was, call
Speaker 1: it war crimes. Here's Joe Biden himself being asked whether
Speaker 1: Putin is committing war crimes, whether he's a war criminal.
Speaker 1: Take a listen.
Speaker 11: You asked me where I will beginning.
Speaker 1: And Emily with regard to genocide. What he said was
Speaker 1: I called it genocide speaking of Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Because it's become clearer and clear that Putin is trying
Speaker 1: to wipe out even the idea of being Ukrainian. The
Speaker 1: evidence is mounting. It's different than it was last week.
Speaker 1: I believe this was in the wake of the atrocities
Speaker 1: in Bucha. The more evidence that is coming out literally
Speaker 1: the horrible things that the Russians have done in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and we're going to only learn more and more about
Speaker 1: the devastation. So listen, I know these discussions of what
Speaker 1: language you use here and whether it's technically genocide or
Speaker 1: whether it's technically ethnic cleansing can get very tedious. But
Speaker 1: actually John Kirby has a point when he says, if
Speaker 1: we're going to start using these words, we need to
Speaker 1: start using them appropriately. And I would say we need
Speaker 1: to use them consistently. Now, I don't care if you're
Speaker 1: a normal person and you feel uncomfortable using the term genocide.
Speaker 1: It's fine. That is fine if you think, you know,
Speaker 1: genocide equals holocaust, and I don't see what's happening here
Speaker 1: in Gaza as equivalent to that, No problem with that.
Speaker 1: But if you're the president of the United States, you
Speaker 1: need to apply this term consistently if you actually care
Speaker 1: about any sort of humanitarianism, if you actually care about
Speaker 1: the quote unquote international rules based order, and what we
Speaker 1: have seen from the Israelis is not only the spoken
Speaker 1: genocidal intent, and we have some of those comments that
Speaker 1: honestly are not even the worst ones that have come
Speaker 1: out of this government, and also the clear actions and
Speaker 1: Emily I looked up, you know, the definition of genocide
Speaker 1: per the Geneva Conventions. They say genocide means any of
Speaker 1: the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
Speaker 1: or in part, a national, ethnic, or racial or religious group,
Speaker 1: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental
Speaker 1: harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the
Speaker 1: group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction,
Speaker 1: and whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent
Speaker 1: births within the group, forcefully transferring children of the group
Speaker 1: to another group. And so you have to have two pieces.
Speaker 1: You have to have the intent, which again we have
Speaker 1: numerous statements coming from the Israeli government all the way
Speaker 1: up to Netnyahu himself that certainly constitute genocidal spoken genocidal intent.
Speaker 1: And you have not only killing members of the group,
Speaker 1: not only causing serious bodily or mentally harmed to members
Speaker 1: of the group, but this piece about deliberately inflicting on
Speaker 1: the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
Speaker 1: physical destruction. All two million plus people in Gaza right
Speaker 1: now are under a complete siege. You're denying them food, fuel, water,
Speaker 1: complete communications, black on. I mean, if that's not denying
Speaker 1: them conditions of life, I don't know what is so again,
Speaker 1: if you're calling it genocide when it comes to Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine or frankly, at this point, the barbarism of
Speaker 1: Russia is nothing compared to the civilian death toll, and
Speaker 1: the conditions imposed on all of the people in Gaza
Speaker 1: be consistent. Use the word whether it is friend or foe,
Speaker 1: because John Kirby is right, we need to use these
Speaker 1: words appropriately. They need to be consistently applied, whether it's Russia,
Speaker 1: whether it's Hamas, or whether it is Israel.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's no consistency.
Speaker 4: And the international rules based order is a rhetorical weapon
Speaker 4: basically that's used by the person who has the most
Speaker 4: power in the upper hand.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 4: You know, even when groups don't have the most power
Speaker 4: of the upper hand, it can be powerfully sort of
Speaker 4: invoked at places like the UN. So I think your
Speaker 4: point about Russia is very well taken. There's a complete
Speaker 4: lack of consistency that undermines our case about.
Speaker 5: Civilization versus barbarism.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying that case isn't broadly accurate, but that
Speaker 4: is not helpful if you're trying to make that case.
Speaker 4: And in fact, actually, Crystal, we have some clips that
Speaker 4: you know, show further undermining of that case of comments
Speaker 4: that have been made by people in the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Yes, so, yeah, you're Lapede, who is supposedly like the
Speaker 1: you know, moderate or liberal opposition figure in Israel, just
Speaker 1: made the case that actually, majority of all the people
Speaker 1: who have been killed in Gaza were terrorists. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to that, and then I'll tell you on
Speaker 1: the other side why this is such an issue.
Speaker 12: You have to remember, Johnathan, many of the people who
Speaker 12: were killed were terrorists. The majority of people who were
Speaker 12: killed were Hamas terrorists. People are saying this number twelve
Speaker 12: twelve thousand people who were killed. Yes, this is the
Speaker 12: Hamas is an army of forty thousand people and many
Speaker 12: of them were killed.
Speaker 1: So this is like the moderate liberal version of the
Speaker 1: case that has been made for many other Israeli officials
Speaker 1: that basically everyone in Gaza is Hamas. Everybody in Gaza
Speaker 1: is fair game, that there are no innocent civilians. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why I say that. Take a look
Speaker 1: at this next piece. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So according to the UN, roughly seventy percent sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of all of the people killed are women, children,
Speaker 1: and babies seventy percent. So when he's saying a majority
Speaker 1: of the people who have been killed in Gaza, are terrorists?
Speaker 1: Are the babies and children and women are they terrorists?
Speaker 1: Are they hamas? And so again, this fits very closely
Speaker 1: with the comments that we saw from Isaac Hertzog and
Speaker 1: from many other Israeli officials and from our own Member
Speaker 1: of Congress Brian mast here that effectively there are no
Speaker 1: innocent civilians in Gaza. Therefore we don't really need to
Speaker 1: worry about civilian life here, and anyone is fair game,
Speaker 1: which fits in with the previous comments from John Kirby
Speaker 1: about whether or not this is a genocide.
Speaker 4: And problems with the numbers, which certainly exist as they
Speaker 4: in any conflict, don't necessarily, by the way, mean that
Speaker 4: you can deny seventy percent civilian casualties seventy percent women
Speaker 4: and children casualties. So you can't jump from one point
Speaker 4: being true, which is likely that there are some problems
Speaker 4: with numbers, although in some analyzes it's that the numbers
Speaker 4: are too low. You know, there's some analyzes that will say, well,
Speaker 4: and you hear this a lot from Israel. We've heard
Speaker 4: this from people in the Biden administration that the numbers
Speaker 4: are actually inflated. But then you have other people saying
Speaker 4: the numbers if anything.
Speaker 5: Are too low.
Speaker 4: So we know that they're squibbling over the numbers, and
Speaker 4: we know there's no way that these numbers would be precise.
Speaker 4: To take point A and then jump to point B,
Speaker 4: which is that imprecise numbers mean most of the people
Speaker 4: who are being killed are of course Hamas. This is
Speaker 4: what we talked about yesterday when we talked about Osama
Speaker 4: bin Laden's letter to America. The point Sager made about
Speaker 4: how he justifies killing civilians from that perspective, which is
Speaker 4: that you're able to say, you know, they use the
Speaker 4: line that everyone voted for Hamas, which is not true,
Speaker 4: although there is you know, there is support for Hamas
Speaker 4: and Gaza. There's not denying that either. But also then
Speaker 4: that because people just exist in Gaza in a way
Speaker 4: that's supportive of Hamas. Although if you also believe Hamas
Speaker 4: is evil and dictatorial, then it's true that they intimidate
Speaker 4: their citizens out of uprising. So there's just a lot
Speaker 4: of inconsistency. That's a great word I think that you
Speaker 4: use a couple of minutes ago. There's a lot of
Speaker 4: inconsistency in these arguments, and sadly, the people who are
Speaker 4: being caught up in the mix are civilians.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's right, and also an attempt to justify not
Speaker 1: only the killing of civilians but of AID workers. We
Speaker 1: also have this clip of an Israeli government spokesperson who says, now,
Speaker 1: actually the World Health Organization is also Hamas. So we
Speaker 1: already had them making the case of the UN that
Speaker 1: un AID workers are Hamas. You know, the hospital is Hamas,
Speaker 1: all of the schools, all of the apartment buildings, this
Speaker 1: is all Hamas. You know, according to yager Laped, majority
Speaker 1: of those killed, the women, children, babies, this is also Hamas.
Speaker 1: Now we have them arguing, this is an official Israeli
Speaker 1: government spokesperson that actually the World Health Organization is Hamas too.
Speaker 13: Let's take a liston It is tragic and outrageous that
Speaker 13: the World Health Organization resisted Israel's calls for an evacuation
Speaker 13: before the start of the ground operation and is now
Speaker 13: calling on Israel to facilitate that evacuation under fire in
Speaker 13: an active war zone. We hold it complicit with Hamas's
Speaker 13: human shield strategy. We hold it complicit with any loss
Speaker 13: of life from its gross negligence, and we know that
Speaker 13: despite completing a risk assessment about the Sheafa Hospital. That
Speaker 13: assessment still covers up for Hamas's abuse of the hospital,
Speaker 13: still says nothing about the hostages, and the World Health
Speaker 13: Organization is yet to condemn astonishingly Hamas's illegal exploitation of
Speaker 13: hospitals as human shields, jeopardizing their protected status.
Speaker 1: And finally, in what is maybe the most extraordinary recent comments,
Speaker 1: and you know, rather than go on back and playing
Speaker 1: all of them for you, we've covered many of these
Speaker 1: comments before, coming out from you know, the Likud party,
Speaker 1: from security Cabinet members, et cetera. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. You've got Israel's Finance minister saying they completely
Speaker 1: agree with this column from the retired Major General Giora Island,
Speaker 1: former head of the National Security Council, is an influential figure.
Speaker 1: All right, well, what was in this ap ed that
Speaker 1: the finance minister agrees one percent with In part Giora
Speaker 1: Island rights, the way to win the war faster and
Speaker 1: at a lower cost for us requires a system collapse
Speaker 1: on the other side, and not the mere killing of
Speaker 1: Morhammas fighters. The international community warns us of a humanitarian
Speaker 1: disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not
Speaker 1: shy away from this, as difficult as that may be.
Speaker 1: After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip will bring victory closer and reduce casualties among IDF soldiers.
Speaker 1: And no, this is not about cruelty for cruelty's sake,
Speaker 1: since we don't support the suffering of the other side
Speaker 1: as an end, but as a means. So we support
Speaker 1: the suffering of the other side as a means out
Speaker 1: actively calling for severe epidemics in the south of the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip, which is where, of course they told all
Speaker 1: the civilians to flee to from the northern Gaza Strip,
Speaker 1: and pushing back on the idea that we should care
Speaker 1: at all about the well being of the ordinary civilians
Speaker 1: within Gaza. And again this is Israel's Finance minister who
Speaker 1: says they completely agree with this view of the conflict. So,
Speaker 1: you know, it's really extraordinary to me Emily just the
Speaker 1: distance between the way that our leaders present this conflict
Speaker 1: and present the Israeli position, the Israeli approach, the Israeli
Speaker 1: plans for after they end the war, and after there
Speaker 1: is a ceasefire at some point, what happens next, and
Speaker 1: what the actual Israeli government is out saying very clearly
Speaker 1: in op eds, in public statements on Israeli television day
Speaker 1: after day.
Speaker 4: Well, and this is like several weeks ago when there
Speaker 4: was a lot of talk of Dresden, right, there were
Speaker 4: all of the sort of representatives of talking heads that
Speaker 4: were going to the media. We're saying, you know, listen,
Speaker 4: we remember what happened at Dresden, we remember what war
Speaker 4: looks like. And it's very i think different from how
Speaker 4: a lot of people perceive. And in fact, actually we
Speaker 4: just heard John Kirby talking about how Israel doesn't have
Speaker 4: genocidal ambitions towards Hamas that match Hamas's genocidal ambitions towards Israel,
Speaker 4: and I think it's actually really important. I mean, one
Speaker 4: of the benefits of talking to you and Ryan and
Speaker 4: doing a show like this is you actually see some
Speaker 4: really dangerous flirtation from you know, when you're digging into
Speaker 4: stuff like this, you're looking at the rhetoric of people
Speaker 4: who are actually in positions of power in Israel, not
Speaker 4: all perfect, not all perfect, and you wouldn't you know,
Speaker 4: know that from a lot of Western media coverage. And yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean I think that's really really deeply unfortunate, and
Speaker 4: it should be a wake up call about sort of
Speaker 4: if we go back to net Nyahu's saying, this is
Speaker 4: we're fighting.
Speaker 5: Your war, fighting your war, Well, what is our war?
Speaker 4: Are we in agreement with netan Yahoo on what that
Speaker 4: war actually is and how it should be prosecuted?
Speaker 5: I think not.
