Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and Twitter is turning into a con
Speaker 1: Today we have a great show. Ruben Diego, who represents
Speaker 1: Arizona's seventh congressional district, will tell us all about what
Speaker 1: he's seeing in the mid terms. Then we'll be joined
Speaker 1: by Chief Hoskin Jr. Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation,
Speaker 1: and Kim Teh, the Cherokee Nations nominee to be their
Speaker 1: delegate to Congress, who will talk to us about a
Speaker 1: host of issues. But first we have the Lincoln Projects.
Speaker 1: Rick Wilson, the host of the new podcast The Enemies List.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics. Rick Wilson, Molly John Fast, How
Speaker 1: are you today. I'm good. I feel like we're back
Speaker 1: on the old days of the Internet, when Twitter in
Speaker 1: two thousand fifteen one Twitter was a little bit read it,
Speaker 1: when there was a little bit more ship than ship show.
Speaker 1: I mean, I said, I like went to sleep on
Speaker 1: Twitter and woke up on four Chan like level of
Speaker 1: like crazy vitriol. These are people that before I became
Speaker 1: an Internet person, I thought they were a Russian bots,
Speaker 1: and I was much happier now that I know their
Speaker 1: actual people in America. It's really scary. Well, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'll probably get in trouble for this. I know that
Speaker 1: shocking that I'm not taxing to get me in trouble.
Speaker 1: The ones who are the anonymous dip shits, as you know,
Speaker 1: like t J Thundercock, Maga, Ultra Nuclear Sex God nine
Speaker 1: which may or may not be my screen name here
Speaker 1: on the podcast Apple recording this on today. When you've
Speaker 1: got guys like that, you know who either have a
Speaker 1: Peppie defrog Avatar or they've got their dollar store knockoff
Speaker 1: costa sunglass is in their uh interest rate Ford f
Speaker 1: two fifty. As a former Ford, I paid cash for mine.
Speaker 1: But that's another story. You know, these guys who who
Speaker 1: for years complained like if I'd say anything against against
Speaker 1: the blue check liptards, I'll get canceled by the beard.
Speaker 1: Twitter will cancel me. They're so woke. Well, Daddy Elon's
Speaker 1: here now, everybody, So why don't you come out and
Speaker 1: fight under your own names? Why don't you come out
Speaker 1: and lose the anonymous pictures of Roman generals or of
Speaker 1: you know, John Wayne or Arnold Schwarzenegger or whatever homorotic
Speaker 1: thing is stoking your repression and just come out and
Speaker 1: and own what you say. Okay. So a eighty two
Speaker 1: year old man was attacked by a forty two year
Speaker 1: old man who had been for the last few years
Speaker 1: and posting on a Q and on blog that man
Speaker 1: broke into Nancy Pelosi's residence to their at night. He
Speaker 1: attacked eighty two year old Paul Pelosi. He screamed, where's Nancy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He hit Pelosi with a hammer, hit him in the head.
Speaker 1: It's been reported by CNN today that he had plastic
Speaker 1: zip ties with him, which again a favorite of those
Speaker 1: January six tourists zip ties, because that's what you do
Speaker 1: when you're on a tourist vacation, as you bring zip
Speaker 1: ties with you. Somehow, Pelosi got into the bathroom, called
Speaker 1: nine one, the police came. Paul Pelosi now in the
Speaker 1: hospital having all kinds of surgery on his hands, on
Speaker 1: his head, he has a fractured skull. Republicans are begging
Speaker 1: for forgiveness and saying that political violence is not okay.
Speaker 1: Oh wait no, they're not. Rick Wilson thoughts, well, look,
Speaker 1: let's let's be blunt and I posted something well a
Speaker 1: little before we recorded this on the Twitter machine, calling
Speaker 1: it what it was. It was an assassination attempt. The
Speaker 1: guy was looking for Nancy Pelosi. He brought a hammer,
Speaker 1: He was screaming, where is Nancy? Where is Nancy? And
Speaker 1: the argument that this guy is crazy, guy has mental problems,
Speaker 1: that the guy has some sort of past history of
Speaker 1: posting liberal things is all irrelevant. He was motivated by
Speaker 1: this ecosystem of conspiracy and of lies, and he was
Speaker 1: he was caught up in that whirlpool of bullshit that
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon and Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch and Alex
Speaker 1: Jones and a hundred other imitators of each of those
Speaker 1: every day puts out there into the world where very
Speaker 1: soft minded, very weak minded people on the MAGA side
Speaker 1: of the equation snap up the conspiracy theory and start
Speaker 1: living it. And the fact that this guy may have
Speaker 1: had mental problems is irrelevant to the case. It's irrelevant.
Speaker 1: He didn't have mental problems in pick Nancy Pelosi out
Speaker 1: of a lineup randomly, out of the phone book. He
Speaker 1: had mental problems, and the agit prop propaganda ecosystem out
Speaker 1: there fed him an endless stream of insanity, and it
Speaker 1: told him that Nancy Pelosi had to be destroyed, that
Speaker 1: she's a socialist, communist, sleeper, agent, pedophile. Whatever soup brewed
Speaker 1: up in this guy's brain, fed by that media ecosystem,
Speaker 1: fed by the Q and Honors, fed by the big
Speaker 1: lie people, fed by the billionaires who are funding these operations,
Speaker 1: these news operations, and who know better. That's what led here.
Speaker 1: I want to make a point about assassinations, and people
Speaker 1: are the right wing people. They're losing their ship with
Speaker 1: me on Twitter right now to a scope I haven't
Speaker 1: seen since the before times of like. And it's because
Speaker 1: I said that this is an assassination attempt, and until
Speaker 1: I'm told otherwise by any set of evidence otherwise, I
Speaker 1: don't care what their excuses are. I don't care if
Speaker 1: they say, well, what about a TAFA storing the capital
Speaker 1: and approach? What about this? What about I don't care.
Speaker 1: Their side of this equation is dedicated now to violence.
Speaker 1: They proved it on one six, They excuse it to
Speaker 1: this day. Most of their candidates on the trail across
Speaker 1: this country, from dog Catcher to U S. Senate, still
Speaker 1: believe in that lie, or they're willing to claim they
Speaker 1: believe in that lie to get elected, and it is
Speaker 1: going to feed this monster. And throughout history, Molly an
Speaker 1: awful lot of people who committed political assassinations. They were
Speaker 1: not the devious masterminds. They were not the movie the
Speaker 1: movie version of the cool, calculating professional killer on a
Speaker 1: rooftop somewhere. They were crazy people. They were insane people
Speaker 1: who got caught up in a web of lies and
Speaker 1: deceptions and bullshit and propaganda and were manipulated by some
Speaker 1: people who are much smarter than they are and manipulated
Speaker 1: into doing things and being convinced that what they're going
Speaker 1: to do is the thing that saves the world and
Speaker 1: that validates their lives and it turns them into something heroic.
