Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody to day.
Speaker 1: What do we have personal indeed, we do truly a
Speaker 1: jam packed show this morning, so hopefully we can get
Speaker 1: through all of this. We've got a new Biden ad
Speaker 1: hitting Trump for being a criminal. We've got Americans apparently
Speaker 1: warming to the idea of mass deportation. Biden also preparing
Speaker 1: a new executive order with regards to immigration. That's interesting
Speaker 1: as well. CNN is officially announcing their debate criteria. It
Speaker 1: seems tailor made and designed to guarantee no one but
Speaker 1: Trump and Biden could possibly make the stage.
Speaker 4: She'll break that down for you. We have New.
Speaker 1: Jersey doing very new Jersey things, massive racketeering case against
Speaker 1: one of the strongest power brokers in the state, so
Speaker 1: lots is very interesting there.
Speaker 4: CNN once again lying.
Speaker 1: About the details of October seventh, and specifically the details
Speaker 1: of mass rape on October seventh with regards to They
Speaker 1: also brought on W. Wasserman Schultz for an assist. Kamala
Speaker 1: Harra is doing an event where she's also lying, so
Speaker 1: we want to break that down for you.
Speaker 4: We have a.
Speaker 1: Bombshell new report revealing that the Israeli government and the
Speaker 1: IDF new specific details about the planning Baijamas for October
Speaker 1: seventh in advance and did nothing to stop it. So
Speaker 1: that is a massive bombshell here. But also of course
Speaker 1: in Israel. Sager has a monologue. Maybe you should preview
Speaker 1: it for us.
Speaker 2: It's hard to It's basically, wells Fargo made the dumbest
Speaker 2: deal of all time, and then a new minted billionaire
Speaker 2: which decided to cover upseid deal and portray himself of
Speaker 2: an innovator. It's an amazing story and people are really good.
Speaker 1: I'm excited for this one. I'm excited to hear the
Speaker 1: details on this one. And we've also got Matt Stoller
Speaker 1: coming in to talk about his newport about how dramatically
Speaker 1: different Trump's rhetoric with regards to businesses is now versus
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4: So very excited to talk to him about that.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right, before we get to that, the debates
Speaker 2: are actually very soon. Can you guys even believe at
Speaker 2: the very first CNN debate we're going to go over
Speaker 2: some of the rigging that's involved in that with respect
Speaker 2: to RFK Junior. But nonetheless we will be covering it
Speaker 2: live here on the show. So if you want to
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber, you're going to be able to
Speaker 2: have some exclusive benefits and more and input on that.
Speaker 2: So Breakingpoints dot Com for the live presidential debates and
Speaker 2: you can join us for our coverage. But with that,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and start with mister Trump.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so fresh off of we actually had those
Speaker 1: exclusive word clouds revealing that in the wake of Trump's
Speaker 1: guilty conviction, the number one word that people are associating
Speaker 1: with him is the word criminal. Biden campaign leaning into
Speaker 1: that with a new fifty million dollar add by across
Speaker 1: battleground states pegging him as a criminal. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to that.
Speaker 5: The courtroom, we see Donald Trump for who he is.
Speaker 5: He's been convicted of thirty four felonies, found liable for
Speaker 5: sexual assault, and he committed financial fraud. Meanwhile, Joe Biden's
Speaker 5: been working lowering healthcare costs and making big corporations pay
Speaker 5: their fair share. This election is between a convicted criminal
Speaker 5: who's only out for himself and a president who's fighting
Speaker 5: for your family.
Speaker 1: So, based on those word clause that we showed you before,
Speaker 1: the American public basically feels this is an election between
Speaker 1: a criminal and an old man. So the Biden campaign,
Speaker 1: I think, given who Joe Biden is, given that he's
Speaker 1: unwilling to actually run on like an affirmative economic agenda
Speaker 1: or anything approximating that, given that he's unwilling to change
Speaker 1: his wildly unpopular foreign policy, I think this is probably
Speaker 1: one of the stronger things for them to lean into, here, Sager,
Speaker 1: and really try to make that word criminal and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump be the number one connection that people make in
Speaker 1: their minds.
Speaker 2: This is the twenty twenty two reducts where twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two were subbing criminal in for stop the steal. What
Speaker 2: they really both, you know, come to, is this idea
Speaker 2: about what people hate the most about Trump about clearly
Speaker 2: what we saw in our word cloud, the so called
Speaker 2: criminal tag, you know, getting added for his name, the
Speaker 2: convicted criminals, when they're gonna be putting on billboards. There's
Speaker 2: a reason they're putting a lot of money behind this
Speaker 2: ad I just saw, even though they're putting as much
Speaker 2: as one hundred thousand dollars just on News Nation, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're doing adviys and throwing money everywhere behind
Speaker 2: this thing.
Speaker 3: And the main reason is that this is the best
Speaker 3: that they got, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at the so called accomplishments
Speaker 2: about lower it's like, yeah, okay, whatever, But it's not
Speaker 2: really about his record. It's about driving up all the
Speaker 2: negative towards Trump, and to be honest, that is the
Speaker 2: best that they have. It's abortion and quote unquote democracy
Speaker 2: when we pair for those who watch the show a lot.
Speaker 2: If you look at our polling yesterday, the reason that
Speaker 2: seniors are gravitating towards Biden is they like the status quote.
Speaker 2: The reason that younger voters, Black, Hispanic voters and others
Speaker 2: are graving towards Trump is they don't like the status quo.
Speaker 2: So when you want to win over possibly more status
Speaker 2: quo like minded voters who vote a lot seniors, you know,
Speaker 2: much higher propensity. You want to lean into the things
Speaker 2: that they care a lot about, like democracy, like a
Speaker 2: trust in the justice system. You know, if you're under
Speaker 2: forty years old, you really trust the justice system like
Speaker 2: all that much. But if you're like sixty five plus
Speaker 2: you said this yesterday, you have a real reverence for
Speaker 2: like capitalized institutions in a very different way than most
Speaker 2: people do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a lot of that sense that you're describing
Speaker 1: is much more based on vibes than it is reality,
Speaker 1: which we know from the fact. Would talk to Stoler
Speaker 1: about this. I mean, there's a big reason why Wall
Speaker 1: Street is now shifting back towards Trump, getting comfortable to
Speaker 1: with Trump. The reason why the Wall Street Journal editorial
Speaker 1: board has been at war with the Biden administration, especially
Speaker 1: with Lena Khan over his anti trust policies. That's been
Speaker 1: a real thorn in their side. It has, you know,
Speaker 1: undercut their ability to get gigantic bonuses every year.
Speaker 4: So there is upset.
Speaker 1: In the Wall Street crowd and in the billionaire crowd
Speaker 1: about some of those policies. But you know, Trump of
Speaker 1: course has and also by the way, it's also vibes
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side about quote unquote preserving democracy, since
Speaker 1: these are the people who were perfectly willing to destroy
Speaker 1: democracy in their own primaries to guarantee that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: once again ascended to the nomination in spite of the
Speaker 1: fact that a majority of the Democratic base was like,
Speaker 1: we would really like some other options. So let's just
Speaker 1: be clear about what we're talking about here. But you know,
Speaker 1: from the Biden campaign strategic perspective, we saw some pulling
Speaker 1: a little while out a week, two weeks something like
Speaker 1: that ago that said, Okay, if voters view this as
Speaker 1: a referendum on Joe Biden, forget it, he's toast, it's over.
Speaker 1: If they view it on as a referendum on Trump,
Speaker 1: then he wins, and wins relatively easily. If they view
Speaker 1: it as a choice between the two, it's really quite close.
Speaker 1: It's a jump ball, I think, you know, one point
Speaker 1: two point in either direction. And so they want to
Speaker 1: push things as much as possible in the direction of
Speaker 1: making this a referendum of Trump at best for them,
Speaker 1: or at least a choice, because then they're in the ballgame.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, the other advantage this narrative has
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, Cantoniet, he is a convicted
Speaker 1: criminal at this point, so it has the benefit of
Speaker 1: matching with reality. But negative attack ads always work best
Speaker 1: when there's something that a you know, average viewer is
Speaker 1: inclined to believe. And that's the other thing we've seen
Speaker 1: about Trump. Whether or not it's changed people's votes, you know,
Speaker 1: people a majority people do feel like he has committed crimes.
Speaker 1: That he has committed the crimes that he was convicted
Speaker 1: of and likely committed other crimes. So it's a tag
Speaker 1: that fits, and I do think the more that they
Speaker 1: can apply that label, it probably does inforb some theme
Speaker 1: to their benefit. And you know, so that that makes
Speaker 1: the argument that some of what's going on in the
Speaker 1: you know, with the trial and the guilty verdict could
Speaker 1: have an impact on the election. It was not the
Speaker 1: total upending game changer that Democrats may have hoped, but
Speaker 1: we do have some indications that this is an issue
Speaker 1: for Independence and could shift them towards Joe Biden. But
Speaker 1: the up on the screen, this is from Politico, So
Speaker 1: you have twenty one percent of Independence saying that Trump's
Speaker 1: conviction does matter to their vote. All right, that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's not nothing. Again, I think people are kind of
Speaker 1: bad really breaking down what matters to their vote. But
Speaker 1: you've got a good number of independence here saying that
Speaker 1: this is an issue for them. Let's put the next
Speaker 1: one up on the screen. You have less than half
Speaker 1: of respondence believing that Trump was prosecuted to help Biden.
Speaker 1: So it's not a majority position. That being said, you have,
Speaker 1: you know, forty three percent is not nothing that does
Speaker 1: think that the prosecution was directly political and directly motivated
Speaker 1: to try to help Joe Biden. And then just another
Speaker 1: interesting note here, which is not really directly related to
Speaker 1: the campaign, at least not yet. But let's put this
Speaker 1: next piece up on the screen. Of the various pieces
Speaker 1: of the legal system, the entity that people have the
Speaker 1: least faith in is Supreme Court justices worthy. In the
Speaker 1: context of the Trump guilty verdict, the entity or the
Speaker 1: group that they have the most trust in is citizens
Speaker 1: serving on jury. So the fact that you know, jury
Speaker 1: of his peers found him guilty, I guess, isn't nothing.
Speaker 1: You've got a majority of people fifty four percent, saying
Speaker 1: that they have a great deal or a fair amount
Speaker 1: of trust in citizens serving on Jury's so.
Speaker 4: There you go. In terms of how people are what
Speaker 4: people are making of the trial.
Speaker 3: I don't know how I feel about that one. I'll
Speaker 3: just put that aside. I look, iman served on a jury.
Speaker 3: I think it's fair.
Speaker 2: Maybe I would trust you. It depends on the county,
Speaker 2: depends on the state. My hometown college station, I don't know.
Speaker 4: You know, Simeon was actually mine was in Manhattan, Manhattan.
Speaker 3: But you were federal grand jury. Yeah, no, it was local.
Speaker 1: It was local Manhattan grand jury, and people buy and
Speaker 1: large took it very seriously.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, maybe my bias is too colored here and
Speaker 2: this has nothing to do with Trump. I've long been
Speaker 2: very skeptical. I guess I would say, of what's going on,
Speaker 2: I think what we can see from here is we
Speaker 2: would have been stupid to say it was going to
Speaker 2: have no impact. However, I still think it is relatively marginal.
Speaker 2: That said, if it is marginal, it's gonna be marginal
Speaker 2: in the Biden direction, and we shouldn't dismiss it because
Speaker 2: this is the marginal election. If we look at the
Speaker 2: five thirty eight polling average, you have the projection of
Speaker 2: Trump winning fifty out of one hundred times and Biden
Speaker 2: winning forty nine out of one hundred times. That's as
Speaker 2: close as to a toss up as you can possibly get.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump only lost the election by some one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand votes across three separate states. Yesterday I
Speaker 2: was doing a little bit of playing on the two
Speaker 2: seventy to win website. I mean, we really need to
Speaker 2: internalize this. Donald Trump can flip Nevada, he can win Georgia,
Speaker 2: and he can win Arizona. But if he loses Wisconsin, Michigan,
Speaker 2: and Pennsylvania, he will lose to Joe Biden, who will
Speaker 2: get two hundred and seventy electoral votes to his two
Speaker 2: sixty nine. I mean, that's it, that's all. It could
Speaker 2: be a race towards So we could be talking about
Speaker 2: the margins of tens of thousands of votes, or it
Speaker 2: could be like the year two thousand and we could
Speaker 2: be a couple thousand votes in some hanging chad nonsense,
Speaker 2: you know, rules who actually get to take the White House.
Speaker 2: So let's not dismiss the marginal in this respect. But
Speaker 2: you know, I do still think electorally, the ones that
Speaker 2: they really had going for them. The January sixth case
Speaker 2: and the Georgia ones those because they're going to be
Speaker 2: after the election. At least from what we can tell
Speaker 2: at this point, what they were really hoping for has
Speaker 2: not materialized.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's certainly the case. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this next piece up on the screen from the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. We had an interesting, interesting report here, had
Speaker 1: a lot of great quotes from voters a region, one
Speaker 1: or two of these. But it's also interesting because you know,
Speaker 1: we tend to have this that you can just leave
Speaker 1: this up on the screen when I'm talking. We tend
Speaker 1: to have this idea in the modern political era that
Speaker 1: basically everyone is locked in deer are hard partisan divide
Speaker 1: negative partisanship to we're just voting against the other side.
Speaker 1: There are very few swing voters, et cetera. And you
Speaker 1: know this indicates that's not really the case. You've got
Speaker 1: sixty one percent of voters who are not saying that
Speaker 1: they're definitely Biden, who are not saying that they're definitely Trump.
Speaker 1: They are truly still weighing their options.
Speaker 4: Now, this would.
Speaker 1: Include people who say they're likely by likely Trump, They're
Speaker 1: leaning one way or another, but they're not yet willing
Speaker 1: to say I am one hundred percent riding with Biden
Speaker 1: or I'm one hundred percent on the Trump train. And
Speaker 1: I think that's that's really noteworthy into that mix. We
Speaker 1: could put the next piece up on the screen. They
Speaker 1: have this broken down. You've got amongst sporadic voters eighteen
Speaker 1: to twenty five. That's eight percent voted in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: or twenty twenty, not both. You've got twenty four percent.
Speaker 1: So you know, you've got a mix of types of
Speaker 1: voters that fall into this category among uncommitted voters. So
Speaker 1: if you break this down, okay, well, who are they
Speaker 1: leaning towards? Probably Biden is thirteen percent, others seventeen percent,
Speaker 1: Probably Trump is fifteen percent. So it's relatively mixed there
Speaker 1: as well. So I guess this is all just a
Speaker 1: long way of saying that, you know, this thing's very
Speaker 1: much up in the air. As we discussed in yesterday's show,
Speaker 1: you have a lot of people who just are really
Speaker 1: unhappy with both candidates, don't feel like they have a
Speaker 1: lot of great options, are you know, reluctant to kind
Speaker 1: of commit because they just don't feel excited or happy
Speaker 1: about the choices that they have. They interview this this
Speaker 1: one woman Riki Denning. She says, by her own account,
Speaker 1: she's torn up about the November election.
Speaker 4: She's almost certain.
Speaker 1: She'll cast about, but just might leave the presidential line blank.
Speaker 1: She says, I just hate both of the candidates, and
Speaker 1: there's no third party candidate that stands a chance. This
Speaker 1: is a twenty six year old resident of Las Vegas.
Speaker 1: Obviously Nevada, key swing state where Trump seems to have
Speaker 1: made up a lot of ground he lost the state
Speaker 1: last time, appears to be in the lead there by
Speaker 1: some poles significant margin at this point, they say, forced
Speaker 1: to choose between Biden and Trump, she said she would
Speaker 1: lean toward Biden, then added, but I just don't agree
Speaker 1: with him as president at all. Her dissatisfaction includes her
Speaker 1: belief he is too old for another term, hasn't delivered
Speaker 1: on a promise to eliminate her student loan debt, and
Speaker 1: that he supports Israel in the war in the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: So you know a host of issues there that, especially
Speaker 1: for her age set, I think you would hear very
Speaker 1: commonly in the dissatisfaction against Joe Biden. Now, if you're
Speaker 1: a Biden person, soager you would look at that and say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I support all that She's.
Speaker 4: Going to come alone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's going to vote, and she's leaning towards Biden.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, she's we're going
Speaker 1: to convince her that you can't risk another Trump term.
Speaker 1: She's aware that none of the third party candidates have
Speaker 1: a you know, have a real chance, and so she's
Speaker 1: this is the type of person we are going to
Speaker 1: be able to persuade. And that's why the polls right
Speaker 1: now don't really reflect our ultimate strength in November.
Speaker 4: And listen, they may be right.