Speaker 4: I think the American people are certainly not in agreement
Speaker 4: with how that should be prosecuted. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 4: and again, this is the frustrating thing. Are they probably
Speaker 4: right and we may disagree on this, but are they
Speaker 4: probably right that there's complicity at the World Health Organization
Speaker 4: and the UN in ways that are inappropriate in order
Speaker 4: to function in Gaza. That's a really difficult thing for NGOs,
Speaker 4: And we're actually going to talk about how it's difficult
Speaker 4: for journalists in the next block. There are some obvious obstacles,
Speaker 4: and I think they're right that there has been complicity.
Speaker 4: There have been troubling relationships and connections with the World
Speaker 4: Health Organization in the UN as they've operated in Gaza
Speaker 4: over the course of years. That does not jump that
Speaker 4: You you can't just take that point and jump to
Speaker 4: point B. You can't go from A to B and
Speaker 4: say that they're all their numbers are wrong. The World
Speaker 4: Health Organization calculating seventy percent civilian casualties are women and
Speaker 4: children casualties. That doesn't mean the numbers are wrong. It
Speaker 4: doesn't mean you can continue to deny the full reality.
Speaker 1: The Geneva Conventions came out of the horrors of World
Speaker 1: War Two with this global idea of we can never
Speaker 1: we can never have war. Look like we're going to
Speaker 1: have war. It's going to happen. It's apparently an unavoidable
Speaker 1: fact of human life. But civilians in particular should be
Speaker 1: completely off limits. Civilian infrastructure like hospitals should be completely
Speaker 1: off limits, and there was some consensus around that. Now
Speaker 1: has it ever been applied perfectly? Of course not, of
Speaker 1: course not. But when you pair our stated aims in
Speaker 1: Ukraine and our claim to really adhere to the international
Speaker 1: WUS space Order really be out there in the world
Speaker 1: trying to make sure every country is, you know, consistent
Speaker 1: with the rules of war and with the international rules
Speaker 1: based order that has been laid out post World War Two,
Speaker 1: When you lay that beside the comments from our officials, Oh,
Speaker 1: who could say whether they are war crimes. I don't
Speaker 1: really know, not really an expert, is it genocide? No,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't really know. I'm not really an expert. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what there are experts who are looking at If
Speaker 1: you're not an expert, I'm not an expert. There are
Speaker 1: experts that are looking at this that are saying yes,
Speaker 1: very clearly. When you have put Al Shifa aside, if
Speaker 1: you want to take, you know, the Israeli side of okay,
Speaker 1: how many other hospitals have been bombed, how many other
Speaker 1: schools have been bombed, how many refugee camps have been
Speaker 1: bombed at this point, how high is the civilian death toll.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to see plainly what is happening and
Speaker 1: what is unfolding here. And so I don't think the US.
Speaker 1: You know, this was already a problem for the US
Speaker 1: after the Iraq War and that debacle. I don't think
Speaker 1: they can ever go and with a shred of credibility
Speaker 1: lecture anyone in the world about war crimes, about anything
Speaker 1: to do with humanitarianism, about the laws of war, about
Speaker 1: the international rules based order. It's over, but that's done.
Speaker 5: That's part of the problem here.
Speaker 4: And again this goes back to when we were talking
Speaker 4: about the bin laden letter to America. That's part of
Speaker 4: the problem here is not just the shattered credibility, but
Speaker 4: the insistence on that credibility in other parts of the world.
Speaker 5: That is grating for.
Speaker 4: People who are still you know, in I Rock or
Speaker 4: in Afghanistan. And that's why these groups continue to proliferate.
Speaker 4: That's why it's like whack a mole with groups in
Speaker 4: the terrorist groups in the Middle East is precisely because
Speaker 4: that credibility has been lost over the course of years,
Speaker 4: and then on top of it, we continue to try
Speaker 4: to throw around this credibility as though it's totally intact.
Speaker 5: And again, this is what's frustrating.
Speaker 4: It's that you know, and I know probably a lot
Speaker 4: of people in our audience disagree with this. I do
Speaker 4: think the United States has the moral high ground here,
Speaker 4: but thinking that doesn't mean that the United States is perfect,
Speaker 4: is morally perfect and morally immaculate. Thinking that the United
Speaker 4: States has moral high ground over another power doesn't mean
Speaker 4: that the United States is morally impeccable.
Speaker 5: And so those things.
Speaker 4: Are not They don't have to go completely together. And
Speaker 4: to not be able to acknowledge where those mistakes are
Speaker 4: being made, I think is I actually think it's amazing
Speaker 4: that we live in a country. In fact, I think
Speaker 4: this is part of where we have the moral high ground,
Speaker 4: that we can have conversations like this that are highly critical.
Speaker 4: So it just needs to trickle into the high profile
Speaker 4: conversations and not just being independent media.
Speaker 1: Before this moment, I might have been able to agree
Speaker 1: with that, and might have been able to make the case.
Speaker 1: But when I see us day after day and Biden
Speaker 1: aggressively saying no cease fire in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that two thirds of Americans and eighty percent of Democrats
Speaker 1: want to cease fire, in spite of the fact that,
Speaker 1: I mean, this horror of these babies done, five premature
Speaker 1: babies dying, the siege of two point two million people,
Speaker 1: denying them food and water and just the basics of life,
Speaker 1: you know, enabling that funding that providing diplomatic cover for that. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think we have the moral high ground. I
Speaker 1: don't think there's any way that we could claim that
Speaker 1: versus anyone in the world at this point.
Speaker 4: I disagree on that, especially when it you know, jexaposed
Speaker 4: with the case of Hamas, juxtaposed with the case of
Speaker 4: I mean, even in Ukraine, I still think we have
Speaker 4: the moral high ground. As bitterly as I disagree with
Speaker 4: our policy there, but the perspective that I think you
Speaker 4: just shared is going to be increasingly powerful with a
Speaker 4: wideswath of the American people, There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: All Right, let's talk about what's happening for journalists both
Speaker 1: here and abroad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, this is a really interesting case.
Speaker 4: Actually that kind of relates to what we were just
Speaker 4: talking about with the United Nations and with the World
Speaker 4: Health Organization. Journalists have a really hard time operating at GAZLA,
Speaker 4: which means that some major media outlets are using freelancers
Speaker 4: or they're sort of forced to rely on the work
Speaker 4: of freelancers. Let's put this first element up on the screen.
Speaker 4: News from yesterday, an NBC journalist was arrested by the
Speaker 4: Israeli police for cheering on Hamas during horrific terr attack.
Speaker 4: That is a headline from National Reviews, So it's coming
Speaker 4: from the right. Just read a little bit of.
Speaker 5: The story here. Quote.
Speaker 4: An East Jerusalem based NBC journalist was arrested last week
Speaker 4: on suspicion of inciting terrorism and identifying with a terrorist
Speaker 4: organization in connection with several social media posts she published
Speaker 4: on October seventh, during the Hamas terror attacks. Marwat al Aza,
Speaker 4: a freelance producer who started working with the network shortly
Speaker 4: before the war began, wrote, in response to the kidnapping
Speaker 4: of an elderly woman, quote it's killing me. It's a
Speaker 4: black comedy. The old woman looks happy, a bit of
Speaker 4: action before she dies, that's per reporting in Haretz. Sirens
Speaker 4: all the time, she wrote. In another post, the Jews
Speaker 4: are hiding and the Arabs are out drinking coffee on
Speaker 4: their balconies. She wrote in another post, I feel like
Speaker 4: I'm watching a movie where the directors Palestinian and the
Speaker 4: protagonists are from Gaza. Now, police, according to National Reviews,
Speaker 4: hold the Jerusalem Magistrate Court that the posts were quote
Speaker 4: inciting and glorifying the horrible acts committed against civilians. As
Speaker 4: the Jerusalem Post has reported, authorities say that she is
Speaker 4: cooperating with police, and she admitted to writing the posts.
Speaker 4: She actually quote arrived ready for arrest, according to the
Speaker 4: Jerusalem Post report, Now we can go to the next
Speaker 4: element because this is not the only case that's been
Speaker 4: happening with you know, you could call it in this case,
Speaker 4: there's a claim that this is cheering on Hamas. But
Speaker 4: in the case of this La Time story, which continues
Speaker 4: to play out, this is a Seamophore headline. If you're watching,
Speaker 4: you see it up on the screen. The La Times
Speaker 4: blocked reporters who signed an open letter criticizing Israel from
Speaker 4: covering Gaza, which is kind of an interesting and crystal
Speaker 4: We can get into this conversation about media ethics that
Speaker 4: this broaches. But as Semaphore puts it, the La Times
Speaker 4: has prohibited staff from covering the Gaza war for at
Speaker 4: least three months if they signed a strongly worded open
Speaker 4: letter criticizing Israel's military operations in the region. So this
Speaker 4: is a letter people probably remember it actually from earlier
Speaker 4: this month. It called on newsrooms to use language including
Speaker 4: quote apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide when referring to the
Speaker 4: Israeli bombardment of Gaza to people with knowledge of the
Speaker 4: situation told Semaphor that staffers who signed the letter have
Speaker 4: been told by the papers management that they will not
Speaker 4: be able to cover the conflict in any way for
Speaker 4: at least two months. So that comes from two sources.
Speaker 4: To Semaphore, we have one more story here as well,
Speaker 4: and this one is if people have been following the
Speaker 4: work of this Palestinian poet, the sad news is he
Speaker 4: has been taken from his family and detained in Gaza.
Speaker 4: He's in IDF custody. Masab Abu Taha poet. This is
Speaker 4: an element from the New Yorker. The New Yorker had
Speaker 4: published had published this at masab abuteo Ha.
Speaker 5: So had the Nation.
Speaker 4: I actually went and read some of his poetry last night, Crystal.
Speaker 4: It's really wonderful.
Speaker 5: But another.
Speaker 4: Artist in this case, in IDF custody in detention, actually
Speaker 4: had written this war. This is actually you can see
Speaker 4: on the screen again if you're watching when the warren
Speaker 4: Gaza started, My family fled to the Jabalia refugee camp.
Speaker 5: Then Israel started bombing the camp. So it's a first person.
Speaker 4: Essay about what it was like to be in Jabaaliah.
Speaker 4: It's a beautiful writing. Actually, whatever whatever side you're on
Speaker 4: in this, it's beautiful writing. And the broader I think
Speaker 4: questions here, Crystal are about how Western media outlets are
Speaker 4: able to cover this case study on the or are
Speaker 4: able to cover this story with the case study in
Speaker 4: the first situation reminding a lot of people of The
Speaker 4: New York Times rehiring that freelancer who had posted in
Speaker 4: twenty eighteen, I love Hitler, et cetera, et cetera, and
Speaker 4: there had been some other cases of that too, because
Speaker 4: you're relying on freely answers in Gaza, and there's obviously
Speaker 4: support for Hamas in Gaza.
Speaker 5: So it creates this strained situation.
Speaker 4: For Western media outlets that aren't really able to go
Speaker 4: into Gaza and have a hard time doing independent coverage.
Speaker 4: As we were talking about yesterday when they were just
Speaker 4: following the idef through tunnels and CNN just taking the
Speaker 4: ideas a narrative and running with it like it was
Speaker 4: the gospel. That's extremely difficult. That's going to continue to
Speaker 4: be extremely difficult for Western media outlets. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: the scene before story is just crazy to me because
Speaker 4: and even as somebody who disagrees with the letter saying
Speaker 4: that Western media outlets should be using ethnic cleansing and
Speaker 4: apartheid and that kind of genocide and that kind of
Speaker 4: language and their coverage, because the La Times pretends to
Speaker 4: be a neutral arbiter of the truth, and so as
Speaker 4: long as you're pretending to be neutral. This letter is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: But what the letter suggests is that they know that
Speaker 4: the La Times. That's bullshit, that the La Times is
Speaker 4: not neutral, that they take sides. So this is their
Speaker 4: own saying if you take sides, if you're gonna take
Speaker 4: sides Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, take a damn side here,
Speaker 4: what's your problem. It's calling the bluff of the paper basically.
Speaker 1: So a few things. First of all, let me start
Speaker 1: with the National Review piece that was like, oh, this
Speaker 1: NBC report cheering on the fact that a journalist for
Speaker 1: NBC was arrested for quote unquote inciting terrorism, right. I
Speaker 1: mean you read the comments the posts. Yeah, they were
Speaker 1: not like yay humus. You might say, they were like
Speaker 1: mildly and poor taste. That's about as far as I
Speaker 1: would go with this. And this journalist was arrested, completely agree.
Speaker 1: And your complaint is about the news organizations, not about
Speaker 1: the fact that a journalist was arrested for a social
Speaker 1: media post. That's insane, and you know, especially coming from
Speaker 1: a conservative outlet that you know, conservatives have now for
Speaker 1: years been cancel culture and the deep state, and they're
Speaker 1: coming for any sort of dissent and dissident opinions, like
Speaker 1: nothing has happened approaching this and you're out there cheering
Speaker 1: that on. That is insane. That's number one.
Speaker 4: Well, also, we're funding Israel about a fifth of their
Speaker 4: military funding is from US, so it's not as though
Speaker 4: it has nothing to do with the United States.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's exactly right. And that's such an important point
Speaker 1: when people ask, oh, why do you care so much
Speaker 1: about this content? Because we're funding it, because we're enabling it,
Speaker 1: because we're backstopping it, and so that's also why we
Speaker 1: should care about what's happening here. With regard to journalists.
