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.
Speaker 3: You, guys, the best independent 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 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 3: for everybody today. What do we have, Chrystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots of interesting stories this morning. So
Speaker 1: we've got kind of a depressing look at the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four race, the frailty of Joe Biden and the
Speaker 1: unlikability of Donald Trump even though he looked to be
Speaker 1: the matchup. So we'll take into some of those numbers.
Speaker 3: Brace yourself.
Speaker 1: Also a bit of a test case for abortion in
Speaker 1: Ohio ballot measure there with some surprising potential results. We
Speaker 1: also have updates for you on Ukraine and how the
Speaker 1: American people feel about those cluster bombs that are being
Speaker 1: sent over by our own government. Also some disturbing news
Speaker 1: about world coin and plans for.
Speaker 3: Like Shamil, it's a whole lot. There's a lot going on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot going on there. There's also a
Speaker 1: lot going on with Pinky Doll. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you guys are familiar with this new creator sensation on TikTok.
Speaker 1: We'll explain it in a bit. It's it is interesting
Speaker 1: and yeah, it is kind of fasting, so we'll get
Speaker 1: into that. And she has now come out as a
Speaker 1: scab in the whole Hollywood strike situation. So the plot thickens.
Speaker 1: Very excited about all of that, but also excited about
Speaker 1: the fact we have two Republican presidential contenders who we
Speaker 1: are going to be interviewing today, Sager, and so we've
Speaker 1: been doing a lot of prep and very excited about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's go and put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: Look at that beautiful graphic.
Speaker 2: We've got two of them, Vivik Ramaswami, who recently tied
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis in one poll for number two in the
Speaker 2: primary race, and then North Dakota Governor Doug Bergom. These
Speaker 2: major us in the studio. Burgham in a matter very
Speaker 2: good for our show. Christ Will just qualified for the
Speaker 2: debate stage.
Speaker 3: This morning.
Speaker 1: It's coming there.
Speaker 3: We'll be able to ask him.
Speaker 2: He's the seventh candidate to qualify on the stage so far,
Speaker 2: including Vivey Ramasmam. Maybe we'll ask him whether Trump should debate.
Speaker 2: That could be an interesting question. For our premium subscribers,
Speaker 2: they will get access to that interview first, so go
Speaker 2: ahead and sign up Breakingpoints dot com. Otherwise we will
Speaker 2: be available later as we decide to release it, so
Speaker 2: I think it will be probably together on our podcast
Speaker 2: for those who are just listening, probably separate on YouTube
Speaker 2: so you can watch it in separate increments. But as
Speaker 2: I said, available very first to our premium subscribers who
Speaker 2: enable us to compel these types of interviews build this
Speaker 2: beautiful new studio, and as you guys can see, we're
Speaker 2: getting a hell of a lot of interviews ever since
Speaker 2: we started doing it. So we just want to thank
Speaker 2: you to all of you who helped us build it
Speaker 2: and who are continuing to help us build it, because
Speaker 2: that's what you're helping create here is an actual form
Speaker 2: where people get to discuss their ideas. That's something Governor
Speaker 2: Asa Hutchinson told us whenever he left the show.
Speaker 1: Yep. Absolutely he was kind of surprised because you're used
Speaker 1: to cable news interviews, the depth of policy questions, So
Speaker 1: a lot of good questions we've got planned for these
Speaker 1: gentlemen as well. All right, let's get to the front
Speaker 1: runners in the race. Some new reporting about how Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's aids are really going above and beyond to try
Speaker 1: to compensate for his accelerate his increasing age. Of course,
Speaker 1: all of our age is increasing, but his just happens
Speaker 1: to already be starting at advanced state. Good and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This report is from NBC News.
Speaker 1: The headline is note cards and shorter Stairs, how Biden's
Speaker 1: campaign is addressing his age. You know, it's funny because
Speaker 1: reading this, and this is from NBC, I was reminded
Speaker 1: of the clip that we showed of Mika Brazinski and
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough freaking out about like his aides have to
Speaker 1: do more to cover up the fact that he's old.
Speaker 1: Looks like that they have. In fact, he did that
Speaker 1: advice and stepped up to the plate. Per Joe and
Speaker 1: Mika's employer, NBC News. They talk about, you know, things
Speaker 1: that you would kind of expect, note cards as one example,
Speaker 1: but they did a whole analysis of the stairs that
Speaker 1: Biden has taken to using to board and get off
Speaker 1: of air Force one. So there's a shorter set of
Speaker 1: stairs that is available that goes into the belly of
Speaker 1: the plane. He originally was using that shorter set of
Speaker 1: stairs about thirty seven percent of the time. In the
Speaker 1: past seven weeks, he's used some eighty four percent of
Speaker 1: the time, or thirty one out of the thirty seven
Speaker 1: times he's gotten on and off the plane. They go
Speaker 1: on to say other age compensating measures are logistical and
Speaker 1: probably familiar to many who've reached a certain stage in life.
Speaker 1: Extra large font on a teleprompter, and note cards to
Speaker 1: remind him of the points he wants to make in
Speaker 1: meetings soccer. This has become extremely relevant given the fact
Speaker 1: that age is the top concern for voters in terms
Speaker 1: of re electing President Biden's and top concern for actually
Speaker 1: Democratic primary voters in terms of renominating Joe Biden. You
Speaker 1: also had that You've had a number of stumbles on
Speaker 1: the airplane steps. You also had that really scary, actually
Speaker 1: incident where he tripped over a sandbag on stage, and
Speaker 1: it was apparently after that incident that Aids gathered up
Speaker 1: and said, Okay, how do we make sure that this
Speaker 1: never ever happens again? What can we additionally do to
Speaker 1: sort of cover for the fact that our guys getting
Speaker 1: up there.
Speaker 2: I love the anecdotes also within this crystal about how
Speaker 2: vigorous he is. They're like, well, whenever Biden was on
Speaker 2: a trip from a flight home from a NATO summit,
Speaker 2: he came back to the staff cabin aids quote were
Speaker 2: passed out from exhaustion. The President came out and wanted
Speaker 2: to thank everyone for their work. I was amazed, if
Speaker 2: only I had the energy of an eighty year old president.
Speaker 2: You know what I think helps with energy whenever you
Speaker 2: get a bed in the plane and everybody else has
Speaker 2: to sleep on a chair during a twenty hour flight.
Speaker 2: You know, just wondering also about this is another one.
Speaker 2: Marty Wallaces, former Sectory of Labor, recalled an instance in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one when he was riding with Biden to
Speaker 2: an event at a Hummer plant. The President began dictating
Speaker 2: revisions to his planned speech off the top of his head.
Speaker 2: I thought to myself, Wow, I wish more people could
Speaker 2: see this. Call me old fashioned. I just think that
Speaker 2: that should be a very baseline skill for somebody who's
Speaker 2: going to be the leader of the free world. I
Speaker 2: can also say, as somebody who used to cover some
Speaker 2: of these Air Force one departures and you know, the
Speaker 2: ramp and all that, there's actually a lot of pomp
Speaker 2: and circumstance that goes into it. Sometimes when foreign countries
Speaker 2: like China wanted to insult President Obama, they'll bring the
Speaker 2: small stairs so he doesn't get the you know, the
Speaker 2: grand shot of coming down the big plane.
Speaker 3: There's quite a bit of protocol that is involved here.
Speaker 1: Is that no one would ever notice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, it's one of stupid things that only
Speaker 2: people in the press corps even. I only know this
Speaker 2: literally because I covered it a couple of times. The
Speaker 2: belly stairs are almost never used by the president of
Speaker 2: the United States for the very simple reason that it's
Speaker 2: not as nice of a shot. President Trump and President Obama,
Speaker 2: almost every sitting president made regular use of the normal stairs.
Speaker 2: The belly stairs would be used sometimes in cases of
Speaker 2: bad weather. I remember, there were a few other circumstances,
Speaker 2: but almost certainly they never would rely on as the
Speaker 2: primary as President Biden does.
Speaker 1: Apparently they said in this article that JFK used these
Speaker 1: stairs a lot because he had chronic tabilitating shack problems.
Speaker 3: Which was also trying to hide from the American people.
Speaker 3: So you know, that's the best example I think they
Speaker 3: would go to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know that Kennedy Vigor had a little bit
Speaker 2: to do with a little bit of meth that was
Speaker 2: shot into his back.
Speaker 3: Oh boy, But anyway, doctor feel good. You can look
Speaker 3: it up if you're interested.
Speaker 1: Listen. I'm in favor of the President of the United
Speaker 1: States doing whatever he needs to do to get through
Speaker 1: and do his best possible job. We've also had multiple
Speaker 1: instances where when he's on the road traveling internationally, he
Speaker 1: skips out on the dinners that are meant for relationship building.
Speaker 1: The staff provided a sort of explanation to NBC News
Speaker 1: about that. They said, Ah, he's been doing this for
Speaker 1: so long, essentially that he doesn't need those relationship building
Speaker 1: meetings as much as other newer presidents who are newer
Speaker 1: to the game might need that relationship building. And he's
Speaker 1: got a lot of other things on his plate. So
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, I think it's a little bit up
Speaker 1: in the air how much any of this ends up
Speaker 1: mattering it's very clear to the American people that he's aging.
Speaker 1: It's very clear he's not as sharp as he used
Speaker 1: to be. It's very clear he's not the man even
Speaker 1: you know that he was a few years ago alone,
Speaker 1: back when he was vice president to Barack Obama and
Speaker 1: he was taking Paul Ryan on and the vice presidential
Speaker 1: debates and all of that, So that all is very clear.