Speaker 1: If I had to bet, who would you bet that
Speaker 1: this person ultimately ends u voting for Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to be rude, but it's like, lady,
Speaker 2: you're probably going to vote for Biden. And that's why
Speaker 2: it's one of those where, uh, this is the difficulty
Speaker 2: of the system really that we live in. But you
Speaker 2: know some of the other data about who the quote
Speaker 2: unquote deciders are more likely to be back black or
Speaker 2: Hispanic and nondeciders. One third of deciders are non white,
Speaker 2: compared to about fifth of other voters. Deciders are more
Speaker 2: likely than non deciders to live in urban areas and
Speaker 2: are more likely to have no religion. So this really
Speaker 2: is like the new secular America. These are people who
Speaker 2: are probably predominantly working class, just based on you know,
Speaker 2: a purview of like a quick look at their demographic and.
Speaker 3: That kind of tracks and makes sense to me.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are the people who Trump in general
Speaker 2: was able to activate or increasingly is bringing some people
Speaker 2: over to a side who traditionally never would have voted Republican.
Speaker 2: At the same time, the abortion issue is going to
Speaker 2: wagh you down. If you are predominantly more secular, well
Speaker 2: what are you going to do, Like, you're going to
Speaker 2: be pretty upset about some of this Christian right stuff
Speaker 2: that's going on. So it all depends on the media
Speaker 2: that you're consuming and what you're looking at. And so again,
Speaker 2: like when we look at this and we say that
Speaker 2: the top issue here is the economy, but number two
Speaker 2: is quote unquote threats to democracy. That's one of those
Speaker 2: where when I see I could see the tie, I
Speaker 2: could see fifty going towards Trump, and I could see
Speaker 2: them going to Biden as well, which is why I'm
Speaker 2: still just I cannot count Biden out despite all of
Speaker 2: the bad news that we see. As Yeah, I never
Speaker 2: want to bet against old white people in this country.
Speaker 2: I'm just I know, you know, I live around these folks.
Speaker 6: They love voting.
Speaker 2: I mean, they've got obscure signs in their windows, and
Speaker 2: I'm like, how do you even have time to give
Speaker 2: a shit about who the you know, like deputy mayor
Speaker 2: council is.
Speaker 4: They're the people have the most time, and Christ, that's
Speaker 4: what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: They're posting signs all of our neighborhood.
Speaker 2: They're trying to renew parking rules to only allow people
Speaker 2: to park for two hours instead of four. I'm like,
Speaker 2: who cares? Why do we care about this?
Speaker 3: This is the biggest thing.
Speaker 4: In their whole lives and the people his wife or
Speaker 4: beefing with.
Speaker 2: Literally they're lobbying against an apartment building nearby, and I
Speaker 2: swear one of the posters says they're gonna flood nine
Speaker 2: one one calls you can't make this stuff up in
Speaker 2: terms of what they care about. But living around these folks,
Speaker 2: I'm not counting them out.
Speaker 3: They will vote. They will always vote. Oh yeah, no.
Speaker 4: Doubt about that, No doubt about that.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, let's see if this next pole changes your
Speaker 1: mind in terms of the other in terms of Biden's prospects.
Speaker 4: Because this is a doozy. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is a poll of Iowa from the Des Moines Register.
Speaker 1: This is Anne Selzer who does this poll. She is
Speaker 1: the highest rated polster in like Nate Silver's ranking of
Speaker 1: all the posters.
Speaker 4: Okay, she's number one.
Speaker 1: She is famous in political circles in terms of her
Speaker 1: ability to closely predict the results of Iowa elections in particular. Now,
Speaker 1: just keep this up on the street. No one is
Speaker 1: saying that Joe Biden ever had a chance to win Iowa.
Speaker 4: You know, it's crazy. Barack Obama one.
Speaker 1: Iowa doesn't seem like that long ago, but the state
Speaker 1: is trying to read. Democrats have given up on rural
Speaker 1: America and so no one was expecting Joe Biden to
Speaker 1: win Iowa. However, this poll has him clocking only thirty
Speaker 1: two percent of the vote to Trump's fifty percent. RFK
Speaker 1: Junior with a not insignificant nine percent, and other third
Speaker 1: party candidates, you know, combining for another six percent. There,
Speaker 1: so thirty two percent for Joe Biden this time around.
Speaker 1: That would be if you extrapolate these type of numbers
Speaker 1: across similarly situated Midwestern states like Wisconsin, for example, you're
Speaker 1: looking at a bloodbath. Like so, the fact that some
Speaker 1: of the best polsters like Ann Selzer, like New York
Speaker 1: Times is considered a very highly rated polster as well,
Speaker 1: the fact that some of the best polsters are coming
Speaker 1: out with some of the worst results for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: not a great sign for him.
Speaker 3: Zager. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, and that's the other side of the coin. That's
Speaker 2: why I also can't count out Trump in this race.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at this deswin rechiester Pole, the highest quality
Speaker 2: poll allegedly in the entire nation. You take this, and
Speaker 2: Trump was going to win Wisconsin by five points, which
Speaker 2: is an insane position. So we are either in a
Speaker 2: place where the highest quality polster in the US is
Speaker 2: totally wrong, and you know there's gonna be some.
Speaker 4: Well there's some huge shift which right now I'm.
Speaker 2: Not on event or massive you know shift in between
Speaker 2: now or uh Trump is going to win and it's like,
Speaker 2: I don't know that said, we've seen enough craziness just
Speaker 2: here at the desk that can't count it out.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, so, just to give people a sense of how
Speaker 1: dramatic this is, last time Trump won the state, okay,
Speaker 1: but it was fifty three forty five exactly fifty three
Speaker 1: forty five, so an eight point margin versus this was
Speaker 1: fifty what did I say, thirty two? I mean, if
Speaker 1: we've seen that kind of a shift in these intervening years,
Speaker 1: even in a state that isn't really in play, it's over.
Speaker 3: It's over.
Speaker 1: I mean, if this poll remains, if it's accurate, all
Speaker 1: of that, this is dire. And keep in mind too,
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, Iowa is a state filled with old
Speaker 1: white people, Like this is the place where he was
Speaker 1: supposedly this is the demographic among which he was supposedly
Speaker 1: gaining ground where they're kind of betting the farm at
Speaker 1: this point to you know, do better with seniors than
Speaker 1: they did last time around, actually win the senior vote
Speaker 1: first time in modern history, et cetera, et cetera. That's
Speaker 1: the rationale for why they think the industrial Midwestern states,
Speaker 1: the former like blue Wall states are their best bet
Speaker 1: because they have more of an old white population than
Speaker 1: the younger and more diverse Sun Belt states. But you know,
Speaker 1: if this holds, it's it's looking pretty rough.
Speaker 2: It's grim, yeah, I mean, our goal always to just
Speaker 2: give you the ultimate like both sides of the coin
Speaker 2: to not just be like, you should not walk around
Speaker 2: and have any certainty whatsoever about this election.
Speaker 1: I could genuinely see this election going in any direction.
Speaker 1: I could see Biden winning all the swing states. I
Speaker 1: could see Trump winning all the swing states. I could
Speaker 1: see it being, you know, split in different weird ways
Speaker 1: that were. I could see any result at this point,
Speaker 1: just depending on the way the lens turns in that
Speaker 1: given day. But in any case, that's the info we
Speaker 1: have to bring to you today. We also could not
Speaker 1: leave this one out with.
Speaker 4: Some of the screen.
Speaker 1: So just incredible Washington Brain. Here, incredible Washington Brain opinion
Speaker 1: piece written by Kathleen Parker. Democrats are wrestling with an
Speaker 1: age old problem. Maybe Hillary Clinton could come to the rescue.
Speaker 1: And this piece is really funny. I read it yesterday
Speaker 1: because it starts off with some solid analysis. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know what, Biden's really old. That's a problem. Voters
Speaker 1: have a problem with that. We can see him slow down.
Speaker 1: It's not just spin. She wasn't trying to say it
Speaker 1: was a medium whatever whatever. She's like, No, we can
Speaker 1: see right. And part of the issue is that people
Speaker 1: don't have faith in Kamala.
Speaker 3: Harris's vice pride.
Speaker 1: Okay, true, and she even made a point to say,
Speaker 1: this isn't about our race or identity, it's just they
Speaker 1: haven't seen her to be a competent actor. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: with you so far. Then the final analytical leap that is, just,
Speaker 1: like I said, the most incredible example of belt Way brain.
Speaker 1: And she says, so what they should do is drop
Speaker 1: Kamala from the ticket and sub in Hillary Clinton. Now
Speaker 1: I want to correct myself because I think on Monday,
Speaker 1: I think I said that Joe Biden might be the
Speaker 1: worst possible Democrat to have at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's correct. I think Hillary Clinton would
Speaker 1: be worse than Joe Biden from an electoral perspective. I
Speaker 1: think she would actually be worse. So congratulations to this
Speaker 1: calumnist for coming up with one of the worst ideas
Speaker 1: I've literally ever heard.
Speaker 2: No one has mentioned her as a possible running me
Speaker 2: for Biden as far as I know, But why not
Speaker 2: replace Harris with Clinton at seventy six?
Speaker 3: She might want no.
Speaker 2: Part of it, but it's hard to retire when you
Speaker 2: feel your job isn't done. If Biden needs to step down,
Speaker 2: even those who didn't vote for Clinton would have confidence
Speaker 2: in her ability to keep the country on track.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's just the thought. But worse ideas have you
Speaker 3: dealt with?
Speaker 1: Confident in her ability to keep the country on track.
Speaker 2: Somebody, actually, some pro Clinton person, was like, this should
Speaker 2: have been the last year of Hillary's presidence.
Speaker 3: You know, Oh my god, thank god that didn't happen.
Speaker 3: I mean, I can't imagine.
Speaker 1: Okay, but also just I think on the most basic level, Okay,
Speaker 1: the most basic level, this woman has a literal track
Speaker 1: record of losing.
Speaker 4: To Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So if you're trying to solve the problem, just the
Speaker 1: discrete problem of like, we want to beat Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and we don't think this is the ticket that's really
Speaker 1: designed to do that, why do you reach to the
Speaker 1: person who already lost to him.
Speaker 2: It's amazing who is arguably less, you know, less popular
Speaker 2: than Kamala Harris in terms of her negatives, like for unfavorables. Yes,
Speaker 2: we showed everybody a graphic yesterday. The hate both parties
Speaker 2: the highest it's ever been was this year, this election.
Speaker 2: Guess what the previous hire it's ever been Hillary. It's like,
Speaker 2: why would you pick somebody who explicitly is hated by
Speaker 2: so much of the public that said Hillary's not going away.
Speaker 2: She raising some eyebrows, made a surprise appearance at the
Speaker 2: Tony Awards.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen, great evening.
Speaker 7: I have stood on a lot of stages, but this
Speaker 7: is very special, and I know a little bit about
Speaker 7: how hard it is to make change. So I'm extremely
Speaker 7: proud of this original American musical by Shana Taub.
Speaker 3: And of course it is about.
Speaker 7: Some American originals, the suffragists, who fought so valiantly for
Speaker 7: so long to give women in our country the right
Speaker 7: to vote. It's almost impossible to think about what a
Speaker 7: challenge that was. But now it's an election year and
Speaker 7: we need to be reminded about how important it is
Speaker 7: to vote.
Speaker 1: You know, she may want to take those words back,
Speaker 1: given that we just covered the fact that are going
Speaker 1: to Republicans.
Speaker 3: So that's right. Look, I don't know everyone.
Speaker 2: I think it's generally like low IQ nonsense when they're
Speaker 2: like they're going to replace Michelle, They're going to replace
Speaker 2: and so I don't think that's gonna happen unless Biden
Speaker 2: literally dies like dies or has a debilitating stoke. And
Speaker 2: I hope that doesn't happen. But with Hillary, I don't know.
Speaker 2: She's always positioning herself. She's always working in the angles.
Speaker 2: That's like the Clinton m O. And she's ready. She's
Speaker 2: there if she wants to assume. So maybe that's the calculus.
Speaker 2: Maybe she enjoys I don't know, she.
Speaker 1: Wants a cabinet position the next time around. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: would you put it out?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's yeah. You imagine we get her back in
Speaker 2: the cabinet. That'd be a nightmare.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: The ticket is what it is like all this the
Speaker 1: fantasy I've our position on this show has always been
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden is going to be you know, is
Speaker 1: not going to leave.
Speaker 8: He is.
Speaker 1: There's no you know back room where they're plotting this
Speaker 1: up himount for Michelle Obama or you know Ryan's idea
Speaker 1: they're gonna put in Barack Obama on the ticket with
Speaker 1: them or whatever. Like Ryan doesn't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: He's just saying they actually want to win. That would
Speaker 1: be a smart maneuver. None of that is, None of
Speaker 1: that is happening. This is the ticket. You know, it's
Speaker 1: not gonna be Hillary it's not gonna be Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1: That's the weird Conservatives are obsessed with this idea that
Speaker 1: they plot weird to sub in Michelle Obama. And yeah,
Speaker 1: you know that. I think you guys have a lot
Speaker 1: more confidence and like the desire of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: to actually win than you should have.
Speaker 4: So in any case, that's where we are.
Speaker 3: That's right. Oh and one other thing we want to
Speaker 3: get in here this day. Driving me nuts.
Speaker 2: The White House spin on the Biden videos is they've
Speaker 2: convented a new term. So you Chris will remember misinformation
Speaker 2: that you know, took over everything, then industry, Yeah, misinformation,
Speaker 2: then disinformation, right, then there was malinformation. Malinformation is video
Speaker 2: is information that is true but it's bad information or
Speaker 2: it's not complete. So you guys will remember the term
Speaker 2: deep fake.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So now the White House is done is they have
Speaker 2: coined a new term served up by their media masters
Speaker 2: and they're working together called cheap fake, where it is
Speaker 2: a video that they don't like and doesn't for both podcasts.
Speaker 3: So we have a video.
Speaker 2: Here of the White House talking about how angry they
Speaker 2: are about these videos showing Biden being old, and they're like,
Speaker 2: this is so out of context.
Speaker 3: This is outrageous. Let's take a list.
Speaker 9: Ironically, several recent chief fakes actually attack the president for
Speaker 9: thanking troops, for thinking troops. That is what they are
Speaker 9: attacking the president for. Both in Normandy this happened and
Speaker 9: again in Italy. And I think that it tells you
Speaker 9: everything that we need to know about how desperate, how
Speaker 9: desperate Republicans are here. And instead of talking about the
Speaker 9: President's performance in office, and what I mean by that
Speaker 9: is his legislative wins, what he's been able to do
Speaker 9: for the American people across the country, we're seeing these
Speaker 9: deep fakes, these manipulated videos, and it is again done
Speaker 9: in bad faith.
Speaker 2: Deep fake they changed that, by the way, because they
Speaker 2: didn't understand what the term. So there's this guy, Andrew Bates.
Speaker 2: If anyone has Twitter, I encourage you go to go
Speaker 2: and follow him. His entire fear is trying to debunk
Speaker 2: these Biden age videos. And yeah, and she works with
Speaker 2: the White House. You know, he works at the White House.
Speaker 2: That's his whole job is just out here and he's
Speaker 2: like cheap fake, cheap, fake chip, deep fake cheap. These
Speaker 2: people have no sense of reality what this is. So anyway,
Speaker 2: keep an eye out.
Speaker 3: You heard it here first.
Speaker 2: Cheap fake is the new misinformation, disinformation, whatever, that's what
Speaker 2: they have to come up with.
Speaker 4: And she was specifically responding to the video play.
Speaker 3: Yes, in full context, by the way, show everybody play
Speaker 3: the whole video.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but yeah, like you said, and so even to
Speaker 1: call it a deep fake, is it autrageous?
Speaker 4: That word has a meaning. Yes, The meaning is that
Speaker 4: it's actually altered, right, and.
Speaker 2: It's fundamentally we said manipulated. That's not manipulated video. Okay,
Speaker 2: you could say it wasn't clipped right out of context.
Speaker 2: You know, words half meaning the actually do not to
Speaker 2: these folks. So anyway, cheap fake, you guys heard it here.
Speaker 2: That's the new mal information. Just wait, you're gonna see
Speaker 2: it everywhere. I already do Google chief fake. This morning,
Speaker 2: Washington Post stories citing the cheap fake PolitiFact, cheap fake
Speaker 2: videos of Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: It's everywhere. It's this is the new media that we
Speaker 3: live in.
Speaker 1: Just flasting on this. It would be one thing. You
Speaker 1: might have some credibility to say that if it was
Speaker 1: one moment, thank you, Yeah, who played you multiple just yesterday,
Speaker 1: We've played you multiple moments that are you know him
Speaker 1: wandering him, dazed him confused, doing weird you know head
Speaker 1: thing with the pope Like anyway, people, we're not stupid.
Speaker 2: Like that behind the wheel, squint that way change land change.
Speaker 1: Even Democrats the number one word they associated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, okay, okay, that's reality.
