Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. All right, let's get to confirmation and let's
Speaker 3: go put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 3: a huge week for confirmation for some of Trump's nominees.
Speaker 1: Today this morning.
Speaker 3: Actually after the show is finished recording, RFK Junior will
Speaker 3: take and testify to the Senate Health and Human Services
Speaker 3: Committee for his confirmation hearing. He's actually will appear first
Speaker 3: before Finance, which is one of the two committees with jurisdiction,
Speaker 3: and then again on Thursday, so they'll have multiple opportunities
Speaker 3: to question him. Then you will have Kelly Leffler, who
Speaker 3: will be at the Small Business Administration for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, before SBA. I forgot that too.
Speaker 4: The failed some kind of like insider trading situation.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it wass. She just had a
Speaker 3: sketchy background. She worked as the CEO of a crypto
Speaker 3: platform before she became the Senator from Georgia, and then
Speaker 3: she lost famously in that Senate runoff and has been
Speaker 3: hanging around mar A Lago for since then to try
Speaker 3: and get something.
Speaker 2: She was accused of selling twenty million dollars in stock
Speaker 2: a week after a coronavirus pandemic briefing.
Speaker 1: That's right, I remember that, Yeah. Because it wasn't just her.
Speaker 3: There was also Richard Blanket on the name senator from
Speaker 3: North Carolina bur Burr.
Speaker 1: There you go, Senate Richard Burr. He's the one I remember.
Speaker 1: He had his phone sees that's right, right, and all
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 3: There was David Perdue, also the former senator from Georgia
Speaker 3: CEO of Dollar General.
Speaker 1: I think he's going to be our ambassador to China.
Speaker 4: Oh there you go, lovely, All right.
Speaker 3: Thursday, we will have cash Ptel from the FBI. He
Speaker 3: will testify before the judiciary Committee, and then also on Thursday.
Speaker 3: This is really the big one, which is Tulsea Gabbard,
Speaker 3: who will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee for her
Speaker 3: confirmation as the DNI. Right now, the biggest question marks
Speaker 3: are around RFK Junior and around Tulsa Gabbard. Gabard in
Speaker 3: particular has faced a huge opposition from a lot of
Speaker 3: very pro surveillance state both Democrats and Republicans, and there's
Speaker 3: still faces a really i think tougher path to confirmation.
Speaker 1: Taste of what that looks like.
Speaker 3: John Brennan, the former CIA director, campaigning against her on MSNBC,
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Well, when they are National Security Council meetings that the
Speaker 5: President chairs in the White House situation Room, usually the
Speaker 5: first person to speak would be the Director of National
Speaker 5: Intelligence and the Director of CIA. They laid down the
Speaker 5: intelligence basis for any type of policy discussion that ensues.
Speaker 5: If that intelligence basis, that briefing is going to be
Speaker 5: skewed or is going to be lacking some very important
Speaker 5: critical information, the policy decision that ultimately comes out of
Speaker 5: it is also going to be baseless. And also you
Speaker 5: know it's going to be potentially threatening to our national security.
Speaker 5: So again it's the presence daily brief, but also the
Speaker 5: role that the Director of National Intelligence, Director of CIA
Speaker 5: play in order to ensure that the people who have
Speaker 5: to make that those decisions and their security council are
Speaker 5: fully informed about what the reality is, what the intelligence is,
Speaker 5: what our intelligence gaps are, and if they withhold things
Speaker 5: or if they skew things, it really is going to
Speaker 5: be detrimental.
Speaker 6: Real quick, before we let you go, Director, do those
Speaker 6: agency heads have in that moment you're describing in that room,
Speaker 6: have that realization that wait a minute, that's not what
Speaker 6: we told you I mean, in other words, how does
Speaker 6: that coordination become undone when the person who's putting the
Speaker 6: final brief is skewed the information?
Speaker 5: Well, I like to think that, you know, Secretary of
Speaker 5: State Rubio is very familiar with the intelligence profession is
Speaker 5: going to be speaking up because you have the Secretary
Speaker 5: of State, Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General others who
Speaker 5: are going to be there. So you want to make
Speaker 5: sure again that you have people who are informed but
Speaker 5: also people who want to know the truth right and
Speaker 5: not just people who want to give President Trump what
Speaker 5: he wants to hear. That is so so dangerous.
Speaker 1: So there we go.
Speaker 3: That's the taste of the deep state against Tulsi Gabbard.
Speaker 3: John Brennan of course would never manipulate intelligence. He would
Speaker 3: never know any of the things that he just laid out.