Speaker 1: It is no different than a troubled, mentally ill fifteen
Speaker 1: year old or sixteen or seventeen year old who is
Speaker 1: picked up by ISIS or al Qaeda or any other
Speaker 1: terrorist group and told, Okay, I mean you're gonna run
Speaker 1: this bomb truck into the into the roadblock and kill
Speaker 1: all these American soldiers because you're going to heaven and
Speaker 1: that will save the people of Islam. It is no
Speaker 1: different it is a psychologically manipulative process that breeds and
Speaker 1: activates killers, and these people are responsible for it. Right.
Speaker 1: So but let's talk about the response to the response,
Speaker 1: because this is really interesting. So I had sort of
Speaker 1: thought people are going to say, like, this is enough.
Speaker 1: Even Fox people are going to say, this is enough.
Speaker 1: It's scary. He's eighty two, he's getting brain surgery. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm no fan of Paul Pelosi. I mean the guy,
Speaker 1: as I've said again and again again, members of Congress
Speaker 1: should not have spouses who trade stocks. Okay, like period paragraph,
Speaker 1: and one of the greatest examples of that is Paul Pelosi.
Speaker 1: But I thought for sure this would be a bridge
Speaker 1: too far. But in fact, the way that the right
Speaker 1: has messaged this was you know this never happened or
Speaker 1: be was this is democrats are going to do something
Speaker 1: terrible now in order to get you back. Well, remember
Speaker 1: the first the first iteration of it was, this just
Speaker 1: proves our point that San Francisco is a festering hell
Speaker 1: hole of crime, and this this is gonna happen to anybody.
Speaker 1: Remember a lot of their first statements were this could
Speaker 1: happen to anybody that they want to defund the police,
Speaker 1: and this is what happens if you defund the police. Well,
Speaker 1: it turned out it wasn't that, and their next iteration
Speaker 1: was even more lurid and insane. And it's being pushed
Speaker 1: by you know, quality individuals like Denish to Susa, you
Speaker 1: know who who I wouldn't believe Dextra Sus if he
Speaker 1: said the sun rose in the east and the sky
Speaker 1: tends to be a bluish color, you know, and John
Speaker 1: Cardillo and Bongino and you know, all the usual assortment
Speaker 1: of of maga's chodes and scumbags and weirdos. So they
Speaker 1: transformed it based on nothing into it was a lurid
Speaker 1: gay sex orgy, and you know, Paul Pelosi and this
Speaker 1: guy or lovers and the whole. First off, if you're
Speaker 1: eighty two years old and you still want to go
Speaker 1: hit it, God bless you will straight, I don't, God
Speaker 1: bless go get it. Do get it, tiger, go get it.
Speaker 1: But if you're eighty two years old and you are
Speaker 1: paying for sex, okay, so again eighty two paying for
Speaker 1: sex already were that's like four people? Okay, I think
Speaker 1: that's fair to say. Are you going to be doing
Speaker 1: that with a guy who has a long history of
Speaker 1: writing on Q and on and psychotic behavior. It doesn't
Speaker 1: meet the OCAM's jigglo test. Okay, it just doesn't work. Yes,
Speaker 1: acam's jigglo the entire right, we meet the ecosystem now.
Speaker 1: Of course, then follows along because Elon quotes the Observer,
Speaker 1: which apparently has previously informed us that Hillary Clinton was
Speaker 1: dead and replaced by a clone. Um And it is
Speaker 1: not what we call a actual mainstream or even right
Speaker 1: wing media publication. It's just one of these auto bot
Speaker 1: style AI generated content farms. Makes the Gateway Pundent look
Speaker 1: like the New York Times, right, it's one of these
Speaker 1: weirdo a I generated content farms. And so, of course,
Speaker 1: now I'm told at air time he's pulled that tweet down.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's the case or not. I
Speaker 1: haven't changed it. Well, you know, quietly, twenty two million
Speaker 1: followers probably didn't see it, right, probably missed it because
Speaker 1: obviously it's the responsible thing to do. All I have
Speaker 1: to say is I still believe that regardless of Elon
Speaker 1: buying Twitter, he has a lot of investors. He wants
Speaker 1: to keep the valuation of this investment high. He wants
Speaker 1: to make those investors happy, because some of them are
Speaker 1: people who cut your head off if you suck them.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia had hint Um and you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna make a guess. This is a crazy guess. Now
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say
Speaker 1: that American corporate advertisers, if there's a good possibility that
Speaker 1: Ellen is gonna someday retweet ju Killer six sixty six,
Speaker 1: Oven Master, Maga, Nuclear Lord, seem that they might not
Speaker 1: want to have their ad dollars on that platform. The
Speaker 1: idea that you're going to have this platform with zero
Speaker 1: content moderation has given the Maga's a heart on for
Speaker 1: weeks on end, and they've been absolutely fanatic about it.
Speaker 1: A lot of these ad companies are gonna think to themselves,
Speaker 1: huh so, it's gonna be a free for all ship
Speaker 1: show where anti Semitism where the in word, and and
Speaker 1: the entire spectrum of unbelievably ship tier behavior that is
Speaker 1: definitional to the trolling Maga nihilist movement is going to
Speaker 1: be what the platform is known for. That sounds like
Speaker 1: a great recipe for family friendly companies. Well, I think, hey,
Speaker 1: come on down to Universal Studios the Park and we're
Speaker 1: gonna make sure we show you the advertisement right over
Speaker 1: the place where someone says Kanye was right about the Jews, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that I think the story here
Speaker 1: is that you can't four chan does not have great advertisers.
Speaker 1: Well listen, if you really want the good advertisers, you've
Speaker 1: got to go to eight kun, which replaced four chan,
Speaker 1: because four chan is eight kun for cux, right exactly.
Speaker 1: It's that. I think the point is that, you know,
Speaker 1: the reality is and I think it's the sort of
Speaker 1: lesson from Facebook here, right, People stop being on Facebook
Speaker 1: except the very low information you know, your grand uncle,
Speaker 1: I mean the sort of people who are much older
Speaker 1: people really went off of Facebook because it had so
Speaker 1: much kind of four Chan content, and I think that's
Speaker 1: possibly what we're going to see a Twitter. So I
Speaker 1: um was having a discussion with a let's call it
Speaker 1: a tech activist person from the valley on Friday and
Speaker 1: the feeling of that Facebook has placed a gigantic pile
Speaker 1: of money in the middle of a warehouse, and that
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg has piled up that money and poured gas
Speaker 1: on it like the joker and set it on fire
Speaker 1: to do the meta cartoon universe thing he's doing at
Speaker 1: the same time as their user base is imploding and
Speaker 1: their stock prices cratering. This person, who is a serious
Speaker 1: tech investor, said said, I'm enjoying every second of this.