Speaker 4: Thank You's not a cheap fake.
Speaker 2: This is a big electoral issue, So economy number one.
Speaker 2: We've seen a lot of the polling sometimes immigration this
Speaker 2: now immigration at the very least number two, genuinely number
Speaker 2: one for GOP voters. There's been some interesting shifts in
Speaker 2: coalitions to put this up there on the screen. This
Speaker 2: was a new poll from the CBS You Go America
Speaker 2: that is conducted June five to June of it and
Speaker 2: actually asks about mass deportation. So it says a majority
Speaker 2: of registered voters favor a quote new national program to
Speaker 2: depart all quote his words, undocumented immigrants currently living in
Speaker 2: the US illegally, sixty two to thirty eight percent. But
Speaker 2: the real shock, I guess to the people here in
Speaker 2: the media is that even among Hispanics, a majority of
Speaker 2: them now favor mass deportation at fifty three to forty seven.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part here, because this has
Speaker 2: been an interesting trend that in the last month or
Speaker 2: so has really began to materialize where the share of
Speaker 2: Americans who say that they support mass deportation has basically
Speaker 2: exploded over the last four years. So you can see
Speaker 2: there that the top general public number is at fifty
Speaker 2: one percent. This poll is from a month ago, just
Speaker 2: by the way, and then we look at it by
Speaker 2: race and ethnicity. In this one they found it was
Speaker 2: fifty six percent of whites, forty five percent of Latinos,
Speaker 2: and forty percent of Black Americans. But if you look
Speaker 2: at political affiliation, you have sixty eight percent Republican, forty
Speaker 2: six percent Independent, forty two percent Democrat, and then generationally
Speaker 2: there is a massive split. You have Boomers at sixty,
Speaker 2: gen X at fifty three, Millennials at forty eight, and
Speaker 2: then gen Z at thirty five. So generationally there is
Speaker 2: a big split. But Crystal, I think that this is
Speaker 2: really over is upturning a lot of the ways that
Speaker 2: we're watching kind of the media and everybody else grapple
Speaker 2: with this young and Hispanic move towards Trump, and specifically
Speaker 2: also amongst Black Americans. Immigration politics has been flipped over
Speaker 2: really on its head, where it's both that the you know,
Speaker 2: first of all, the migrant situation today is just so
Speaker 2: out of control that, you know, to any previous situation
Speaker 2: kind of I use the Marx term heightened the contradictions
Speaker 2: in terms of people really kind of had to choose
Speaker 2: a sign. But second and foremost, the identitarian view that
Speaker 2: you could just rely on Hispanics to vote for you
Speaker 2: because you were like pro Daca or whatever. That's gone.
Speaker 2: Those ages are totally gone. Trump obviously broke that in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. But I mean, to me, it's just such
Speaker 2: a titanic shift in the way that people are even
Speaker 2: approaching the immigrant situation, the migrant situation, and then this
Speaker 2: blows identitarianism like out of the water, and people are people.
Speaker 2: I've seen democratic elites responding to the district being like,
Speaker 2: what happened. It's like, well, you know, Trump happened, Honestly,
Speaker 2: rhetoric happened, policy happened.
Speaker 3: There's been a lot of stuff that's been happening.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that go into this. First of all, your right to
Speaker 1: note that the biggest divide is not there is a
Speaker 1: race divide. Yeah, but the biggest divide is actually age,
Speaker 1: not race.
Speaker 3: It's all age.
Speaker 4: So you have older people.
Speaker 1: Who are you know, increasingly hardline on immigration, and younger
Speaker 1: people are still, you know, in the same more open
Speaker 1: and open to increased immigration as they were, say four
Speaker 1: years ago, back when the whole Democratic Party was embracing
Speaker 1: that position in opposition to Trump. So I think number one,
Speaker 1: you do have, you know, just a reality of an
Speaker 1: increased number of migrants. Now that has actually gone down
Speaker 1: over the past couple of months, but notwithstanding, there has
Speaker 1: been undoubtedly a large surge of migrants in the Joe
Speaker 1: under the Joe Biden administration. So that's number one. You
Speaker 1: do have reality of Okay, there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: coming in, what are we going to do? Number two,
Speaker 1: you have an increasing sense of economic anxiety that if
Speaker 1: you look throughund history often pairs with increased views hardline
Speaker 1: views on immigration.
Speaker 3: So you've got that.
Speaker 1: But I also think really critical to this is the
Speaker 1: fact that I mentioned before Democrats under the Trump administration
Speaker 1: they were very oppositional to the Trump immigration positioning. Now
Speaker 1: they're trying to position themselves as immigration hardliners. The overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Democratic elites, starting with Joe Biden, and so
Speaker 1: you basically have both parties making a very similar argument
Speaker 1: about immigration. So I'd be curious to see I would
Speaker 1: bet that the bulk of the movement in openness to
Speaker 1: policies such as this actually comes from Democrats, because you've
Speaker 1: got forty two percent of Democrats here in that Axios
Speaker 1: poll saying that they're open to quote unquote mass deportation
Speaker 1: under if that was coming under a Trump and then
Speaker 1: you know way it would be totally different. So the
Speaker 1: political landscape there matters a lot. The other thing I
Speaker 1: want to say about this poll is I think it's
Speaker 1: important to understand the you know, the shifts in the
Speaker 1: electorate and how they're thinking about these things and where
Speaker 1: the issue stands, et cetera. You know, I've done plenty
Speaker 1: of commentary before. You guys probably already know that. I
Speaker 1: believe that Biden's immigration mistakes here are fool hardy because
Speaker 1: for people for whom this is the number one issue,
Speaker 1: he's never going to outcompete Trump on this issue. He's
Speaker 1: going to continue to exacerbate his problems with young and
Speaker 1: progressive voters. I think that shows up in the polls
Speaker 1: here as well. So I think it's an electoral loser
Speaker 1: for him ultimately, but nevertheless, it's important to.
Speaker 4: See this polling.
Speaker 1: But I also feel about this poll sort of the
Speaker 1: way that I feel about the polls before Trump was convicted,
Speaker 1: of people predicting how they would feel about a particular policy.
Speaker 1: Because it's one thing to you know, telepolsy, like yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: let's do best deportations. It's another thing when you have
Speaker 1: the reality of Listen, we're talking about some twelve million
Speaker 1: people roughly you're talking about. You're not talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: criminals or gang members or whatever like caricature of an immigrant,
Speaker 1: of an undocumented immigrant is. You're talking about people who've
Speaker 1: been here for ten years, twenty years. You're talking about
Speaker 1: potentially a million children. You're talking about community members, you're
Speaker 1: talking about a huge cost. You're talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: crazy scenes of you know, things that people under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration were like sort of repulsed by. You're talking about. Also,
Speaker 1: if you're serious about this policy, which I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone is, including Trump, if you're serious about this policy,
Speaker 1: you're also talking about like economic suicide. A majority of
Speaker 1: farm workers in this country are undocumented immigrants. So you know,
Speaker 1: if you were worried about price hikes during the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: like that would be nothing compared to if you actually
Speaker 1: implemented this policy, which is why you know Trump didn't
Speaker 1: try to do this in his first administration. I don't
Speaker 1: think he's even dumb enough to do it in a secondministration.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's complicated. So first of all, unfortunately I do
Speaker 2: agree with you. Americans don't have a stomach for mass deportation.
Speaker 2: It's not going to happen. I'm not the one saying that.
Speaker 2: You can ask the most hardline right wingers Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 2: Ryan Gerdusky, who's an immigration hawk, all of us have
Speaker 2: come to the terms with the you know, no one's
Speaker 2: no GRAMDMA on TV's gonna be able to watch some
Speaker 2: kid get sent back, you know, allegedly just because they're
Speaker 2: with their parents.
Speaker 3: It's fine. It is what it is. America is what
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 2: That said, there's a lot that you can do Mandatory
Speaker 2: verify boom. People are not going to stay if they
Speaker 2: could literally can't work. If you have mandatory verify, If
Speaker 2: you remove the public charge rule on welfare, people are
Speaker 2: going to do a lot of self deportation. So that's
Speaker 2: really the policy that the Trump administration, as I understand it,
Speaker 2: Trump two would coalesce around. That's our Ryan talking about
Speaker 2: that this morning. So in general about the politics and
Speaker 2: all of that, it's complicated because I would be stupid
Speaker 2: not to acknowledge.
Speaker 3: We just let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden is really leaning into the dynamic that you're
Speaker 2: talking about. He's got a new policies announcing this morning
Speaker 2: giving legal status to quote immigrant spouses of US citizens. So,
Speaker 2: and this is the thorny part of allowing millions of
Speaker 2: people to live here who are illegal is that now
Speaker 2: you have millions of people who are US citizens who
Speaker 2: are then married to people who are illegal immigrants, and
Speaker 2: whose children are US citizens by birthright citizenship.
Speaker 3: So it's like, okay, well, now what the hell do
Speaker 3: you do?
Speaker 2: His new program would quote offer work permits, deportation protections,
Speaker 2: and open a path to apply for a green card
Speaker 2: in the future. This is basically like a DACA plus
Speaker 2: style program. For those who are like think that this
Speaker 2: is a done.
Speaker 3: Deal, there's no way.
Speaker 2: It will be challenging the court system, and it will
Speaker 2: It's going to be months and or years if any
Speaker 2: of this even makes it through, there'll be rules just
Speaker 2: like they had with Dacas. But more importantly, this is
Speaker 2: the dichotomy of the immigration conversation. So in the previous times,
Speaker 2: whenever illegal immigration was relatively low, like the Bush and iministration,
Speaker 2: appetite for basically pathway to citizenship is much much higher
Speaker 2: these days, when you have some six to eight million
Speaker 2: people who are here illegally just in the last four years.
Speaker 2: Not to mention this like crushing migrant insanity across all
Speaker 2: of the cities. The conversation is all about enforcement, and
Speaker 2: the pathway conversation is low. Biden is trying to flip
Speaker 2: it where he's trying to get some enforcement increase from
Speaker 2: what you were talking about, at the same time trying
Speaker 2: to tug on the heartstrings and say, well, what about
Speaker 2: these folks. Apparently that's everybody who's here illegally. Again, I
Speaker 2: don't think that any mass deportation program will ever happen.
Speaker 2: Both Congress will never fund it. That's part of the
Speaker 2: reason that Trump never did it with the Ice Force.
Speaker 2: And it's complicated, but basically the way that works right
Speaker 2: now is that unless you're like a convicted felon, you're
Speaker 2: not getting deported, you're basically just left alone. So there's
Speaker 2: a level of enforcement priority position or whatever it's called.
Speaker 3: I do think it's interesting now.
Speaker 2: I had been looking for some possible counter evidence to
Speaker 2: some of the stuff you've been talking about about European parties.
Speaker 2: There is one counter example which is interesting. This is
Speaker 2: a Washington Post as has written out, but it's a
Speaker 2: common dynamic how progressive Denmark became the face of the
Speaker 2: anti I migration left, where basically Denmark is one of
Speaker 2: the only neoliberal left parties that remains in existence in
Speaker 2: power in Europe, well popularly elected, and it has one
Speaker 2: of the most hardline immigration stances that exist, including telling
Speaker 2: like Muslim kids like you're not allowed to pray the
Speaker 2: Quran in school or whatever, like some crazy stuff that
Speaker 2: would never even fly here in the US.
Speaker 3: But what I'm saying is that in Denmark, what they.
Speaker 2: Successfully at least were able to do is the so
Speaker 2: called left basically paired and paired off a lot of
Speaker 2: the anti immigration voters. But they did it five ten
Speaker 2: years ago, so they have some credibility on the issue
Speaker 2: and they've been able to be reelected at this point.
Speaker 2: Though I think that effectively a lot of the policy
Speaker 2: stuff is irreconcilable. And so the immigration voter is probably
Speaker 2: going to vote for Donald Trump just because they don't
Speaker 2: have any other choice.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean they do have another. I mean Biden
Speaker 1: is clearly in some ways there's like a Nixon goes
Speaker 1: to China a phenomena, or like a Bill Clinton. You know,
Speaker 1: the Democrat is the one who kills welfare.
Speaker 4: If you if the.
Speaker 1: Democrats actually you know, were appropriated the money and we're
Speaker 1: very hardly immocrat, I actually think they could get away
Speaker 1: with a.
Speaker 4: Lot more than Trump could.
Speaker 1: Because you see that in the polling Mber Like again,
Speaker 1: now you have forty two percent of Democrats saying, sure,
Speaker 1: deport all twelve million undocumented immigrants, which again, like if
Speaker 1: you take that policy seriously, it's actually insane. The level
Speaker 1: of surveillance, intrusion, deep state infiltration that would require NASS
Speaker 1: detention centers, arresting grandma's like you said, kids, hold that
Speaker 1: the cost in and of itself would be insane.
Speaker 4: You know, people, it.
Speaker 1: Would it would not fly, Okay, that actual policy, But
Speaker 1: that just shows you that when you have the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party and they're just like following the leader, well all
Speaker 1: they say, they say this is fine, so we'll go
Speaker 1: along with it. It actually creates more political space. But
Speaker 1: you know, to your point, like I think it is
Speaker 1: very clear Biden's moves with regard to immigration are not
Speaker 1: going to solve his issue with immigration hardliners because those
Speaker 1: people are just Republicans at this point, and not just
Speaker 1: on immigration, right, There's a whole host of issues on
Speaker 1: which they likely disagree with Joe Biden. So on the
Speaker 1: political front, I did want to mention with regard to
Speaker 1: this executive order because you do have a real you know,
Speaker 1: you have people have complicated feelings about this issue. So
Speaker 1: on the one hand, there is a new at least
Speaker 1: theoretical embrace that again I think if it was implemented,
Speaker 1: would completely flip, but theoretical embrace of more hardline positions.
Speaker 1: But you also had the last poll had seventy four
Speaker 1: percent of people saying they support a pathway to citizenship
Speaker 1: for undocumented immigrants who've been in the country for a
Speaker 1: lot of years and pass background check.
Speaker 4: So I have no.
Speaker 1: Expectation that this executive order is going to provoke a
Speaker 1: backlash outside of you know, people who are just you know,
Speaker 1: hardline already on immigration. I think if you pull this
Speaker 1: specific executive order, which, by the way, if it did
Speaker 1: go into effect and makes it through the courts and
Speaker 1: all of those things very much up in the air.
Speaker 4: Sagas right.
Speaker 1: It'll take months for this all to be adjudicated. It's
Speaker 1: going to be called into question, et cetera. The Biden
Speaker 1: administration thinks that they have a good legal argument. I
Speaker 1: don't really know. We'll see, but the estimate I saw
Speaker 1: is this would apply to some one point three million people,
Speaker 1: So it's not nothing like this. This would be a
Speaker 1: significant number of people who would be getting work permits
Speaker 1: and a pathway to citizenship. And I you know, based
Speaker 1: on the polling that I'm seeing, you would have a
Speaker 1: pretty large majority support for such a program, just as
Speaker 1: you had very significant large support for the DACA program
Speaker 1: the other questions they asked. This is a Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal poll from like two months ago. Sixty six percent
Speaker 1: of voters support creating a mechanism for immigrants brought into
Speaker 1: the country legal is children often called dreamers, to gain citizenship.
Speaker 1: Fifty eight percent, according to this poll, back actually increasing
Speaker 1: the level of legal immigration to the US. So the
Speaker 1: polling on this and the political dynamics on it is
Speaker 1: far from from straightforward.
Speaker 3: I would say absolutely.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, nobody's saying that anybody supports like shutting
Speaker 2: things down. I'm not naive, like I just said, my
Speaker 2: mass deportation, it's not going to happen. I know what
Speaker 2: this country looks like, I know how television works, how
Speaker 2: the media works.
Speaker 4: But it's not that. It's also I mean the morality.
Speaker 4: Listen to me.
Speaker 1: The morality part is very important. But I also think
Speaker 1: even Donald Trump would realize, like economically, it.
Speaker 3: Would be such a disaster.
Speaker 1: Half of farm workers just that's it, no more, you know,
Speaker 1: crops rotting in the field. If you think prices where
Speaker 1: I recently like, it would be nothing compared to that.
Speaker 1: I just take the supply chain issues. You'd have meat
Speaker 1: processing plants shut down. You'd have you know, construction, like
Speaker 1: housing costs are already astronomical. You've got some twenty percent
Speaker 1: of the construction industry that's undocumented immigrants, cooks, restaurants, food prep.
Speaker 1: I mean, just the widespread economic chaos would be political
Speaker 1: and economic suicide.
Speaker 2: This way, it's bad for American GDP to go into
Speaker 2: a trade war with China. I still support it, I
Speaker 2: fully admit and believe that it is bad for top
Speaker 2: line GDP.
Speaker 3: I think it's bad for a lot of businesses. I
Speaker 3: don't care. I think it's a good right thing to do.