Speaker 1: By the way, I just looked at the numbers from
Speaker 1: euromed Monitor with regards to your comments only about how
Speaker 1: difficult it is to cover what's happening in Gaza in
Speaker 1: any sort of an independent fashion. Sixty journalists have been
Speaker 1: killed in Gaza. This is more than any other conflict.
Speaker 1: So even if you feel like you know, while the
Speaker 1: only thing we can rely on is like the Palestinities
Speaker 1: are on the ground, of course at this point that's
Speaker 1: the only thing you can rely on, because you know,
Speaker 1: Western journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip outside
Speaker 1: of some like bullshit IDF propaganda ride along. They are
Speaker 1: massacring those journalists and their families, by the way, so
Speaker 1: it makes it even more impossible to have any understanding
Speaker 1: and any connection with the humanity that is unfolding and
Speaker 1: what is happening on the ground right now. So there's
Speaker 1: that with regard to the La Times and this letter,
Speaker 1: which not only called for, you know, words to be
Speaker 1: used in the with the proper definition that those words
Speaker 1: actually mean. So, for example, ethnic cleansing, you already have
Speaker 1: almost i think is one point eight million people out
Speaker 1: of the two point two million in Gaza forcibly displaced.
Speaker 1: You have official government documents coming out saying our ideal
Speaker 1: solution is to push them out of Gaza altogether into
Speaker 1: the Egyptian desert. That you may not like. That that's ethnic.
Speaker 1: That is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. So the
Speaker 1: fact that you are penalizing journalists who are saying we
Speaker 1: should use these words to mean what these words mean
Speaker 1: is crazy. And the letter also said that these outlets
Speaker 1: should be speaking out against the killing of journalists. So
Speaker 1: it wasn't even like this letter was like quote unquote
Speaker 1: taking aside in the conflict. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: newsrooms have policies against protests or against signing on these
Speaker 1: letters in an activist direction. This was directly about the
Speaker 1: job of the paper, and so to penalize these reporters
Speaker 1: for saying this is the appropriate way to cover this conflict,
Speaker 1: I think it's outrageous. And by the way, at LA Times,
Speaker 1: to their credit, is also the first I think American
Speaker 1: news outlet like newspaper to call for a ceasefire. So
Speaker 1: you know, it's not that the editorial board or others
Speaker 1: there aren't aware of what's unfolding on the ground. So
Speaker 1: I find that sort of censorship outrageous. And many of
Speaker 1: the reporters apparently who were taken off of coverage were
Speaker 1: some of the people at like the deepest knowledge and
Speaker 1: who you know, had connections to the region, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So it's a real loss in terms of their coverage.
Speaker 1: And then you know, obviously it's horrific what's happening here
Speaker 1: with the New Yorker contributor and poet, founder of the
Speaker 1: Edward Zei Library who was detained now by the IDF.
Speaker 1: And there's so much hypocrisy here from Western media outlets
Speaker 1: who pretended to care so dearly about press freedom in
Speaker 1: the Trump era, and now silence, silence, as all of
Speaker 1: this is unfolding, Emily, like you, I read some of
Speaker 1: masab Abu Toha's work after I saw that he had
Speaker 1: been detained, arrested by the IDF and is being held captive, hostage,
Speaker 1: whatever I want to say. His wife has no idea
Speaker 1: where he is at this point, and he's, you know,
Speaker 1: an extraordinary, an extraordinary person, an extraordinary writer. At the
Speaker 1: end of that piece from The New Yorker, he wrote, recently,
Speaker 1: my wife dreamed that she was collecting frozen meat. In
Speaker 1: her dream, she was saying, this is my son's arm,
Speaker 1: this is my daughter's leg. If not for the war,
Speaker 1: I would be playing soccer with my friends twice a week.
Speaker 1: I would be watching movies with my wife. I would
Speaker 1: be reading the books on my shelves. I would be
Speaker 1: taking my kids to the playground into the beach. I'd
Speaker 1: be riding my bike with my son Yazan, on the
Speaker 1: beach road. But now there are no books, and there
Speaker 1: are no shelves and no beach road. It is invaluable.
Speaker 1: It is crucial that we have voices like that helping
Speaker 1: people to understand the human beings, so they don't just
Speaker 1: turn into numbers and statistics that oftentimes make people's eyes
Speaker 1: glaze over. To have a voice like that silenced is
Speaker 1: a real loss for everyone. I don't care what quote
Speaker 1: unquote side you're on, if you're on the side of
Speaker 1: human beings, it's a real loss to lose that voice
Speaker 1: and not have access to that humanity.
Speaker 4: Certainly lucky to get out of Jaba Leah safely and
Speaker 4: to now be detained and to have the sort of
Speaker 4: a tension of other people around the world on his situation.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm very curious how it unfolds.
Speaker 4: I'm very curious actually, how the IDF, which again the
Speaker 4: IDF is detaining him reportedly, how they react now that
Speaker 4: this is becoming more front and center in the conversation.
Speaker 5: Curious about that, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, let's get to Cardi B here and
Speaker 1: her thoughts on the world. So she thinks we're so
Speaker 1: excited for this second, Well, I love Cardi B. I
Speaker 1: genuinely love Cardi B. And I even forgive her. She
Speaker 1: has like some cringe takes on taxes.
Speaker 5: It takes on taxes, ime care.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna put that to the side because I
Speaker 1: love Cardi b And she went on, what was this
Speaker 1: Instagram live or something? I think so, yeah, and she
Speaker 1: went off. This was like a ten minute diatribe. I
Speaker 1: personally recommend you watch the whole thing, but we pulled
Speaker 1: some of the highlights. This has to do with Mayor
Speaker 1: Eric Adams and massive cuts that he announced to a
Speaker 1: bunch of like social spending, education, libraries, police even this
Speaker 1: was supposed to be the fun. The police guy is
Speaker 1: cutting the police budget in New York and also sounding
Speaker 1: off about Joe Biden and the various wars that we
Speaker 1: have involved ourselves in. All right, so we're gonna play
Speaker 1: this for you. Warning kids, earmuffs out of the room. Whatever,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of language here. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 14: I'm not this year. Don't ask me. I don't give
Speaker 14: the resume that they saying.
Speaker 11: I don't give.
Speaker 14: I'm not endorsing no in presidents no more, because how
Speaker 14: is that a hundred hundred million dollar budget cut in
Speaker 14: New York City for schools, Library of Police, Safety and Sanitation. Yeah,
Speaker 14: Joe Biden is talking about like, yeah, we could fund
Speaker 14: two wars.
Speaker 1: We could fund two wars.
Speaker 14: Mothers talking about we don't got it, but we got it.
Speaker 14: We're the greatest nation nother. We're not We're going through
Speaker 14: some ship right now, like say it saying we're really
Speaker 14: going through We're really really really really really really really
Speaker 14: really really really are right now. And yeah, we're talking
Speaker 14: about we could fund two wars. That's not a tron
Speaker 14: of front, Like, yeah, I got the money to support
Speaker 14: two bitches, but you really don't y'all talk about y'all't
Speaker 14: fucking y'all. Don't make negotiat negotiation with the hopsbod y'all
Speaker 14: need to set the down with these people and find
Speaker 14: a and find agreement. No, we can we have fun
Speaker 14: these wars.
Speaker 1: We can't keep it a bean. We can't.
Speaker 14: I told myself this week, Like, Yo, the incident right
Speaker 14: now is too dark because celebrity drama.
Speaker 1: Of course, we we love it, we.
Speaker 14: Infuse with it, we watch it, but it's like, yo,
Speaker 14: that's little almost really going on in the world right now.
Speaker 14: That's nothing compare what's going on in the world right now.
Speaker 1: So she's going off about cuts to the schools that
Speaker 1: actually at one point she brings up the cops and
Speaker 1: she's like, well, I don't really care about the cops,
Speaker 1: but She goes on to talk a lot about the
Speaker 1: cops and how crime's going to be through the roof,
Speaker 1: and they cut the sanitation budget. There's a whole piece
Speaker 1: where she's talking about how rats are going to take
Speaker 1: over the city. She's also talking about then she throws
Speaker 1: in Joe Biden says she's never going to endorse another
Speaker 1: president again, we can't afford these wars. We got to
Speaker 1: get out of these wars. What's your what's your view, Emily.
Speaker 4: She's channeling everyone, you know, it feels like they're basic.
Speaker 4: There are basic things that we should be able to
Speaker 4: do as a society that like we cannot perform the
Speaker 4: most basic function of a city of a country right now.
Speaker 4: And I'm not trying to like overanalyze this, but I
Speaker 4: feel like that's actually really what she's talking about. Like again,
Speaker 4: this is the quote. She says, how is there one
Speaker 4: hundred million dollar budget cut in New York City for
Speaker 4: effing schools, library, police, safety, and sanitation? And Joe Biden
Speaker 4: is talking about like, yeah, we could fund two wars.
Speaker 4: We could fund two wars. And actually, in the daily
Speaker 4: sort of political discourse, one thing I think it gets lost,
Speaker 4: but you guys do a great job focusing on it
Speaker 4: is where our scores from education are. And like the
Speaker 4: rapid drop in scores that are coming out of students
Speaker 4: performance over the lasting five to ten years, they're shocking,
Speaker 4: they're staggering, and so yeah, for a lot of people,
Speaker 4: they look at one hundred and twenty million dollar budgetut
Speaker 4: in New York as she's talking about schools, public libraries,
Speaker 4: and the police department. You know, I don't give enough
Speaker 4: about the cops, but like it is what it is.
Speaker 4: I mean, like New York City again feels like it's
Speaker 4: unable to perform basic functions, but so does the country
Speaker 4: as a whole when you're looking at again two wars.
Speaker 4: Also another thing you guys have been good about focusing on.
Speaker 4: When you look at the numbers of money that we've
Speaker 4: sent to Ukraine and you compare it to our normal budget,
Speaker 4: our normal like foreign aid in other places, the amount
Speaker 4: of money that we spend on things here in the
Speaker 4: United States, it's staggering. How much money we have sent
Speaker 4: to Ukraine is like truly a shocking number. Even when
Speaker 4: you follow these things closely, you look at the number,
Speaker 4: it's shocking. And so yeah, when you look around you
Speaker 4: and you feel like your government that you are. This
Speaker 4: connects to her position on taxes. She's gets a huge
Speaker 4: chunk of her paycheck taken out and then looks at
Speaker 4: budget cuts and sees rats running around the city, and
Speaker 4: it's like, well, if that's how a multimillionaire feels, how
Speaker 4: do the rest of people feel when it's like I'm
Speaker 4: paying thirty percent to the federal government, I'm paying x
Speaker 4: amount to my state government depending where I live, and
Speaker 4: we can't even teach kids math.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I honestly have never been more sympathetic to that. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I think the rich should pay their first, and the
Speaker 1: tax rate is progressive and all of that stuff like
Speaker 1: still stands that I've always diod on. But I am
Speaker 1: very sympathetic at this point to that instinct, because yeah,
Speaker 1: you look around, you're like, wait, my tax dollars are
Speaker 1: going to fund two wars. My tax dollars are going.
Speaker 5: To nobody declared war on by the way, right.
Speaker 1: That's right. I didn't get asked. Nobody got asked about that.
Speaker 1: My tax dollars are going to support, you know, giving
Speaker 1: Israel more bombs to drop on babies in Gaza. No, Like, no,
Speaker 1: I don't feel great about paying taxes for that when
Speaker 1: we don't have health care. Right, So there's a few
Speaker 1: things here. Did you watch Carti's comments about FDR. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: we cover that here too. She loves I love party.
Speaker 1: But yeah, she went on this whole thing. She got
Speaker 1: asked a question about like, oh, what did you think about,
Speaker 1: you know, when you got a cheese sandwich with David
Speaker 1: Letterman or something like that, and she was like, that
Speaker 1: wasn't the thing. The thing was, let me tell you
Speaker 1: about FDR and Eleanor and how much I love them. Like,
Speaker 1: she's clearly very she's politically engaged, right, this is some
Speaker 1: one who cares about history. She endorsed Bernie Like, she's
Speaker 1: not just sort of, you know, a bystander not taking
Speaker 1: in what's happening around the world. So I want to
Speaker 1: put that out there. But in addition, Chrish pretty'smart obviously, yeah, obviously,
Speaker 1: I mean she's a love Cardi again, She's She's incredible,
Speaker 1: and I think it's I think that's why people really
Speaker 1: take take note of some of the things that she
Speaker 1: says politically. But there's also just a real normy sensibility
Speaker 1: here that just lands with like you can't find the
Speaker 1: freaking schools. But there's no limit over here whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of times sometimes I get kind
Speaker 1: of depressed about like the state of America, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But you know, oftentimes I feel like if
Speaker 1: we had just random people running your government, it would
Speaker 1: be way better than the decision making that comes out
Speaker 1: as it is. And she says that at one point,
Speaker 1: she's like these leaders, like they you know, they're terrible effectively,
Speaker 1: Like these leaders, aren't it. So in fairness to Mayor
Speaker 1: Eric Adams, I did some digging here about why these
Speaker 1: budget cuts are happening, and what he would say and
Speaker 1: argue with some validity is that there is a huge
Speaker 1: number of migrants. There are huge number of migrants who
Speaker 1: are coming into the city. New York has a policy
Speaker 1: that they have to provide shelter for everyone. Many of
Speaker 1: these migrants are coming from Venezuela, though it's from a
Speaker 1: range of different countries. This is genuinely being a real
Speaker 1: challenge for New York City just given the numbers. But
Speaker 1: I did some digging into the actual numbers here of
Speaker 1: the projected budget gaps and how much the cuts are
Speaker 1: versus how much sheltering migrants cost. This is from the
Speaker 1: Fiscal Policy Institute. They say that the city estimates the
Speaker 1: total cost for asylum seekers over twenty four and twenty
Speaker 1: five is about eleven billion. The city's portion of that
Speaker 1: cost is about nine billion. About two and a half
Speaker 1: billion of that has already been budgeted in the adopted budget,
Speaker 1: So that puts the city's new funding need at six
Speaker 1: point five billion over the next two years, two point
Speaker 1: three billion in twenty twenty four and four point one
Speaker 1: billion in twenty twenty five. So the amount that it costs.