Speaker 1: But you know, there were a lot of age related
Speaker 1: concerns last time around, and he still was elected president
Speaker 1: of the United States. So we'll see how the American
Speaker 1: people weigh all of these things. But you can tell
Speaker 1: from the concern and the focus of his closest advisors
Speaker 1: that they feel that this is a real liability and
Speaker 1: something that they have to go out of their way
Speaker 1: to try to hide effectively.
Speaker 2: If I think back in presidential history, one of the
Speaker 2: times that it actually did matter a lot in pop
Speaker 2: culture in a relatively close election was Gerald Ford versus
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter. Ford famously tumbled down the stairs and was
Speaker 2: mocked viciously on Saturday Night Live, which was kind of
Speaker 2: a peak of its powers. Was Chevy something I forget
Speaker 2: his name, so I'm sure somebody in the comments will
Speaker 2: correct me. Whoever the guy is from the Christmas movie anyway.
Speaker 1: Chevy Chase.
Speaker 2: The Chevy Chase even viciously mocked Gerald Ford whenever he
Speaker 2: was on Saturday Night Live, and it became like a
Speaker 2: real cultural sensation at that time, like, oh, Ford, he's
Speaker 2: such a bumbling moral don't forget you know at that time,
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter. It's not like it was a blowout election
Speaker 2: whenever he came against Ford. So these things can matter
Speaker 2: and him made to look like some doddering old fool
Speaker 2: combined with Vietnam, the Saigon thing, the you know, coming
Speaker 2: out of Nixon and the move on from chaos. I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: you know, Trump obviously is not exactly the bringer a
Speaker 2: piece himself, but these things can end up becoming like
Speaker 2: big in the cultural zeitguy. So a bad fall does
Speaker 2: happen as part one of the previous ones which happened
Speaker 2: to what was it in the Air Force Academy stage.
Speaker 3: I thought it was a terrible one.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was just one of those where luckily
Speaker 2: he didn't hit his head or anything like that. But
Speaker 2: you know when five people are so have to rush
Speaker 2: in order to pick you up off the grounds, it's
Speaker 2: not a good look when it used to be like
Speaker 2: a vigorous, you know, person who's the leader of the
Speaker 2: free world, and you were running for four more years
Speaker 2: to be the oldest man to ever sit in the
Speaker 2: resolute desk.
Speaker 3: That's pretty that's a big tall order to ask the
Speaker 3: American people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, want to say that sandbag situation on the stage,
Speaker 1: I mean that was yeah, but that thing was just
Speaker 1: left there and it was apparently camouflage, So that was
Speaker 1: I mean, that is the one where I will say,
Speaker 1: like the staff or whoever set that up really screwed up,
Speaker 1: and anyone could have fallen. But as anyone who has
Speaker 1: a parent or grandparent or anyone you love who's in
Speaker 1: their eighties, you know, if they take a tumble, it
Speaker 1: can be I mean, it can be way more than
Speaker 1: just a political problem for them. So there's that concern
Speaker 1: as well. At the same time, it's not like things
Speaker 1: are going great for the other guy who was the
Speaker 1: front runner and the Republican side, that of course would
Speaker 1: be former President Trump. We've got we're back on indictment watch.
Speaker 1: By the way, this week I saw CBS News says
Speaker 1: indictments could come as soon as today, So we're certainly
Speaker 1: keeping our eyes open for whatever happens next. This would
Speaker 1: be the January sixth related indictments coming from Jack Smith,
Speaker 1: so we'll see what happens there. At the same time,
Speaker 1: we do have some news about when the trial is
Speaker 1: set from the document related for the document related trial,
Speaker 1: go ahead and put this up on the screen. So
Speaker 1: the prosecution and been pushing for this to be relatively quickly.
Speaker 1: They wanted a December trial date. The defense Trump's team
Speaker 1: they wanted to push it out past the election. The
Speaker 1: judge here, who was a Trump appointed judge who the
Speaker 1: Trump folks were pretty happy that she's the one who
Speaker 1: ended up with it, she took a compromise position setting
Speaker 1: a trial date for next May. In that classified documents state,
Speaker 1: they say in that article that we just had up
Speaker 1: on the screen that that May twentieth, twenty four trial date,
Speaker 1: if it holds, would follow close on the heels of
Speaker 1: the New York trial for Trump on dozens of state
Speaker 1: charges of false fiving business records. It also means the
Speaker 1: trial would not start until deep into the presidential nominating calendar,
Speaker 1: and probably well after the Republican nominee is clear, though
Speaker 1: before that person is officially nominated at the Republican National Convention.
Speaker 1: So listen, I have no idea how long this trial
Speaker 1: could potentially last, but we're talking about in May, the
Speaker 1: heart of certainly primary season, but also moving looking forward
Speaker 1: into general election season. The former president of the United
Speaker 1: States and very likely Republican nominee is going to be
Speaker 1: on trial for a case that looks fairly open and
Speaker 1: shut if we're just looking at the facts. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: maybe he's got a shot through jury selection to get
Speaker 1: somebody in there who's just you know, a Trump supporter
Speaker 1: and doesn't think he should be charged whatsoever, and is
Speaker 1: going to vote, you know, not guilty, no matter what.
Speaker 1: But it's pretty wild to contemplate that he could be
Speaker 1: facing impending prison time right at the time that he
Speaker 1: is clinching the nomination for the republic Authority.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what Mark Lavan over on Fox News
Speaker 2: really going after the judge for setting the trial at
Speaker 2: that date.
Speaker 3: Let's take a.
Speaker 4: Listen, Judge Cannon in Florida, you let the country down.
Speaker 4: This trial should have been moved to after the election.
Speaker 4: You just gave your imprimatory and the imprimature the federal
Speaker 4: judiciary to the interference in this election. Furthermore, you haven't
Speaker 4: even looked into a matter which you have the right
Speaker 4: to look into without any motion from Defense Council, involving
Speaker 4: an extortion that took place.
Speaker 3: So there you go, Crystal.
Speaker 2: They're already saying, oh, this is election interference and going
Speaker 2: after the judge. They should have put it after the election,
Speaker 2: which I actually don't think makes any sense, because why
Speaker 2: would you put a trial specifically on the classified documents
Speaker 2: case after the election. Executive privilege and all of that
Speaker 2: could apply. That's it doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 2: I actually think if we're going to have a trial,
Speaker 2: it should be much sooner.
Speaker 3: It should be I don't know why. Four, it's the
Speaker 3: right data right now, ten months away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this on this, I'm definitely on the side of
Speaker 1: the prosecution, like just like, let's be this thing up,
Speaker 1: let's get through it, and then you know, we'll have
Speaker 1: the political the election, and the American people can have
Speaker 1: as much information about what's going to unfold here as possible.
Speaker 1: But anyway, she kind of split the baby and went
Speaker 1: with May, much of the chagrin of Trump supporters. It
Speaker 1: is worth remembering that there was a lot of upset
Speaker 1: from liberals about the fact that this judge ended up
Speaker 1: with this case because she previously made some rulings that
Speaker 1: really seemed like they were, you know, siding with Trump
Speaker 1: in a way that she was overruled by other Republican
Speaker 1: appointment judges who said this was improperly decided had to
Speaker 1: do with the special Master and the way the documents
Speaker 1: were being handled, et cetera. But so there was a
Speaker 1: lot of upset from liberals about this particular judge being appointed.
Speaker 1: But here she's very much disappointing the megabase and Trump defenders.
Speaker 1: According to the reporting, Donald Trump and his team basically
Speaker 1: recognize that their best shot with all of with certainly
Speaker 1: with the document's case, is for him to get elected
Speaker 1: president and be able to effectively pardon himself. Like the
Speaker 1: details of the case are pretty difficult to refute. Listen,
Speaker 1: they deserve their day in court. We'll hear their side
Speaker 1: of the story. We'll hear what kind of defense that
Speaker 1: they're able to mount. But you know, it looks fairly
Speaker 1: damming on the surface. So that's hanging out there. At
Speaker 1: the same time, Trump's opponents, some of his adversaries, are
Speaker 1: starting to sharpen their knives, and they're making the case
Speaker 1: that Trump is not electable and will lose to Biden
Speaker 1: and Democrats will take over everything. Let's put this pulling
Speaker 1: up on the screen here. This is actually Trump's polster,
Speaker 1: Tony Fabrizio, alongside a Democratic polster. And even this Trump
Speaker 1: polster finds Biden beating Trump by four points. This is
Speaker 1: in forty swing districts, That's what this poll is of,
Speaker 1: and DeSantis tied with Biden in those same swing districts.
Speaker 1: So even the Trump polster finding that Trump is performing
Speaker 1: eight points worse than Desanta's actually among independent voters. So
Speaker 1: yesterday we brought you some polling that showed that at
Speaker 1: least in South Carolina, Republican primary voters are very interested
Speaker 1: in electability, They want to beat Joe Biden, they want
Speaker 1: to be the Democrats, etc. So the Coke network is
Speaker 1: picking up on this angle and they're spending a bunch
Speaker 1: of money to try to defeat Trump by saying, listen,
Speaker 1: if you nominate this guy, okay, but Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to beat you in the elections. They're going to take
Speaker 1: control of everything. Put this up on the screen. This
Speaker 1: next piece, the Cooke's anti Trump message is based on
Speaker 1: the idea that nominating Trump would lead to complete democratic domination.
Speaker 1: There we go from Ken Vogel vote. If Trump is
Speaker 1: the GOP nominee, we could lose everything, the House, the Senate,
Speaker 1: the White House. Is time to look to a new leader.