Speaker 3: Same thing here.
Speaker 2: It's like, so our broken system employs a bunch of
Speaker 2: people who are here illegally and who are unskilled. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: deportation or forcing them to leave through self deportation matters.
Speaker 2: Through you verify. Will there be a higher cost, yes, true?
Speaker 2: Will wages go up?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I do believe that. I mean, will it be bad
Speaker 2: for Tyson food? Meat processing will cost coort history, chickens
Speaker 2: stay five.
Speaker 1: Dollars, bad food for families who are trying to buy
Speaker 1: Tyson food?
Speaker 2: I agree, Yes, it's true. Yeah, the price will go up.
Speaker 2: Let's be let's be very real here. The price will
Speaker 2: probably go up. Do will be a more cohesive society?
Speaker 2: Will we have better supply and demandage and better wages?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I believe that.
Speaker 2: So you sometimes we just have to sit here and
Speaker 2: like lay out the full truth. And also I believe
Speaker 2: the full thing should be laid out to the American people,
Speaker 2: like I said on the China issue, if you ask them,
Speaker 2: are you willing to pay higher prices?
Speaker 3: And your stuff doesn't come from China.
Speaker 2: Most people say, yes, there's a lot of polling on this,
Speaker 2: so on the same thing, it's like, well, what do
Speaker 2: you want?
Speaker 3: What do you want? What country do you want to
Speaker 3: live in?
Speaker 1: So the cohesive society thing I just want to put
Speaker 1: to the side because I think that's, first of all,
Speaker 1: I just wildly disagree, Like I mean, actually, the poll
Speaker 1: numbers support the fact that you don't have. Actually, racial
Speaker 1: divides have never been less in terms of political partisan
Speaker 1: identities than at any time I know in our lives.
Speaker 1: But so I want to put the cohesive society part
Speaker 1: to the side because I think that is very fraught
Speaker 1: and also very subjective. But you know, we really disagree
Speaker 1: about the economics of this. Sure, First of all, the
Speaker 1: typical view of just a supply and demand of workers,
Speaker 1: and so you know, if you increase the supply, it's
Speaker 1: going to create lower wages.
Speaker 4: It's not that there's.
Speaker 1: Nothing to that, But the real picture is much more
Speaker 1: complicated than that, because you know, if you think about,
Speaker 1: for example, okay, you now have deported or in the
Speaker 1: process of deporting fifty percent of all farm workers.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, that's going to have.
Speaker 1: Huge economic implications for those farmers is going to have
Speaker 1: huge economic implications for the consumers.
Speaker 4: It's not really likely to increase.
Speaker 1: Wages because why because workers don't really have enough power
Speaker 1: in the country to be able to claim their share
Speaker 1: of the you know, economic pie. So that's why I
Speaker 1: always think it's a red herring to focus on immigration
Speaker 1: as the soul. And this is I'm not saying this
Speaker 1: necessarily about you, Socign, because you do embrace unionism and
Speaker 1: other things. But most people, most politicians on the right,
Speaker 1: embrace reducing immigration as the sole path to increasing wages
Speaker 1: when they have no other demonstrated interest in raising wages
Speaker 1: in any other policy area. If you look throughout history,
Speaker 1: most consistently, the thing that has increased wages has been
Speaker 1: worker power. If you look at the charts, if you
Speaker 1: look at you know, when unions started to decline and
Speaker 1: workers start to have less power and then the New
Speaker 1: Deal coalition starts to fall apart, that's when you see
Speaker 1: wages decline. And it's not up and down with regard
Speaker 1: to what the immigration levels happened to be at that point.
Speaker 1: So if the actual concern is wages, yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to deny that levels of immigration have an impact there.
Speaker 1: I think that would be you know, I think that
Speaker 1: would be dishonest. Although again I think it's much more complicated,
Speaker 1: and if you look at the studies, they would suggest
Speaker 1: it's much more complicated. But the real thing you would
Speaker 1: want to do is increase work or power so that
Speaker 1: they can claim their share of the record breaking corporate
Speaker 1: profits that we've seen. So, you know, to take up
Speaker 1: your example with China trade, which I'm also sympathetic to that,
Speaker 1: you know, to that direction as well. You know, for
Speaker 1: me there you have a real which is demonstrated than
Speaker 1: the pandemic. You have a real problem in this country,
Speaker 1: which is that we have outsourced so much that we
Speaker 1: are really vulnerable. And you know, it's a problem for consumers.
Speaker 1: We saw when the pandemic hit and you couldn't get
Speaker 1: things and there were short and prices escalated, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But even more to the point, you know, we were
Speaker 1: making our own face masks, like our industrial capacities and
Speaker 1: so stripped that it really creates a national vulnerability and
Speaker 1: I don't see a better way to deal with that. Then,
Speaker 1: you know, some of the near shoring and friend shoring,
Speaker 1: and you know, reshoring and some of the programs, the
Speaker 1: industrial policy that's being engaged in under Joe Biden, which
Speaker 1: does have the potential to somewhat increase prices. Here, if
Speaker 1: your concern is wages, I see way better ways to
Speaker 1: go about this that aren't you know, cruel, and don't
Speaker 1: require massive expansion of the deep state, and are much
Speaker 1: less costly, and are ultimately you know, and don't massively
Speaker 1: you know, create potential hyperinflation in food prices and meat
Speaker 1: prices and housing prices, et cetera. So to me, you know,
Speaker 1: the solution of all let's just shut down immigration. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense for that to be the solution if
Speaker 1: the problem you're trying to.
Speaker 3: Solve is wages, I think it's a yes.
Speaker 2: And I mean if you look at a lot of
Speaker 2: those times, there are also at times where we had
Speaker 2: historically low levels of immigration or it's what type of
Speaker 2: country do you live in at that time, So it's
Speaker 2: very unfair to compare high levels of immigration combined with
Speaker 2: a mass industrial economy. We have six to eight million
Speaker 2: people who have arrived in this country in the last
Speaker 2: four years, who we are lucky if they are literate
Speaker 2: in Spanish. Let our own English, don't speak any English
Speaker 2: in a society which is rapidly de industrializing and going
Speaker 2: towards a service based economy and knowledge based economy.
Speaker 3: It just doesn't work.
Speaker 2: It's one of those where then there is a huge
Speaker 2: amount of competition in the lower wage and lower skilled sector.
Speaker 2: So not only that million billions of dollars being thrown
Speaker 2: at basically, you know, allowing these people to live here
Speaker 2: rent free and charity wise. I mean you can look
Speaker 2: it up if they unless they have a work permit,
Speaker 2: they literally aren't have to live on charity, which.
Speaker 4: Is right, why should permit?
Speaker 2: But why should they have work permits? You arrive here
Speaker 2: at it's bullshit? I mean they're coming here from countries.
Speaker 2: By the way, El Salvador just solved all of its
Speaker 2: crime problems. Do you know what the crime rate and
Speaker 2: is now? It's lower than like Manhattan, so you can
Speaker 2: go back. You don't have to fear for your life anymore.
Speaker 2: Honduras is building a ten thousand person prison to implement
Speaker 2: the exact same thing. This, this whole idea that these
Speaker 2: countries can't solve their own problems, which they are now solving,
Speaker 2: is now is bs like this TPS status for people
Speaker 2: who've been living here. But again thy five thirty years,
Speaker 2: it's outrageous.
Speaker 1: But again, so you view migrants as a net negative.
Speaker 1: I don't view migrants as a net negative whatsoever.
Speaker 3: It depends on the migrant, it depends on who are
Speaker 3: But come on a second.
Speaker 1: We have a looming demographic issue in this country, as
Speaker 1: do all developed nations, of an aging population and a
Speaker 1: dwindling workforce, aged population and the native born population is
Speaker 1: you know, you're the first point out. Yeah, birth rates
Speaker 1: are a lot, right, we don't have a replacement rate.
Speaker 4: Places.
Speaker 1: I've lived in places in the country that have seen
Speaker 1: the population and go away. Those places are in crisis,
Speaker 1: Like we need workers. We need workers. So you know,
Speaker 1: the idea that they're just a burden and a drain, well,
Speaker 1: a core part of the problem is the fact that
Speaker 1: you know, they do need work permits. They need to
Speaker 1: be able to work, not in the shadows, so they're
Speaker 1: not exploited, which does have larger impacts than on the
Speaker 1: low wage workforce, because if you can get an undocumented
Speaker 1: worker who's being paid under the table and not going
Speaker 1: to take you to OSHA, if you're violating labor laws,
Speaker 1: et cetera, that's a much larger issue. So listen where
Speaker 1: I am personally. I don't know if I'm quite ready
Speaker 1: to go where Ryan is with the full open borders,
Speaker 1: because if you think you have an open border guy,
Speaker 1: which I respect, but you know, I do have questions about, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if you just did open boards, how many people are
Speaker 1: we talking about it, and how many can you really,
Speaker 1: you know, deal with There is a limit I think
Speaker 1: to the capacity at one given time. But significantly increasing
Speaker 1: the legal pathways to citizenship here I am wildly in
Speaker 1: favor of. I think it'd be good for the country. Obviously,
Speaker 1: be good for those mirants, but more importantly, I think
Speaker 1: it'd be good for the country.
Speaker 4: I think it would be good overall for workers.
Speaker 1: I think it has to be paired with a stronger
Speaker 1: labor movement, which we're already seeing come into fruition. But
Speaker 1: you know, just to talk about the last few months, like,
Speaker 1: we have had very high levels of migration, as you
Speaker 1: would point out, over the past few months, and we
Speaker 1: also have had wages for the first time in quite
Speaker 1: a while that have risen at a faster pace than inflation.
Speaker 1: So if migration was just the like blanket disaster for
Speaker 1: workers and that was the reason to deport everybody. And
Speaker 1: you know, lock the gates, et cetera. That hasn't been
Speaker 1: the experience of our economy just over the past you know,
Speaker 1: year several months.
Speaker 3: I looked, it's been twenty five year issue.
Speaker 2: This is not you know, we can't put three months
Speaker 2: of data and say that's indicative of everything.
Speaker 3: If we By the way, if the.
Speaker 2: Biden administry, I call them the Biden administration, to release
Speaker 2: the true economic number, how much we have spent on
Speaker 2: these people. Get on an airplane these days, I'm flying
Speaker 2: from Phoenix. Half the guys on the plane are illegal
Speaker 2: getting paid with taxpayer citizens with their little packets flying
Speaker 2: to watch to DC because they get free whatever shell.
Speaker 4: They don't want to be charity case.
Speaker 3: They work.
Speaker 4: To pay work, pay taxes.
Speaker 2: By the way, you are welcome to work in the
Speaker 2: country that you're born in. You know, otherwise you can
Speaker 2: apply for a quote unquote path.
Speaker 1: But these aren't like people who want to be welfare moutures.
Speaker 1: But they are wanting their work, They want to contribute.
Speaker 1: They do pay taxes overwhelming. I do not begrudge them
Speaker 1: for wanting to work here.
Speaker 2: Everybody wants to work here over a billion people who've
Speaker 2: been pulled over the United in the world say they
Speaker 2: want to move to the United States. But that's why
Speaker 2: I would say to Ryan, that's insane. You can't allow
Speaker 2: a billion people to move here, and nor should we.
Speaker 2: The demographic argument is a different one, and that's one
Speaker 2: where again, we should be able to choose who gets
Speaker 2: to come here and or not, and what type of
Speaker 2: society and people that we want to allow into our
Speaker 2: economy and thus become future citizens. That is something that
Speaker 2: should be decided by democracy, not based on whether you
Speaker 2: can walk across Mexico and pay a drug smuggler to
Speaker 2: enter the United States.
Speaker 3: To lead again, why are off somebody from Africa?
Speaker 1: All right, so it's not fair. Let's bring in more
Speaker 1: people from Africa. That's when I'm down.
Speaker 3: Actually, let's be lots of Africans now flying to Mexica.
Speaker 4: There you go, so it's more egalitarian. You should be happy.
Speaker 1: That's not again, Listen, the reality is that in terms
Speaker 1: of migration, if you look not just now, but historically,
Speaker 1: like people typically want to go to countries that are nearby.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's far more migration between South different South
Speaker 1: American countries than there are South American migrants coming here
Speaker 1: because there's more cultural infinity, You're more likely a family, ties, etc.
Speaker 1: And so you know, it's not just the fact that
Speaker 1: you happen to be able to walk there. It's also
Speaker 1: that you're more likely to want to move to a
Speaker 1: place that is closer. But you know, the bottom line
Speaker 1: for me also is just when I look at the
Speaker 1: when I look at the immigrants that I know in
Speaker 1: my life, when I look at the contributions of immigrants
Speaker 1: across society, I think we would be so foolish to
Speaker 1: not embrace the contribution of a group of people who
Speaker 1: just my nature, like, is not an easy thing to
Speaker 1: pick up your whole life and move somewhere and try
Speaker 1: to make it and know that like they are in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. I know this sounds hokey, but
Speaker 1: I really feel this. They are in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways like the embodiment of the American dream. And to
Speaker 1: shut your doors to that, to like, you know, kick
Speaker 1: out people who have been here in ten, in twenty years,
Speaker 1: who have families, who are deeply enmeshed in society, who
Speaker 1: are contributing members of their communities. I don't just think
Speaker 1: it's wrong morally, I think it would be so catastrophic
Speaker 1: in terms of the economics and politics of society that again,
Speaker 1: even Trump didn't contemplate such a draconian move in his
Speaker 1: first time, and wouldn't contemplate such a draconian move because
Speaker 1: he relied on undocumented immigrants in his own businesses. So
Speaker 1: this is a man who is acquainted with the reality.
Speaker 4: Of what needs to occur.
Speaker 3: I think the way actually works.
Speaker 2: I support a law called everify, which would require Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and all employers to verify that their employees are
Speaker 2: not immigrants.
Speaker 1: I support easy that plus a much large legal If
Speaker 1: you have a much higher level of legal migration, where
Speaker 1: there's an actual pathway to citizenship, you're in a much
Speaker 1: less chaos at the border. You can then have more enforcement. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a path here that you know, there's a way
Speaker 1: to do this, and you're not doing it the right
Speaker 1: way as of now. You just have you know, it's
Speaker 1: completely broken down for people coming from most countries, there
Speaker 1: is no pathway to citizenship. We all know the asylum
Speaker 1: process is completely broken. And so you know, that's how
Speaker 1: you end up with Americans looking at and saying like, ah,
Speaker 1: we got to do something.
Speaker 2: Here, Okay, well, agree to disagree. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: solve it here. As usual, the immigration section goes on first.
Speaker 2: It will contact the producers are but yeah, maybe Trump
Speaker 2: will win and we'll get to find out.
Speaker 3: All right, that could be an interesting possibility.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to the debate section and talk
Speaker 2: about how CNN is rigging the debate rules.
Speaker 3: Let's put it up there on the screen. So what
Speaker 3: do we have here?
Speaker 2: They have announced the official mutually agreed upon rules. Biden
Speaker 2: and Trump have agreed to mic muting to podiums and
Speaker 2: in an empty stage. So quote the debate, which will
Speaker 2: be hosted by CNNs Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, who
Speaker 2: we will get to later in the show. Well mark
Speaker 2: the very first in person showdown of twenty twenty four campaign. Now,
Speaker 2: the rules that the two have agreed upon include two
Speaker 2: commercial breaks. The campaign staff will not be allowed to
Speaker 2: interact with their candidate during that time. Both candidates will
Speaker 2: appear at the uniform podium. Their podium positions will be
Speaker 2: determined by a coin flip. Microphones will be muted throughout
Speaker 2: the debate, except for the candidate whose turn it is
Speaker 2: to speak, while no props or pre written notes will
Speaker 2: be allowed on the stage.
Speaker 3: Candidates will be given a pen and a pad of
Speaker 3: paper and a bottle of water.
Speaker 2: Some aspects of the debate, including the absence of studio audience,
Speaker 2: will be a departure from previous As in the past,
Speaker 2: moderators quote will use all tools at their disposal to
Speaker 2: enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion.
Speaker 3: But here let's get into the nitty gritty.
Speaker 2: In order to meet CNN's qualifications for the debate, candidates
Speaker 2: must satisfy requirements outlined in Article two, Section one of
Speaker 2: the US Constitutions Service President. Both Biden and Trump meet
Speaker 2: those requirements, as does RFK Junior, Cornell West, and Jill Stein.
Speaker 2: Participants must file a formal statement of candidcy to the FBC.
Speaker 3: All five have done, so here's where they get RFK.