Speaker 1: I was out of Facebook a couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: and I'm enjoying every second of this. Yes, Twitter is
Speaker 1: now a private company in the hands of Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: but there's an awful lot of paper out there that
Speaker 1: isn't his money. And if you don't think you're gonna
Speaker 1: have other other stakeholders in this operation saying wait, you
Speaker 1: think we're gonna we're gonna turn this into the the
Speaker 1: Elon Musk free speech zone. So look, they're not gonna
Speaker 1: turn Twitter into into what what the magas think it's
Speaker 1: gonna be. Now we are hearing the never any drum
Speaker 1: beat that Trump will be back on Monday. We'll see,
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens on midnight. He will will kill
Speaker 1: Trump truth Social if he does that. That's like saying, wow,
Speaker 1: these zombies are chasing after us. We better not shoot
Speaker 1: them because it might hurt them. True Social is already
Speaker 1: a dead social media platform. I mean that that is
Speaker 1: that that that that truth of Trump's from Friday, But
Speaker 1: truth is truth. Socialists out of doing Facebook, TikTok, Twitter
Speaker 1: and the rest like okay, Grandpa, time for your medicine
Speaker 1: and your nap. Good God, I'm curious to know how
Speaker 1: you think this plays out. Now, this has become like
Speaker 1: everything else in this country becomes a cultural war battle.
Speaker 1: Everything in the country is always now reduced to a
Speaker 1: cultural war fight everything. And so you know, the right
Speaker 1: at the moment is feeling this triumphalism, this two tier triumphalism.
Speaker 1: We've got Twitter back, and we're gonna win everything in
Speaker 1: the election. And and these two things have freed us
Speaker 1: from the from our normal levels of polite discretion. Now
Speaker 1: we shall have a have a little spring of dickishness,
Speaker 1: but I do think it. You know, this is we're
Speaker 1: back to this idea that invisible impression is the hardest
Speaker 1: to fight, right, that not being oppressed at all is
Speaker 1: the worst kind of oppression. Right, I mean the idea
Speaker 1: that middle class white dudes and upper middle class white
Speaker 1: dudes are the real victims here of American culture today. There,
Speaker 1: you know, whenever I see a guy in the last
Speaker 1: like forty eight hours seventy two hours on Twitter. Who
Speaker 1: starts out saything like, well, I don't like everything Trump did,
Speaker 1: but you know the Jews control everything. When I see that,
Speaker 1: all I can think of is, man, I just feel
Speaker 1: so bad for your for your economic anxiety. If your
Speaker 1: economic anxiety for more than four years, talk to your doctor.
Speaker 1: And I look, a lot of these, a lot of
Speaker 1: these people who are trying to run for office as
Speaker 1: election deniers and conspiracy goons are gonna win, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna get more normalized, and it's gonna get more regularized.
Speaker 1: That's gonna get more Two years ago, Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 1: was unacceptable and must descript of her committees by the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Now she is the most powerful Republican in the new
Speaker 1: caucus that will be elected, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: a Republican majority so far. Sorry, folks, math and redistricting suck.
Speaker 1: She's now the most powerful person in that caucus. She's
Speaker 1: runs the Republican caucus. She's every morning, Kevin McCarthy, they're
Speaker 1: gonna go knock on the door and go go get
Speaker 1: the gimp. Gim Sleeping Marge wants the gimp, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna haul McCarthy out there, and he's gonna dance like
Speaker 1: a like a robot to what Marjore Taylor Green wants.
Speaker 1: And she's gonna want the impeachment of Joe Biden. Two
Speaker 1: years of Hunter Biden laptop investigations, and on and on
Speaker 1: and on and on and on we have, you know,
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, if she is the sort of queen
Speaker 1: of the House and McCarthy is the speaker or Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's is the speaker, he really could see a Republican
Speaker 1: House that really hurts puplkins in and spend the next
Speaker 1: two years. No, no, look, this is all over again.
Speaker 1: Where in ninety four the Republicans want a huge majority,
Speaker 1: they overreached in ninety four, and so in ninety six
Speaker 1: Clinton was able to win. And then in right, these
Speaker 1: people they got so over their skis, and you know,
Speaker 1: and and believe me, who doesn't who doesn't yearn for
Speaker 1: the days of impeachments over blow jobs or just yearn
Speaker 1: from Maybe maybe that'll be cut out of the final version.
Speaker 1: But but but you know they're going to go and
Speaker 1: remember what happens now is going to be amplified to
Speaker 1: a degree that was unimaginable back then with social media
Speaker 1: and this integrated right wing media ecosystem, and it's going
Speaker 1: to sound and look to American voters not just like
Speaker 1: the other parties in charge, but like the craziest people
Speaker 1: you ever saw were in charge. You know, I didn't
Speaker 1: add the other day it was very much a gen
Speaker 1: x ad. It was called Large March. It was about,
Speaker 1: you know, Marjorie Taylor Green, and it was a play
Speaker 1: on Large March from Petee Herman and I had people saying, like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, she is the craziest, craziest lady I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. And it just struck me that people have
Speaker 1: not priced in the fact that when reporters on congressional
Speaker 1: matters in the next two years are covering, they're going
Speaker 1: to her first, not to Kevin, not to Steve Schools,
Speaker 1: not to at least to Phonic. Well, although you know, Atleastphonic. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, at least to Phonic is now just like
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green. They can't fake it anymore. They can't
Speaker 1: fake it. Reuben Diego represents Arizona's seventh congressional district. Welcome
Speaker 1: to fast Politics, Reuben Diego, God damn it I wanted
Speaker 1: to see, or a congressman because you're a fancy congressman.
Speaker 1: I'm a fancy man. Yeah, very speaking of which, okay,
Speaker 1: make me feel better. Our Democrats going to get shellacked
Speaker 1: in this mid terms. No. Look, if you would have
Speaker 1: asked any you know, congressman, pronosticator or just political nerd,
Speaker 1: how would the Democrats do after winning the presidential election,
Speaker 1: they would say, of course, we're going to lose because
Speaker 1: like the party empire always loses. The fact is right now,
Speaker 1: it's the Republicans are losing the Senate race, and you know,
Speaker 1: the House races like it's up in the air and
Speaker 1: it shouldn't even be up in the air, right, And
Speaker 1: so I tells you how bad the you know, the
Speaker 1: brand of the Repulican Party is that they're still trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how to get to a majority even
Speaker 1: after the all the Germany wins that they have. So,
Speaker 1: you know, keep the faith. We're on the way, all right.