Speaker 1: If you're claiming that the whole problem is just the
Speaker 1: cost of sheltering migrants, the numbers don't add up here.
Speaker 1: They are cutting way more from the budget from things
Speaker 1: like schools, sanitation and the police budget. By the way,
Speaker 1: then it actually, you know, the migrant cost actually makes up.
Speaker 1: So anyway, there you go in terms of the numbers.
Speaker 1: Because I did want to dig in here and give
Speaker 1: the full picture of what was going on in New
Speaker 1: York City as best I could.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's actually very helpful and the normy sensibility. Again,
Speaker 4: I think a lot of people are increasingly going to
Speaker 4: look at policies like New York cities in San Francisco's
Speaker 4: and in fact they are and say, well, the price
Speaker 4: tag of budget cuts is the price tag of being
Speaker 4: a sanctuary city. That is to say, people wouldn't be
Speaker 4: flocking here. Texas wouldn't be sending people here if it
Speaker 4: wasn't a sanctuary city. And so essentially this is the
Speaker 4: policy that's costing us X amount of money. And I mean,
Speaker 4: I completely I believe that to be true. You talk
Speaker 4: to migrants and they say they specifically go to migrants
Speaker 4: to sanctuary cities, and of course it makes sense, it's
Speaker 4: perfectly logical. But that's a question democrats like Eric Adams
Speaker 4: increasingly need to have a good answer for. And obviously
Speaker 4: we've seen him start to split with party orthodoxy. Specifically,
Speaker 4: mayors of some big Democratic cities, including here in d C,
Speaker 4: start to split with a party orthodoxy on illegal immigration
Speaker 4: as soon as it kind of came to their streets
Speaker 4: at the level that it does to you know, Brownsville, Texas,
Speaker 4: or some of these border towns that are rural and
Speaker 4: lack a lot of social capital, and in some ways
Speaker 4: because of this, but Crystal, I really think that is
Speaker 4: trickling into like normal people looking around their city in
Speaker 4: a way that you know, budget cuts typically come from Republicans.
Speaker 5: Republicans are typically.
Speaker 4: The ones lowering taxes and typically the ones that you
Speaker 4: know want less money and to you know, the educations
Speaker 4: syst So Republicans have to answer for this all the time,
Speaker 4: and this one on this particular part of it that's
Speaker 4: increasingly going to be a problem for Democrats. And Cardie
Speaker 4: didn't connect the dots totally, but she sort of started to.
Speaker 5: And you reminded me of the William F.
Speaker 4: Buckley quote, and you said, like people are looking around,
Speaker 4: like who are these idiots running the government? He is
Speaker 4: a great quot where he said, I'd rather entrust the
Speaker 4: government of the US. So the first four hundred people
Speaker 4: listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty
Speaker 4: of Harvard.
Speaker 1: Well, New York City is a city of immigrants. Oh yeah, right,
Speaker 1: and their self conception is a city of immigrants. And
Speaker 1: so even with the strain that the number of migrants
Speaker 1: you know have brought to you know, just the ability
Speaker 1: to shelter them and be able to school the kids,
Speaker 1: especially now that you have huge budget cuts coming to
Speaker 1: universal pre K and to education overall, there still is
Speaker 1: a pride in being an accepting place for people coming
Speaker 1: to the country, and.
Speaker 5: I think that's applies to the whole country too.
Speaker 1: I totally agree with that. I totally agree with that,
Speaker 1: and I think it especially applies in a city like
Speaker 1: New York just given their self conception. But there's no
Speaker 1: doubt that cities like New York and places around the
Speaker 1: country have been failed by DC and the fact that
Speaker 1: they have been unable to come up with any sort
Speaker 1: of sensible immigration policy. And one of them, you know,
Speaker 1: with a lot of the immigrants coming to New York
Speaker 1: being from Venezuela. I mean, one thing you can really
Speaker 1: clearly point to is our sanctions on Venezuela and the
Speaker 1: way that has contributed, not the only factor, but contributed
Speaker 1: to economic chaos which has forced people to leave. That's
Speaker 1: one thing. But the other thing that you can really
Speaker 1: point to is, you know, many of the people who
Speaker 1: are coming to New York and other places, they are
Speaker 1: asylum seekers and they deserve to have their asylum claims
Speaker 1: adjudicated in a reasonable period of time. And that's something
Speaker 1: that Americans should expect as well. And so part of
Speaker 1: why this becomes a problem is because if you're seeking asylum.
Speaker 1: It can be years before your case this has ever heard.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, and this shouldn't be This should not be
Speaker 1: controversial that you have a surge in sufficient immigration judges
Speaker 1: to be able to clear this massive backlog of cases
Speaker 1: so that you know, people are able to buy, you know,
Speaker 1: by law, have their claims heard and adjudicate and decide
Speaker 1: is this a legitimate asylum seeker or not, and go
Speaker 1: through some sort of orderly process. So I don't dispute
Speaker 1: that New York City and the country as a whole
Speaker 1: has been failed by the fact that there is no
Speaker 1: real like sensible immigration process in sense that is in place,
Speaker 1: that is rule base, that is you know, expedited, that
Speaker 1: has some sort of reasonable semblance of order. I don't
Speaker 1: doubt that at all. But with regard to Eric Adams
Speaker 1: specifically the numbers that he's claiming of, you know, what
Speaker 1: they have to cut versus what they actually are spending
Speaker 1: on migrants donata.
Speaker 4: If you know, And just to bring this full circle,
Speaker 4: your point is so right. And I was at a
Speaker 4: migrant respite facility in I think this was in Brownsville, Texas,
Speaker 4: and talking to some Haitian migrants a year ago and
Speaker 4: was looking at the papers that they had been given
Speaker 4: from our government.
Speaker 5: Their asylum hearing was for years.
Speaker 4: It was like I'm looking at the paper and the
Speaker 4: asylum hearing is in like twenty twenty four, and it's
Speaker 4: just like, well, they're like, we don't even know if
Speaker 4: we have a work permit. It was unclear to them
Speaker 4: whether they'd be able to work, and it was actually
Speaker 4: really unclear in the paper. And that, to bring this
Speaker 4: full circle, is that we cannot perform basic functions as
Speaker 4: a country anymore because of Washington DC. Like this is
Speaker 4: downstream of Washington DC's completely byzantine and poorly managed systems
Speaker 4: and our inability to actually make decisions about, for example,
Speaker 4: what our immigration system should look like. When you have policies,
Speaker 4: decades of filled policies in Central America that are pushing
Speaker 4: people north, what do we do? How do we fix
Speaker 4: our decades of field policies in Central America? Then how
Speaker 4: do we fix our immigration policy to deal with that?
Speaker 4: We cannot perform these basic functions anymore. We just can't,
Speaker 4: and it's causing problems all we don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is a great point. All right, let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and bring in our great friend Ryan Grim We're
Speaker 1: going to talk about the incredibly wild new president of Argentina,
Speaker 1: who he is, what you should know about him, why
Speaker 1: it matters to you, and how we got there. Let's
Speaker 1: get to it. So Argentina has a new president elect,
Speaker 1: Javier Milay. He is an anarcho capitalist businessman, TikTok sensation
Speaker 1: who seemingly came out of nowhere to win the presidency.
Speaker 1: But our own Ryan Grim is joining us now to
Speaker 1: talk about how he didn't actually exactly come out of
Speaker 1: nowhere to win. He had some powerful backing. So we'll
Speaker 1: get into that.
Speaker 13: Great to see Ryan, Good to see you guys.
Speaker 1: There you go, there you go. So before we jump
Speaker 1: into this first, we need to set up for people
Speaker 1: like why this why people are paying attention, and just
Speaker 1: how kind of wild this gentleman is, who now has
Speaker 1: just been elected with a huge amount of support actually
Speaker 1: from young people in Argentina. We're going to play some
Speaker 1: of the videos that have gone viral of him. I'm
Speaker 1: going to do my best with the subtitles. Just bear
Speaker 1: with me. Also, I believe there is some language in
Speaker 1: these as well. This is very vulgar show we have
Speaker 1: here today. Emily, go and put this up on the screen,
Speaker 1: and I'll give you the sense here. So he's standing
Speaker 1: at a board. He's pulling off the board all of
Speaker 1: these different ministries environments, sustainable development that he says are out,
Speaker 1: Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity out, Ministry of Public
Speaker 1: Works out. Even if you resist, he says, you can't
Speaker 1: give shit left hards an inch. Can you define shit leftist?
Speaker 1: The interviewer says, all collectivists, all kinds of collectivists. But
Speaker 1: why do you call them shit? She says, because they
Speaker 1: are shit, he replies. She goes on to challenge him.
Speaker 1: If you think differently from them, he says, they will
Speaker 1: kill you. This is the point. You can't give shit
Speaker 1: leftist an inch. If you give them an inch, they
Speaker 1: will use it to destroy you. You can't negotiate with
Speaker 1: left hards. You don't negotiate with trash because they will
Speaker 1: end you if they The left have a guy, and
Speaker 1: then goes on to talk about how like if the
Speaker 1: guy is beating his wife, they'll just stand with him, etc.
Speaker 1: So anyway, that's a basic vibe of him. He's got
Speaker 1: some pretty wild positions he's in favor of, like selling
Speaker 1: organs and some other stuff and on a more serious
Speaker 1: I mean, that's pretty serious. But he also from an
Speaker 1: economic position, he wants to dollarize the economy, abolish the
Speaker 1: central bank. He's he's out there, so give people a
Speaker 1: sense of, like, you know, your analysis of where he
Speaker 1: fits on the political spectrum.
Speaker 15: Well, I was telling Emily, it's like if an even
Speaker 15: cooler Robbie Suave he is elected president of Argentina. It's
Speaker 15: the it's a he's a dorm room libertarian and that's
Speaker 15: where they're like organ stuff comes from.
Speaker 3: I don't think he's going to actually put that in.
Speaker 15: It's like somebody will press a libertarian, well, should you
Speaker 15: be able to sell your organs?
Speaker 1: Then the libertarians like, yes, markets absolutely.
Speaker 4: But he's also anti abortion, pro Israel, pro oh Ukraine.
Speaker 4: So he does have that kind of dorm room libertarian
Speaker 4: anarchist tendencies at the same time, though it tempered not
Speaker 4: even I shouldn't say tempered, but they're actually like textured
Speaker 4: by this anti cultural leftism that Chrystal you were pointing out.
Speaker 5: Argentina has gone pretty culturally.
Speaker 4: Far left in some different ways, to the point where
Speaker 4: you can understand why there would be a backlash.
Speaker 15: Yeah, he does the whole he says, libertarians don't have
Speaker 15: an official position on abortion, and he's like, he's on
Speaker 15: the side that you can't have freedom if you don't
Speaker 15: have if you're never born.
Speaker 3: Therefore I against abortion.
Speaker 15: Most of his supporters are men, not coincidentally with that position.
Speaker 15: But the context for all this, of course, is that
Speaker 15: Argentina has been a basket case for a very very
Speaker 15: long time. The inflation there over decades has just kind
Speaker 15: of sapped the kind of strength out of the economy.
Speaker 15: Like people will get paid and immediately try to spend
Speaker 15: all of their money right now. Yeah, and that's that's
Speaker 15: like good for them, like own only one hundred and
Speaker 15: fifty percent inflation over the last year. But like at
Speaker 15: stores you could you get banned from you can only
Speaker 15: buy like certain amounts of things, So like entire families
Speaker 15: will go together and like take the paycheck and divide
Speaker 15: it up, and the kids will be buying you know,
Speaker 15: certain number of eggs and milk and whatever. And the
Speaker 15: rich then can like immediately convert all of their wealth
Speaker 15: into dollars, and the poor and the middle class are
Speaker 15: constantly trying to convert things into dollars because there's that's
Speaker 15: the only store of wealth. Oh interesting, and the political
Speaker 15: system is just entirely broken because this parent is you know,
Speaker 15: they call it parent parents.