Speaker 1: It's too important to risk it all. Put the next
Speaker 1: part up on the screen and can just get little
Speaker 1: sense of the mailers that they are putting out and
Speaker 1: what they feel is the most compelling message to try
Speaker 1: to defeat Trump. I don't think it's going to work,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's probably one of the more
Speaker 1: promising angles that you could take, because certainly Republican voters
Speaker 1: do want to win. But as we've covered quite significantly,
Speaker 1: you know, at this time, Republican voters think he is
Speaker 1: the guy that can beat Joe Biden. They say he
Speaker 1: was elected president once. They believe that he beat Joe
Speaker 1: Biden once already, and so they are as of now
Speaker 1: not convinced that there's another candidate who was more electable
Speaker 1: than Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, as you noted, Crystal, that was Trump's own
Speaker 2: polster who actually showed him on having problems on the
Speaker 2: generic ballot. I guess I'll speak up for Trump on this,
Speaker 2: the generic ballot doesn't matter. He already lost. He lost
Speaker 2: a popular vote twice. The first time around he lost
Speaker 2: popular vote, he still won the election. So all you
Speaker 2: got to do is win in the right states. Georgia
Speaker 2: polling and his Georgia favorability remains like iffy. But in
Speaker 2: terms of head to head some that we've seen, he's
Speaker 2: doing decently against President Biden. Same with the state of Arizona.
Speaker 2: Biden favorability is very low over there. And then all
Speaker 2: he's got to do is pick up a single one
Speaker 2: of these industrial Midwest states and you win the electoral college.
Speaker 2: So you know, on the generic ballot he can win
Speaker 2: by plus four. That's great, rack up all the votes
Speaker 2: you want in California, that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: These aren't swing districts, So this is polling specifically swing
Speaker 1: districts where he finds Desanti is doing bit better than Trump.
Speaker 2: So whenever he finds I mean, I guess the point
Speaker 2: when we're talking about the swing districts as well, is
Speaker 2: that a lot of these are white, college educated voters,
Speaker 2: whereas what he really needs to do is not win
Speaker 2: the district race. He needs to rack up the votes
Speaker 2: like in Georgia and in Arizona. He doesn't necessarily need
Speaker 2: to win a swing district. He more needs to rack
Speaker 2: up the actual number of votes by perhaps you know,
Speaker 2: from his devoted followers, like maybe embracing mail in balloting.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't want to do that, so I would
Speaker 2: just look at it for that way of this is
Speaker 2: not the death now. I think that they think plus
Speaker 2: four is good obviously if you're President Biden, if you're
Speaker 2: running on a different system, but where you're running within
Speaker 2: the system that we have, which is highly beneficial.
Speaker 3: I think to Trump in the election, if it remains close.
Speaker 2: Remember I mean President Obama, I believe had to win
Speaker 2: by I think he won the popular vote by almost
Speaker 2: five points. But if you look at the electoral college
Speaker 2: margin and all that, when things go differently, you can
Speaker 2: win by a significant percentage and still actually come very
Speaker 2: close to electoral college, or you can win big in
Speaker 2: the electoral college just depending on very very normal margins,
Speaker 2: depending on the yeats.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, I think it's a jump ball. I
Speaker 1: think it's hard to say whether Trump or DeSantis or
Speaker 1: one of these other candidates is more electable. I think
Speaker 1: DeSantis has done himself a lot of harm, as we
Speaker 1: discussed yesterday, in terms of on every issue, his whole
Speaker 1: strategy has been, let me get to Trump's right, and
Speaker 1: in certain issue we're about to talk about abortion in particular,
Speaker 1: or certain issues, it's pretty poisonous to a general electorate.
Speaker 1: And I would also just say that, you know, putting
Speaker 1: where he is on the plaical ideology spectrum aside, he
Speaker 1: just doesn't have the political in factor that Trump does,
Speaker 1: and Trump is extraordinary on that measure. Trump inspires a
Speaker 1: lot of support from his key base. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: one thing about the Trump era is he certainly brings
Speaker 1: people out to support him and to vote against him.
Speaker 1: He has wildly increased political participation, and he really ups
Speaker 1: the ante in terms of everybody's engagement and feelings around elections.
Speaker 1: So to me, it's very difficult to say which one
Speaker 1: of them may or may not be more electable, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms that we just talked about, these indictments and
Speaker 1: the trials and what is potentially you know, coming in
Speaker 1: the future for Trump. I do think for a lot
Speaker 1: of independent voters, if you have a trial and Trump
Speaker 1: is facing potential prison time, I do think that's going
Speaker 1: to be an issue for him. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: an issue for him with the Republican electorate necessarily, although
Speaker 1: you know, I wouldn't completely rule it out, but that
Speaker 1: hasn't been what we've seen thus far. But do I
Speaker 1: think it's an issue in a general election that your
Speaker 1: choice is a man who is facing prison time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's probably an issue for him in terms
Speaker 1: of the general electorate with independent voters in particular. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, you've got biden Age concerns, and you
Speaker 1: also have a Cornell Last hanging out there, who is
Speaker 1: going to be very likely the Green Party nominee is
Speaker 1: going to be on the ballot in a lot of states,
Speaker 1: and I do think that could also have a major
Speaker 1: impact on a race that could be razor tights. So
Speaker 1: a lot of wildcards up in the air, you know,
Speaker 1: I just look at it. I'm like, it's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine that either of these duce is going to be
Speaker 1: elected again. But right now as it stands, without a
Speaker 1: major plot twist coming, which you never know, that is
Speaker 1: how things look. Let's take a look at one of
Speaker 1: those issues that I just name check, which is abortion.
Speaker 1: There's a bit of a Bellweather test of abortion rights
Speaker 1: in what has now become a red state of Ohio,
Speaker 1: which is the state that has probably moved the furthest
Speaker 1: the fastest to the right in the Trump era. Go
Speaker 1: ahead and put this up on the screen. So there's
Speaker 1: a proposed bio constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion rights.
Speaker 1: I'll give you some of the more details on what
Speaker 1: exactly this amendment would do, but it's in favor of
Speaker 1: abortion rights. And this poll from USA Today finds significant
Speaker 1: support even in the red state of Ohio for this
Speaker 1: pro choice constitutional amendment. It is supported by a double
Speaker 1: digit margin fifty eight to thirty two, has significant support
Speaker 1: across partisan lines, including a third of Republicans, so not
Speaker 1: a majority of Republics, but a third of Republican is
Speaker 1: pretty sizable, and a stunning eighty five percent of independent women. Now,
Speaker 1: this was actually fascinating, at least according to this poll,
Speaker 1: independent women actually supported this pro choice ballot initiative by
Speaker 1: a slightly larger number than even Democratic women, So the
Speaker 1: independent women were the strongest backer of this. There was
Speaker 1: a bit of a gender divide here. Women supported the
Speaker 1: measure sixty four to two, twenty eight men still backed
Speaker 1: it fifty to thirty seven. White respondents backed at fifty
Speaker 1: seven to thirty four. Minority respondents backed at even more
Speaker 1: strongly sixty six to twenty four. Majority of those at
Speaker 1: all levels of education express the poor, from those with
Speaker 1: no more than a high school diploma fifty two to
Speaker 1: thirty nine to those with postgrad degrees sixty five to
Speaker 1: twenty six. So, you know, this is a bit of
Speaker 1: a test case. There are has long been, you know,
Speaker 1: a strategy of George W. Bush used to do this
Speaker 1: as well, getting ballot initiatives onto state ballots to try
Speaker 1: to drive up turnout when it's an issue that is
Speaker 1: important to a group of voters. So this is potentially
Speaker 1: going to be on the ballot this fall in Ohio
Speaker 1: and one that's going to be closely watched for whether
Speaker 1: the jobs decision and the overturning of Roe versus Weighed
Speaker 1: remains the motivating factor and motivating issue that it certainly
Speaker 1: appeared to be in the midterm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Ohio law says all you need is fifty
Speaker 2: plus one in order to win the if you don't
Speaker 2: need a supermajority to pass in the ballot measure or
Speaker 2: to amend the state constitution, which is kind of crazy actually,
Speaker 2: whenever you think about it. Let's look back to trip
Speaker 2: down memory lane at Kentucky, the red estate so far
Speaker 2: to actually have a statewide referendum on abortion, rejecting the
Speaker 2: constitutional amendment that would have banned it, and they rejected
Speaker 2: it at fifty two point three percent of the vote
Speaker 2: to forty seven point seven. So even in Kentucky, which
Speaker 2: is a hard read state which Trump and McConnell and
Speaker 2: all of them have done incredibly well in, they have
Speaker 2: not been able to prevail. Kansas was another one that
Speaker 2: we can't forget where it went down Michigan. It seems
Speaker 2: so clear to me that the entire Michigan twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two election, both on Whitmer and on all of the
Speaker 2: downstream like candidates, had a massive upswing because they had
Speaker 2: that law existing laws on the books, and abortion was
Speaker 2: such a central issue there. Sam in Wisconsin from what
Speaker 2: we've been able to gleam as well. So you know,
Speaker 2: in all of these cases the industrial Midwest, of which
Speaker 2: we've been able to get a little bit of a
Speaker 2: sample size, including deep red states, we can say that
Speaker 2: we can say pretty definitively that abortion or at least
Speaker 2: restricting abortion to an entirely pro life stance seems to
Speaker 2: be very very unpopular. Now I'll try and steal man
Speaker 2: it like I guess a little bit. Ohio is a
Speaker 2: bit different in general. They have a much more Catholic
Speaker 2: and evangelical population than the other industrial Midwestern states.
Speaker 3: They're much harder read, as they say.
Speaker 2: You know, they talk about in there the two thousand
Speaker 2: and four same sex You know, the gay marriage fights
Speaker 2: from two thousand and four were pretty vicious in Ohio,
Speaker 2: not only twenty years ago.
Speaker 3: So it's a little bit more religious, maybe more likely.