Speaker 1: So talk to me about You are from probably one
Speaker 1: of the most important states in the country because it
Speaker 1: is like, has a lot going Yes, it's the best,
Speaker 1: it's near, yes, but it's also got a lot going on.
Speaker 1: What is happening in Arizona and explain to us, because
Speaker 1: I mean, all I see is terrifying blurry carry lake everywhere.
Speaker 1: You know, Arizona has moved to a very competitive state. Normally,
Speaker 1: if you find us in an off your election, we're
Speaker 1: not very and we're not very compelible state for Democrats.
Speaker 1: But look, Arizona has been moving the right way because
Speaker 1: the Arizona Decratic Party, Arizona Democrats, we just know how
Speaker 1: to fight, and the Republican Party is just well not
Speaker 1: Republican party. But the candidans they put up this year
Speaker 1: are just a bunch of wackos up and down the ticket,
Speaker 1: and so we've effectively been able to fight that argument. Now,
Speaker 1: it's still a kind of you know, swing state, so
Speaker 1: Repuglicans are always going to get closed at least for
Speaker 1: this cycle. But you know, we're in the thick of it.
Speaker 1: Our polling shows that the Democrats going up and down
Speaker 1: the ticket and we're just trying to go all the way.
Speaker 1: But you can't deny that it's a tight race, because
Speaker 1: again Arizona is a swing State's always going to be tight,
Speaker 1: at least for the next couple of cycles. Yes, it's
Speaker 1: always been going to be tight. But it feels like
Speaker 1: from where I am, which is quite far away, that
Speaker 1: Carry Lake is fighting in a way that her opponent,
Speaker 1: Katie Hobbs is not. Well. They have two different styles.
Speaker 1: I would say one is kung fu, the other one
Speaker 1: is jiu jitsu, and I think Katie Hobbs is doing
Speaker 1: jiu jitsu where you know, Carry is mostly just kind
Speaker 1: of throwing haymakers. Everyone see what she could end at
Speaker 1: the end of the day. You know, I think the
Speaker 1: quality of the messaging matters, and I think Carry Lake's
Speaker 1: messaging is not that great. When it comes to the electorate,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is very unpopular in Arizona. I think Carry
Speaker 1: Lake is Pike ex doing a little too close to him,
Speaker 1: and that's why the elections are you know, one or
Speaker 1: two points with Katie Hobbs in the lead or or
Speaker 1: or one of points behind. But like it's still a
Speaker 1: very competitive race. There are a lot of people listeners
Speaker 1: podcast who are pretty committed Democrats who are pretty freaked out.
Speaker 1: So what would you tell them? Stop being freaked out,
Speaker 1: stop letting other people freak you out. Just continue to
Speaker 1: call un raised, door knock and pushed through the campaign.
Speaker 1: This is an environment that's being built up by the media.
Speaker 1: The fact that we're still in the hunt should tell
Speaker 1: you a lot where the public is versus where the
Speaker 1: media is. Because the media was telling us that Democrats
Speaker 1: were dead in the water four months ago, three months ago,
Speaker 1: two months ago, one month ago, two weeks ago, and
Speaker 1: yet we're still here. So stop looking to the media
Speaker 1: to give you direction. Just put your head down, hit
Speaker 1: the doors, get on the phones, don'tate to your favorite candidates,
Speaker 1: and let's just win this. So let's talk about your
Speaker 1: favorite candidates. Who are candidates that our listeners should be
Speaker 1: maybe donating to, who aren't on their radar. I would
Speaker 1: say to down in southern Florida, rebect to us Censio,
Speaker 1: who was a last minute run against Carlos Himenez. He
Speaker 1: is a former police officer, army veteran, former state legislator
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, with very little support, has is
Speaker 1: within three points of Carlos Himenez and any money going
Speaker 1: towards him right now is going to go very very
Speaker 1: long way. Also, Annette to Dale, who is really like
Speaker 1: a rock star candidate Colombian origin. You know, one of
Speaker 1: those people that you can't really you know, especially down
Speaker 1: in Uh, Florida, where they you know, you claim that,
Speaker 1: you know, they try to claim everyone's the sources are communists.
Speaker 1: Her parents were literally kidnapped by communists in Colombia. She
Speaker 1: owns her own small business. I mean, she is great.
Speaker 1: And she was the first Colombian born in Colombia, an
Speaker 1: American ice citizen, nationally citizen, to become a member of Congress.
Speaker 1: And so those two are really really strong pickups. I
Speaker 1: think Yadida Catta veil in Colorado. And then for Arizona,
Speaker 1: Jevin Hodge who's running against Dave Schweigert. It's been keeping
Speaker 1: a very tight Every poll has him tied. And then
Speaker 1: Kristin ingled on southern Arizona, the former Givers district. Again
Speaker 1: every poll has them tied. But because you were a
Speaker 1: flyover state, a lot of the I would say, a
Speaker 1: lot of the money kind of misses these two races.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about one of the things that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of coverage about is this idea that Democrats
Speaker 1: can't win Latinos or the Democrats are losing that group.
Speaker 1: Can you talk about that? Sure? Look in some areas
Speaker 1: we are losinging Latinos, which I mean we're losing them.
Speaker 1: We're not winning them by as much as we used
Speaker 1: to write, and sometimes that does matter depending on what happens.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we are winning Latinos by smaller margins, but there
Speaker 1: are now more Latinos, so it doesn't really matter. So
Speaker 1: like as a population expands, we're winning six right, So
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, that's still a winning margin.
Speaker 1: Some areas, it shows us what happens when you don't
Speaker 1: do work. You know, Southern Texas there's been years and
Speaker 1: years of neglect. Southern Florida was in years and years
Speaker 1: of neglect. It's going to take us a while to
Speaker 1: really start coming back. And then there's really good examples
Speaker 1: of the opposite of that, you know, California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of places you're seeing that
Speaker 1: work doesn't matter. But you know, you have to make
Speaker 1: them put the money and you have to put the
Speaker 1: investment in. You know, the Latino vote, it's not that
Speaker 1: it's a swing vote. It's either a I'm not going
Speaker 1: to vote where I'm going to vote, and then maybe
Speaker 1: some people are always going to vote Republican, Like the
Speaker 1: Latino population is always gonna be Republican and the voting Republican.