Speaker 3: He would never lie about maybe an international scandal Russia.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously we could go on forever. This is
Speaker 3: part of the problem that Tulsi really faces, though, is
Speaker 3: that that is the mainstream view in Washington. You know,
Speaker 3: the very reason of her suspicions previously for seven h
Speaker 3: two and then having to flip on that is just
Speaker 3: was crazy to watch because this is like I think
Speaker 3: you said this. You can say a lot about her
Speaker 3: flip on a lot of issues.
Speaker 1: That was the one. I think we were all agreed.
Speaker 1: We're you know, we're skeptically consistent. Yeah, I thought we
Speaker 1: were pretty skeptical of these things. I think they're bad.
Speaker 3: But the view from Washington is clear. If you want
Speaker 3: to get confirmed.
Speaker 1: This is it.
Speaker 3: And you know what's really crazy is this put this
Speaker 3: on the screen. The current Republican swing vote, Susan Collins,
Speaker 3: is unconvinced that she's actually flipped, So her position is
Speaker 3: that her Tulsi's flip on seven oh two in PISA
Speaker 3: authority seems insincere to her, and she just can't in
Speaker 3: good conscious perhaps support somebody who you know has even
Speaker 3: in the past voiced concern about section of seven oh
Speaker 3: two and Faiza spying. I should note, by the way,
Speaker 3: because you floated this as well.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 3: RFK Junior is also a sleeper problem potentially in terms
Speaker 3: of his confirmation. While he's got a lot of MAGA votes,
Speaker 3: the fact that McConnell came out and voted against Pete
Speaker 3: Hegstath that was a big deal, right, because that shows
Speaker 3: pretty clearly he's been dropping hints like no's business that
Speaker 3: he doesn't like Telsa Gabbert. If Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins,
Speaker 3: who's already I'm convinced it would take JD and then
Speaker 3: there's just one more Republican, let's say both on Tulsia
Speaker 3: Gabbert and our RFK Junior. If they defect, then they're
Speaker 3: not going to get confirmation. So those are some pretty
Speaker 3: big question I would rather be RFK Junior right now,
Speaker 3: then I would Tulsa Gabbard be just because I think
Speaker 3: that the Faiza element is so difficult, I mean, correct
Speaker 3: me if I'm wrong. I think it's possible that a Democrat,
Speaker 3: or sorry, at least the very these Democrats for Tulsi.
Speaker 1: It's an absolute non starter.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 3: Many of them would not even vote or meet with
Speaker 3: her because they think she's a trader for being a
Speaker 3: former Democrat. RFK Junior maybe has a better chance of
Speaker 3: all of that. I still, you know, really remains to
Speaker 3: be seen. But those two really do seem to be
Speaker 3: the ones who could be in trouble. I do think
Speaker 3: they'll probably still get confirmed just because of the pressure
Speaker 3: the Trump administration has been willing to bring to bear.
Speaker 3: But if they do get confirmed, it's very likely to
Speaker 3: be with Jade Vance as the tie.
Speaker 1: Break vote with r K.
Speaker 4: I could see some Democrats crossing over.
Speaker 1: I was thinking the same.
Speaker 2: I could see John Fetterman voting for him, whereas I
Speaker 2: cannot see John Fetterman voting for Tulci.
Speaker 3: Gabbernie could vote for if he extracts some promises.
Speaker 2: I don't think so, because I mean maybe, but I
Speaker 2: think there's a would be a lot of concern about
Speaker 2: his views on vaccines. The other one that I think
Speaker 2: could cross over is what's his name from Colorado Bennett, Yeah,
Speaker 2: had made like maybe Colorado has a kind of like
Speaker 2: crunchy RFK junior ish factions that's fairly fairly significant, which
Speaker 2: their their governor. Remember in the beginning, Jared Poulis was like, oh,
Speaker 2: I kind of like this guy, which she was still
Speaker 2: in our coalition, so I could see that.
Speaker 4: I mean, even Corey Booker has made some like sort.
Speaker 2: Of RFK junior ish directional moves, et cetera. So you
Speaker 2: could maybe if you lose someone like, for example, there's
Speaker 2: concern about the fact that RFK Junior from the Republican side,
Speaker 2: there's concern that he is pro choice now like Tulci,
Speaker 2: who was like, oh section seven zero two, I totally
Speaker 2: I'm good there, Like everything's cool. RFK Junior has also
Speaker 2: tried to reassure that he is going to support pro
Speaker 2: life positions from his post here. But you know, it's
Speaker 2: possible someone is really concerned about that and he could
Speaker 2: lose a vote. But I mean, I think probably both
Speaker 2: of them end up getting through, but we'll see. I
Speaker 2: just have to say, like, I wouldn't personally vote for
Speaker 2: either one of those. Probably the one Trump nominee that
Speaker 2: I would personally vote for is the labor secretary, not
Speaker 2: because I think that she would be so great, but
Speaker 2: because I think she's the best you would get out
Speaker 2: of a Republican administration. And Republicans always oppose nominees to
Speaker 2: like they always stand up to Trump on like the
Speaker 2: worst possible issues. So there's a lot of upset over
Speaker 2: the labor secretary pick.