Speaker 2: All participating debaters must appear on a sufficient number of
Speaker 2: state ballots to reach two hundred and seventy electoral vote
Speaker 2: threshold to win the presidency and receive at least fifteen
Speaker 2: percent in four separate national polls of registered or likely
Speaker 2: voters that meet CNN standards for reporting. Okay, so let's
Speaker 2: be very clear here about the polling in the two
Speaker 2: seventy requirement. Because here is how they are getting RFK.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part please. As you can
Speaker 2: see clearly, the Kennedy campaign has said he's submitted thirty
Speaker 2: three hundred signatures in Minnesota. On Friday listed the states
Speaker 2: nineteen states with two hundred and seventy seventy eight electoral
Speaker 2: votes where he claims ballot access, but at least half
Speaker 2: of those states have not yet verified that his submission
Speaker 2: is valid. So that, crystal is how they are really
Speaker 2: rigging it because outrighteous this because officially he's not on
Speaker 2: the ballot in those states half of those states, which
Speaker 2: why do they have any incentive to approve him in
Speaker 2: the interim?
Speaker 3: Why would you do it?
Speaker 2: They're like, no, we're keeping him off of the debate stage.
Speaker 2: He technically has qualified. He's going to qualify for two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy eight electoral votes absence some crazy shenanigans.
Speaker 3: So this is my other thing too, when you look at.
Speaker 2: The rules, why is it that you're allowed to pull
Speaker 2: up to fifteen percent in non you know, there's no
Speaker 2: such thing as public polling in NBC poll whatever pole,
Speaker 2: So we can take like non official polling but officially
Speaker 2: you have to be on the ballot in for two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy yeah votes, How does that make any sense?
Speaker 4: It sound right.
Speaker 3: It is just straight up rigged, like to keep him out.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 1: It's one hundred percent rigged to keep him out, There's
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. They're trying to put a pretense
Speaker 1: of neutrality on it, but they've made the criteria such
Speaker 1: that it is literally impossible for him or any other
Speaker 1: third party candidate to be able to to gain access
Speaker 1: under that criteria, because yeah, these states are all run
Speaker 1: by Democrats or Republicans. Neither group wants RFK Junior to
Speaker 1: be on that stage or to be on their ballots,
Speaker 1: by the way, and so they can drag their fee
Speaker 1: and take as long as they want to certify his signatures,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so yeah, this is their mechanism in
Speaker 1: order to make it appear like, oh, we have these
Speaker 1: neutral criterion, you just didn't meet it. I'm sorry, you know,
Speaker 1: try harder next time. No, you made it literally impossible,
Speaker 1: and it is outrageous. I mean, I'm not surprised or
Speaker 1: we knew the moment that CNN announced that they were
Speaker 1: doing this debate and Trump and Biden greed, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 4: We knew what it was going to look like.
Speaker 1: But you know, this should be something, these debates should
Speaker 1: be something that is really protected in a democracy, you know,
Speaker 1: But the Biden people want to talk all about preserving democracy,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. It is dramatically anti democratic to
Speaker 1: block out the most significant third party candidate that we've had,
Speaker 1: what since Ross.
Speaker 3: Perot, literally since Rossboro. So it's ninety ninety two, so it's.
Speaker 1: Fifteen percent in multiple polls. You have a lot of
Speaker 1: we covered earlier the number of quote unquote deciders, people
Speaker 1: who you know are still contemplating which way they want
Speaker 1: to go. A disproportionate number of them are open to
Speaker 1: RFK Junior, And you just want to shut out the
Speaker 1: ability of American people to hear what this man has
Speaker 1: to say. Now, you guys know, I'm not an RFK
Speaker 1: Junior fan. I'm not voting for him. I got all
Speaker 1: kinds of issues with him. So this isn't about him
Speaker 1: his politics, but support for him specifically. This is about
Speaker 1: a democratic process that they have no regard for, and
Speaker 1: it really is outrageous. People should be outraged and they
Speaker 1: should be disgusted. And CNN knows that if they actually
Speaker 1: understood what was happening, it would be a problem for them,
Speaker 1: which is why they go to lengths to try to
Speaker 1: hide the fact that they just rigged it and made
Speaker 1: it impossible for him or again anyone else, any other
Speaker 1: third party candidate to have a chance of making it
Speaker 1: on that stage.
Speaker 2: And it's not fair too, because the Trump people are like,
Speaker 2: he's in this to hurt Trump. The Biden people are like,
Speaker 2: he's in this to hurt Biden. By his own words,
Speaker 2: he's in this to hurt quote unquote, I want to
Speaker 2: be damaging to both candidates. He's really running on his
Speaker 2: own name.
Speaker 3: Take a listen to his recent comments on Piers Morgan.
Speaker 10: If the three way race occurred today, president Trump wins,
Speaker 10: and if I if I drop out of that race,
Speaker 10: president Trump wins even more. He wins two extra states,
Speaker 10: which are would be Maine and Virginia. So I think
Speaker 10: my presence in the race helps President vind at this point,
Speaker 10: I'm hoping in the long run that I'll be very
Speaker 10: damaging to both of the candidates. So but also, you know,
Speaker 10: all of our palling is showing that I'm bringing in
Speaker 10: a lot of people who had given up on the
Speaker 10: political process, people who weren't going to vote this this
Speaker 10: cycle if I am not in the race.
Speaker 2: So there you go, he says, I'm hoping in the
Speaker 2: long run that I'll be very damaging to both of
Speaker 2: the candidates. He's not, you know, the ammunition that both
Speaker 2: of these people really want for him, which is why
Speaker 2: it's kind of and the more he plays into that,
Speaker 2: the better off I think he's going to be. Because
Speaker 2: that gets to the critical I hate both parties demographic, which,
Speaker 2: as you and I just saw yesterday, that's a full
Speaker 2: twenty five percent of the entire electorate. That's huge. There's
Speaker 2: tens of millions of people. If he was on the
Speaker 2: ballot in all fifty states. I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: I would win any single state.
Speaker 3: But I think he would get a good portion of
Speaker 3: the vote. I think you get twenty twenty five?
Speaker 4: Do you think so?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think so.
Speaker 4: I don't think so, but I think he would.
Speaker 3: Get twenty five.
Speaker 4: I think he would.
Speaker 1: I think it would get double digits potentially in that
Speaker 1: astonishing right. I mean, double digits would be would be
Speaker 1: very significant and a real break from you know, recent history.
Speaker 1: I just say that because I do think when you
Speaker 1: come down to it, people recognize the sys to political
Speaker 1: system we're in, and that unfortunately, we're in a position
Speaker 1: where you really, at the end of the day, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be one of the other, and people kind of
Speaker 1: feel like, all right, well, I got to pick between
Speaker 1: one of them. Third party candid support falls off, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Not to mention that because he so far, the polls
Speaker 1: are really mixed about who he quote unquote takes more from.
Speaker 1: And I think he's right that a significant number of
Speaker 1: his voters too just probably wouldn't vote yes otherwise, So
Speaker 1: I think he's correct about that. But it has been
Speaker 1: very mixed over which side he takes more from, which
Speaker 1: means that he's also taking incoming from both sides. And
Speaker 1: I do think, you know, at a certain point that
Speaker 1: we've already seen that he's taken on water from that.
Speaker 1: If you look at his polling over time, there has
Speaker 1: been a downward trend as he's getting hit by the
Speaker 1: Democrats and by the Republicans, and so you know, I
Speaker 1: think I think that's been a challenge for him. The
Speaker 1: other challenge for him, I think Dave Smith made this point,
Speaker 1: and I think he's right about this, is he had
Speaker 1: a very compelling and very unique positioning as a quote
Speaker 1: unquote anti war candidate when he was speaking out strongly
Speaker 1: against Ukraine, and then when October seventh happened, and he is,
Speaker 1: you know, at least as like zionist in pro Israel
Speaker 1: as Joe Biden, let alone Donald Trump. I think that
Speaker 1: really undercut his appeal among people who not only are
Speaker 1: anti war, but who just have that instinct of like,
Speaker 1: why are we spending all this money over here when
Speaker 1: we got problems back at home. I do think that
Speaker 1: his you know, the fact he isn't at all differentiated
Speaker 1: from Biden or Trump when it comes to, you know,
Speaker 1: the key foreign policy issue of our of the time
Speaker 1: right now, I think that is really limited his appeal.
Speaker 1: I think it's especially limited his appeal among young people,
Speaker 1: who otherwise, I believe would have been quite open to him.
Speaker 1: And so he also in that Peers Morgan interview, you
Speaker 1: can just hear like even now he's against a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: which does actually technically put him to the right of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden on this issue as well, really hasn't changed
Speaker 1: his tune at all vis a vi Israel. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to how he sounds today.
Speaker 11: Yeah, what point does this desperation to eliminate the last
Speaker 11: members of her mass get overtaken by the sheer volume
Speaker 11: of civilians being killed in the process, which I cannot
Speaker 11: believe will do anything longer term than ferment the ideology
Speaker 11: that drove for mass in the first place.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I mean, you're asking a lot of questions, and I
Speaker 10: you know, I'd like you to give me time to
Speaker 10: answer them, you know, and you could ask the same
Speaker 10: You brought up Nazi Germany as a kind of an
Speaker 10: analogy for what's happening in the middies and not, you know,
Speaker 10: in nineteen forty five or forty four, at Casablanca, A.
Speaker 10: Churchill and Roosevelt had an argument because Roosevelt said, we
Speaker 10: have to denacify Germany, and if we don't denosify Germany,
Speaker 10: it is going to you know, the Nazis is going
Speaker 10: to rise up and do the same thing.
Speaker 5: Again.
Speaker 10: Churchill did not want an unconditional surrender for the Nazis.
Speaker 10: He said, we'll have to kill too many civilians to
Speaker 10: do that, and everybody will fight for the death. But
Speaker 10: Roosevelt won that argument. We killed about about two million
Speaker 10: Germans during World War Two in order to get to
Speaker 10: Berlin and d Nazi. Today, Germany is the richest country
Speaker 10: in Europe. It's one of the most powerful economies in
Speaker 10: the world. I think it's the fourth most powerful. And
Speaker 10: nobody's scared of Germany because of the peaceful country. So
Speaker 10: I don't see how people who are saying, well, you
Speaker 10: should have a ceasfire, then what and what you've You've
Speaker 10: rewarded Hamas for taking hostages, and they're going to keep
Speaker 10: taking hostages to get more and more advantage.
Speaker 1: So in any case, he really hasn't changed his tomb.
Speaker 1: We're still doing the World War two Nazi comparisons. I
Speaker 1: guess theoretically then we should be maybe, you know, considering
Speaker 1: nukes in Gaza, as others have also suggested. And you know,
Speaker 1: I just I do want to grapple directly with this
Speaker 1: idea that you can be quote unquote rewarding Hamas if
Speaker 1: you had a ceasefire agreement. You know, allegedly Hamas doesn't
Speaker 1: want a two state solution. Allegedly Hamas doesn't care about
Speaker 1: Palestinian civilians, So in what way does it quote unquote
Speaker 1: reward Hamas.
Speaker 4: To have a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's also just at this point, it's like,
Speaker 1: how many people, how many dead civilians is acceptable to
Speaker 1: you because we are at just insane levels of death
Speaker 1: and destruction annihilation, you know, far more than actually dressed
Speaker 1: in in World War Two.
Speaker 4: But in any case, this is where he is.
Speaker 1: He's not moving is even now he's against a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: This is this is not a popular position, by the way.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at the country, if you
Speaker 1: ask what percentage of people are in favor of a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: it is overwhelming majorities in support. And so somehow his
Speaker 1: you know, anti war positioning and his rhetoric about you know,
Speaker 1: wanting to spend that money instead of overseas, focusing it
Speaker 1: at home, there's a big old car vaunt when it
Speaker 1: comes to Israel.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, I guess the only thing you can
Speaker 2: say about it is he definitely believes it, because there
Speaker 2: would be really no other reason to say it at
Speaker 2: this point electorally.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: At the same time, Titanic story in the state of
Speaker 2: New Jersey, in a plot line straight out of the Sopranos,
Speaker 2: where a democratic power broker is accused of working with
Speaker 2: real estate developers to jack up prices on the city waterfront,
Speaker 2: and then attends the press conference where the new Jersey
Speaker 2: Attorney General indicts him to his face, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 12: We're here today to announce the unsealing of a thirteen
Speaker 12: count indictment charging George Norcross with leading a criminal enterprise,
Speaker 12: of which his five co defendants in this case, along
Speaker 12: with several unindicted co conspirators, were allegedly members. The state
Speaker 12: alleges that defendants George Norcross, Philip Norcross, William Tambussi, the
Speaker 12: former mayor of Camden, Dana Redd, Sidney Brown, and John
Speaker 12: O'Donnell committed the crime of first degree racketeering conspiracy, among
Speaker 12: other offenses, to further the purposes of the Norcross Enterprise.
Speaker 12: The abandoned industrial sites along the Campden Waterfront had the
Speaker 12: potential to serve as the city's salvation, but, as the
Speaker 12: state alleges, the Norcross Enterprise manipulated government programs and processes
Speaker 12: designed to attract development and investment to instead suit their
Speaker 12: own financial desires. Instead of contributing to the successes of
Speaker 12: the City of Camden, through a series of criminal acts
Speaker 12: alleged in the state's case, the Norcross Enterprise took the
Speaker 12: Camden waterfront all for themselves, as George Norcross himself allegedly said, quote,
Speaker 12: this is for our friends.
Speaker 2: End quote, this is for our friends. The details of
Speaker 2: this nuts, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: It is so funny. In this recorded phone call, he
Speaker 2: literally has a developer who asked him on the phone,
Speaker 2: are you threatening me? And that he says absolutely recorded
Speaker 2: phone call and look, let me just repeat like this
Speaker 2: is this quite literally is a plot line out of
Speaker 2: the Sopranos. The indictment accuses mister Norcross of bullying rival
Speaker 2: developers who were trying to capitalize on a push to
Speaker 2: revitalize the waterfront in Camden, a poor city outside of Philadelphia,
Speaker 2: long plagued by violent crime. And they talk about how
Speaker 2: he showed up to the press confer like I said,
Speaker 2: we have a photo of that.
Speaker 3: Actually, if we want to put that look out, it's
Speaker 3: right there in front row.
Speaker 2: As he gets redicted, Yeah, I know this is I
Speaker 2: don't know what's happening in this country, but whatever he's
Speaker 2: bringing his he lives in Florida right now, so apparently
Speaker 2: he's bringing his Florida bullshit to New Jersey. That's not
Speaker 2: how we dressed in our suits here in the East Coast,
Speaker 2: mister Norcross. But you know what we see here is
Speaker 2: that Norcross basically controlled the state for twenty years. He
Speaker 2: was reportedly quote a close friend of House Speaker Nancy
Speaker 2: Pelosi and also a member of mar A Lago. Now,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is the epitome of the wheeler dealer.
Speaker 2: The state of New Jersey never elected to anything major
Speaker 2: to Chris Christie, too super close to Chris Christie. He
Speaker 2: knows everybody who is in the state, has helped half
Speaker 2: the governors of the last twenty years get elected, and
Speaker 2: he's milked them for millions and millions of dollars. And
Speaker 2: it's just shocking to me that that it almost fills
Speaker 2: like the meme and the like the fictional the fictional
Speaker 2: plot lines, and it's all actually happening in reality.
Speaker 3: It's like, that's what this was. It's the real story
Speaker 3: that we could see very clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I mean the movies get their ideas from somewhere, right.
Speaker 1: We actually just finished rewatching Sopranos, so straight out over there. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's so it is so great. We watched Boardwalk Empire
Speaker 1: this year as well.
Speaker 3: Great show.
Speaker 1: Straight out of there as well. This corruption Neil straight
Speaker 1: out of there as well. The wire They also had
Speaker 1: their property.
Speaker 3: And why is waterfront always being revitalized?
Speaker 1: This is just this is classic bread and butter corruption
Speaker 1: because yeah, it's like, okay, well, the government officials have
Speaker 1: advance knowledge of this big revitalization effort or whatever, and
Speaker 1: then they controlled the bidding process to make sure it's
Speaker 1: their friends and their buddies who were positioned to cash
Speaker 1: in on this new development. And this guy got away
Speaker 1: with it for years because he was buddies with Chris Christy,
Speaker 1: he was buddies with the Democrat and he was buddy
Speaker 1: he was with Nancy. But he was connected across He
Speaker 1: was truly bipartisan, truly by parts of real unifier across
Speaker 1: both the parties, even though obviously because Democrats usually aren't
Speaker 1: control of New Jersey is more closely affiliated with the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Was just like South Jersey power broker again
Speaker 1: across the aisle. It was only when he sort of
Speaker 1: got crosswise with the new administration that suddenly this became
Speaker 1: an issue, and so he and the current Governor Phil
Speaker 1: Murphy apparently they were at it and then this attorney
Speaker 1: general who's announcing this prosecution.
Speaker 4: They had issues with each other.