Speaker 1: And the trick for Republicans is they just need to
Speaker 1: like shave off three to four points in order for
Speaker 1: them to really affect an election. So you know, our
Speaker 1: job is to hold them and expand them. Talk to
Speaker 1: me about what you think Democrats could do better with them.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been a lot of talk about this,
Speaker 1: but I still feel like we're not quite hearing what
Speaker 1: do you think Democrats could do better to make a
Speaker 1: case to those voters. Well, the most important group among
Speaker 1: the Latino voters that are the swing voters are the
Speaker 1: male voters. Male Latino voters, and they're very different from
Speaker 1: everybody else. You have to reach out to them. You
Speaker 1: have to talk to them about things that matter to them,
Speaker 1: which is very working class issues, making a salary, buying
Speaker 1: a home, starting a business, having security. A lot of
Speaker 1: times we don't really reach out to them. They're very
Speaker 1: hard population to reach out to. They're they're not watching TV.
Speaker 1: There a lot of times they are working all day,
Speaker 1: so radio is kind of the places to be. So
Speaker 1: you just need to reach out to them way earlier.
Speaker 1: You need to talk to him about like the success
Speaker 1: of the binding campaign, right now. You know, Latino unemployment
Speaker 1: is the lowest that's ever been. We have the highest
Speaker 1: amount of businesses being started by Latinos in the history
Speaker 1: of this country. So we have a lot of successes
Speaker 1: we can talk about, and we also should be talking
Speaker 1: about what we could be doing in the future, like
Speaker 1: you know, more small business loans, you know, helping people
Speaker 1: get by their first homes, child tax credit, all these
Speaker 1: things that I think are you know, extremely extremely important.
Speaker 1: And we have to recognize that they do worry about crying.
Speaker 1: A lot of us live in neighborhoods that aren't exactly
Speaker 1: what people would say are safe, and so you need
Speaker 1: to talk to them about how, yes, we are the
Speaker 1: party that's actually been helping trying to get you know,
Speaker 1: police back into onto the streets after being fired from
Speaker 1: after being waylaid by COVID or because like you know,
Speaker 1: prevented cities from firing up on too police officers because
Speaker 1: of you know, downturns and tax me there's a lot
Speaker 1: of we'll be talking about we to actually be reaching
Speaker 1: out to them. So you think ultimately the sort of
Speaker 1: the way to get to those voters is to appeal
Speaker 1: to working class concerned Yes, I mean Latinos in general
Speaker 1: are working class. I mean that's also the same, by
Speaker 1: the way, for African Americans everything else. Like they're all
Speaker 1: working class, and we just we need to talk to them,
Speaker 1: and you know, by how we would talk to any
Speaker 1: other working class people. And I don't think we were
Speaker 1: doing that. I think we think that they are somehow
Speaker 1: like white liberal adjacent removed and they're not. So talk
Speaker 1: to me about sort of what you when you talk
Speaker 1: to people who are Latino working class, Like, what are
Speaker 1: the sort of things you talk about in order to
Speaker 1: kind of sell the Democratic ideas? Well? I well, I
Speaker 1: saw bio because like I saw my bio to them,
Speaker 1: I talked about being a veteran, about serving my country,
Speaker 1: about loving story of my country, about the American dream,
Speaker 1: about how everything that we do as Democrats is to
Speaker 1: for the American dream, like making you know, college affordable,
Speaker 1: making it easier for you to start a business, making
Speaker 1: it you know, you're able to buy a home. You know,
Speaker 1: so like that is the key to this. Also making
Speaker 1: sure that you're talking about, you know the contrast between
Speaker 1: the Republicans, who are you going to support corporations versus
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats going to support workers. And then I
Speaker 1: bring in my bio into as someone who worked his
Speaker 1: way through college and you know it worked at me
Speaker 1: packing factories and constructing sites like these are the things
Speaker 1: that they can kind of connect to. But not being
Speaker 1: afraid to engage really into the conversation about you know, economics,
Speaker 1: and not being afraid to say, like, you know what,
Speaker 1: billionaires should be paying their their fair share and you
Speaker 1: should be making a higher wage. Like that's okay to
Speaker 1: be having these conversations, but we we tend for something
Speaker 1: to not tie these conversations with Latino males, which I
Speaker 1: think is short sighted. It's funny because I think of
Speaker 1: like Biden, his whole thing is he's a working class guy, right,
Speaker 1: I mean he's actually from a working class family as
Speaker 1: opposed to like a pretend working class guy and Democrats ultimately, right,
Speaker 1: I mean none of you know, these are working class
Speaker 1: things where the party is trying to get for. It's
Speaker 1: can still too, and so it is strange that there's
Speaker 1: a disconnect where you have Republicans people like Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: I mean, part of it, we just don't talk about it,
Speaker 1: Like for example, we're bringing a freaking chip plan to Ohio,
Speaker 1: A microchip plan to Ohio. If this had happened on
Speaker 1: the Trump he would have been there every week talking
Speaker 1: about like bringing microchip industry, the industrial based back to Ohio.
Speaker 1: We don't really talk about our successes like this is
Speaker 1: a big, big deal. The fact that we're going to
Speaker 1: bring you, you know, manufacturing, high end manufacturing back to
Speaker 1: Nasty is not just Ohio. We literally should be bragging
Speaker 1: about this from the top of our lungs, and we
Speaker 1: we don't. I don't know why we don't, but we
Speaker 1: really should. And and that's this one area that we're
Speaker 1: missing right now. Like when I talked to Latinos about
Speaker 1: the IRA and about Biparti infrastructure deal, I don't actually
Speaker 1: talk about getting to the weeds. What I literally tell
Speaker 1: him is we're gonna have billions of dollars trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars of construction jobs coming back. And it's much easier
Speaker 1: for me when I talked to a Latino country when
Speaker 1: I say construction jobs, then trying to say, oh, we
Speaker 1: have some very green jobs that are sustainable, blah blah blah. No,
Speaker 1: just say construction jobs, right. Like the people you're talking
Speaker 1: to are not master, they're not you know, they don't
Speaker 1: have degrees in in in you know, policy. They're very
Speaker 1: bright people, they're very motivate paople, they're very innovative people. Right,
Speaker 1: but the nuance isn't important. No, don't even talk with nuances.
Speaker 1: Just just cut to the chase. Yeah, we're bringing new jobs,
Speaker 1: better paying jobs, construction jobs, road jobs, bridges, like we
Speaker 1: can't get into this, like we're creating a new green economy,
Speaker 1: and then be surprised when he doesn't hit with people.