Speaker 2: But you know, if I were to peg it against Kentucky,
Speaker 2: I just think that if we compare those two, then
Speaker 2: you know, I think we have a decent enough sample size.
Speaker 3: And I've always said this.
Speaker 2: You know, over one third of voters who voted for
Speaker 2: Trump in twenty sixteen were pro choice, I mean, and
Speaker 2: not a lot of Republican elites want to grapple with
Speaker 2: that fact. That's why you get to the row consensus
Speaker 2: around to sixty seven percent. Well, you know, it doesn't
Speaker 2: take a genius. We got a fifty to fifty country.
Speaker 2: You take fifty and then you add one third of right,
Speaker 2: they're party, What do you get to around sixty five percent.
Speaker 2: That's pretty much almost exactly where things seem to shake out,
Speaker 2: even in red states whenever we're looking at some of
Speaker 2: this polling, So it's not a shocker if you actually
Speaker 2: pay attention.
Speaker 1: The polling for abortion rights has largely shown that Postdobbs,
Speaker 1: support for the pro choice position has gone up. I
Speaker 1: do think in Ohio, I wanted to note some of
Speaker 1: the specifics about what this constitutional amendment would actually do.
Speaker 1: It basically would enshrine Roe versus Wade as the law
Speaker 1: of land in Ohio, so abortion could be banned after
Speaker 1: viability when a fetus could survive outside the womb. That's
Speaker 1: basically how things were before Roe was overturned. So you know,
Speaker 1: it would be bringing that state of affairs back to Ohio.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Kentucky. I have to mention this, even those
Speaker 1: a little bit off topic. They have their gubernatorial election
Speaker 1: this year. They currently have a Democratic governor in Sheer,
Speaker 1: whose dad had also been governor previously, so the the
Speaker 1: Sheer name very well known in the state of Kentucky.
Speaker 1: He was on the right side of the teachers strike
Speaker 1: and really, you know, build a lot of credibility there.
Speaker 1: He numbers just came out. He's one of the most
Speaker 1: popular governors in the country and he's a Democrat who
Speaker 1: is in a very red state. I've forgotten the numbers,
Speaker 1: but a huge proportion of people who don't like Joe
Speaker 1: Biden still like Andy Basheer. He's up against very strong
Speaker 1: I think Republican can tender the ag Daniel Cameron, and
Speaker 1: the poll show him in the lead right now. So
Speaker 1: interesting state Kentucky is not as predictable as people always think,
Speaker 1: especially at the state level. But on the polling front
Speaker 1: with regards to abortion, I do want to throw in
Speaker 1: this caveat that you know, people feel very mixed on
Speaker 1: this issue, and it depends a lot on how the
Speaker 1: question is even freeze and how it is asked. So
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So this poll, and
Speaker 1: I think this was a Harvard Harris poll, ask people
Speaker 1: do you think Supreme Court was right or wrong in
Speaker 1: each of the following recent rulings. And one of the
Speaker 1: questions was abortion laws should be left to the states
Speaker 1: instead of being a national constitutional right. So basically the
Speaker 1: quiet here is do you think that Dobbs was correctly decided?
Speaker 1: But they asked it in this way of like abortion
Speaker 1: should be left to the states. Well, fift a majority
Speaker 1: actually agreed with that position. They're like, yeah, sure, it
Speaker 1: should be left to the states, fifty six percent to
Speaker 1: forty four percent. Whereas if you ask it a different
Speaker 1: way and you ask about the Supreme Court overturning Roe
Speaker 1: versus Wade and whether it was correctly decided, you get
Speaker 1: a polar opposite result. The poll that I found had
Speaker 1: thirty seven percent agreeing that Roe versus Wade was correctly
Speaker 1: decided overturning Roe versus Wade was correctly decided versus sixty
Speaker 1: three percent that disagrees, So completely opposite results just based
Speaker 1: on how it's being asked. So you can see why
Speaker 1: so many Republicans. I think Governor Hutchinson when we talked
Speaker 1: to him presidential contender on the GOP side, you know,
Speaker 1: he really leaned into the messaging of like, I think
Speaker 1: it should be left up to the states. We're interviewing
Speaker 1: Governor dog burgham North Dakota governor who signed a very
Speaker 1: restrictive law as governor of North Dakota, and you know
Speaker 1: when he had the opportunity to do that, but he
Speaker 1: uses very similar language about it should be left up
Speaker 1: to the states. You can see why they're doing that,
Speaker 1: because they're on decent ground there. But in terms of
Speaker 1: what is actually coming up for votes and the ballot
Speaker 1: initiatives that are coming out and the legislators that people
Speaker 1: are voting for, and the framing of this issue, it
Speaker 1: has so far been pretty devastating for Republicans.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think that the Democrats need to
Speaker 2: have a concerted effort to drive out votes to just say,
Speaker 2: row the Row consensus is what is on the back, like,
Speaker 2: very clearly, this is what we are defending. We just
Speaker 2: want to return to the previous system, which was achy
Speaker 2: but which most people privately were like, yeah, pretty much
Speaker 2: okay with it. And as long as you stick within
Speaker 2: that framework, I really think it's actually a Bill Clinton
Speaker 2: esque almost nineteen ninety two s era message safe, legal
Speaker 2: and rare.
Speaker 3: The more you depart from that and you try and
Speaker 3: defend like late.
Speaker 2: Term abortion up until like nine months and all that,
Speaker 2: that's when the Republicans generally do seem to win. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the state message is going to be important, but that's
Speaker 2: also been flipped around. I've seen actually quite cleverly by
Speaker 2: some Democratic lawmakers who will come out and will say, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: you're right, it should be left up with states. So
Speaker 2: that's why we need a state ballot measure. Go ahead,
Speaker 2: let the state decide, you know, not, why should the
Speaker 2: state legasure? Right, Let the people actually weigh in. And
Speaker 2: when that happens, of course they know they're on good footing,
Speaker 2: and it dramatically drives up well out.
Speaker 1: The problem is that you can't just lean into it
Speaker 1: should be left to the states when you have active
Speaker 1: efforts at the national level to codify a ban at
Speaker 1: the federal level. So it's like, okay, well, should it
Speaker 1: be left to the states or are you all pushing
Speaker 1: for a lot more at the federal level. You've got
Speaker 1: presdential contenders like Mike Pence, even though you know he's
Speaker 1: not gonna be the Republican nominee, but he still has
Speaker 1: a loud voice within the Republican Party and certainly in
Speaker 1: terms of media coverage pushing for an out and out
Speaker 1: national ban. And you have quite a few members of
Speaker 1: Republican members of Congress who are on board with that.
Speaker 1: So really makes it more difficult to message should be
Speaker 1: left to the states when they're not actually interestedly made
Speaker 1: into the states.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you're right, and that is why, you know,
Speaker 2: Lindsay Grant, I actually still think I'm curious what you do,
Speaker 2: Lindsay Graham. Remember when you got in trouble with the
Speaker 2: Republicans for proposing fifteen weeks. In my reading of that,
Speaker 2: it wasn't putting abortion up. It's they were like, no, no, Privately, Lindsay,
Speaker 2: They're like, we want way less than this, Like, we.
Speaker 3: Don't want fifteen weeks.
Speaker 2: Why are you trying to tie us to something which
Speaker 2: is more or less restrictive than what we've actually been
Speaker 2: able to sign in the States. That's kind of how
Speaker 2: I was reading it whenever you put it forward.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. They were mad.
Speaker 1: They were like, fifteen isn't stringent enough, right, it needs
Speaker 1: to be twelve, it needs to be six. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what you see being pushed by conservative activists at
Speaker 1: the state level. The people who are most invested in
Speaker 1: this issue are the people who have the most fringed positions.
Speaker 1: So yeah, the pushback was I mean, I think there
Speaker 1: were a lot of feelings about that of just like,
Speaker 1: you know, this sort of satis satisfies no one. You're
Speaker 1: pushing for a national abortion ban. But then you're not
Speaker 1: going furtherm far enough to satisfy our own activist base.
Speaker 1: So it made it kind of a muddle. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's a lot more politically palatable position, certainly than six
Speaker 1: weeks or the moment of conception and some of the
Speaker 1: other things that have been pushed at the state level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we'll keep an eye on it could be
Speaker 2: a very interesting Bellweather race. Major news in terms of
Speaker 2: how Americans are feeling about what's going on in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: A recent poll actually found the fifty one percent disapprove
Speaker 2: of the Biden decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine,
Speaker 2: more than half of respondents saying that they disapprove of
Speaker 2: that decision. What's interesting to me, Crystal, is that an
Speaker 2: outright majority disapproved of it, and really only thirty nine
Speaker 2: percent said they approved, with the don't know figure at
Speaker 2: eleven percent, meaning that an outright majority knew enough in
Speaker 2: this Quinnipiac pole to say, no, we actually don't approve
Speaker 2: of this at all. The reason why I'm very happy
Speaker 2: with this decision to actually poll the actual policy is
Speaker 2: Ukraine hawks always say.
Speaker 3: What are you talking about? Seventy something percent of people
Speaker 3: say we should help Ukraine.
Speaker 2: That's not what's at stake here, hasn't been at stake
Speaker 2: now for a long time, to what extent twenty five billion,
Speaker 2: fifty billion, just so everyone knows, out of the goodness
Speaker 2: of the Pentagon's heart, we are shipping four hundred million
Speaker 2: dollars more today.
Speaker 3: This is just a routine announcement.
Speaker 2: It's more than the size of major nation states that
Speaker 2: we just not a single news outlet is putting it
Speaker 2: on their front page when it couldn't actually be more
Speaker 2: important to the fate of the world. What they specifically
Speaker 2: did here also is important is that the question said
Speaker 2: that Biden made this decision quote despite concern from rights
Speaker 2: groups that they endanger civilians before then asking when they
Speaker 2: approve or just approve.