Speaker 5: He invokes that on the campaign, trill and he beat.
Speaker 15: A paronist party and I beat a pathetic parenties candidate
Speaker 15: who the voters called.
Speaker 3: His nickname was Pancake. He was the economy minister.
Speaker 15: Yes, pancake, because he's been with the left, he's been
Speaker 15: with the center right, like he's he's just like an
Speaker 15: opportunistic kind of and also like total charismaists politician, like, yeah,
Speaker 15: the center left party in Argentina's absolutely you know, pathetic.
Speaker 15: What paranism was was an attempt to like do leftism
Speaker 15: and labor advocacy and social justice stuff, but also co
Speaker 15: opt the rich and business element, which is always like
Speaker 15: trying to undermine yeah, the left. But obviously that then
Speaker 15: coalition becomes like the big part of parentism.
Speaker 3: And so they.
Speaker 15: Benefit in certain ways from inflation. Some public workers, students,
Speaker 15: like a lot, so many different people benefit in some
Speaker 15: ways from the inflation that every attempt to kind of
Speaker 15: combat it then runs up against a choke point, Like
Speaker 15: you think our system has a lot of choke points
Speaker 15: for getting things done, like Argentina is like on steroids,
Speaker 15: and so in the past, whenever they've tried to do
Speaker 15: anything around inflation, you'd have people come out in the
Speaker 15: streets and it would get shut down. So it's gonna
Speaker 15: be really interesting to see what he can do because
Speaker 15: you're already seeing a bunch of center left politicians who
Speaker 15: are sort of like seeing his victory and recognizing it
Speaker 15: as an anti referendum in the status quo and saying, well, maybe,
Speaker 15: so you're actually seeing a lot of people gravitate around him,
Speaker 15: Like the left thinks that he's going to just collapse
Speaker 15: under his own weight, in the weight of his own
Speaker 15: silly contradiction.
Speaker 4: He doesn't have Congress, he doesn't, he doesn't have Parliament.
Speaker 3: He doesn't.
Speaker 15: But there might be enough, there might be enough energy
Speaker 15: around him that he can actually get some things through.
Speaker 15: The problem for people will be the only things that
Speaker 15: he'll end up getting through will be more kind of
Speaker 15: subsidies for the rich. And like that wing of do
Speaker 15: we have that Lefong yes piece that ye yes?
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen, guys from the intercepts.
Speaker 1: Some great reporting here from Lefong about the Atlas network,
Speaker 1: and the headline here is sphere of influence how American
Speaker 1: libertarians are remaking Latin American politics. And it's the sort
Speaker 1: of sprawling network of think tanks. You know, we're all
Speaker 1: familiar with the Coconut orre he This is sort of
Speaker 1: the equivalent home from a Ford Affairs perspective, and Malay
Speaker 1: is associated with some of the groups that are affiliated
Speaker 1: with this like sort of sprawling libertarian big money network.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 15: And so without this well funded and it's the Coke
Speaker 15: Foundation actually contributes to this. Atlas Network Donors Trust, which
Speaker 15: you guys know, like that's the big kind of right
Speaker 15: wing kind of pool of money. It's a big donor
Speaker 15: to Atlas Network. And so what Atlas Network would do
Speaker 15: is go in into these South American countries and Central
Speaker 15: American countries and basically fund economic libertarian think tanks and
Speaker 15: then you know, boost the careers of people like Mela.
Speaker 15: I know an economist who worked with Mela back like
Speaker 15: thirty years ago.
Speaker 1: Interesting, and don't you know, I know that it's really random.
Speaker 15: We're totally totally randomly And she was like, yeah, he was.
Speaker 15: Everybody knew him, and he's just like this crazy dude
Speaker 15: in the office and he just kind of like tolerated him,
Speaker 15: and he's also kind of funny. He's got like take
Speaker 15: my hair today and like times ten right, completely wild,
Speaker 15: and that's all he would have remained without, like the
Speaker 15: Atlas network and the billionaire libertarian networks to then kind
Speaker 15: of move him through the system. But it was about
Speaker 15: five or six years ago he started getting on argentating
Speaker 15: and TV a whole bunch, and he's so funny and
Speaker 15: like entertaining that it's very Trumpian phenomenon. Like CNNMSNBC just
Speaker 15: loved the ratings that Trump brought right and they were
Speaker 15: the oxygen on his file well and social media.
Speaker 1: And that's why one of the unique dynamics here is
Speaker 1: that a lot of these sort of like right wing
Speaker 1: populist type candidates who risen to power is mostly older generations,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the resistance to them comes from
Speaker 1: younger generations. Here, that dynamic is flipped. Vox had actually
Speaker 1: an interesting piece about him. They interviewed a bunch of
Speaker 1: young people of why they support him, when you know,
Speaker 1: usually young people were backing leftist candidates up until this moment.
Speaker 1: They interviewed this one woman. She says, I only have
Speaker 1: memories of our Argentina, Indicay. She's nineteen years old in
Speaker 1: Buenos Aires. So you look around and you associate all
Speaker 1: the political parties and all the movements that were in
Speaker 1: power during that time to a decaying country, and you
Speaker 1: desperately search for other options. Another thing that came out
Speaker 1: in this piece that I thought was really interesting because
Speaker 1: he's also like, he says climate change is a hoax,
Speaker 1: and he's on that whole train, which you know, fits
Speaker 1: with the libertarian right wing billionaire network as well, and
Speaker 1: they're like, there were a lot of people in this
Speaker 1: article that were like, I don't agree with him on that.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with him on abortion and these other
Speaker 1: cultural issues, but like I got to get some food
Speaker 1: my fridge, and I don't. And there were also people
Speaker 1: who were like, I don't even know. It could be
Speaker 1: a total disaster with this guy, but we got to
Speaker 1: do something. Yeah, then we got to do something here.
Speaker 1: And so that was like the sense that came from
Speaker 1: these young people of such desperation that was like, ah,
Speaker 1: I mean, at least he's different. I don't know, let's
Speaker 1: give it a shot.
Speaker 15: You're given a choice between a guy named Pancake, who
Speaker 15: was the economy minister overseeing an economy just in complete turmoil.
Speaker 15: Well or this guy, and you can understand why you'd
Speaker 15: be like, you know what, Okay, I don't want to
Speaker 15: sell my organs.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 15: I'm actually for abortion rights. I don't think we should
Speaker 15: eliminate every single government ministry. But man, I don't like
Speaker 15: pancake either.
Speaker 16: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's like, I know it's a disaster. I know the
Speaker 1: status quo is a disaster. It's a stream of health
Speaker 1: maybe a disaster. Hey, listen, if there's even a shot
Speaker 1: that it's something, I guess I'm going to go for it, right, right, right.
Speaker 4: So it's the status quo is a disaster, and this
Speaker 4: other candidate represents the status quo, which is basically exactly
Speaker 4: the Hillary Clinton Donald Trump dynamic. So it's not just
Speaker 4: that this other person is a blunt force object is
Speaker 4: a wrecking ball.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump seen as a wrecking ball.
Speaker 4: You literally used the flight ninety three election metaphor in
Speaker 4: Claremont and other places on the right and run up
Speaker 4: to the twenty sixteen election. So I do think that
Speaker 4: dynamic is somewhat instructive, because again, you have someone who promises,
Speaker 4: who is absolutely telling you they will be a wrecking
Speaker 4: ball to the status quo in ways that most voters
Speaker 4: see as good and bad. It's just a totally unexpected quantity.
Speaker 4: And then you have somebody who represents the status quo.
Speaker 4: A lot of people will choose the uncertain quantity wrecking ball,
Speaker 4: even if they don't like everything about them.
Speaker 15: And I think there's a significant chance we're going to
Speaker 15: see some significant violence because you're going to see if
Speaker 15: he goes after the unions, he goes after the pensioners,
Speaker 15: he goes after public workers, like they're going to come
Speaker 15: out in the streets, like that's how Argentinian politics has been.
Speaker 4: But he's aged, he's a libertarian, so he can't go Bukele.
Speaker 3: He certainly can.
Speaker 4: I mean he can, but like ideologically and if he's
Speaker 4: ideologically consistent, he's sort of the opposite.
Speaker 5: Of bou Kele.
Speaker 15: He also is like the president of a government which
Speaker 15: is not consistent with not believing in government.
Speaker 3: Called the criminal organizations. Now he's like.
Speaker 15: And so I would not be surprised to see him,
Speaker 15: you know, put guns out in the streets if if
Speaker 15: there are a protests that try to bring him down.
Speaker 15: So I think it could get pretty ugly, and you
Speaker 15: might see people You're going to see a significant portion
Speaker 15: of the country, I think support the violence to say
Speaker 15: like no, we on the flight ninety three, like when
Speaker 15: we have said wrecking ball, we really meant wrecking ball.
Speaker 15: So it could get pretty dark and there doesn't seem
Speaker 15: to be any significant left opposition able.
Speaker 3: To push back.
Speaker 1: Obviously a lot of these dynamics are specific to Argentina,
Speaker 1: but do you see this as part of a broader trend,
Speaker 1: either in you know, South and Central America or more.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean he definitely does.
Speaker 15: Like he when he won, he put up a post
Speaker 15: of himself next to Trump and Bolsonaro.
Speaker 5: And Trump said he was very proud of him.
Speaker 3: Trump very proud of him.
Speaker 15: And I bet he feels some affinity with Bukelly in
Speaker 15: El Salvador. And this Atlas network is all over the
Speaker 15: South America and Central America as well, so it is
Speaker 15: he very much sees it as an international movement. These libertarians, don't,
Speaker 15: you know, they don't like borders, they don't believe in
Speaker 15: governments or nations. So the Atlas Network was very heavily
Speaker 15: involved in training the kind of organizers that led to
Speaker 15: the mass Street mobilization that brought Bolsonaro to power. So yeah,
Speaker 15: I think there's it is a similar thing we got
Speaker 15: we're seeing, gotcha.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we're going to do an interview with
Speaker 1: Ryan as well on his new book, The Squad. We'll
Speaker 1: give a little pretease on that one. That's going to
Speaker 1: drop over the holiday weekend. When does the book actually out.
Speaker 15: It's technically out December fifth, but I think the Monday
Speaker 15: after Thanksgiving you can start getting it in bookstores, gotcha.
Speaker 15: Like the event we're doing, people will be able to
Speaker 15: buy books, gotcha for instance.
Speaker 1: Okay, So thank you for your analysis here, and guys,
Speaker 1: stay tuned for more on Ryan's book called The Squad,
Speaker 1: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution coming to
Speaker 1: bookstores near you soon. Ryan, Great to see you, Great
Speaker 1: to see you, guys. Excited to be joined now by
Speaker 1: Jane Hugor. He is not only founder of TYT, but
Speaker 1: also is a Democratic candidate for president in twenty twenty four. Gent,
Speaker 1: great to see you. Great to have an update for
Speaker 1: you on the campaign.
Speaker 7: All right, thanks for having me appreciate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, So you shared this recent clip of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, which you proffered as evidence that perhaps he
Speaker 1: is not the man that Democrats should go with for
Speaker 1: their next presidential candidate. Let's take a look.
Speaker 11: Now. Just to get here, Liberty and Bell had to
Speaker 11: beat some tough odds competition. They had to work hard
Speaker 11: to show patience and be willing to travel over one
Speaker 11: thousand miles. You could say, even this harder than getting
Speaker 11: a ticket to the Renaissance tour.
Speaker 7: Or for Britney's tour.
Speaker 11: She's down in It's kind of warm in Brazil right now.
Speaker 5: I don't see the problem.
Speaker 1: You're not inspired by this?
Speaker 7: Yeah, wow, wow.
Speaker 8: Okay, So, first of all, it's Taylor Swift, as we
Speaker 8: all know, and except we don't all know. The president
Speaker 8: doesn't know. But that's not the point, guys. The point
Speaker 8: is what was that? I mean, that's just so.
Speaker 7: Look.
Speaker 8: I if it's just a matter of Joe Biden's career
Speaker 8: and he's pulling a Diane fin signed late in his
Speaker 8: Senate career, and then I feel bad for him and
Speaker 8: his family should help him, et cetera. But this is
Speaker 8: way more important. This is for democracy. This is for
Speaker 8: a presidential election. This guy's twenty two points underwater his favorability,
Speaker 8: He's only thirty seven.
Speaker 7: His unfavorables are fifty nine.
Speaker 8: Does that guy look like he's going to pull off
Speaker 8: a comeback being twenty two points underwater impossible. He can't
Speaker 8: even finish a sentence, and I look, I don't enjoy
Speaker 8: saying this.
Speaker 7: I feel terrible saying this.
Speaker 8: But someone has to say it otherwise we're just going
Speaker 8: to walk into a loss against Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: And I'm just amazed all of Washington. I know that
Speaker 7: there's a little.
Speaker 8: Bit of a rebellion going on now, even within the establishment,
Speaker 8: but for so long all of Washington was like, yeah,
Speaker 8: let's just look who cares.
Speaker 7: Obviously Biden's going to lose.