Speaker 1: So I had um Andrew Ross Sorkin on the podcast
Speaker 1: and he was talking about what a Democratic president could
Speaker 1: do to ease inflation, and one of the things he
Speaker 1: said was solve our immigration problem. It feels like there's
Speaker 1: a lot of like nobody wants to deal with it, right,
Speaker 1: Like Republicans want to put all immigrants in jail or
Speaker 1: fly them around the country and use them as props.
Speaker 1: Denmocrats don't want to deal with it either. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: not true either, Like like Democrats you want to, like
Speaker 1: we pass several immigration laws and they just get bottled
Speaker 1: up in the Senate because of the filibuster. So like
Speaker 1: number one, let's not put this like this is a
Speaker 1: very by the way, this is a very insidious trope
Speaker 1: that the Republicans use, like, oh, Democrats don't want to
Speaker 1: save this either. No, we pass bills every time we
Speaker 1: have control, and the Republicans used the filibuster to stop it. Right.
Speaker 1: The Republicans need immigration for them to actually be able
Speaker 1: to split our base of working class voters. So every
Speaker 1: time we we do we every time we ask for
Speaker 1: any compromisers, and we do compromise, they always like change
Speaker 1: the goal polls. Right, So you know, do you want
Speaker 1: to deal with inflation? Yeah, Like partly is because we
Speaker 1: have a labor slack right now. There's not enough workers
Speaker 1: for a lot of the things we need to do.
Speaker 1: And even when we do get out of inflation, we're
Speaker 1: still not gonna have enough workers. And we should have
Speaker 1: a very flexible, you know, visa program to bring workers
Speaker 1: over so they don't come over illegally. But like, let's
Speaker 1: not fall on this trap like that. Both sides you know,
Speaker 1: are not are not trying to sell this. No, we
Speaker 1: try saw this all the time. The Republicans will always
Speaker 1: find a way to filibuster it, and yeah, they'll point
Speaker 1: out to oh, one Democrat also participant in filibuster. But
Speaker 1: this is a national solution that is needed, and the
Speaker 1: Republicans are never participating in it, So how could Democrats
Speaker 1: get Republicans to participate in it? Honestly, it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Let's be clear. There's never gonna be immigration reform that
Speaker 1: involves Republicans being controlled. It's just not gonna happen. We
Speaker 1: have to have control of the House, and we had
Speaker 1: to have control of the Senate enough to overcome a
Speaker 1: filibuster or enough or get rid of the filibuster, and
Speaker 1: then we get confer immigration form that we passed that
Speaker 1: has a pathway citizenship, you know, brings off the security
Speaker 1: to the border, brings you know, some stability and predictability
Speaker 1: people that want to apply for, you know, for immigration
Speaker 1: visa things of that nature, work visas. And that's like
Speaker 1: this obsession that Republicans are not going to take part
Speaker 1: of it. They haven't. They voted literally, they voted against
Speaker 1: their own bill, the bills that they've written in the past. Right, So,
Speaker 1: like give up on this idea. Either we get this
Speaker 1: done on our own, or we just assume that's never
Speaker 1: gonna happen, because we're not gonna get Republicans on this.
Speaker 1: This is not gonna happen when you primary in Karston Cinema.
Speaker 1: That's a good job, good trying. So that's yes, you're
Speaker 1: not gonna get me on a roll. And to be like,
Speaker 1: you know, just say a random The answer the same,
Speaker 1: my first rodeo, the same, my first rodeo. It's worth
Speaker 1: a shot, man, it's worth a shot. Right, you shot
Speaker 1: your shot. I don't blame you. I get it. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much Ruben for coming in the podcast. No
Speaker 1: problem to you soon. Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. Is the
Speaker 1: Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, and Kim t He
Speaker 1: is the Cherokee Nation's nominee to their delegation in Congress.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Chief Chuck Hoskin. Hello, this is
Speaker 1: Chief Chuck Hoskin, and welcome Kim Teh. Hi. Good morning,
Speaker 1: this is Kim t He. I am super excited to
Speaker 1: have you both here, Chief Hoskin. Can you explain a
Speaker 1: little bit about who you are and the group that
Speaker 1: you represent and sort of get us all up to speed. Sure. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm Chuck Hoskin, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, that is,
Speaker 1: the elected chief executive of the Cherokee Nation, where the
Speaker 1: largest tribe in the United States. Just to get a
Speaker 1: sense of our government. We have a government that has
Speaker 1: a chief executive, but which I'm the top elected official.
Speaker 1: We have a legislative branch, we have an independent judiciary,
Speaker 1: and of course Kim t he's with us. So I
Speaker 1: have a number of folks that I appoint to carry
Speaker 1: out various executive functions. And of course hers is so
Speaker 1: exciting because it reaches back to a treaty to effectuated
Speaker 1: right that the Cherokee people have dating back two years.
Speaker 1: So tell us about this treaty. Well, Kim is well
Speaker 1: versed on it, but I'll say this. The treaty that
Speaker 1: we're talking about is the Treaty of eighteen thirty five,
Speaker 1: and it is a treaty that was the basis for
Speaker 1: our forced removal. A lot of your listeners may be
Speaker 1: familiar with the Trail of Tears, that's the forced removal
Speaker 1: of the Cherokee people and other tribes in the southeastern
Speaker 1: part of the United States to our new homeland. It
Speaker 1: was a very traumatic period of time, very dark chapter
Speaker 1: in the history of the United States. So that treat
Speaker 1: is often regarded by the Cherokee people rightfully so as
Speaker 1: a real symbol of injustice in this country. But within
Speaker 1: it is something very powerful, which is provision that says
Speaker 1: that the Cherokee Nations shall have a delegate in the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives when Congress shall make provision for the same. Well,
Speaker 1: here we are, I said two hundred years earlier. Were
Speaker 1: over a hundred and eighty years later. Uh, And we
Speaker 1: are asking Congress to make provision for the same. And
Speaker 1: and I have selected, and our council has confirmed someone
Speaker 1: who's just perfect for and that's Kim Teh and who
Speaker 1: who knows the treaty history and knows exactly what to
Speaker 1: do when she gets seated in the Congress. Kim, will
Speaker 1: you explain to me this would mean that the Cherokee
Speaker 1: Nation would finally have it would just be your group
Speaker 1: alone that would be represented by this congress person. Yes,
Speaker 1: the treaty right is with the Cherokee Nation. As Chief mentioned,
Speaker 1: we are the largest fadily recognized Indian tribe. I also
Speaker 1: want to say to that the Removal Treaty importantly is
Speaker 1: considered the supreme law of the land. It was ratified
Speaker 1: by the Senate and signed by the President United States,
Speaker 1: and it's never been aggregated. So it's been it's been
Speaker 1: confirmed as a ballot treaty. Right, I just want to
Speaker 1: reiterate that, and the treaty, right, this particular treaty, right
Speaker 1: is just with the Cherokee Nation. There would be no
Speaker 1: floodgates opening here. There are two other treaties that exist
Speaker 1: out there that we're aware of regarding to other tribes.