Speaker 3: Another important thing.
Speaker 2: We're actually giving the American people context in this decision,
Speaker 2: and they come out and they're like, hold on a.
Speaker 3: Second, we're supporting Ukraine. Ostensibly.
Speaker 2: If you ask the average normany who's like got a
Speaker 2: Ukraine flag out of their house and you ask me like, hey,
Speaker 2: why do you got the flag, They're like, I'm against
Speaker 2: I'm for freedom, I'm against like unprovoked aggression.
Speaker 3: And I'm for you know, the moral like the moral
Speaker 3: helping of.
Speaker 2: The Ukrainian government and they're like, well, we just gave
Speaker 2: them weapons of which they're going to basically bombard the
Speaker 2: front lines and create a unlivable mess for centuries. This
Speaker 2: is not my language. This is actually according to landmine experts,
Speaker 2: who are saying that demining this area will take decades
Speaker 2: and will cause human havoc regardless of whether the war
Speaker 2: is going on or not. Well, then people are like,
Speaker 2: hold on a second. The no fly zone was a
Speaker 2: perfect example of this as well. People were like, should
Speaker 2: we help Ukraine, Yes, overwhelmingly no fly zone. They were like,
Speaker 2: well maybe, and they're like, no fly zone means that
Speaker 2: we have to go to war with Russia.
Speaker 3: They're like, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not on board with
Speaker 3: this at all.
Speaker 2: This is why, and this question really proves you have
Speaker 2: to frame things correctly, and the dishonest framing by the
Speaker 2: media and by the Biden administration not presenting the risks,
Speaker 2: the pros, the balances and all of that to the
Speaker 2: American people is such a disservice. I'm reading a book
Speaker 2: right now called Stalin's War. It's about It's a fantastic book.
Speaker 2: By the way, Sean mckeeon shout out to him, and
Speaker 2: in it they talk a lot about the way that
Speaker 2: the Roosevelt administration kind of maneuvered behind the scenes in
Speaker 2: terms of lend lease. But what strikes me is that
Speaker 2: President Roosevelt always made a concerted effort, even though he
Speaker 2: was kind of having machinations, to sit and to talk
Speaker 2: to the American people about the decisions that he was
Speaker 2: making about why the Arsenal democracy speech, the strategic calculus,
Speaker 2: he was very careful to try and sell his program
Speaker 2: and create tremendous buy in and use his popularity to
Speaker 2: guide people to a position of which was not all
Speaker 2: that popular at the time. President Biden, though he never
Speaker 2: gives us that ability. He never sits and actually speaks
Speaker 2: to the American people matter of factly. I mean, you
Speaker 2: could make the case for cluster munitions, but he never
Speaker 2: made the case. He just unilaterally signed off and then
Speaker 2: allows his apparatricks to defend the decision.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: I think those are all really important points. I mean,
Speaker 1: on the news media point, I'm not even asking for
Speaker 1: them to not make the Ukraine hawk case. I'm just
Speaker 1: asking for both sides to be presented and for the
Speaker 1: risk in the trade offs to be elucidated. And I
Speaker 1: have found it terrifying from the beginning that that has
Speaker 1: never been the case. I mean you almost you uniformly,
Speaker 1: like nine percent of the commentary that you see on
Speaker 1: cable news is all in one direction. You've got all
Speaker 1: these people who have you know, they're sitting on boards
Speaker 1: of defense contractors. They stand to make a bunch of
Speaker 1: money off of this war and any other war besides,
Speaker 1: and that's never disclosed. And so you get this very
Speaker 1: one dimensional picture. And yet even with that very one
Speaker 1: dimensional picture that has been painted for the American people,
Speaker 1: you still have a majority here saying this is too far,
Speaker 1: this is inconsistent with the values that you told me
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be standing up for in this fight. Noah,
Speaker 1: don't want to be associated with you know, these horrific
Speaker 1: cluster munitions, cluster bombs that are going to maim children
Speaker 1: for years and years to come, and which take a
Speaker 1: greater toll on civilians than they do on the you know,
Speaker 1: soldiers that you are supposed to be fighting. So no,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. We shouldn't be on board with this. I
Speaker 1: think your point about the communication from the president is
Speaker 1: really key as well, and I don't think this is
Speaker 1: just a trend under Biden. I think this is a
Speaker 1: sort of multi decade trend. It's part of an anti
Speaker 1: populist trend where there's content for the American people. They
Speaker 1: believe this was illustrated, you know, from doctor Fauci during
Speaker 1: COVID and from many other official Besides, they don't believe
Speaker 1: that the American people can handle nuance. They don't believe
Speaker 1: that they can handle a complex situation where there are
Speaker 1: pros and cons and where there are risks and challenges
Speaker 1: to balance. And so rather than actually level with people
Speaker 1: and present facts and truth and the way the world,
Speaker 1: the complicated way the world actually is, they try to
Speaker 1: really manage the emotions to the American people. They try
Speaker 1: to hide certain facts from them, and you know, really
Speaker 1: just manufacture consent in that way, is the bottom line.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a long term trend of you know,
Speaker 1: at bottom, contempt for the American people, and which means
Speaker 1: contempt for democracy too.
Speaker 2: By the way, this is the modus operandi of the
Speaker 2: military industrial complex and of the Pentagon and most of
Speaker 2: our presidents basically post Vietnam, they have never been upfront
Speaker 2: with us, even during the Vietnam War.
Speaker 3: They're like, yeah, it's just a few military advisors. Don't
Speaker 3: worry about it. They're like, wait, half a million people
Speaker 3: are in Vietnam. What the hell is going on? How
Speaker 3: many people are dying today?
Speaker 2: And then of course public opain and goes ahead and
Speaker 2: turns against it. Now, of course American soldiers are not
Speaker 2: on the ground, or at least from what we know
Speaker 2: so far, and not on the ground in Ukraine. And
Speaker 2: in terms of my CIA when OCIA ops probably former
Speaker 2: soldiers certainly are. Though. The thing is is that even
Speaker 2: the media now is at a point where they're beginning
Speaker 2: to hint a little bit towards the truth about what's
Speaker 2: going on on the ground. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. You gotta love the framing of this too.
Speaker 2: Crystal from the Wall Street Journal, Herdock's personal outlet, Ukraine's
Speaker 2: lack of weaponry and training risk stalemate in fight with Russia.
Speaker 3: Interesting lack of weaponry? Now, who's providing with them with
Speaker 3: that weaponry?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: The United States?
Speaker 2: And actually what they point to, at least honestly within
Speaker 2: this is that without a significant, continuing, increasing massive investment
Speaker 2: by the United States, that Ukraine will very likely be
Speaker 2: able to dislodge the Russian defenses in the current counter
Speaker 2: offensive on the front line, because really they have exhausted
Speaker 2: much of their ammunition that we've provided them, many of
Speaker 2: the weapons, the tanks and all that have not been
Speaker 2: able to be put to the use of that we
Speaker 2: would and combined arms whenever we would use them in
Speaker 2: a tactical situation, and overall over and over again. Within this,
Speaker 2: when you read past the headline, which is obviously pleading
Speaker 2: for more, they say very specifically that at the end
Speaker 2: of the day they can't do it without a continuing
Speaker 2: and massive more amount of war material, maybe to the
Speaker 2: tune of fifty to one hundred, which is not going
Speaker 2: to happen, nor should it happen, you know, considering how
Speaker 2: much that we have provided them, or even the European powers,
Speaker 2: who at least appear tapped. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: as well from the New York Times doing the exact
Speaker 2: same thing, of course, always you know, whitewashing what's happening.
Speaker 2: After suffering heavy losses, Ukrainians paused to rethink strategy. Quote
Speaker 2: early in the counter offensive, they lost as much as
Speaker 2: twenty percent of weapons and armor the rate dropped as
Speaker 2: the campaign slowed and commands are beginning to shift tactics.
Speaker 2: By talking about shifting tactics, they just stop going forward.
Speaker 2: So when you stop going forward, yeah, you're going to
Speaker 2: stop losing as ment people. But if you're losing almost
Speaker 2: one fifth of the amount of weapons and armor, you know,
Speaker 2: just in the first couple of weeks of the opening gambit,
Speaker 2: that does show you how terrific a war of attrition
Speaker 2: actually goes, and about how much industrial might that you
Speaker 2: need to keep plugging that whole day after day. You
Speaker 2: need properly trained soldiers, or you need a hell of
Speaker 2: a lot of soldiers like Russia has. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: Russia can outright win the war. You know, they're incompetent enough,
Speaker 2: and you know, basically backwards in terms of their military
Speaker 2: tactics that they effectively have ruled that out for like
Speaker 2: a total takeover. But for where they're dug in right
Speaker 2: now with one fifth of Ukrainian territory, it doesn't look
Speaker 2: like they're going anywhere anytime soon right now, according to
Speaker 2: all of these.
Speaker 1: Reports, and again on the topic of leveling with the
Speaker 1: American people, like I just want to know from the
Speaker 1: White house, how they think this is going to end? Like,
Speaker 1: what is how do you think this is going to
Speaker 1: play out? What's your theory, what's your plan, what's your strategy,
Speaker 1: what's your tactics?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: What are you watching? What are you waiting for? What
Speaker 1: are you going to push for? How do you see
Speaker 1: this thing ever coming to some sort of a resolution?
Speaker 1: What is the upper limit on the level of support?