Speaker 1: Now, reportedly, according to the news article that I read,
Speaker 1: he and Phil Murphy, though the governor, have reportedly reconciled,
Speaker 1: and perhaps part wise because Phil Murphy is now doing
Speaker 1: his own tax credit development scheme, so maybe he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to be so critical of what was going on
Speaker 1: here with Norcross at this point now that he may
Speaker 1: also be vulnerable to these charges of political favoritism. Just
Speaker 1: suggesting that that could be something that's going on in
Speaker 1: the background.
Speaker 4: Here're not too sure.
Speaker 3: It's like, is it possible to do business in this
Speaker 3: state and just not.
Speaker 4: He's doing business, you know, yeah, It's like, oh, he's
Speaker 4: doing business.
Speaker 2: Do business in the state, and people can get elected
Speaker 2: and people don't have to be constantly bilking water at
Speaker 2: this point, any waterfront development.
Speaker 3: I'm like, this is a scam, like anything that's happening
Speaker 3: in front of this thing.
Speaker 4: So anyway, well, Trump might have to I'll say about that, well,
Speaker 4: you certainly.
Speaker 2: A spokesperson for mister Murphy said the governor had no comment.
Speaker 2: In addition to mister Norcross, his brother was also charged
Speaker 2: again fulfilling the the mean. His lawyer was charged to
Speaker 2: the CEO of the quote Camden Community Partnership, a chief
Speaker 2: executive of the trucking and logistics company, and someone who
Speaker 2: had been in the executive leadership of residential development. So
Speaker 2: again literally out of the mob, you have trucking logistics,
Speaker 2: you have waterfront development, real estate, you have tax dollars
Speaker 2: being illegally allegedly funneled across. And then you have this
Speaker 2: man who is so flagrantly like working the system that
Speaker 2: he shows up to his own indictment press conference. And
Speaker 2: remember with Menendez, Menendez got off. You know, this guy,
Speaker 2: he's got a lot of strings. He's probably helped, got
Speaker 2: a lot of judges on the bench. I wouldn't count
Speaker 2: him out just yet. This is a state case is
Speaker 2: on his turf. He may survive.
Speaker 4: You never know.
Speaker 2: He's got a few million in the bank. You know,
Speaker 2: it probably cost two million to defend. He's probably made
Speaker 2: twenty million or whatever off the deal. Probably a good transaction.
Speaker 1: Apparently he's also threatening to run as an independent, Oh smart,
Speaker 1: which would you know, could scare the Democrats, and then
Speaker 1: that could you be used as like a chit to
Speaker 1: try to you know, work the system in terms of
Speaker 1: his political issues.
Speaker 4: So that's the theory of what he's up to at
Speaker 4: this point.
Speaker 1: But you know, when I ran for Congress, I'm doing
Speaker 1: my what they call call time where you're like cycling
Speaker 1: through trying to beg these people for money a day
Speaker 1: in and day out.
Speaker 3: Which is horrible.
Speaker 1: And you get a list, you get a sheet that
Speaker 1: has at this you know, this was fifteen years ago,
Speaker 1: so I'm sure the process has changed somewhat. But me so,
Speaker 1: you get a sheet that all their political giving history,
Speaker 1: so you can see, you can get a sense of
Speaker 1: their ideality. Oh, they gave to the you know, conservationally,
Speaker 1: they're environmentalists, they gave to Emily's Lost, They you know,
Speaker 1: are into women in pro choice or whatever. And you
Speaker 1: can see what Democrats they gave to a Republicans. And
Speaker 1: I was so naive at this point. I would see
Speaker 1: these people who gave like fifty to fifty Republican a Democrat, like.
Speaker 4: How does that make any sense?
Speaker 3: How does it make any sense?
Speaker 1: This is how it makes sense because and it was
Speaker 1: a lot of times it would be like developers, you know,
Speaker 1: because they want to be connected and have access and
Speaker 1: have that forward knowledge, that insider knowledge of what's coming up.
Speaker 1: They want to be in line to get you know,
Speaker 1: priority picking when there is a bidding contract process, or
Speaker 1: when you've got the opportunity to get these tax credits,
Speaker 1: et cetera. They want to be the front of the line.
Speaker 1: They want you to pick up their calls, whether they
Speaker 1: don't care whether they're a Democrat or a Republican. They're
Speaker 1: a member of the Green Party, but not the one
Speaker 1: that Jill stat is affiliated with, the one that is
Speaker 1: the color of our money. So you want to talk
Speaker 1: about some of the real influencers in high roles or politics,
Speaker 1: they look a lot like the dude right here.
Speaker 3: Yep, very exactly.
Speaker 2: That's why we covered it because it's like, this is
Speaker 2: the real insight how do politics works? Yeah, those fifty
Speaker 2: to fifty guys, they're not doing it and out of
Speaker 2: the goodness of their heart.
Speaker 3: It's just all about business. So yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: And astonishing bombshell report coming out of Israeli media. This
Speaker 1: was actually first obtained by an Israeli public broadcaster. You know,
Speaker 1: there has long been discussion of what the IDF and
Speaker 1: the Israeli government may have known in advance of October seventh,
Speaker 1: you had a group of actually mostly women, who were
Speaker 1: observing preparatory activities of Hamas in advance of October seventh,
Speaker 1: who claimed they had warned their superiors or basically ignored. Well,
Speaker 1: now we have an IDF document that has been revealed
Speaker 1: that was distributed two weeks before October seventh, that had
Speaker 1: granular details of the way that October seventh would unfold.
Speaker 1: I'm going to play you the report that aired in
Speaker 1: Israeli media. It was originally in Hebrew. We have a
Speaker 1: dubbed English version. Now, we hadn't been able to specifically
Speaker 1: verify this translation. However, we did check the key details
Speaker 1: and they match up with other reporting, which is why
Speaker 1: we feel comfortable showing it to you, But just wanted
Speaker 1: to give you that disclaimer that we have not been
Speaker 1: able to officially verify this dubbed English translation. Nevertheless, let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to this.
Speaker 13: Report, almost nine months to the return in October, while
Speaker 13: the IDEF still hasn't published the investigations of the default,
Speaker 13: we are tonight revealing the intelligence document of eight hundred
Speaker 13: minus two that was distributed only two weeks before that
Speaker 13: Sabbath and gave the Southern Command an accurate picture of
Speaker 13: the raid plan on the OTEF, including the exact number
Speaker 13: of abductees, that was rehearsed in advance by the terrorists.
Speaker 8: The document that came to us was compiled in the
Speaker 8: Gaza Committee and was given the title Detailed End to
Speaker 8: End Raid Training. It was distributed on September nineteen, twenty
Speaker 8: twenty three, less than three weeks before the Hamas plan
Speaker 8: went into effect.
Speaker 12: Of death.
Speaker 8: The person who wrote it reveals in great detail a
Speaker 8: series of instructions from the elite unit of Hamas, the Nakfa,
Speaker 8: to attack military outposts Kibbutzim. This document starts by discussing
Speaker 8: Hamas's military arms company training sequences. Sweating Division's intelligence staff
Speaker 8: meticulously trailed every tiny detail kim. At eleven in the morning,
Speaker 8: several companies were observed gathering for the beginning of the faith,
Speaker 8: not before prayer and lunch. At twelve, equipment and weapons
Speaker 8: are distributed to the fighters, and then an exercise of
Speaker 8: when the company is ready. At two o'clock, the raid
Speaker 8: practices begin. The authors of the document detail a series
Speaker 8: of exercises carried out by Hamas forces before the attack ah.
Speaker 8: The military arm of the organization practice ground and air
Speaker 8: raids on Israeli territory in front of the eyes of
Speaker 8: the members of the Southern Command. The first step in
Speaker 8: the exercise, according to the document, is to open loopholes
Speaker 8: in the day Metsali situation built in a strip that's
Speaker 8: simulates the outposts in the Gaza envelope. After breaching the fence,
Speaker 8: they attack m The exercise was carried out by four
Speaker 8: companies and each company was assigned a different station. The
Speaker 8: Israeli intelligence officers who followed the exercise formulated in the
Speaker 8: document the next steps after the break into Israeli territory
Speaker 8: and the takeover of the outposts, the handing over of
Speaker 8: the soldiers and prisoners to the company commanders. The expected
Speaker 8: number of hostages was written between two hundred and two
Speaker 8: hundred and fifty people. The military targets of the raid
Speaker 8: that were also practiced were described in the document. The
Speaker 8: headquarters of the bases, control and control headquarters, the synagogues
Speaker 8: at the bases, the squadron headquarters, the communications headquarters, roiure systems,
Speaker 8: and the residences of the soldiers and female soldiers. And
Speaker 8: if what you have seen so far is not creepy, enough.
Speaker 8: Now it turns out that the intelligence of the Southern
Speaker 8: Command and the Gaza Strip was not only aware of
Speaker 8: the Hamas kidnapping plan, but in that document there is
Speaker 8: an ex exact breakdown of the conditions of the hostages detention,
Speaker 8: including instructions for the kidnappers and what to do in
Speaker 8: an extreme case, how to hold them and under what
Speaker 8: conditions the kidnappers can be executed.
Speaker 1: So you can hear from that report the level of
Speaker 1: detailed knowledge that they had just two weeks before October seventh.
Speaker 4: We can put this Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: Post report up on the screen that again verifies a
Speaker 1: lot of the key details. And that report that dubbed
Speaker 1: English report we just brought you they say. For example,
Speaker 1: report detailed that Israeli intelligence officials monitored the Hamas exercises,
Speaker 1: documented the steps Hamas planned to take after breaching is
Speaker 1: Really territory and taking over military posts, the expected number
Speaker 1: of hostages. According to the documents, between two hundred and
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty people quote Israeli intelligence officials who
Speaker 1: monitor the exercise detail the next steps after breaching into
Speaker 1: Israel taking over the post. Determining that the instruction is
Speaker 1: to hand over the captured soldiers to the company commanders.
Speaker 1: The expected number of hostages, it states, is between two
Speaker 1: hundred and two hundred and fifty people. Now, we just
Speaker 1: to go back to that time, Soccer, because we talked
Speaker 1: about this a lot at the time. We've known from
Speaker 1: reporting early on that they had some indications that Hamas
Speaker 1: was planning something. We did not know the level of
Speaker 1: detail that they had, and it makes even more insane
Speaker 1: the decision to move a number of IDF soldiers from
Speaker 1: that area around the Gaza envelope to the West Bank
Speaker 1: to protect settlers, so leaving them exposed. And not only
Speaker 1: was there no anticipation, no planning, the security response on
Speaker 1: that day was an utter disaster. We now have confirmed
Speaker 1: that some of the Israelis who were killed on that
Speaker 1: day it was by the Hannibal director directive by friendly fire.
Speaker 1: But not only is that make that decision completely insane
Speaker 1: and outrageous from an Israeli security perspective, it also makes
Speaker 1: the decision, if you remember this at the time the
Speaker 1: Nova Music Festival where so much of the so many
Speaker 1: of the massacres and whrrors of the you know, atrocities
Speaker 1: committed on October seventh occurred and so many of the
Speaker 1: hostages were taken and people brutally murdered. That festival was
Speaker 1: supposed to be over, and the festival organizers had petitioned
Speaker 1: the IDF in Israeli government to extend for a further day,
Speaker 1: and even having this document in their hands, knowing what
Speaker 1: was being planned, they allowed it to be extended a
Speaker 1: further day and it ends up being this you know,
Speaker 1: soft target that is the location of some horrific massacres. So,
Speaker 1: you know, as bib Net Yahoo is fighting for his
Speaker 1: political life and had really he was mister security his
Speaker 1: whole thing.
Speaker 4: I can control the level of the flame.
Speaker 1: He also directly propped up and you know, supported effectively
Speaker 1: Hamas being there because it served his interests of keeping
Speaker 1: the West Bank and the Gaza stripped of I did,
Speaker 1: and then he could point to them, saw we have
Speaker 1: no partner for peace, like he liked this state of affairs.
Speaker 1: So I have to think domestically in Israel, as there's
Speaker 1: increasing reckoning over what transpired on October seventh, how this
Speaker 1: was able to occur given the massive investment in security
Speaker 1: and high tech weaponry, all of that on the Israeli side,
Speaker 1: that this is going to be a very challenging piece
Speaker 1: of information for BB and Ana.
Speaker 2: No question is this is why he wants the war
Speaker 2: to continue, because then we just stop asking questions what
Speaker 2: about this? What about the intelligence chief? Why were all
Speaker 2: the troops in the West Bank? Why didn't if he
Speaker 2: knew so much about it? I mean, this is basically
Speaker 2: on par with nine to eleven. This is I was
Speaker 2: telling our producer before. This is on par with bin
Speaker 2: Laden determined to attack the US intelligence about multiple agents
Speaker 2: here in the US. CIA know these guys have US
Speaker 2: visas living here in Los Angeles. Saudi's basically knowing and
Speaker 2: helping some of the nine to eleven hijackers. Every piece
Speaker 2: was there to prevent the attack if we wanted, and
Speaker 2: somebody looked the other way, we decided to invade Iraq
Speaker 2: and then everybody just.
Speaker 3: Forgot about it. But that's what they want. That's why
Speaker 3: he want some war with Lebanon. That's his Iraq. He
Speaker 3: just wants everybody to move on, right, That's it, That's
Speaker 3: exactly right.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we wanted to highlight for you,
Speaker 1: you know, as we focus on the US's role in
Speaker 1: all of this and how we're getting you know, dragged
Speaker 1: further and further back into the Middle East, not that
Speaker 1: we had ever extricated ourselves, Kenklippenstein. With this report, Ken
Speaker 1: again has gone independent. Support him over at his sub stack,
Speaker 1: but he gets this scoop. Biden deploys record number of
Speaker 1: troops to Jordan in a quiet build up. And you know,
Speaker 1: there are now a record three eight hundred and thirteen
Speaker 1: American troops in Jordan. That's according to the White House's
Speaker 1: War Powers Report to Congress that it just released. That
Speaker 1: is a six hundred and twenty five troop increase over December,
Speaker 1: with the number of soldiers and airmen exceeding the number
Speaker 1: at any time since the Second Gulf War and the
Speaker 1: invasion of Iraq. A review of past War Powers reports reveals.
Speaker 4: And it's just something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 1: And if you look, he has a chart Zaga that
Speaker 1: shows the numbers of American troops in Jordan over the years,
Speaker 1: and this is the steepest increase that we have seen
Speaker 1: over the time period that he tracks.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's crazy, it's one which again, why are these
Speaker 3: guys even here for Syria, for Israel?
Speaker 1: What is it?
Speaker 2: Do you should tell Congress report to the American people.
Speaker 2: But they just get away with it. They just you know,
Speaker 2: the troops go over there, nobody ask any questions. Yeah,
Speaker 2: then three of them end up dead, and then we
Speaker 2: just keep sending more troops over right, and nobody asked.
Speaker 4: Yeah, these individuals are at risk.
Speaker 2: Literally no, I mean three of them died. About that,
Speaker 2: they already died. People died. We all just completely moved
Speaker 2: on from it.
Speaker 4: It's nuts, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: So we also had to bring to you some outrageous
Speaker 1: propaganda courtesy of CNN. You know, I really wish they
Speaker 1: would stop saying the stuff so we could stop talking
Speaker 1: about it. But as you guys know October seventh, as
Speaker 1: we just discussed, there were genuine war crimes, atrocities, massacres.
Speaker 4: Which were committed.
Speaker 1: However, there were also incidents that the Israeli government promoted
Speaker 1: that turned out.
Speaker 4: To be lies.
Speaker 1: There were the beheaded babies, there was the baby cut
Speaker 1: out of the woman's stomach, etc. Okay, And among what
Speaker 1: appears to be those fabricated tales was the story of
Speaker 1: mass rape as a weapon of war used by Hamas
Speaker 1: on October seventh. Now this is not my words, this
Speaker 1: is now the indications of that Times of London report
Speaker 1: that I brought to you. This is what Pramila Patten
Speaker 1: at the UN. This is what she said that the
Speaker 1: recent UN report that came out also confirmed that while
Speaker 1: there was gender based there are indications of gender based violence.
Speaker 1: The allegations of rape, mass rape, rape as a weapon
Speaker 1: of war are unfounded, unproven at this point, lacking evidence. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: you would think that would be important to a news organization,
Speaker 1: but if it's CNN or really any other of them,
Speaker 1: it's not. So you have Dana Bash setting up a
Speaker 1: segment with Debbie Wasserman Schultz in which she proceeds to
Speaker 1: lie about seeing photos that do not exist in service
Speaker 1: of promoting a Kamala Harris propaganda press conference about similar content.
Speaker 1: So let's take a listen to the segment and we
Speaker 1: can react on the other side.
Speaker 14: What's worse to get kidnapped, to be raped, or to
Speaker 14: get shot. That is a quote from Tolly Beiner.
Speaker 3: It's what she said.