Speaker 1: But that's it. This is really interesting. So this would
Speaker 1: be the first time that even though you guys are
Speaker 1: entitled to this congressional seed, and you have been for
Speaker 1: two hundred years, this would be an addition of a
Speaker 1: voting seat. At least you are entitled to it. But
Speaker 1: it would be the first kind of addition, right, this
Speaker 1: particular treaty, right, this delegate would be a non voting
Speaker 1: delicate similar to how US territory delegates d see Quam exactly,
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico exactly. It would be non voting. I mean,
Speaker 1: the the reason that it would be non voting is
Speaker 1: because the treaty specifies it's it's a delegate, and as
Speaker 1: we know, their delegates have existed in the body of
Speaker 1: the House since the early days of the Republic. So
Speaker 1: as as non voting members. It's kind of unfair that
Speaker 1: you guys don't get voting membership in the on the
Speaker 1: for the country that you've you know, lived in longer
Speaker 1: than anyone you know, and there I think there's something
Speaker 1: to that, But I think we should think about it
Speaker 1: this way. This is a treaty provision that was between
Speaker 1: two sovereign nations, and in the history of the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives, you don't really see another sovereign nation represented
Speaker 1: in the House, so it's it's certainly unique in that regard.
Speaker 1: So that's one thing to think about. The other thing
Speaker 1: is this, Yes, we would love for Kim to have
Speaker 1: a vote on the final passage of legislation, but what's
Speaker 1: so important in the Congress is what happens at the
Speaker 1: committee level. What happens when legislation is introduced. The matters
Speaker 1: who is on a key committee that is making arguments
Speaker 1: and advocating for or against a measure, And Kim t
Speaker 1: he of course is well suited from her background to
Speaker 1: do all of that effectively. So for the Cherokee nation
Speaker 1: to have a champion inside of Congress, and look, she'll
Speaker 1: be a champion for all of Indian country. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about all tribes in terms of our shared interest. That's
Speaker 1: really powerful. So you know, my focus is more on
Speaker 1: the fact that this is a unique moment in history.
Speaker 1: It's the question whether the United States is a country
Speaker 1: of its word. The answer has to be yes. And
Speaker 1: when the country says yes, Kim t he will be
Speaker 1: a really effective and powerful voice for Indian country, irrespective
Speaker 1: of whether she has that vote on final passage. So
Speaker 1: I think it's a really positive thing. When will you
Speaker 1: find out and what are the next steps? So we've
Speaker 1: asked for a hearing this fall, but we want more
Speaker 1: than a hearing. We want to vote. And the process
Speaker 1: is that the House Rules Committee has jurisdiction over seating
Speaker 1: the delegate, and what's necessary is for the committee to
Speaker 1: consider a House resolution and for the House to vote
Speaker 1: straight up and down. Seating the Cherokee Nations delegate does
Speaker 1: not require a vote in the Senate. All that is
Speaker 1: just a vote of the House. And the reason that
Speaker 1: is is because, as I mentioned earlier, is that our
Speaker 1: treaty was already ratified by the Senate and signed by
Speaker 1: the President United States. It's already the supreme the land.
Speaker 1: So it just requires as a straight up and down
Speaker 1: vote in the House. If Democrats lose the House, does
Speaker 1: that make it less likely? Well, we've waited nearly two
Speaker 1: hundred years and we're eager to get this done this year.
Speaker 1: And so I've built a career on working with both
Speaker 1: sides of the aisle, and we'll cross that bridge when
Speaker 1: we get there. The Supreme Court passed down this ruling
Speaker 1: about criminal prosecutions on tribal lands without the consent of
Speaker 1: of tribes. How does this affect you, guys? You know
Speaker 1: that was such a powerful decision by the Supreme Corps.
Speaker 1: You're referencing the mcgard decision in two thousand and twenty.
Speaker 1: The question before the the Court was similar in a
Speaker 1: way to the question we're presenting to the Congress, which
Speaker 1: is whether the United States has to keep its word
Speaker 1: uh in an Indian treaty, because that's what the McGirt
Speaker 1: case was about, whether the reservations within the state of
Speaker 1: Oklahoma of five tribes, including the Cherokee Nation, had been
Speaker 1: dismantled disestablished by the Congress. The Court found that they
Speaker 1: had not, and it and it just reaffirmed, in fact,
Speaker 1: the first line of that case from justice course, which
Speaker 1: was at the end of the trail of Tears was
Speaker 1: a promise. Now that's such a powerful statement because the
Speaker 1: Trail of Tears again was that act of injustice by
Speaker 1: the United States, and part of that promise at the
Speaker 1: end of the Trail of Tears was that Cherokee Nation
Speaker 1: would have a delegate. So when you have the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court saying a promise made is a promise kept in
Speaker 1: an Indian treaty, which is Kim said, is the supreme
Speaker 1: law of the land, that really bolsters I think our
Speaker 1: argument that the right to a delegate is the supreme
Speaker 1: law of the land. It's a promise that ought to
Speaker 1: be kept. I think keeping this promise is absolutely inescapable
Speaker 1: if this country is to be the kind of country
Speaker 1: want we wanted to be. And I think all Americans
Speaker 1: would agree with that if they explored the history that
Speaker 1: Kim and I know so will. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: that for a minute because one of the things that's
Speaker 1: happened recently is that. And again, I know you guys
Speaker 1: are not partisan, and life is hard enough, so I
Speaker 1: don't want you to feel like I'm asking you to
Speaker 1: be partisan. But one of the things that RHN de
Speaker 1: Santis recently said was that it's not true that America
Speaker 1: was built on stolen land. It seems like it is
Speaker 1: true that America was built on stolen land. I heard
Speaker 1: that comment and I thought it was breathtaking in its ignorance.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. I think that you know, as
Speaker 1: a well known a governor as he is, I think
Speaker 1: most of the country, on the on a bipartisan basis,
Speaker 1: doesn't see the world that way. And that's my frame
Speaker 1: of reference. Here in Oklahoma, where we have such a
Speaker 1: wonderful working relationship with our delegation, where we work on
Speaker 1: a bipartisan basis, there is still, though some level of
Speaker 1: ignorance in this country about its history. It is true
Speaker 1: that Cherokee Nation and of the tribes were here first.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the reason that we have a relationship
Speaker 1: with the United States. That's a sovereign to sovereign relationship.