Speaker 1: Or do we just continue in this you know, escalation,
Speaker 1: this slow escalation that we've been at from the beginning.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, if you have the Ukrainian hawk perspective,
Speaker 1: like I obviously wildly disagree with this view, but I'm
Speaker 1: actually sympathetic to the people who are on that side
Speaker 1: who are like, well, if you are going to send
Speaker 1: the US six, so you should have done this from
Speaker 1: the beginning, I mean, because then they would have had
Speaker 1: better chance from the jump, we might be in a
Speaker 1: different place today. I'm actually kind of more sympathetic to
Speaker 1: that at this point than whatever it is the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is doing, which I honestly can't even explain. So
Speaker 1: if I can't explain it, and you know, we really
Speaker 1: try to follow this as closely as possible, how do
Speaker 1: you think the American people feel about where this is
Speaker 1: going and how this is all going to play out.
Speaker 1: I just want to hear from our commander in chief.
Speaker 1: How does he think that this is ever going to
Speaker 1: be resolved? How does he expect this will end? How
Speaker 1: will we play a part in bringing this conflict to
Speaker 1: a close, because right now I could not come close
Speaker 1: to answering that question.
Speaker 2: Well, instead, Krystal, what you get are secret releases from
Speaker 2: the Pentagon, of which only people like you or I
Speaker 2: will ever pay attention to, which says the Biden administration
Speaker 2: is sending four hundred million dollars in additional military aid
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, including a variety of munitions for advanced air
Speaker 2: defense systems, a number of small surveillance hornet drones as
Speaker 2: attacks in the war have escalated.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's all actually that you get. You don't get a
Speaker 2: full rundown. You don't get the real accounting. The reason
Speaker 2: they don't give you the real accounting is so they
Speaker 2: can rig the numbers afterwards.
Speaker 1: Back.
Speaker 2: Oh no, we had to devalue over we sent to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: That wasn't the actual costs of what we said.
Speaker 3: And oh, by the way, don't pay attention to our
Speaker 3: diminishing weapon stock. So look, it's very clear here.
Speaker 2: I also recommend these guys from War on the Rocks
Speaker 2: Michael Kaufman, who we used significantly in the beginning of
Speaker 2: the war. They just returned from a month long, you know,
Speaker 2: sojourn in Ukraine. They were on the front line. They
Speaker 2: talked to a lot of command. They are serious military.
Speaker 2: They are backing up everything that we are saying, not
Speaker 2: in terms of the political message, but in terms of
Speaker 2: what the stalemate looks like, the lack of tactics, the
Speaker 2: bad leadership, the inability to go forward without suffering massive losses.
Speaker 2: And they're look, you know, these guys, they're not really
Speaker 2: able to be political, I think because of where some
Speaker 2: of the funding comes from and all that. But they're
Speaker 2: very honest and it took actually a great amount of courage.
Speaker 2: How much media pickup do you think, you know that
Speaker 2: these guys get. Meanwhile, some idiot like Brett Stevens from
Speaker 2: the New York Times goes on some show pony tour
Speaker 2: around Kiev and he's.
Speaker 3: Like, all, I just got back from Ukraine and the
Speaker 3: resolve is tremendous, let me tell you. And it's like Okay, well,
Speaker 3: who are you going to trust? Yeah, yeah, Max Boot.
Speaker 2: You know it's like Max Boot and Brett Stevens going
Speaker 2: on a like propaganda tour put on by those Zelensky
Speaker 2: government or actual military experts who are on the front
Speaker 2: line critically are not being actually paid by the US government,
Speaker 2: coming back and being like, yeah, it's not good, guys,
Speaker 2: things are really not going well over there. Maybe we'll
Speaker 2: put a link in the description to some of their analysis,
Speaker 2: because I really do think it's so important for anybody
Speaker 2: who's interested in the actual tactical level of why things
Speaker 2: aren't going and how that applies to the strategic.
Speaker 3: World coin. You might be asking, what.
Speaker 1: The hell's world already sounds dystopian?
Speaker 3: Why are we.
Speaker 2: Spending our time on said word coin. Well, let's put
Speaker 2: this up there. Sam Altman of open Ai fame is
Speaker 2: launching world Coin, which is quote an eyeball scanning crypto project.
Speaker 1: Now I hate every word of that, but.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm skeptical. I have an open mind. Let's continuing
Speaker 3: to read.
Speaker 2: Sam Altman's audacious eyeballing scanning crypto startup started a global
Speaker 2: rollout of its services to help build a reliable solution
Speaker 2: for quote distinguishing humans from AI online to enable quote
Speaker 2: global democratic processes and quote drastically increase economic opportunity. Oh
Speaker 2: oh my, and what exactly does said project do? Individuals
Speaker 2: can then download the quote world app, the protocol compatible
Speaker 2: wallet software. They will visit a quote orb, which is
Speaker 2: a startups helmet shaped eyeball scanning verification device to then
Speaker 2: receive their world ID. That way, world coin can quietly
Speaker 2: go and sign up people all over the world. You
Speaker 2: see what we're doing there in order to gain tokens
Speaker 2: and use this as an identity verification tool from that
Speaker 2: basically is across the internet and will enable identity verification
Speaker 2: in the days of more sophisticated AI. I mean, I
Speaker 2: guess on its face, you're like, yeah, you are solving
Speaker 2: a problem. But then you have to think about it
Speaker 2: a little bit more. Who created this problem? Well, Sam Altman,
Speaker 2: he's the head of open AI and chat GPT. So
Speaker 2: you created the problem and now you're selling us a solution.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. Second, you are scanning our eyeballs with a
Speaker 2: literal ORB that we want to put helmet around, granting
Speaker 2: this to a public company, and then effectively saying you
Speaker 2: are going to be my new digital passport. I mean,
Speaker 2: for all the people out there who are worried about
Speaker 2: central bank, central bank digital currencies, centralized control, this seems
Speaker 2: like a catastrophic nightmare in terms of privacy and in
Speaker 2: terms of cooperation with governments. So if worldcoin becomes the
Speaker 2: privatized standard, then the Chinese are just gonna be like, okay,
Speaker 2: hand over every single eyeball that are inside of that,
Speaker 2: or you don't get access to the biggest market in
Speaker 2: the world. What have we always learned from Silicon Valley,
Speaker 2: They're going to take that trade every day of the week.
Speaker 2: Or you know, Eastern European governments, all kinds of Asian
Speaker 2: or South Asian governments. We have no idea what protections
Speaker 2: actually exist on this. And I guess what's even more
Speaker 2: concerning is that some people are going to be doing
Speaker 2: this of their own free will, literally signing up to
Speaker 2: visit their local ORB to get their eyeball scanned. I mean,
Speaker 2: I have to believe that at least some common sense
Speaker 2: will prevail. But you know, recently, Crystal, I've been traveling
Speaker 2: a lot internationally. The facial scan stuff out there is
Speaker 2: incredibly creepy. When you board a flight sometimes to Europe.
Speaker 2: They don't even scan your boarding pass anymore. They scan
Speaker 2: your face and they're like Zager and Jetty Seat twelve D.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, hold on a second, where did you
Speaker 2: get this? Where did this come from? Whose software is this?
Speaker 2: I'm standing in the United States. I assume that I
Speaker 2: consented to this at some point in some contract, but
Speaker 2: which one?
Speaker 1: You know? It's like?
Speaker 2: And then I was also part of a pilot program
Speaker 2: whenever I came back. I forget which airport. I think
Speaker 2: it was Dallas that I flew into. Yeah, it was
Speaker 2: Dallas that I flew into from Mexico. And it was
Speaker 2: the same thing where I never opted into Global Entry
Speaker 2: or any of these programs, and the TSA was piloting
Speaker 2: a facial scanning software. Where I walked in, TSA scanned
Speaker 2: my face and it was like, welcome back to the
Speaker 2: United States. I never opted into this program. Presumably it
Speaker 2: comes from my passport photo or one of these other things.
Speaker 2: And I just remember coming away from me like, man,
Speaker 2: this is creepy as hell. Yeah, but this is the future.
Speaker 2: I mean, you're starting to see it at Border Securities.
Speaker 2: How it starts, and soon it'll get to financial transact
Speaker 2: We already.
Speaker 1: Had signistic instances of law enforcement using this facial scan
Speaker 1: technology and picking up the wrong people and alleging that
Speaker 1: they committed crimes that they were like literally not even
Speaker 1: in the state where the crime was committed. But it's
Speaker 1: not like they were just like, oh sorry and you
Speaker 1: get released. The particular man that I'm thinking of, they
Speaker 1: held him there for weeks, So, I mean, his whole
Speaker 1: life was turned upside down by this oopsies from you know,
Speaker 1: facial scanning technology. You know, the simple person. Some of
Speaker 1: this I'm going to say, I don't even know what
Speaker 1: it means. I can't run my head or like, okay,
Speaker 1: so you start with distinguishing humans from AI online. Okay,
Speaker 1: I know what that means, and that seems good. I
Speaker 1: would that seems really important actually going forward. Of course,
Speaker 1: as you said, Soccer's problem that Sam Altman was integral
Speaker 1: and creating. But if he wants to be bar of
Speaker 1: the solution to okay, it says drastically increased economic opportunity
Speaker 1: incredibly vague and highly unlikely would be my gut reaction
Speaker 1: this one, though, enable global democratic processes. That one. I
Speaker 1: have no idea what they mean. It's not really spelled
Speaker 1: out here. I don't understand this one. There's some more details,
Speaker 1: they say. As tech Crunch previously noted, world c is
Speaker 1: perhaps one of the most audacious efforts to bribe the
Speaker 1: world to embrace this particular crypto coin. The startup founded
Speaker 1: by opening I Ceo Altman and Alex Blania, wants to
Speaker 1: put a crypto wallet and some of their currency onto
Speaker 1: every human smartphone. But in order to do so, they
Speaker 1: have to build a way to determine whether someone is
Speaker 1: a unique human, and world Coin is basically the attempt
Speaker 1: at doing that. They've already rolled this out in some places,
Speaker 1: including in India, where they give people who agree to
Speaker 1: this scan and whatever to be in their system, they
Speaker 1: give them twenty five world Coin tokens. I have no
Speaker 1: idea what that's worth, but apparently there has been there
Speaker 1: have been some problems with that. They've been accused of
Speaker 1: exploitative practices, et cetera. So I guess the play here
Speaker 1: is kind of like the Elon Musk Twitter. I'm going
Speaker 1: to be fifty percent of a global financial services play.