Speaker 14: She was asking herself. I'm amid the chaos at the
Speaker 14: Nova Music Festival in Israel on October seventh, and she
Speaker 14: was a lucky one. She was able to hide from
Speaker 14: Hamas Terris as they raped and slaughtered scores of people
Speaker 14: people attending the festival to listen to music and to
Speaker 14: promote peace. More than two hundred civilians were taken hostage
Speaker 14: that day, including women brought into Gaza and sexually assaulted.
Speaker 15: Hamas used sexual violence and continues to use it as
Speaker 15: a weapon of war, is violating women, Israeli women, and
Speaker 15: I hosted a forum with the Second Gentleman on Capitol
Speaker 15: Hill a few months ago, and the Israeli police came
Speaker 15: and showed us videos that were taken by Hamas terrorists
Speaker 15: themselves engaging in the kind of sexual violence that Cheryl's
Speaker 15: film shows, cutting off the breasts while raping their victims,
Speaker 15: and first hand accounts from first responders as well as
Speaker 15: others and Israelis who were hiding from Hamas terrorists and
Speaker 15: the Denihalism is outragels have to we have to make
Speaker 15: sure that we knock it down.
Speaker 1: So CNN should retracted apologize for this segment because those
Speaker 1: videos do not exist. The congresswoman is lying and again
Speaker 1: this is not my words. I'm reading from the Pramila Patent.
Speaker 1: You when Special Representative Sexual Violence and Conflict Report, she says,
Speaker 1: the mission team specifically for forensic pathologist the digital analysts
Speaker 1: reviewed over five thousand photos around fifty hours and several
Speaker 1: audio files of footage of the attacks provided by various
Speaker 1: state agencies or an independent online review of various open
Speaker 1: sources to identify potential instances and indications of conflict related
Speaker 1: sexual violence. She goes on to say, while the mission
Speaker 1: team reviewed that extensive digital material depicting a range of
Speaker 1: egregious violations, no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual
Speaker 1: violence with found in open source the videos that DWS
Speaker 1: is claiming to see. That by the way, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has claimed the same thing. Also, they do not exist
Speaker 1: according to the UN, according to the Times of London,
Speaker 1: according to independent researchers, they do not exist. Okay, So
Speaker 1: again there is a reason why they persist with this,
Speaker 1: and because they're seeking to justify the atrocities they are
Speaker 1: committing in Gaza by pointing to these atrocities that they
Speaker 1: have invented. And again, there were atrocities on October seventh.
Speaker 1: I am not denying that, but I also require facts
Speaker 1: and evidence to understand what actually happened on that day.
Speaker 1: I do not want to see a genocide justified by
Speaker 1: DWS and Joe Biden and CNN and others based on
Speaker 1: videos that they invented in their minds, So you know,
Speaker 1: at a certain point, so obviously they're railing as the denialists, etc.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they put me in that camp, even though
Speaker 1: again I'm just looking at the evidence that's been presented.
Speaker 1: And by the way, let me make a distinction here too,
Speaker 1: there have been hostages who've been released, at least one
Speaker 1: who is directly testified to sexual assault while she's being
Speaker 1: held hostage. I think we should all take that very seriously.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: The allegation, though, that there was systematic weapon of war
Speaker 1: mass rape deployed on October seventh, has not been supportive,
Speaker 1: and if the Israeli government has such evidence, if they
Speaker 1: believe that that actually occurred, they should cooperate with the
Speaker 1: full independent investigation, which they have comp completely rejected and
Speaker 1: failed to do. The last thing I'll say I get
Speaker 1: your reaction is, of course, we also can't take seriously
Speaker 1: that these people actually, including Kamala Harris at her event
Speaker 1: that she just did which screened the Cheryl Sandberg agit
Speaker 1: prop documentary quote unquote about this as well, that they
Speaker 1: actually care about sexual violence in any context. Let alone
Speaker 1: in the context of war. Is because we do have
Speaker 1: evidence that there has been a persistent pattern of sexual
Speaker 1: violence committed against Palestinian hostages or prisoners or detainees, whatever
Speaker 1: we want to call them. None of them ever says
Speaker 1: a word about that, nor do they care about it.
Speaker 1: So this is all for blatant propaganda purposes, which is
Speaker 1: why it irritates.
Speaker 8: Me so much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it should. And now we've got Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: jumping in. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is launching initiatives to provide support for quote
Speaker 2: sexual violence survivors, launching Dignity and Documentation initiative addressing global
Speaker 2: conflict related sexual violence and supporting them through you and
Speaker 2: efforts and leadership programs, but pegging it specifically to October seventh,
Speaker 2: and after a partial screening of quote Sheryl Sandberg's documentary
Speaker 2: film Screams Before Silence.
Speaker 1: Soah, And also from Kamala, not a word at this
Speaker 1: This event is not supposed to just be.
Speaker 4: About Israel R.
Speaker 1: She mentioned, and again also without evidence that Hamas had
Speaker 1: committed rape and gang rape at the Nova Music Festival. Again,
Speaker 1: there is no evidence, according to the un no evidence
Speaker 1: to back up those claims. She claims that this event
Speaker 1: is about conflict related gender based violence everywhere, not one
Speaker 1: mention of the confirmed reports with regards to Palestinian. So
Speaker 1: obviously you can't take these people seriously in their supposed
Speaker 1: care and concern and desire for accountability whatsoever. It's purely
Speaker 1: for their own naked propaganda purposes, and it's frankly disgusting.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: As some longtime listeners may know, I love credit cards
Speaker 2: and credit card points. There is almost no way that
Speaker 2: I get more value from it compared to the value
Speaker 2: of the time that I put in. But few who
Speaker 2: dabble understand the absolute high of getting one up on
Speaker 2: the man and flying first class internationally for free. It's
Speaker 2: a hobby and I enjoy it partially because I hate
Speaker 2: the banks and I love at least the idea of
Speaker 2: getting one up on them, and because I'm in this world.
Speaker 2: A card that's been making the rounds for a few
Speaker 2: years now is the Built Card. It has one of
Speaker 2: the best point value redemptions in the game for anyone
Speaker 2: who rents, and it has spurred their founder, Onen Core Jane,
Speaker 2: to a billion dollar plus net worth The only problem
Speaker 2: has been nobody can really figure out how does this
Speaker 2: company make money?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 2: How did they somehow figure out a scheme that nobody
Speaker 2: else could make work well? A New Wall Street Journal
Speaker 2: expose reveals how exactly they made this work, and it
Speaker 2: is absolutely delicious for those who don't know. Built's major
Speaker 2: pitch to consumers is that you can pay your rent
Speaker 2: and you can get points for doing so on the card.
Speaker 2: Usually landlords don't take credit cards because they don't want
Speaker 2: to eat processing fees. Built boasts that you can do
Speaker 2: so that they will eat the fee and they will
Speaker 2: mail a check to the landlord.
Speaker 3: That way, everybody wins.
Speaker 2: Landlord gets paid, you get to pay something that you
Speaker 2: would anyways, and you get to redeem points for potentially
Speaker 2: thousands of dollars in value on airlines, shopping, or wherever.
Speaker 3: Now you might be asking, wait, how does this work?
Speaker 2: It turns out Wells Fargo, the bank that helped Built
Speaker 2: issue the card, made a huge mistake. They assumed when
Speaker 2: they were underwriting the card that consumers would not be
Speaker 2: as savvy as they are. In fact, they assumed most
Speaker 2: people wouldn't take advantage of the rental provision, and that
Speaker 2: instead a huge portion of the credit card users would
Speaker 2: carry a balance and that they could milk them for interest. Instead,
Speaker 2: a much smaller portion of card users than normal are
Speaker 2: carrying a balance, and a massive portion of them are
Speaker 2: just paying their rent with a card and immediately zeroing
Speaker 2: out the balance. This means that Wells Fargo is eating
Speaker 2: the processing fee, which has now led to a whopping
Speaker 2: ten million dollars a month loss for the bank. Since
Speaker 2: this card has been around for years, well it means
Speaker 2: they have lost hundreds of millions.
Speaker 3: Of dollars on the program.
Speaker 2: The best part is they are locked into this contract
Speaker 2: until twenty twenty nine, and they are doing their damnedest
Speaker 2: right now to get out of it, leading to major
Speaker 2: panic within the bank. Even funnier is that not only
Speaker 2: are they eating the credit card processing fee, but their
Speaker 2: contract actually requires them to pay Built every single time
Speaker 2: a new person signs up. They assumed that the card
Speaker 2: would be a lost leader at worst, and that maybe
Speaker 2: they could just sell mortgages to build customers who are
Speaker 2: obviously renters, but then high interest rates.
Speaker 3: Screwed that up for everybody. I'm not going to leave.
Speaker 2: Built unscathed here, though, Even though people should take advantage
Speaker 2: of their card while they still can Their CEO on
Speaker 2: Core Jane recently had a gaudy monstrosity of a wedding
Speaker 2: where he were literally rented out the Great Pyramids of Giza.
Speaker 2: Has seemingly spent millions and millions of dollars. He has
Speaker 2: relished in his status as a billionaire, and he has
Speaker 2: bil built as a massively innovative financial technology company. But
Speaker 2: now that we know the truth, it makes a lot
Speaker 2: more sense. So the last time he was on CNBC,
Speaker 2: he had a train wreck interview where he could not
Speaker 2: explain how this company actually made money without outing his
Speaker 2: insane deal with Wells Fargo.
Speaker 16: Take a listen, Let's go back to the math of it,
Speaker 16: because I do want to understand the economics of it.
Speaker 6: So you're collecting a fee.
Speaker 16: You're a processing fee transaction fee every time, correct each person?
Speaker 6: Which is what percent?
Speaker 17: It depends on the type of payment met that you
Speaker 17: can pay by bank ach you can.
Speaker 16: Okay, but we're talking between one and a half and
Speaker 16: three percent. We're talking Amex style. I mean Amex was
Speaker 16: three percent, MasterCard was lower.
Speaker 4: It really depends if you.
Speaker 17: Pay by Amex or pay by visa or pay by
Speaker 17: master Card.
Speaker 4: If your bank was the lowest you can.
Speaker 3: Get's right, and so you get different levels.
Speaker 17: What's the rate for the lowest if you pay it
Speaker 17: depends on the landlord too and the property owner.
Speaker 4: But just like stripe and any other.
Speaker 16: But although, but go back, it's important important piece you
Speaker 16: go to.
Speaker 17: Like a local merchant right right today instead of giving
Speaker 17: say like a ten percent local discount to bring in
Speaker 17: local customers on those off hours, off days, they can say,
Speaker 17: like with American Express, but hey, we want to focus
Speaker 17: on the neighborhood and if you come in, we can
Speaker 17: we can fund two, two and a half percent or
Speaker 17: five percent in rewards and introduce our business to all
Speaker 17: those people moving into the neighborhood every month.
Speaker 3: So think about this.
Speaker 17: Half of renters move every year. So you have all
Speaker 17: these people moving out of the neighborhood every year, and
Speaker 17: these merchants, these small business owners have no way to
Speaker 17: get in front of them. So now you can be
Speaker 17: in front of everybody when they move into the neighborhood.
Speaker 17: You have a plug and play loyalty platform, and instead
Speaker 17: of giving the ten percent local discount, you spend a
Speaker 17: quarter of that and you actually attract the local residents
Speaker 17: through recurring rewards for coming in, and all the points
Speaker 17: they've earned on rent can now be spent at that
Speaker 17: local business.
Speaker 3: Right, God, I love that so much. Well, some people
Speaker 3: pay some fee and there's this merchant program. No it doesn't.
Speaker 2: It turns out the bank is just eating the whole fee.
Speaker 2: The best part is that the clip goes on for
Speaker 2: five more minutes, the entire time Andrew Ross work and
Speaker 2: he keeps trying to ask him, goes, wait, how do
Speaker 2: you actually make money?
Speaker 3: And they can't say why.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Clearly, this gravy train ain't gonna last past twenty
Speaker 2: twenty nine. I wouldn't put it past Wells Fargo to
Speaker 2: sue and try and get themselves out of the deal.
Speaker 3: In the meantime.
Speaker 2: This is not financial advice, but I can tell you
Speaker 2: that card is a pretty damn good deal. And it
Speaker 2: is just even sweeter knowing that those free flights come
Speaker 2: at the direct expense of one of America's horse banks,
Speaker 2: who are dumb enough to sign a deal like this.
Speaker 3: Couldn't have happened to a better person.
Speaker 2: We're going to skip the reaction because Matt Stoller is
Speaker 2: standing by and we are really running short on time.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, very excited to have our friend Matt
Speaker 1: Stoller in studio. He is, of course the author a
Speaker 1: big by Matt Stoller over on Substack and also over
Speaker 1: he is at the American Economic Liberties Project and great
Speaker 1: on all things anti trust in much more.
Speaker 4: Great to see you, Matt.
Speaker 3: Good see man.
Speaker 1: You had a piece recently you can put up on
Speaker 1: the screen that I really took interest in. The headline
Speaker 1: is why has Trump stopped attacking big business? In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: you say, Donald Trump went after CEOs so often that
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal set up a track of stocks
Speaker 1: whose leaders.
Speaker 4: He had insulted. No longer what happened?
Speaker 1: So take us through the shift from you know, twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen vintage Trump to the way Trump talks today, and
Speaker 1: has there been a policy shift that is accompanied that
Speaker 1: rhetorical shift as well?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 18: So I was really surprised because I'm not a Trump hater.
Speaker 18: I mean, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not a Trump hater.
Speaker 18: But I went back to twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen
Speaker 18: because I noticed he hasn't really been attacking CEOs very often.
Speaker 6: I'm like, is that a what is that a thing?
Speaker 18: And so I looked at the last three speeches he gave,
Speaker 18: because you can't really trust the press and they're reporting
Speaker 18: on Trump is his dumb and so I just like
Speaker 18: read his speeches which are long and rambling.
Speaker 6: But he didn't attack any CEOs.
Speaker 18: He still was like against immigrants, and he had some
Speaker 18: of the traditional like stuff in there, but it was
Speaker 18: like that was gone, and I was like, okay. So
Speaker 18: I went back to twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen
Speaker 18: and looked at the stuff he had said, and I
Speaker 18: was I was surprised. I thought I'd paid close attention
Speaker 18: to Trump, but it was really surprising because of just
Speaker 18: how often and how aggressive he was about attacking like.
Speaker 6: Ford, like Nobisco. He called for boycott of.
Speaker 18: Apple at a certain point, he was like, you know,
Speaker 18: he went after Jeff Bezos for being a monopolist and
Speaker 18: not paying his taxes and said he's gonna have a
Speaker 18: huge anti trust problem under me. And he was like
Speaker 18: His final ad was amazing. It was like a two
Speaker 18: minute long ad that was like the global power structure
Speaker 18: and it was you know, is trying to defeat me,
Speaker 18: and they've outsourced your jobs and it was you know,
Speaker 18: as pictures of Wall Street, pictures of empty factories. It
Speaker 18: was like straight up populist economic popular stuff. And then
Speaker 18: when he got into office, you know, he was not
Speaker 18: like he was not you know, FDR right to put
Speaker 18: it like he he he did do some real things though,
Speaker 18: like he was mostly like an orthodox Republican corporate tax
Speaker 18: cuts and stuff like that, or deregulation, but he actually
Speaker 18: did you know, the tariffs were different, so he did
Speaker 18: some tariffs, didn't close the trade deficity that got worse,
Speaker 18: but he did change our trade policy framework. And there's
Speaker 18: some weird stuff in trade as well, like under Trump
Speaker 18: is the first use of environmental rules to stop illegal
Speaker 18: logging ever in Peru. Like it was crazy, and that
Speaker 18: was just because Trump is a protectionist and he was like, well,
Speaker 18: we want to protect the domestic Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 18: But it's like and there's like labor organizing in Mexico
Speaker 18: because of some of the things that Trump did, which
Speaker 18: is again protectionist, labor costs in Mexico go up.
Speaker 3: Yep, more less offshore as part of the yeah I remember, yeah, yeah, And.
Speaker 18: This is this is both the Democrats in Congress and Trump,
Speaker 18: but it was real, like not, you know, it's certainly
Speaker 18: like maybe I'm saying twenty percent of it was real
Speaker 18: and eighty percent of it was just like pro corporate
Speaker 18: but on anti trust you know, same thing. Lots of
Speaker 18: huge mergers, bad stuff. But he did challenge at and
Speaker 18: T time Warner right, which was the first challenge of
Speaker 18: a merger like that in like forty years. He did
Speaker 18: bring a suit against Google and a suit against Facebook.
Speaker 18: These were huge. Remember when Facebook tried to start like
Speaker 18: their own currency. Yeah, rah, like he helped out.
Speaker 3: To talk about it.