Speaker 8: I mean, he's been losing the Swing States all along,
Speaker 8: he's been losing independence all along.
Speaker 7: Now he's lost Latinos.
Speaker 8: We went from a forty two point lead among Latinos
Speaker 8: down of four points. He's lost them completely. Everybody knows
Speaker 8: he's gonna lose. So my job is to be a
Speaker 8: little bit rude as snap Washington out of it. There's
Speaker 8: no way that guy who can't finish sentences and is down,
Speaker 8: you know, twenty two points in his favorability is going
Speaker 8: to come do a miracle comeback and beat Trump.
Speaker 7: Or any Republican.
Speaker 8: I don't know anyone who actually disagrees with it.
Speaker 4: And so we actually have some of these poll numbers
Speaker 4: that we were just kind of alluding to. Some of
Speaker 4: these numbers, especially with young voters. I mean, look at this,
Speaker 4: Trump gains edge among younger voters. This is an NBC
Speaker 4: News poll from this week. Donald Trump is at forty
Speaker 4: six percent. Joe Biden is at forty two percent. That
Speaker 4: is a for Democrats. That is a just absolute disaster.
Speaker 4: There's no other way to put it. And it's trending
Speaker 4: in the wrong direct, So it's not as though it
Speaker 4: started out that way. It's something that's continuing to go down.
Speaker 4: Jenk especially a somebody who is a kind of a
Speaker 4: pioneer in online spaces that are influencing a lot of
Speaker 4: really young voters and is now actively campaigning.
Speaker 5: How do you see that issue?
Speaker 4: And then what is the sort of I'm also curious
Speaker 4: to sort of when you're campaigning versus when you're trying to,
Speaker 4: you know, turn an online presence, a media news media
Speaker 4: presence into a campaign. What's that process like, especially with
Speaker 4: younger voters who are are much more influenced by that
Speaker 4: than I think a lot of older people.
Speaker 8: Realize, Yeah, look, guys, that's that you just showed.
Speaker 7: It's over. There's near zero percent chance that Joe Biden's
Speaker 7: gonna win.
Speaker 8: And I'm saying that with my political anils hat on
Speaker 8: and in fact, that's why I entered the race, because
Speaker 8: I can read numbers. This is Look, this is the
Speaker 8: same thing I said during the Hillary claim years. Guys,
Speaker 8: she's gonna lose. Look at the polling numbers. You're being blinded.
Speaker 8: But that was ten thousand times less.
Speaker 7: Clearer than this is.
Speaker 8: Joe Biden needs younger voters to win, period, not even close.
Speaker 8: He won them in large numbers in twenty twenty. And
Speaker 8: that's why the only reason that he could win that
Speaker 8: particular election, and he barely won the electoral college in
Speaker 8: that election. If he's losing younger voters, and now he is,
Speaker 8: he has a zero percent chance of winning.
Speaker 7: No Democrat can win without younger voters. He's that.
Speaker 8: I mean, look, this entire thesis of my book is
Speaker 8: the why progressors were going to win. We talked about
Speaker 8: this last time I was on is because younger voters
Speaker 8: are so overwhelmingly progressive. Do you know how deeply incompetent
Speaker 8: you have to be as a politician, as a democratic politician,
Speaker 8: to lose younger voters to Donald Trump. Now, this guy's
Speaker 8: the worst politician in the world. The only reason he
Speaker 8: barely won last time is because the entire establishment co
Speaker 8: esce around him, including all of media. So look, younger voters,
Speaker 8: why are they against Joe One. They didn't grow up
Speaker 8: with television, And that goes to your point about online
Speaker 8: versus TV. Right in the old days, did you'd get
Speaker 8: spoon fed propaganda on television? They'd be like, Oh, Joe
Speaker 8: Biden passed the semiconductor bill, you should be really happy.
Speaker 8: And people are be like, what, I'm not in the
Speaker 8: semi conductor business, but okay, I guess so right, And
Speaker 8: Joe Biden reduced drug prices on one drug.
Speaker 7: And then everybody cheers.
Speaker 8: It's historic, right, But young people can just look stuff
Speaker 8: up online. They're like, wait, is there only one drug
Speaker 8: in the world? Oh no, there are tens of thousands. Oh,
Speaker 8: it turns out it's a trick to protect the other
Speaker 8: nine and ninety nine drugs, And like, how many tricks? Oh,
Speaker 8: you're gonna do student debt relief? Oh, you put a
Speaker 8: poison pill provision in there. You knew the Supreme Court
Speaker 8: would overturn.
Speaker 7: Oh golly, gee, did we get caught again?
Speaker 8: But now it's over because of Israel and Gaza, and
Speaker 8: he's lost younger voters so badly over that issue. Remember
Speaker 8: Joe Biden is two hundred years old, so he still
Speaker 8: thinks it's the nineteen seventies or nineteen nineties, and he's like,
Speaker 8: ohr support Israel and it's war crahymes two hundred percent,
Speaker 8: green light all the way, and young people are like, vomit, Oh,
Speaker 8: get at it? Why why is this guy so out
Speaker 8: of touch, so brutal? Because they're used to having TV
Speaker 8: do NonStop propaganda for any dumb idea that they had
Speaker 8: that they was shoved down the throat of the American people.
Speaker 8: And now young people are leading the way to going no, no, no, no, you.
Speaker 7: Need to do things that we want.
Speaker 8: Our lives right now are way worse than our parents' lives.
Speaker 8: We're tired of this crap. And Joe Biden is never
Speaker 8: going to turn around. He's like frozen in amber. There's
Speaker 8: a zero percent chance he turns around. Look, guys, it
Speaker 8: doesn't matter whether you like me or not. And yeah, okay,
Speaker 8: by I am loud, I'm aggressive. I bought the url
Speaker 8: Biden is going to lose dot com. I bought selfish
Speaker 8: obiden dot com. They all readirected my site. Okay, I'm
Speaker 8: the bad guy, I'm the boogeyman.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 8: Oh no, don't say anything about the Democratic candidate. Our
Speaker 8: job is all to do propaganda and marketing for them,
Speaker 8: so we can barely prop them up. No, I don't agree.
Speaker 8: We should pick a great candidate, candidate who's actually gonna
Speaker 8: fight for you and fight for these policies. Does Joe
Speaker 8: Biden looked like he's gonna fight for you. He can
Speaker 8: barely fight a nap.
Speaker 1: Let's put the next poll numbers up on the screen,
Speaker 1: which I think bolster some of the points that you're
Speaker 1: making here, Jank. This is also from NBC News. So
Speaker 1: seventy percent of voters aged eighteen to thirty four disapprove
Speaker 1: of Biden's policy on Israel. Fifty six percent of all
Speaker 1: voters disapprove fifty one percent. So a majority of Democrats
Speaker 1: say that Israel has gone too far, and forty nine
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats, so very close to a majority, oppose
Speaker 1: US aid to Israel. Now the play Devil's advocate here.
Speaker 1: What the White House would say is it's just one issue.
Speaker 1: We're still always out from election day. Once we get
Speaker 1: down to it and it's Trump versus Biden, people are
Speaker 1: going to come to their senses and they're gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: suck it up and vote Joe once again. What is
Speaker 1: your analysis there?
Speaker 7: Okay, totally one hundred percent wrong.
Speaker 8: So let me give you a number of reality checks here.
Speaker 8: So number one, sometimes politicians can ebb and flow, of course, right,
Speaker 8: And at one point Obama dipped down to like forty
Speaker 8: three percent, and so that's what the Biden people were
Speaker 8: using for a long time. But Joe, you're not at
Speaker 8: forty three. You're now at thirty seven. Thirty seven is
Speaker 8: massively lower than forty three. And Obama barely dipped in
Speaker 8: there once and bounced back up. Joe Biden's been down
Speaker 8: in the thirties forever and ever and ever. Now the
Speaker 8: counter to Obama is George W.
Speaker 7: Bush.
Speaker 8: George W. Bush sank into the thirties. And I remember
Speaker 8: Tim Russell all the way back in the day and
Speaker 8: Meet the Press doing a segment on the narrative of comeback.
Speaker 8: And I wrote a blog all the way back in
Speaker 8: the Huffing the Post days, he said, what comeback? You
Speaker 8: just invented that so called narrative. This man has no
Speaker 8: capacity for a comeback. He's going to say in third,
Speaker 8: in the thirties the rest of his term. And I
Speaker 8: was totally right about that, because George W. Bush wasn't
Speaker 8: even trying to make a comeback. That was the second term,
Speaker 8: and he was just driving his numbers into the ground.
Speaker 7: By the end.
Speaker 8: His partner, for example, Dick Cheney, finished at nine percent approval. Okay,
Speaker 8: so does the person have a capacity for a comeback
Speaker 8: or don't they? And how far down are they? Well,
Speaker 8: Biden is way further down than Obama was. He's been
Speaker 8: there way longer, and he has absolutely no capacity for
Speaker 8: a comeback.
Speaker 7: You just saw it with your own eyes.
Speaker 8: Who are we kidding with this politically correct crap about agism.
Speaker 7: People see that.
Speaker 8: Real people, voters, not political people, not people triangling for
Speaker 8: a job in Washington. Real voters look at that and go, hey,
Speaker 8: no way, I'm voting for that guy. He can't finish
Speaker 8: his sentence. He doesn't know what the hell's going on.
Speaker 8: No way, let alone is or let alone on other issues, guys.
Speaker 8: Because of Israel. There's one other giant problem for Democrats.
Speaker 8: We've lost Michigan. His Arab support has dropped from the
Speaker 8: seventies down to fifteen percent. And every Arab and Muslim,
Speaker 8: whether they're talking to me, they're talking online, or they're talking.
Speaker 7: To upholster, are all saying, Look, it's one thing whether.
Speaker 8: We vote for Trump or not, Okay, but we're not
Speaker 8: voting for Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: Under any circumstance. So we'll stay at home, We'll do
Speaker 7: whatever it is. That's it. Michigan's gone.
Speaker 8: So now, how are you going to win the election
Speaker 8: without the most critical swing state of Michigan. This is
Speaker 8: political malpractice. We're purposely losing this election. I've never seen
Speaker 8: anything like this. This is total madness. There's no way
Speaker 8: Joe Biden's going to win. It's not even going to
Speaker 8: be close. And then finally think about this. Incumbency is
Speaker 8: really important for a senator or a congress person because
Speaker 8: that gives you name recognition, and that gives you all
Speaker 8: the donor money. Okay, but when you're running for reelection
Speaker 8: as president, incumbency is now in the modern world, is
Speaker 8: an albatross around your neck. Why, first of all, it
Speaker 8: cost Donald Trump election because COVID hit and he couldn't
Speaker 8: adjust in time, and people were angry about that, and
Speaker 8: that's why he lost the election. Now, I imagine, in
Speaker 8: Biden's case, they're in October, gas prices go up. No no, no, no,
Speaker 8: no no, no zero percent, zero zero zero. There's no
Speaker 8: way he wins up. Gas prices go up in October. Now,
Speaker 8: who controls gas prices? Well, the country that has the
Speaker 8: biggest effect by far is Saudi Arabia, who the Saudis love,
Speaker 8: all right, they love Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: They love Trump and his family.
Speaker 8: They give them millions of dollars, all the golf tournaments,
Speaker 8: they've been in bed together this entire time.
Speaker 7: You think that Saudis aren't just going to hand the
Speaker 7: election to Trump.
Speaker 8: You need a super strong Democrat who one number one
Speaker 8: is not an incumbent and will not be as affected
Speaker 8: by gas prices, and number two can withstand an assault
Speaker 8: from Trump and his allies. Biden hasn't even run. He's
Speaker 8: not even running. He's preventing everyone else from running, and
Speaker 8: he's not doing any campaigning because he loves Republicans. So
Speaker 8: when you ask him, hey, can you do a speech,
Speaker 8: he has Republican. No, my Republican friends, I've given so
Speaker 8: many text guns for the rich with them together.
Speaker 7: Where's my brother, Rich mccado. Let's freeze together. Come on, guys,
Speaker 7: come on, Okay, I'm the bad guy.
Speaker 1: Everybody ate me.
Speaker 7: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you, bid. Let me ask you though,
Speaker 1: because you know, if you ask Democratic voters, a majority
Speaker 1: say we want Biden to step aside, we want other options,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. But when you give them other choices,
Speaker 1: and I'm not just talking about you and Dean Phillips
Speaker 1: and Marianne, but even when they ask, okay, hypothetically, if
Speaker 1: it was Biden versus Newsome or Paula Harris or Pete
Speaker 1: Bootage or whoever, voters are still backing Biden. So why
Speaker 1: do you think that is? And you know, and also
Speaker 1: give us a reality check on how your campaign's going,
Speaker 1: where you are in the polls, and what your trajectory is,
Speaker 1: how you want to make the comeback.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 8: So number one, those polls are deeply misleading. And I'll
Speaker 8: tell you why you have to. It's not like, oh
Speaker 8: I don't like that particular poll. I hate when people
Speaker 8: do that. No, there's two reasons why they're deeply misleading.