Speaker 1: It's like a billionaire play towards world dominations. My simplistic
Speaker 1: take of what's going on here, and so frankly, it
Speaker 1: makes me very uncomfortable, and my best hope is that
Speaker 1: this is a fanciful, ridiculous scheme that falls flat on
Speaker 1: its face. That's what I'm hoping for.
Speaker 3: Well, and listen to this statement.
Speaker 2: If successful, world coin will drastically increase the economic opportunity,
Speaker 2: as you said, and then also enable a potential path
Speaker 2: to AI funded UBI.
Speaker 3: So how does that work?
Speaker 2: So you have your identity verified, so then you can
Speaker 2: have your instant depositive world tokens into.
Speaker 3: Your crypto wallet.
Speaker 2: I mean, all of this just seems like cooked up
Speaker 2: from the brain of Sam Altman, who clearly has these,
Speaker 2: you know, almost transhumanist fantasies, of which obviously the tools
Speaker 2: for control become very obvious. Jack Dorsey has spoken out
Speaker 2: against world coin. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. He says, quote world great Coin is
Speaker 2: an attempt at global scale alignment.
Speaker 1: Cute.
Speaker 2: Jack has also been tweeting about the ORB and making
Speaker 2: fun of said ORB about going in and checking, you know,
Speaker 2: making sure to He says, visit the ORB or the
Speaker 2: ORB will visit you.
Speaker 1: Listen, as a woman named Crystal Ball, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to hate on the ORG, do you remember, that's everything
Speaker 1: I stand for.
Speaker 3: Do you remember the Trump orb whenever?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the Saudi guys gathered around or that's an
Speaker 2: iconic photo.
Speaker 3: I do have to say, they're really memorable. You will
Speaker 3: never forget that.
Speaker 1: I mean, what does that mean? The what does it
Speaker 1: says to put that back up on the screen? Because this,
Speaker 1: oh an attempt at global scale alignment which he took
Speaker 1: from that was one of the things that they said
Speaker 1: that prop state the press release or whatever, what does
Speaker 1: that mean?
Speaker 2: And also privately preserving digital identity how you know, through
Speaker 2: what mechanism, presumably through some like cryptography. I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: maybe you know, can it really not be cracked by
Speaker 2: a can it really not be cracked by a nation state? Secondly,
Speaker 2: it says you have to download the World app. I'm like,
Speaker 2: all right, so what permissions does said app actually have
Speaker 2: on my phone? The entire thing just seems incredibly creepy
Speaker 2: and totalitarian.
Speaker 1: Look, I think we should have all learned the lesson
Speaker 1: that handing power over to any one individual, good, bad,
Speaker 1: indifferent handing an increasing level of power to them without
Speaker 1: any sort of democratic check or accountability is not a
Speaker 1: great direction to go in. So even as I find
Speaker 1: some of this indecipherable, and I think it is intentionally indecipherable.
Speaker 1: I think that core principle of being very skeptical of
Speaker 1: handing you any aspect of your financial, personal, or privacy
Speaker 1: or identification life over to an entity run by one
Speaker 1: oligarchic individual, regardless of who they are and whether they're
Speaker 1: a nice person or smart person or whatever.
Speaker 3: Not a great idea, absolutely right.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's move on to the next part here, Pinky Doll, Oh,
Speaker 2: what the hell is going on? For those of you
Speaker 2: who are normal and not on the internet but have
Speaker 2: possibly come across said meme, here's a little bit of
Speaker 2: a preview. Pinky Doll is a TikTok creator, a streamer
Speaker 2: otherwise known as an NPC, who went viral for people
Speaker 2: who are paying her on said streams in order to
Speaker 2: act things out, but not in a like particularly engaging way,
Speaker 2: more in a nonplused, almost almost like removed way. So
Speaker 2: there's the best way I can describe it. Before we
Speaker 2: watch the video, let's take a watch.
Speaker 1: Goma feeling like a cowgirl.
Speaker 5: I mean, ready, it's huh heh, yes, you gotta finit
Speaker 5: in like a cowgirl.
Speaker 3: I mean ready. It's huh gang gang gang gay gang Gay.
Speaker 3: I ask you so good?
Speaker 5: Gang gang gang gang Yes, yes, yes, ganggay gang Gay,
Speaker 5: I ask.
Speaker 3: You so good. Oh take it I am.
Speaker 1: Do you get me feel in like a queen?
Speaker 3: Hah? Yeah?
Speaker 2: This is late stage societal collapse people. Yes, let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up the next part up here. Think
Speaker 2: you doll's killing it right now. In terms of the
Speaker 2: New York Times, what they say is she said she
Speaker 2: has made between two thousand dollars and three thousand dollars
Speaker 2: per stream across all social media accounts accounts which include
Speaker 2: Instagram and OnlyFans, and puts the number at some seven
Speaker 2: thousand dollars per day. Now very likely, after all this
Speaker 2: media attention that she's receiving, that number is going to
Speaker 2: go up even more.
Speaker 3: Let's do some quick back of the napkin math here.
Speaker 2: That is like two point five million dollars that she's
Speaker 2: getting on this stream. As the Times puts a quote
Speaker 2: in a typical performance, Miss Sinon, which is her real name,
Speaker 2: who is twenty seven and lives in Montreal, stares into
Speaker 2: a camera lens while delivering a set of canned phrases
Speaker 2: as she streams viewers sent her digital gifts in the
Speaker 2: form of cartoon items like roses, dinosaurs, and ice cream cones.
Speaker 2: Each item translates to a cash payment. The gifts then
Speaker 2: float onto the scream and she racks each one with
Speaker 2: the same cartoonish mannerisms. Her reaction to the ice cream
Speaker 2: cones is become a meme, saying quote ice cream so good.
Speaker 2: Will often speak in a sing song voice. Sometimes she
Speaker 2: pops corn kennels one at a time using a hot
Speaker 2: hair flat iron effect. Is mesmerizing, nestled deep within the
Speaker 2: uncanny valley. So I mean, look, I'm not a streamer.
Speaker 2: I've never particularly understood it, so I'm not of this culture.
Speaker 2: I don't really get this culture. I guess it's ironic
Speaker 2: since we make our living here on YouTube and on Spotify.
Speaker 2: But from what I can gather, this is a source
Speaker 2: of entertainment for a hell of a lot of people.
Speaker 2: I don't particularly understand why. And this NPC meme and
Speaker 2: or phrase like being able to manipulate people's movements, I
Speaker 2: don't know what it taps into. I mean in a
Speaker 2: really gross way, like the sexualized stuff on the internet
Speaker 2: actually makes more sense than whatever the hell.
Speaker 1: Is going on I mean, I think for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, I think there is a sexual aspect to this.
Speaker 1: That's one thing that they debate in some of these articles.
Speaker 1: But there's like, as best I can understand the idea
Speaker 1: with the she's trying to replicate a non player character,
Speaker 1: which is a video game character that comes I am
Speaker 1: also not a gamer, that comes pre programmed and typically
Speaker 1: cannot be manipulated by the person at the controls. As such,
Speaker 1: a non player characters phrases, it, movements are often formulaic
Speaker 1: and repetitive. So at the same time that we have
Speaker 1: AI and bots that are trying to be more human,
Speaker 1: you have humans like this streamer. And she's not the
Speaker 1: only one. There's a whole genre of this type of
Speaker 1: streaming on TikTok, in particular Instagram, whatever, but in particular
Speaker 1: on TikTok, there's this whole genre of streaming that is
Speaker 1: like humans being more like the robots, and so there's
Speaker 1: an element of it's sort of like hypnotic. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit like gamersh and that you're looking to see
Speaker 1: if the gifts come up too quick, or she messes
Speaker 1: up or whatever. There's a little bit of that. There's
Speaker 1: certainly an element of I can make this person, this
Speaker 1: beautiful woman, I can make her do whatever I want
Speaker 1: her to do. There's an element of this being the
Speaker 1: next evolution of people talk about creators having a parasocial
Speaker 1: relationship with their audience. When we see a little bit
Speaker 1: of that on our show, where people who are regular
Speaker 1: watchers they feel like they really knows in the sense
Speaker 1: they do because we bring ourselves to the show and
Speaker 1: you get a sense of who we are and what
Speaker 1: we think, and you see what we talk about every day,
Speaker 1: and so there's this sort of like personal relationship there.
Speaker 1: This is like taking that to the next level where
Speaker 1: it's not just that I feel like I have this
Speaker 1: relationship with you, but there's a direct interaction. I send
Speaker 1: you this thing, and you do the thing that I
Speaker 1: told you to do. So I have, you know, a
Speaker 1: direct channel to you and impact your life directly, and
Speaker 1: so I think that's part of it. One thing I
Speaker 1: found interesting here Timberland, who I'm a big fan of,
Speaker 1: producer rapp or whatever, was apparently ranked the top viewer
Speaker 1: of the Pinky Doll stream based on gifts spent, the
Speaker 1: gifts sent and time spent viewing. Representative for Timberland did
Speaker 1: not immediately respond, but apparently he is a big fan.