Speaker 18: Yeah, yeah, like it feels like so long ago, but
Speaker 18: like he did, you know, he helped block that, right,
Speaker 18: So there was real stuff. But on the other hand,
Speaker 18: like you know, there there was standard deregulation and like
Speaker 18: inequality got worse. You know, it wasn't I don't want
Speaker 18: to like overstate it, but there was some populism there, right.
Speaker 18: It was certainly not what you would expect from a
Speaker 18: standard Republican administration. And Wall Street actually funded Hillary Clinton
Speaker 18: and then Joe Biden in twenty twenty more than they
Speaker 18: did Trump. Okay, today he gets about fifty percent more
Speaker 18: money from Wall Street or from securities industry and finance
Speaker 18: industry than Biden does. Right, So there's been this really
Speaker 18: big shift in the money and he is still talking
Speaker 18: about immigration, but he isn't talking about you know, the
Speaker 18: Wall Street establishment or anything like that. The populism has
Speaker 18: kind of moved a foreign policy a little bit. He's
Speaker 18: kind of like, if I were in charge, none of
Speaker 18: this bad stuff would be happening. Right, So that's not like,
Speaker 18: you know, you could laugh at it, but it's like
Speaker 18: it's moved. It's I'm just looking at the rhetoric. Right
Speaker 18: In terms of your question about what's the policy change
Speaker 18: going to be, I don't know.
Speaker 6: Nobody knows.
Speaker 18: And I talked to my friends on the right and
Speaker 18: they're like, this doesn't look good, but we don't know.
Speaker 18: I mean, my friends are the writer are like realignment types, yeah,
Speaker 18: and they're they're just kind of like, uh, you know,
Speaker 18: we don't think he's going to be good, but they're
Speaker 18: not sure.
Speaker 2: I think that Trump thesis is simple. He got more
Speaker 2: votes in twenty twenty than he did in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: He doesn't need any of that. You could literally pass TCJA.
Speaker 2: You can be very popular. He's currently beating Joe Biden
Speaker 2: in the polls. And he went to the business roundtable
Speaker 2: and was like, I'm gonna cut all of your taxes,
Speaker 2: and only people like you and me are even going
Speaker 2: to pay attention to any of that. Other people are
Speaker 2: going to go to the grocery store and say stuff
Speaker 2: is too pricey or too high. So I mean, and
Speaker 2: reflected in your speech, what does he even say about
Speaker 2: the economy, like, other than the economy is bad. In
Speaker 2: terms of the speeches that you.
Speaker 6: Read, well, he says, you know, it was awesome when
Speaker 6: I was pride.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's it.
Speaker 6: He's like, I remember when it was awesome. And people
Speaker 6: are like, I guess, I get I do, Yeah, I
Speaker 6: remember that. Yeah, And you know, and that works.
Speaker 18: There's any strange I'm I'm not saying like I'm not
Speaker 18: giving it elect analysis, but I will say this, the
Speaker 18: polling does show that voters think that Trump is on
Speaker 18: the side of Wall Street more than a lot more
Speaker 18: than Biden.
Speaker 6: Oh, and so there is vulnerability there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was really interesting in your report.
Speaker 1: I encourage people to look at that pulling you pulled
Speaker 1: down because I hadn't seen that, and I did think
Speaker 1: that that was really interesting and I bet would represent
Speaker 1: a massive shift from the way he was positioned in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, where I would say core part of his appeal.
Speaker 1: I mean it was during the swamp and it was
Speaker 1: you know, the TPP was a huge piece of his appeal.
Speaker 1: Anti immigrant was also part of it as well then too.
Speaker 4: But you know, has the in terms of the.
Speaker 1: Wall Street money, right, is the shift exclusively that they're
Speaker 1: more comfany with Trump? He's not saying that stuff anymore. Also,
Speaker 1: you know, we were there during Trump and things were
Speaker 1: actually pretty.
Speaker 4: Good for us.
Speaker 1: Or is it more that they've been unhappy with some
Speaker 1: of the actions that Biden has taken, specifically in the
Speaker 1: area of anti trust where you focus. And also, I
Speaker 1: mean Biden. The other piece here is Trump was very
Speaker 1: in spite of you know, the talk of about labor.
Speaker 1: His National Labor Relations Board was packed with exactly the
Speaker 1: type of characters you wouldn't expect in any Republican administration,
Speaker 1: you know, standard approach towards actual labor issues.
Speaker 4: The Biden administration has taken a different.
Speaker 3: Tack there as well.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think it's kind of funny.
Speaker 18: So, yeah, just to give you an example, like Trump,
Speaker 18: remember that the second Max Boeing, Max Crash right and
Speaker 18: Trump was so like deregulatory that he wouldn't even ground
Speaker 18: the Max airline like airplanes until every other you know,
Speaker 18: everyone else in the world that grounded them.
Speaker 6: And I like saw that recently.
Speaker 18: I was like, oh yeah, I remember like endless little
Speaker 18: decision after little decision that I was like kind of terrifying,
Speaker 18: you know, things like arsenic and water or like the
Speaker 18: Bowe seventy Max and I And it was really maddening
Speaker 18: as a liberal to see the like liberals focus on
Speaker 18: stuff that was stupid instead of the stuff that he like,
Speaker 18: I remember this whole thing about like, yeah, whatever.
Speaker 6: But the point is is that.
Speaker 18: There were there were a lot of like policy choices
Speaker 18: that I think we kind of ignored that I'm sort
Speaker 18: of like looking at and saying, oh, that's that's kind
Speaker 18: of a problem.
Speaker 1: But on the button side of things, oh yeah, feel
Speaker 1: about him, because I'm sort of trying to draw you
Speaker 1: out because we do a lot of you know, by
Speaker 1: criticism here right right right.
Speaker 4: And you recently tweeted that.
Speaker 1: But then pretty good president part and in a certain sense,
Speaker 1: like I have major issues with him on foreign policy,
Speaker 1: on economic policy, the stuff you focus on actually agree
Speaker 1: in a certain on antitrust. I think it's represented a
Speaker 1: you know, significant shift on the labor issues that I
Speaker 1: care a lot about. He's represented somewhat of a shift
Speaker 1: as well. So what's your case for why he's been
Speaker 1: pretty good and why that may have rubbed Wall Street
Speaker 1: the wrong way?
Speaker 6: You know, it's kind of funny.
Speaker 18: I like to tweet like good but it's pretty good,
Speaker 18: just because it annoys everyone on Twitter, right, and like
Speaker 18: the establishment just kind of hates Biden. Like, what's what's
Speaker 18: interesting is that the establic it's like cool to support
Speaker 18: Trump now, right, whereas in twenty sixteen it was like
Speaker 18: cool to support Clinton on Twitter.
Speaker 3: That's true. I don't know if it's true in general,
Speaker 3: but yeah.
Speaker 18: If you go to like any group of young people
Speaker 18: and you're like, hey, do you like Biden, they'll be
Speaker 18: like no.
Speaker 6: Right, like he sucks.
Speaker 18: But if you're like, and if you see you just
Speaker 18: put a like you give them like a piece of paper,
Speaker 18: say who you're going to.
Speaker 6: Vote for, they'll be let They'll they'll like write Biden.
Speaker 6: But it's like not cool to say it, right, right,
Speaker 6: But okay, so Biden.
Speaker 18: Yeah, he's incoherent and his administration is incoherent, but in
Speaker 18: a number of ways, like you would think whilst you
Speaker 18: would really like him, right, because the stock markets at
Speaker 18: record highs, executive pay is good, like they're making a
Speaker 18: lot of money, but like they're really mad, and they're
Speaker 18: really mad because they're not allowed to merge. Right, There's
Speaker 18: been eleven trillion dollars of mergers that have not happened
Speaker 18: because there's an antitrust regime that says, no, you can't
Speaker 18: buy up all your rivals and raise prices. They're also
Speaker 18: doing things like helping workers organize, which is not something
Speaker 18: that I feel, it's not the kind of law that
Speaker 18: I look at, but that is something that's happening. They're
Speaker 18: doing things like banning non compete agreements, which is really important.
Speaker 18: Private equity loves to like lock up all the doctors
Speaker 18: in an area and not let them go work for
Speaker 18: someone else, or lock up all the vets in an area,
Speaker 18: our nurses are whatever, and the Biden administration is saying, no,
Speaker 18: you can't do that. Yesterday, the Biden administration just said
Speaker 18: we're not going to let Adobe like continue to make
Speaker 18: it impossible to cancel your subscription.
Speaker 6: To their like products.
Speaker 18: Right, and everyone in the creative field is like hates
Speaker 18: Adobe because they just charge you a lot of money
Speaker 18: and don't let you.
Speaker 3: I think it's pretty sure in the back room.
Speaker 18: But like if you try to cancel, like good luck
Speaker 18: with you, right, like getting on the phone, like all
Speaker 18: these junk fees that these guys are laying on you.
Speaker 18: The thing about those all that stuff is that there's
Speaker 18: like a billionaire behind every junk fee and they are
Speaker 18: really mad that like someone is telling them no because
Speaker 18: they're not used to hearing no, and so like having
Speaker 18: some now that most of the Democrats don't know that
Speaker 18: their party is doing this. Like another example is the
Speaker 18: IRS just came out with its own free version of
Speaker 18: turbotef free, right, and you can you will now be
Speaker 18: able to like file your taxes and the people who
Speaker 18: will be like the customer service are like work at
Speaker 18: the IRS and like into its stock just like dive.
Speaker 18: Because but that's like one more thing that's much less
Speaker 18: annoying in our lives because of what Biden is doing.
Speaker 18: But it's also like into it's going to be really
Speaker 18: mad and like they're all you know, all the lobbyist
Speaker 18: they're all friends with each other, and so that's what's
Speaker 18: what's going on here is like the nest of people
Speaker 18: with capital are getting really mad, not because they're losing money,
Speaker 18: they're actually making more money, but because someone's telling them no.
Speaker 18: And it's these random people in the Biden administration.
Speaker 9: Do you have.
Speaker 1: Confidence those things will continue in a second Biden administration
Speaker 1: because and I guess this gets to the question of,
Speaker 1: like what is his orientation towards those policies. This is
Speaker 1: not something he talks about a lot. They have certainly
Speaker 1: done a terrible job of selling these pieces, like they
Speaker 1: don't lean into this. So does Joe Biden know this
Speaker 1: is happening? Does he care it's happening? Is this important
Speaker 1: to him in terms of what he would do in
Speaker 1: a second term.
Speaker 6: It's a little bit like Trump.
Speaker 18: We don't know no, right, Like Ron Klean, who was
Speaker 18: the first white as chief of staff, was super into
Speaker 18: this stuff.
Speaker 6: Jeff Science doesn't.
Speaker 3: He doesn't care. He's also be rich because of the opposite.
Speaker 6: He's like, you know, he's like anchorman, like Brick Tanlan.
Speaker 18: He's just like he's polite and rarely late, and that's
Speaker 18: why he doesn't He's totally superficial. He knows nothing. Like
Speaker 18: their next chief of staff, after Jeff Science. If he's
Speaker 18: into this stuff or she's into this stuff, like then
Speaker 18: it'll be.
Speaker 3: Biden just doesn't care.
Speaker 18: We have no well Biden, no Biden. It's not that
Speaker 18: Biden doesn't care. Biden like has an instinct. He doesn't
Speaker 18: like people getting screwed. He doesn't like CEOs because he
Speaker 18: thinks they talk down to him. He like kind of
Speaker 18: generally is like where could people are getting screwed? But
Speaker 18: he's not that interested in it and he doesn't follow
Speaker 18: the details. So, like it's different than Obama. Obama was
Speaker 18: very like hungry, aggressive and like straight neoliberal. The people
Speaker 18: are revolting and we need to like put our boot
Speaker 18: on their neck, right, like Bert in a cool way, right,
Speaker 18: like that that was his thing, Yeah, yeah, like and
Speaker 18: he's like an influencer type, right, Like Biden is actually
Speaker 18: has the opposite view, but he just doesn't His like
Speaker 18: interest is foreign policy, right where he's doing an awesome job.
Speaker 6: Anyway.
Speaker 18: But the thing is, there's a lot of legitimate criticisms
Speaker 18: of Biden, right, but I think a lot of the
Speaker 18: like vibe hostility to him is actually coming from big money, right,
Speaker 18: all of the people in all the people on Wall Street,
Speaker 18: and Silicon Valley and like they all pay off academia,
Speaker 18: they're all like, none of them have an incentive to say, yeah,
Speaker 18: I don't like Adobe overcharging you, right, because there's some
Speaker 18: group of people making money from that, and they're all
Speaker 18: friends with group of people making money from everything. It's
Speaker 18: like you, if you attack the things that people don't
Speaker 18: like in our society and commerce, you will make people
Speaker 18: very angry. And that is why when I put up
Speaker 18: on Twitter, because I think of Twitter as like, you know,
Speaker 18: it's sort of like that's what organized money is talking about.
Speaker 18: When you put up something on Twitter like Biden's pretty good,
Speaker 18: Like you know, the rage, like the level of rage.
Speaker 6: They're not like, oh, well, you know, but what is
Speaker 6: what about it? What he's doing there or there?
Speaker 18: It's like here or there, it's the rage is aggressive
Speaker 18: and you can and it's out of it's out of
Speaker 18: like whack to what he's truly doing.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: Last thing I'll question you on, though, is my assessment's
Speaker 1: a little bit different, which is that I think the
Speaker 1: things you're talking about, especially the antitrust piece, also the
Speaker 1: labor organizing piece, is very important to me. I think
Speaker 1: these could make a significant difference in our economy a
Speaker 1: little bit down the road, but it doesn't pay off
Speaker 1: for people by and large.
Speaker 4: I mean the junk fees.
Speaker 1: Stuff that's real right now, but it doesn't pay off
Speaker 1: right now in the short term. And on the other hand,
Speaker 1: you've had over the course of Biden administration, all of
Speaker 1: the COVID social safety net that was spun up. You've
Speaker 1: had that, piece by piece by piece taken away, so
Speaker 1: that you know, people are more strapped in terms of
Speaker 1: cash that the mountain.
Speaker 4: Their bank account is lower.
Speaker 1: You've seen net worth, especially among some demographics, continue to decline.
Speaker 1: If you're a young person, you're looking at the housing order,
Speaker 1: You're like, I'm never going to be able to afford house.
Speaker 1: You've had inflation, inflation as cooling somewhat. Prices are still
Speaker 1: much higher than they were under the Trump administration. So
Speaker 1: I think there's some there there, especially among you know,
Speaker 1: people who were not yet at owners in terms of
Speaker 1: their sense of how this economy is for them right
Speaker 1: now in this moment.
Speaker 6: Well, who cares about people who don't have ass.
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 6: I yeah, No, I mean I think we'll end it there.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 6: I mean, well, look at something very basic which is
Speaker 6: gas prices.
Speaker 18: Okay, gas prices have come down a lot, and they've
Speaker 18: come down a lot because of Biden policies, right, and
Speaker 18: very explicitly, like they figured out there was a big
Speaker 18: price fixing conspiracy in terms of withholding production the fracking companies,
Speaker 18: and then they released oil from the strategic petroleum reserve
Speaker 18: to break that cartel.
Speaker 6: It worked, and gas prices are much lower than they were.
Speaker 18: They're not as necessarily as low as they were before
Speaker 18: the pandemic, but they have come down a lot. Okay,
Speaker 18: the rent okay or airplanes, right, airlines prices are actually
Speaker 18: below where they were in twenty nineteen. You take something
Speaker 18: like rent rent is a huge problem, but the Bidenmistration
Speaker 18: is actually bringing an anti trust case against a company
Speaker 18: that has saw that fixes.
Speaker 13: Right.
Speaker 18: So you guys, you guys know, like yeah, of course,
Speaker 18: but like the you're one of the only people that
Speaker 18: know about it. If you don't explain what you're doing, right,
Speaker 18: then how are people going to know? I mean, there
Speaker 18: are real art Like Trump said I lowered pharmaceutical prices.
Speaker 18: It wasn't true, but a lot of people believe it
Speaker 18: because he kept saying it. Right, This is not a
Speaker 18: criticism of Trump. It's kind of like, if you don't
Speaker 18: explain what you're doing, there's no way for anyone to
Speaker 18: know what you're doing. So it's true, there are a
Speaker 18: lot of huge problems that I think people are experiencing.
Speaker 18: There are always a lot of huge problems that people
Speaker 18: are experiencing. I'm not like a political expert or anything,
Speaker 18: but it does seem to me like if you are
Speaker 18: not explaining what you're doing, then people aren't going to
Speaker 18: know what you're doing.
Speaker 6: It just seems very basic.
Speaker 2: But yeah, all right, well it's great talking to you. Man,
Speaker 2: appreciate you coming down. People should read the piece and
Speaker 2: subscribe to the substack, otherwise we'll see you all later.