Speaker 1: There's a reason for that because we pre existed the
Speaker 1: United States, and we could certainly Kim and I take
Speaker 1: you through a long history course on the session of
Speaker 1: Cherokee Nation land, how that land was taken, and even
Speaker 1: how it was diminished after the imposition of the state
Speaker 1: of Oklahoma on our lands. But I think for most Americans.
Speaker 1: What they really find compelling is that their country ought
Speaker 1: to be a country of its word. I think most
Speaker 1: Americans think that way, and so I'm counting on that
Speaker 1: as the House of Representatives consider seating kim t. It's
Speaker 1: such a powerful message and so important, and I feel
Speaker 1: like there's been so much wrong done to our Native
Speaker 1: people that it just seems so profoundly like the least
Speaker 1: we could do as a country. What do our listeners
Speaker 1: are people listening here who like, what can they do
Speaker 1: to support this quest? Well, we've got a mobilization effort
Speaker 1: underway for not only our citizens, but also anyone who
Speaker 1: supports Cherokee Nations efforts to have Congress see the delegate.
Speaker 1: They can simply go to Cherokee delegate dot com and
Speaker 1: contact our members of Congress and tell them to see
Speaker 1: the delegate. That's the this year. That's the that's the
Speaker 1: I guess, biggest thing that can occur that would be
Speaker 1: helpful to us. I also want to mention too, that
Speaker 1: you know, we're not alone in this effort. We've got
Speaker 1: broad support all of thrall all throughout the United States,
Speaker 1: from Indian tribes and travel organizations, and so we we
Speaker 1: are actively trying to get the delegate seated this year,
Speaker 1: and that mobilization effort and that website that I just
Speaker 1: mentioned is something something that everyone can do. Yeah, okay, well,
Speaker 1: thank you guys so much. Good luck, very important, and
Speaker 1: I look forward to having you back as a congresswoman.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Thank you. Rick Wilson. Yes, and
Speaker 1: so we are going to do a moment of fuckery
Speaker 1: t M. And my moment of fuckery is when Laura
Speaker 1: Ingram said that the attack on Paul Pelosi was really,
Speaker 1: really bad and it was going to cause the left
Speaker 1: to try and come for not the Second Amendment, but
Speaker 1: the first You know, Proud Ingraham is a woman of
Speaker 1: tremendous anger. I could speculate on the origins of that anger,
Speaker 1: from whatever source of deprivation and pain she speaks from,
Speaker 1: but I try to not imagine her in any circumstances.
Speaker 1: But the idea that the left is going to turn
Speaker 1: this around and like have revengeous attacks on maga's is insanity.
Speaker 1: And the fact is, let's not forget something. People. A
Speaker 1: year and a half ago, the vast majority of republic
Speaker 1: sat and watched Trump's hoarde attack the US capital seek
Speaker 1: out to kill and and and kidnap Democratic members of
Speaker 1: Congress and the Senate, beat cops with flagpoles, and throw
Speaker 1: this country into absolute chaos. So the idea that the
Speaker 1: left is somehow the font of violence right now is laughable.
Speaker 1: And the idea that you know, you spent years with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump up at every damn rally saying like, not
Speaker 1: the hell out of that guy, I'll pay for your
Speaker 1: legal bills, um, didn't seep into their heads. And look
Speaker 1: it's in a more serious note. It's also, of course,
Speaker 1: I don't think Donald Trump has paid for anything in
Speaker 1: the last fifty years. Well maybe on a more serious note,
Speaker 1: this is a culture of political violence. It is a
Speaker 1: common aspect of authoritarian regimes and movements. As they become empowered,
Speaker 1: it will not stop, it will escalate. They will excuse it,
Speaker 1: They will have to try to have deniability until they
Speaker 1: don't need deniability. They will they will they will pretend
Speaker 1: it's it's not about them until it's absolutely really about them,
Speaker 1: because it's really about them. I think it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a tremendously challenging period of time between election day this year,
Speaker 1: which is going to be chaotic, and you know, Republicans
Speaker 1: are going to lose elections, and they're going to go
Speaker 1: into the streets and be crazy, and they're gonna win elections,
Speaker 1: and you know, declare that they are now the logical
Speaker 1: choice in America must about their needs and desires. So
Speaker 1: I think that is a superb moment of factory, my
Speaker 1: moment of fuckory. I don't want if I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to hate on Elon every single day this week.
Speaker 1: But the idea that absolute free speech on a private
Speaker 1: platform it's a constitutionally protected right, is as ludicrous as
Speaker 1: one can imagine. They don't want to be treated like
Speaker 1: a publisher under Section to thirty, but they want to
Speaker 1: pretend that they get the benefits of protecting the most
Speaker 1: heinous and egregious kind of speech. And I really think
Speaker 1: he is He did this as a prank and as
Speaker 1: a troll. I think he's part of that tech bro
Speaker 1: libertarian weird culture in the valley, and they really think
Speaker 1: that they are much smarter than the rest of America. Listen,
Speaker 1: I know what rockets are, and I'm actually know some
Speaker 1: things about them. I don't build rockets. Elan built pretty
Speaker 1: good rockets. But the idea that he understands American society
Speaker 1: at a granular level and and thinks that there's going
Speaker 1: to be a public good that emerges from mainlining and
Speaker 1: mainstreaming overt racism and anti semitism and violence. Really blows
Speaker 1: me away, And I think it is. I think it
Speaker 1: is a political, a moral, and a business blind spot
Speaker 1: that will probably cost him status and money as as
Speaker 1: we go forward. I have to say, what I think
Speaker 1: is so amazing about this whole thing is like, he
Speaker 1: is quite rich, but he's still he's not so rich
Speaker 1: that he can afford to lose twenty billion dollars by
Speaker 1: making Twitter into four Jaan. Well, you know, we're gonna
Speaker 1: see what what his business risk tolerances for this, and
Speaker 1: we're going to see if it's a great idea to
Speaker 1: essentially take that billion dollar pile of money and set
Speaker 1: it on fire because some tech pros think that that
Speaker 1: anti semitism online isn't a problem and that you don't
Speaker 1: really need to moderate any kind of content on a
Speaker 1: on a publicly facing platform. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday
Speaker 1: to your the best minds and politics makes sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please
Speaker 1: send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again thanks for listening.