Speaker 1: So that is the Pinky Doll phenomenon, so to speak.
Speaker 1: And like I said, this is just one of many
Speaker 1: creators who are, you know, finding success to a greater
Speaker 1: or lesser extent. This is their line of work, this
Speaker 1: is what they do. They spend hours doing this sort
Speaker 1: of thing. But I do great to inform you that
Speaker 1: it turns out that Pinky Doll is a scab. She
Speaker 1: recently released a video indicating she is going to go
Speaker 1: to Hollywood and take some of the jobs that these
Speaker 1: striking actors are currently sitting out of. Let's say a listen, yo.
Speaker 5: You're never going to believe that. Guess who is going
Speaker 5: to Hoidey with baby to hot a Wood. Yes, it
Speaker 5: should go right here, it should go right here, y'all. Y'all,
Speaker 5: I'm going to Hollywood, baby. That should about to be
Speaker 5: a pot paint because when I come in here, I
Speaker 5: will take somebody's pat Yo, I will take your spots.
Speaker 5: So you get to secure your spat because I'm coming
Speaker 5: for it.
Speaker 3: I'm coming to it.
Speaker 1: I'm going so she's gonna take their spot. So in
Speaker 1: a single day, you know, from me learning about Pinky
Speaker 1: Doll to her downfall. In my eyes, you know, that
Speaker 1: was the entire life life trajectory of Pinky Doll. In
Speaker 1: terms of my understanding of this.
Speaker 3: Situation, I mean, it's not really.
Speaker 2: All that's surprising is that, like a lot of these
Speaker 2: TikTok people, who knows how long you're going to be
Speaker 2: famous for, Like you might as well take the bag
Speaker 2: you can get it, but you know you shouldn't be crossed.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't even know if she knows what
Speaker 2: picket line is, Like maybe she does. Maybe she's consciously
Speaker 2: on her violating the strike. Yeah, people should inform her,
Speaker 2: they absolutely should. Anybody else really who's trying to get
Speaker 2: these said opportunities. So yeah, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: if the entire thing, I just I don't get it.
Speaker 2: With great respect to our friends in Japan, who I
Speaker 2: do love. I do love Japan. I love a lot
Speaker 2: about Japanese culture, but this does seem vaguely Japanese in
Speaker 2: some in terms of the psycho sexual dynamic and in
Speaker 2: terms like vaguely removed, as we said, from sexuality really
Speaker 2: at all, going to some like very odd levels of
Speaker 2: control combined with gaming and with streaming and the emojis
Speaker 2: and all that, it just seems like reminiscent of exactly
Speaker 2: what they were going through almost I'm really to the
Speaker 2: last two decades in some of their youth culture, like
Speaker 2: with streaming and with gaming. So I wonder if we're
Speaker 2: importing that here, or if the same disease I guess
Speaker 2: is inflicting us, or maybe I'm just reading way too
Speaker 2: much into it, and you know, some shit is weird
Speaker 2: shit as is popular on the end.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, there's an audience for everything. If this
Speaker 1: makes you happy, then go do you sure?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you want to spend your hard earned money on
Speaker 3: ice cream cones.
Speaker 4: Go for it.
Speaker 3: I would have father's suggestions for you.
Speaker 1: There's nothing quite like the sheer terror of the American
Speaker 1: upper middle class about what college their kids will be
Speaker 1: able to attend well off suburbs. The race for the
Speaker 1: ivys begins the moment a child is conceived. Got to
Speaker 1: get them in the right playgroup, that feeds in the
Speaker 1: right preschool, that leads the right private school. Got to
Speaker 1: get them in fencing or tennis from age like two,
Speaker 1: pony up thousands for test prep from the jump, to
Speaker 1: make sure they can get through any possible entrance exams.
Speaker 1: In the Varsity Blue Scandal, of course, a bunch of
Speaker 1: people who were wealthy, but not like Bezos wealthy, we're
Speaker 1: even willing to commit crimes to get their offspring into
Speaker 1: the right Prestigiou schools. Well, new data reveals just how
Speaker 1: the super rich gain this whole system for their benefit,
Speaker 1: and why the merely well off may have so much
Speaker 1: anxiety about keeping their kids among the elite. According to
Speaker 1: New York Times, right up of a groundbreaking study in
Speaker 1: elite college admissions, being very rich is its own qualification. Now.
Speaker 1: This study looked at admissions for twelve different elite private universities,
Speaker 1: including the Ivys, and found that even if you controlled
Speaker 1: for test scores and for academic rigor, the children of
Speaker 1: the zero point one percent were more than twice as
Speaker 1: likely to get into the school as your average applicant,
Speaker 1: or as medical Lacis put it on Twitter, new source
Speaker 1: of intra elite conflict and status anxiety just dropped. Just
Speaker 1: take a look at that chart that's up on the screen.
Speaker 1: If you are low income, you actually have a somewhat
Speaker 1: higher than average likelihood of getting in. Then there is
Speaker 1: a big drop off from about the sixtieth income percentile
Speaker 1: to the ninety ninth percentile, where everyone from the upper
Speaker 1: middle class to the wealthy but not super wealthy have
Speaker 1: a lower chance of getting in than the average. The
Speaker 1: line then jumps over the average line at around the
Speaker 1: ninety ninth percentile top one percent then it just skyrockets
Speaker 1: from there to the top of the charts. So the
Speaker 1: super rich are getting super privileged into our nation's top schools,
Speaker 1: and those schools, of course, are a direct pipeline into
Speaker 1: the national elite. Also revealing was exactly how the super
Speaker 1: rich got their big leg up. The benefit basically came
Speaker 1: from three areas. According to this study, legacy admissions, athletics,
Speaker 1: and private school privilege. The biggest impact appears to have
Speaker 1: been from legacy admissions. The very richest were eight times
Speaker 1: eight times more likely than the average applicant to get
Speaker 1: into a school if they had a parent who had
Speaker 1: also attended that school, So being born into an ivy
Speaker 1: league family supercharges the chances of already wealthy kids. But
Speaker 1: the other categories of benefit are also pretty revealing. Wealthy
Speaker 1: students at elite schools are much more likely to be
Speaker 1: recruited athletes than middle class or poor kids.
Speaker 3: Now, why is that?
Speaker 1: Because many of the sports popular at the ivys, things
Speaker 1: like rowing and fencing. They're expensive sports that basically only
Speaker 1: rich kids actually do. But even more mainstream sports have
Speaker 1: had a large and escalating costs associated with them as
Speaker 1: parents go to great lengths to get their kids in
Speaker 1: the right club or travel teams, attend far away competitions,
Speaker 1: and supply them with all of the best gear. Place
Speaker 1: where rich kids pulled ahead of the pack was in
Speaker 1: all of the non academic metrics that admissions counselors use.
Speaker 1: What were your extracurriculars? What kind of recommendations did you get?
Speaker 1: Remember those letters you had to get did your guidance
Speaker 1: counselor literally call up the school and advocate for you?
Speaker 1: I genuinely did not even know that last one was
Speaker 1: a thing. But apparently at a lot of the Ivy
Speaker 1: League feeder schools, guidance counselors have existing relationships with admissions
Speaker 1: officers and they will actually work the phones to try
Speaker 1: to get their favorite kids in. This pays big dividends.
Speaker 1: Just look at this chart. Rich kids were actually not
Speaker 1: all that different from everyone else on their academic ratings
Speaker 1: grades course Rigger SAT scores, but their guidance counselor ratings,
Speaker 1: their teacher ratings, other non academic ratings go sky high
Speaker 1: at the top end of the wealth spectrum. This suggests
Speaker 1: a major advantage to rich kids attending elite private schools.
Speaker 1: It also suggests a less than benevolent reason why some
Speaker 1: parents are pushing and some schools are moving towards getting
Speaker 1: rid of the SAT. Standardized tests and grades are far
Speaker 1: from perfect, but they are at least a somewhat objective measure.
Speaker 1: When you start to get into these squishy or variables,
Speaker 1: schools have been caught using them to blatantly discriminate against
Speaker 1: Asians and now to blatantly discriminate in favor of the rich. Basically,
Speaker 1: the less objective the criteria is, the more the rich
Speaker 1: have free reign to work the system in their favor,
Speaker 1: something many schools are dedicated to because rich kids with
Speaker 1: rich parents means fat donation checks. This paper also found
Speaker 1: that in terms of class preferences, really didn't matter what
Speaker 1: race you were, no matter whether you were black, White, Asian,
Speaker 1: or Latino, if mommy and daddy were in the super elite,
Speaker 1: you were more likely to have your ticket punched as well,
Speaker 1: this study reveals one aspect of why class has become
Speaker 1: increasingly rigid in America, such that, in spite of our
Speaker 1: American dream mythology, kids in the US are actually less
Speaker 1: likely to escape their class status at birth than kids
Speaker 1: in many European nations. Why are middle class is also
Speaker 1: smaller than many of those same nations. These secret protection
Speaker 1: rackets that keep the rich rich and make it tougher
Speaker 1: for everyone else, that funnel the NEPO babies into the
Speaker 1: most powerful echelons of elites so that they can then
Speaker 1: preserve those very protection rackets that got them there in
Speaker 1: the first place. And keep in mind, because this analysis
Speaker 1: doesn't even consider the advantages from things like private tutors
Speaker 1: and the like, it undoubtedly understates the leg up that
Speaker 1: the rich ultimately get bottom lined. As we end race
Speaker 1: based affirmative action, there is no excuse for maintaining a
Speaker 1: blatant system of affirmative action for the rich and sager.
Speaker 1: There has never been a study that breaks down exactly
Speaker 1: what benefit there are