Speaker 8: Number One, they put everyone in the poll, so Biden
Speaker 8: will have an advantage because he's the common President. Meanwhile,
Speaker 8: Boudage just knew some are the same guys, so they
Speaker 8: split the vote, right, covid char Kamala Harrison said, they
Speaker 8: all split the vote, and then they go, oh, see
Speaker 8: Biden's winning, And a lot of them don't have a
Speaker 8: lot of name recognition, like Greshen Winmer, right, but people
Speaker 8: don't know her, so she scores lower.
Speaker 7: On a poll.
Speaker 8: But if Gresham Winmer was a Democratic candidate, then everyone
Speaker 8: would know her and so she wouldn't have that issue
Speaker 8: at all, and she wouldn't have the albatrust around her
Speaker 8: neck of being eighty nine years old or sorry, eighty
Speaker 8: one eighty one. She could finish sentences. She's very popular
Speaker 8: in Michigan. She would win Michigan. She would win a
Speaker 8: lot of states. So those polls are deeply misleading and
Speaker 8: are often just used to further falsely prop up Joe Biden. Okay,
Speaker 8: in terms of me, look, we you know what what did.
Speaker 7: Joe Lieber say back in the day. He's got Joe Mentum,
Speaker 7: I've got Jankmentum. No, guys. I'm honest.
Speaker 8: Look, Quinnipiac puts me in the polls. God bless, everybody
Speaker 8: should put me in the polls. It's maddening that they don't. Anyway,
Speaker 8: I'm at two percent, so two percent not the highest
Speaker 8: number in the world. On the other hand, everyone in
Speaker 8: the world expected zero. Right, They're like, oh, loudmouth talk
Speaker 8: show hosts not born in the country, no way.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 8: But currently I'm meeting the governor of North Dakota, the
Speaker 8: governor of Arkansas, and I'm tied with Chris Christy. Okay,
Speaker 8: so what happened? I thought I wasn't supposed to register.
Speaker 8: And I'll tell you what, guys, they're starting to panic
Speaker 8: a little bit. The Joe Biden team has started buying
Speaker 8: up websites that are similar to my website.
Speaker 7: Okay, what you're worried, dog? Okay.
Speaker 8: And now they're trying to keep me off the ballot
Speaker 8: in a lot of places. Why Because I'm the loudest,
Speaker 8: most aggressive voice making the clear obvious call against Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: So it's bothering them to no end.
Speaker 6: Good.
Speaker 8: That's why I got in the race to knock Joe Bien.
Speaker 8: Now is it because I'm against Biden. Look, Biden's got issues,
Speaker 8: I've been telling you, but that's not the main reason
Speaker 8: at all. No, it's because he's going to lose the
Speaker 8: Trump and we got to beat Trump. That's mission number one,
Speaker 8: mission number one. So right now, I got onto the
Speaker 8: ballot in Arkansas when nobody thought I was going to
Speaker 8: get on any ballots. So when they tell you don't try,
Speaker 8: that's because they don't want you to win.
Speaker 7: They don't want you to succeed.
Speaker 8: And by the way, they don't want anybody to succeed
Speaker 8: that would actually fight for the American people.
Speaker 7: So it turns out if you try, you can win. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 7: you we're on ballots. We're going to get on more ballots.
Speaker 1: Do you have an update on the legal side of
Speaker 1: this question of whether or not you're eligible given that
Speaker 1: you're a natural citizen versus a natural born citizen.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 8: So number one arc thesis is that the fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 8: has already amended that part of the Constitution. If you
Speaker 8: read the fourteenth Amendment, it's a little bit like the
Speaker 8: Da Vinci Code. You go, oh wow, oh yeah, it is,
Speaker 8: it's right there. How come I never saw that before
Speaker 8: because people don't regularly read amendments. Fourteenth Amendment says all
Speaker 8: persons born or naturalized have do process an equal protection.
Speaker 8: They didn't say kind of equal, but not really equal.
Speaker 8: They say, yeah, now we said naturalized, but we didn't
Speaker 8: mean naturalized. No, they said naturalized. They meant naturalized.
Speaker 7: Equal protection means equal, It doesn't mean asterisk. It doesn't
Speaker 7: mean you're a second class citizen.
Speaker 8: In fact, the Supreme Court has already said that you
Speaker 8: can't declare someone a second class citizen just because they're
Speaker 8: a naturalized citizen. Not about the presidential issue, but about
Speaker 8: different issues. We're going to make them apply that to
Speaker 8: the presidential issue. So we're going to sue a couple
Speaker 8: of states, and so that literally yesterday we had a
Speaker 8: big meeting with our lawyers. I've got Bernie Sanders presidential
Speaker 8: lawyers from twenty sixteen and twenty twenty about which states
Speaker 8: to pick, which jurisdictions to focus on.
Speaker 7: And so for what I would say to the voters
Speaker 7: is let the courts decide that don't worry about that.
Speaker 8: If I'm not eligible, then i won't be able eligible
Speaker 8: and you won't have to worry about it, and it
Speaker 8: gets resolved much quicker during elections because that's the system
Speaker 8: we have in place, so the voters can know before
Speaker 8: they vote. So put that out of your mind and
Speaker 8: just say, hey, is this the guy that i'd like
Speaker 8: to represent me?
Speaker 7: And if you're a younger voter, if you're any voter.
Speaker 8: That's Democrat, I'm going to actually do the stuff that
Speaker 8: you want, and a fight like hell to do this
Speaker 8: stuff that you want. And Biden's wrong on a bunch
Speaker 8: of issues like Israel, so unlike him, I agree with
Speaker 8: the great majority of both Americans and Democrats. We need
Speaker 8: to cease fire immediately. I hate that the bombs being
Speaker 8: dropped on Palaesitian children have made in the USA on
Speaker 8: them sending another fourteen billion dollars. Joe Biden says at
Speaker 8: every turn, we don't have money. We don't have money
Speaker 8: for paid family, we don't have money for higher wages,
Speaker 8: we don't have money for this or that. And then
Speaker 8: the minute there's war, he's like, yes, right away, take
Speaker 8: all the money, take American money, and Bob Palasty and
Speaker 8: children with them, no, no way, and a student debt relief.
Speaker 8: Definitely legalize marijuana instantly. It's over seventy percent. What is
Speaker 8: wrong with you people in Washington, Why won't you ever
Speaker 8: do what the people want? Pay family leaves at eighty
Speaker 8: four percent? What do you need it to be at
Speaker 8: eighty five percent? Why won't you do it? And the
Speaker 8: reality is because they're hooked on the donor money. They
Speaker 8: only serve their donors. They're all corrupt. These donations are bribes.
Speaker 8: I'm the only one who's saying it because everyone else
Speaker 8: is part of the corrupt processing someone non corrupt.
Speaker 7: Thanks for America dot com.
Speaker 4: Speaking of that, Joe Biden has the most money right now,
Speaker 4: is the most supportant polling. But what do you say
Speaker 4: to people who will say to you, drank that your
Speaker 4: candidacy just makes it more and more likely that Joe
Speaker 4: Biden loses to Donald Trump? You, he's presumptive nominee is whatever.
Speaker 4: Media loves that phrase. What's your response to that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, this is the same crap establishment says every time.
Speaker 8: We've picked a loser and someone who's totally corrupt and
Speaker 8: who will do only what the donors want.
Speaker 7: Now, bower your heads, otherwise you're hurting it.
Speaker 8: Well, why did you pick the guy who sucks, the
Speaker 8: guy who we don't want, who's losing in all the polling,
Speaker 8: And why do we have to bow our heads? What
Speaker 8: the hell is this a democracy? This is the Democratic
Speaker 8: Party of the Republican Party. No, we're not gonna bow
Speaker 8: our heads. You told us about our heads to Hillary
Speaker 8: Clinton and she lost. She lost to Donald Trump, who's
Speaker 8: a moron, a blithering idiot, and she lost to that guy.
Speaker 8: And then Joe Biden almost lost to him in twenty twenty.
Speaker 8: He only won by forty four thousand votes in three
Speaker 8: swing states. Now he's fifteen points lower than when he
Speaker 8: barely beat Trump last time. And now we're supposed to
Speaker 8: bow our heads. Oh hell no, no, no.
Speaker 7: You bow your head? How about that?
Speaker 8: I represent the actual Democratic voters. So put me in
Speaker 8: a debate with Joe Biden. See if he can survive,
Speaker 8: See if he can survive the night. Everyone knows. There's
Speaker 8: no way in the world Joe Biden can survive a
Speaker 8: debate with someone like me.
Speaker 7: Then why the hell's he our candidate?
Speaker 8: Why don't we pick a strong candidate instead of a
Speaker 8: miserably weak candidate. I even bought wounded Antelope dot com.
Speaker 8: There's no chance he's gonna win. So, guys, it isn't
Speaker 8: about Oh, if we just prop up the terrible candidate
Speaker 8: just a little harder, then maybe we could beat Trump. No,
Speaker 8: he's already losing young voters to Trump. He has no chance.
Speaker 8: The correct path to beat Trump is get as many
Speaker 8: candidates in this race as humanly possible today today, get me,
Speaker 8: Governor Whitmer, Governor Shapiro, governor renews him. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 8: And by the way, put me in a debate with them.
Speaker 8: See how they do. Okay, because you need to be
Speaker 8: tested by fire. Trump was tested by fire in twenty
Speaker 8: sixteen with seventeen candidates on the Republican side, and he won.
Speaker 8: Joe Biden had twenty seven candidates back in twenty twenty,
Speaker 8: back before whatever it is that he has now has started,
Speaker 8: and he won, and it made him stronger, and it
Speaker 8: made him just barely.
Speaker 7: Strong enough to win in twenty twenty.
Speaker 8: So let's get a strong primary in here to get
Speaker 8: a strong candidate. Saying let's prop up the weak candidate
Speaker 8: by doing propaganda on his behalf is a losing strategy
Speaker 8: and I will not participate in it.
Speaker 1: So Jank, last question for you. I just interviewed congresson
Speaker 1: and Dean Phillips, who obviously is also running in the
Speaker 1: Democratic primary, and he recently put out a tweet apologizing
Speaker 1: to Bernie Sanders. Leg Oh, turns out you were right.
Speaker 1: This process is rigged. Obviously. The DNC is not hosting
Speaker 1: any debates. They have no plans to host any debates.
Speaker 1: Was wondering if you have talked to Carson Phillips and
Speaker 1: Mary and Williamson about doing your own debate the three
Speaker 1: of you, so at least you can see some competition
Speaker 1: of ideas in some democratic process.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 8: I've been doing that since the day that Dean Phillips
Speaker 8: entered the race, and I've already arranged two to three debates.
Speaker 8: But Dean's got a giddy up, so I don't know
Speaker 8: what he's waiting for.
Speaker 7: Guys, the three of us need oxygen. Let's keep it real.
Speaker 8: Mainstream media isn't like, hey, guys, come on air and
Speaker 8: listening town halls, right, So thank god for shows like
Speaker 8: Breaking Points and that way we can get our message out.
Speaker 8: But yes, the three of us should be doing debates, forums,
Speaker 8: town halls together. We should be doing it every week
Speaker 8: and if we can, every day, because people need to
Speaker 8: know who Dean Phillips is, who Maryan Williamson is, who
Speaker 8: I am, and guys, you know, look, these presidential races
Speaker 8: are really funny because you think two percent. I was
Speaker 8: kidding around about it before, like there's nothing to write
Speaker 8: home about it. Do you know what Donald Trump started at?
Speaker 8: And this is amazing. He started at one percent. People think, oh,
Speaker 8: he started with a big lead. No, he didn't know
Speaker 8: the first pall. He was out one percent. The difference
Speaker 8: between Donald Trump and someone like me or Maryann Williamson
Speaker 8: is the press just kept giving him the mic that
Speaker 8: they would allow him on the air twenty four to
Speaker 8: seven all over the media. Imagine if mainstream media allowed
Speaker 8: me on air twenty four to seven like they did
Speaker 8: with Donald Trump, I would be at twenty percent within
Speaker 8: the week.
Speaker 7: I'd be at forty percent within the month.
Speaker 8: So all we need is a little bit of oxygen
Speaker 8: to get going here. Anyone who like normal older Democratic
Speaker 8: voters haven't seen a person like me.
Speaker 7: They're used to whispering.
Speaker 8: Like, okay, now, try to be Donald Trump, but my
Speaker 8: Republicans are my friends.
Speaker 7: That's what they're used to. When they see somebody saying, no,
Speaker 7: goddamn it, paid family.
Speaker 8: Leaves at eighty four percent, they're purposely not doing it.
Speaker 8: When I get in office, first thing inspired the parliamentarian
Speaker 8: and we're not gonna deal with any bs filibusters. Okay,
Speaker 8: we're gonna pass the bills that help your lives. We're
Speaker 8: gonna get your higher wages, we're gonna get lower drug prices.
Speaker 8: When they see that, they're they're gonna be They're gonna
Speaker 8: even if it's not me, they're gonna be thirsty for someone,
Speaker 8: anyone who fights for them.
Speaker 7: So Dean Marianne, let's go. Let's go.
Speaker 8: We should all be appearing together NonStop, and then shame
Speaker 8: Biden into it. Of course he's not gonna come because
Speaker 8: of the minute he comes, you've got a progressive lion
Speaker 8: like me.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, but I'm keeping it real. Someone who actually wants.
Speaker 8: To pass the bills, who cares about your stupid ego,
Speaker 8: who cares? Who's the president? Did your pass bills or
Speaker 8: didn't you? He didn't even try with so many of
Speaker 8: the bills. He can't withstand a real debate. So we're
Speaker 8: gonna put up a guy against Donald Trump. We all
Speaker 8: know can't beat jank youuger in a debate. That's a fact.
Speaker 1: Hey, listen, you're not such a slash and a debate, Jank,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't sell yourself short on that regard. Listen, I'll
Speaker 1: go ahead and say we would love to host one
Speaker 1: of these debates if such a thing comes to fruition.
Speaker 1: And I'm always grateful for you taking the time to
Speaker 1: come on our show and inform our audience about what
Speaker 1: it is that you're up to.
Speaker 8: All Right, thank you so much, guys, Jankfamerica dot com.
Speaker 8: Don't let him take hope away from you. Okay, we're
Speaker 8: bringing hope back. We're gonna get caught trying, and we're
Speaker 8: gonna win. We're gonna shock the world because Joe Biden
Speaker 8: is not the guy. I am going to knock him
Speaker 8: out of this race. Hear me, now, quote me later.
Speaker 1: All right, great to see you, Jank. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7: Thank you guys.
Speaker 4: All Right, well, it's Thanksgiving week, so we wanted to
Speaker 4: do a little Thanksgiving segment, Crystal, but we wanted to
Speaker 4: do it maybe a little bit differently. Let's start with
Speaker 4: some let's start with some pull numbers. Actually, we'll put
Speaker 4: this first element up on the screen that shows six
Speaker 4: and ten Americans our hope to avoid politics at Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4: This is from the Hill, a poll released Monday, found
Speaker 4: that more than sixty percent of people say they would
Speaker 4: rather not talk about politics over the holiday. This week,
Speaker 4: just twenty nine percent of people said they're looking forward
Speaker 4: to talking about politics and family.
Speaker 5: Actually, I have a lot of thoughts on this.
Speaker 4: We also have some great questions and thoughts from you
Speaker 4: guys that will read, but let's start.
Speaker 5: With the poll. Crystal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm actually a pro not in every case, Okay,
Speaker 4: but I do think that part of the problem here
Speaker 4: is that we can't talk about politics anymore with the
Speaker 4: people that were closest with. So I think what really
Speaker 4: annoys people is forcing politics that I think is incredibly
Speaker 4: irritating if you're the person that's like picking at everyone
Speaker 4: and trying to force everyone to have uncomfortable political discussions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, on the other hand.
Speaker 4: I think we should all be better about making it
Speaker 4: possible to a tough conversation about politics and religion, because
Speaker 4: if you can't find empathy for the people who are
Speaker 4: literally your family, who have different perspectives than you, you're
Speaker 4: definitely not going to find empathy for the random internet
Speaker 4: poster who has a different perspective from you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true. I would say the thing that irritates
Speaker 1: me is when someone comes in I don't I don't
Speaker 1: hate if someone brings up politics. In fact, sometimes like
Speaker 1: I like to hear from other people how they're processing
Speaker 1: an event, Like I may just ask some questions rather
Speaker 1: than really offer my opinion, because I spent enough of
Speaker 1: my life offering my opinion is all available for anyone
Speaker 1: else there. I wants to know what I think about
Speaker 1: any number of issues it's available, So I like it
Speaker 1: more to like hear from other people how they're taking
Speaker 1: an information, more normal people. So there's that. The thing
Speaker 1: that bothers me, though, is when someone comes in super
Speaker 1: hot with a super controversial take and presents it like
Speaker 1: there's an assumption that, yeah, like everybody obviously agrees with me.
Speaker 1: You're an idiot, you know what I mean, And you're
Speaker 1: an idiot if you don't desert, And there's just like
Speaker 1: a blanket assumption that, of course everyone must agree with
Speaker 1: this super controversial, super fringe take. I find that strange.
Speaker 1: I find it sort of like disrespectful. So I will
Speaker 1: say I'm in the camp that intends to avoid politics
Speaker 1: going into Thanksgiving, but I often fail because I just
Speaker 1: to occupy so much of my mind I almost like
Speaker 1: can't help myself from making some kind of comment that's
Speaker 1: at least a little bit political.
Speaker 5: You're the problem, I am.
Speaker 1: I am the problem.
Speaker 5: It's me.
Speaker 1: But we did get some interesting responses from you guys
Speaker 1: about how you think about this, so we've got Ponce.
Speaker 1: Gomez says, when in doubt, instigate.
Speaker 5: That's the Ryan griom a broach.
Speaker 1: See. I'm not to ask Ryan when he was here,
Speaker 1: because I feel like he would be the type that,
Speaker 1: in his very like low key way, would offer some
Speaker 1: super hot takes and see what happens in his very
Speaker 1: chill way. But anyway, he says, holidays are a great
Speaker 1: time to discover the secret extremist in the family. Love
Speaker 1: starting the holiday off right with a few hot buttons
Speaker 1: and watch how the turkey likes fly. We have another one.
Speaker 1: Joseph Turner Patterson the Second says, in the past, I've
Speaker 1: always either avoided political convos with my family or tried
Speaker 1: to redirect them to our few areas of agreement. Because
Speaker 1: my descent is typically met with anger. I have no
Speaker 1: illusions I can change their minds about anything. However, my
Speaker 1: dad recently pressed me on the subject of Israel, and
Speaker 1: I decided to hold my ground. He is the typical,
Speaker 1: unquestioningly is pro Israel boomer, and I am very much not,
Speaker 1: and it actually remained very civil. That's hopeful with this
Speaker 1: says from VP. On certain talking points, you're welcome. So
Speaker 1: if that specific topic comes up, I'm going to lean
Speaker 1: into it and see what happens. But anything else I
Speaker 1: will probably continue to avoid. Those hills just aren't worth
Speaker 1: dying on. So that's an interesting perspective of like, this
Speaker 1: issue is so important to me that I'm willing to
Speaker 1: have things be a little uncomfortable to actually assert my view.
Speaker 4: But that commic gets exactly what I mean by this
Speaker 4: is that like, actually the conversations with the people you
Speaker 4: care about and you have an emotional investment in, as
Speaker 4: opposed to random people on the internet or as opposed
Speaker 4: to I don't know, some person at a bar, whatever
Speaker 4: it is, that's where you actually make more grind if
Speaker 4: you can, Like, that's the space in our communities, in
Speaker 4: our families where you can be persuasive because people are invested.
Speaker 5: In you, they know you, they care about you.
Speaker 4: And I feel like, if we can't have these conversations
Speaker 4: in this context, which largely we can't and for sometimes
Speaker 4: you shouldn't be forcing these conversations because it's going to
Speaker 4: end poorly. You're going to be putting politics over family.
Speaker 4: So I get that, but we should all try to
Speaker 4: be in a situation where we can have those conversations.
Speaker 5: And I think that's what there's this next convers.
Speaker 1: Ut in this one.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this one is.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna mess up your name pajnaj Real BP does
Speaker 4: a great job with differences of opinion. I know just
Speaker 4: one person will always say, quote, you are making an
Speaker 4: important point, that's such an important point that you're making,
Speaker 4: et cetera, even though that person has very different opinions
Speaker 4: on the matter. I might allow someone to share their
Speaker 4: opinion at the holiday table, but I don't offer mine
Speaker 4: unless they're expressing a desire to understand my perspective.
Speaker 5: That's so key.
Speaker 4: I think it would then take. I would then take
Speaker 4: the Emily approach. She stays to the audience that she
Speaker 4: comes from an evangelical Christian perspective, but she's not screaming
Speaker 4: into the camera that everyone else is a baby killer.
Speaker 4: And that one reminded me when we got from John
Speaker 4: Isaac Schumart, who named Josh Sager and says, I do
Speaker 4: not bring up politics when you're done with boomers. It
Speaker 4: is inevitable when you dine with boomers, it's inevitable to
Speaker 4: come up. I pull a saga and ask what do
Speaker 4: you think, and then follow Ice Tea's advice, let them talk.
Speaker 4: Eventually they get it all out of the system and
Speaker 4: the conversation moves on. Rarely they care what I actually think.
Speaker 4: And the reason these comments stood out Crystal is that,
Speaker 4: especially over the last month, I'm sure Sager has gotten
Speaker 4: some of this too. People will say, and you probably
Speaker 4: have as well. What you do on Crystal Kylin Friends
Speaker 4: is different than what you do on Breaking Points. So
Speaker 4: people will say, you know, when Emily's on with Megan
Speaker 4: Kelly or when Emily's on Federalist Radio Hour, you know,
Speaker 4: just a it's a much more sort of crystallized conservative
Speaker 4: perspective than when she's talking to Ryan or when she's
Speaker 4: talking to Crystal. And I'm sure that also is true
Speaker 4: when you're on Crystal Kylin Friends. And that's we have
Speaker 4: to learn how to how to have these conversations in
Speaker 4: different contexts. You don't talk the same way when you're
Speaker 4: trying to be you know, polite and persuasive with someone
Speaker 4: you disagree with as you do and you're talking to
Speaker 4: someone who agrees with you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true. That's true. It very much depends on
Speaker 1: the audience and the context, etc.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: One thing that I always get a little nervous about
Speaker 1: is people will start if you're in a Thanksgiving holiday
Speaker 1: setting where you don't necessarily know everyone. You know, there
Speaker 1: are some friends there, of relatives that you haven't met
Speaker 1: yet or whatever, which is often the case for me.
Speaker 1: They'll start asking me like, oh, what do you do?
Speaker 1: And I like, I don't know, how do you answer
Speaker 1: that question? Because I try to keep it as vague
Speaker 1: as possible, Not because usually if you get if they
Speaker 1: drill down enough to like, oh, you talk about politics
Speaker 1: for a living. Not because I'm worried they're going to
Speaker 1: ask me questions about it, because that oftentimes makes other
Speaker 1: people uncomfortable. If they know you're super political, then it
Speaker 1: puts them on edge. So I try to be really
Speaker 1: generic and vague when I'm answering that question.
Speaker 5: Yes, so do I. But then sometimes they'll ask you.
Speaker 4: The follow us and you're like, all right, I'm a journalist,
Speaker 4: or like like, oh, who for.
Speaker 1: It right, you can't get away with it. We got
Speaker 1: one last one here from Jessica Seger. She says, I'm
Speaker 1: happy to talk politics that Thanksgiving to help educate my relatives.
Speaker 1: These only news sources are unhinged Facebook posts, word opinions
Speaker 1: means we all know that person because they actually trust
Speaker 1: what I'm saying and have told me that is helpful. Well,
Speaker 1: that's very nice. Some of them outright ask me who
Speaker 1: to vote for because I'm considered one of the smartest
Speaker 1: people in my family. Oh, that's lovely for you, Jessica.
Speaker 1: Believe me, the bars beneath the ground and we need.
Speaker 5: A metal detender.
Speaker 1: That's kind of a lovely sentiment though, that her relatives,
Speaker 1: even the ones who are you know, mostly looking at
Speaker 1: unge and Facebook posts, respect her opinion and are looking
Speaker 1: for guidance from someone they trust.
Speaker 4: People are desperate for good information, and again, I think
Speaker 4: that is another reason I don't know. I love talking
Speaker 4: to you and Ryan because it just is. It's so helpful.
Speaker 4: It's so helpful because when you're having those conversations, you
Speaker 4: realize what you get wrong because the other person has
Speaker 4: the best version of the other argument. Hopefully they have
Speaker 4: versions of the other argument that you've never thought of,
Speaker 4: you've never heard, and so it's just really helpful to
Speaker 4: be able to say, here, Lixten, we might disagree, here's
Speaker 4: one thing maybe you haven't thought of, or here's one
Speaker 4: thing I find interesting about your perspective and ask questions.
Speaker 4: That's just I feel like Thanksgiving is actually if you're
Speaker 4: not forcing it, if you're not putting politics over family.
Speaker 4: I feel like family gatherings are actually not the worst
Speaker 4: place in the world. But that's my unpopular opinion.
Speaker 1: Well, I am thankful for you too, Emily, and thankful
Speaker 1: for all of you guys out there in the world.
Speaker 1: Hope you have a beautiful Thanksgiving Day, Thanksgiving weekend, however
Speaker 1: you celebrate it. And we are going to have some
Speaker 1: content that is posting some great interviews. I did one
Speaker 1: with Norman Finkelstein, sagrated one with Jocko. Those are going
Speaker 1: to post a little bit early for premium subscribers, but
Speaker 1: they'll be available for everyone at some point. I don't
Speaker 1: really remember the schedule off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: so stay tuned for that. Love you, guys, and we'll
Speaker 1: see you back here with a full normal week of
Speaker 1: shows next week.
Speaker 16: Keep don't keep shot kept shut with.
Speaker 8: Shot with
Speaker 16: Shot with