Speaker 4: Let's put this. We have this last.
Speaker 2: Tear sheet that we can put up on the screen. Here,
Speaker 2: guys from media, I rand Paul, but he's not the
Speaker 2: only one says he's going to vote against Trump's labor
Speaker 2: secretary because she's very pro labor. God forbid, you have
Speaker 2: a labor secretary that's pro labor. Now, her record with
Speaker 2: regard to labor issues is actually not good. The only
Speaker 2: thing she supported the pro Act and voted for the
Speaker 2: pro Act, which was the you know, the big push
Speaker 2: and the Biden administration to make labor organizing a lot
Speaker 2: easy easier. She ends up being the pick of the
Speaker 2: team chairs head who put Sean O'Brien, who pushes for
Speaker 2: her to be in there. So, like I said, I
Speaker 2: think she's the best that you get out of a
Speaker 2: Republican administration. But she is now apparently in doubt because
Speaker 2: so many Republicans are so oppositional towards any sort of
Speaker 2: actual support for labor and labor organizing. Again, I think
Speaker 2: she'll get through because you can have some Republican defections,
Speaker 2: because I suspect there are a number of Democrats who
Speaker 2: will cross over to vote for her here. But like
Speaker 2: I said, I just feel like they the places where
Speaker 2: Republicans resist Trump are like always on like the worst
Speaker 2: in the worst direction, like this isn't hawkish enough, she
Speaker 2: doesn't want to spy on Americans.
Speaker 3: They're going to need Democrats to vote for her if
Speaker 3: she's going to get through. I also do think it's
Speaker 3: an important part of the Trump coalition. I mean, Sean
Speaker 3: O'Brien took a ton of shit for not doing an endorsement,
Speaker 3: and he was at the inaugural ball for example, and
Speaker 3: he's been on what was on THEO Vaughn remember that,
Speaker 3: like he if anybody who knows what time it is,
Speaker 3: it really is Sean O'Brien, And he has played it well.
Speaker 3: That was one of the benefits that he got out
Speaker 3: of the Trump administration by not endorsing. That was one
Speaker 3: of the big political things.
Speaker 1: That he had.
Speaker 3: But This is part of the problem with the current
Speaker 3: Republican coalition. So it's a question mark two for the
Speaker 3: Democrats whether they're going to come through and actually do this,
Speaker 3: you know. In terms of also the Maha agenda, this
Speaker 3: is another one which there's a fundamental tension at the
Speaker 3: heart of MAH.
Speaker 1: Some of Maha is not intention with the GOP at all.
Speaker 3: Some of MAHA is very libertarian, which I'm fine with
Speaker 3: things like transparency, more studies. You know, we're going to
Speaker 3: make sure that with the vaccine studies or whatever, we're
Speaker 3: going to publish it for everybody and increase inform concent
Speaker 3: I'm like, okay, sure, we're gonna increase paranal choice.
Speaker 1: Okay, I think that's good. We're gonna increase it.
Speaker 3: But it comes into tension with industry and also with
Speaker 3: the government power when you talk about banning certain things. Yes,
Speaker 3: and that's part of the problem is that we don't
Speaker 3: live in a libertarian paradise. The government has power, We
Speaker 3: have regulatory authority. Their policy shapes our food and so
Speaker 3: for example, one of the things RFK Junior has talked
Speaker 3: about is he's like, we don't need ozembic for children.
Speaker 3: All kids need is three healthy meals per day, and
Speaker 3: I think the government should provide them. I'm like, okay, listen,
Speaker 3: I'm fine with that. But as we all know from
Speaker 3: Rand Paul and all those other people, but.
Speaker 1: Are you saying the government's going to tell people what
Speaker 1: to eat?
Speaker 3: You know, it's like, oh, are we the government program
Speaker 3: is going to be going out there and designing food
Speaker 3: for children.
Speaker 1: The horror of that.
Speaker 3: I mean, remember how people reacted to Michelle Obama and
Speaker 3: the whole let's move thing. That is very intention right,
Speaker 3: whereas what easier cut a check to a drug company,
Speaker 3: which that's very in the line of the American tradition.
Speaker 2: Well, there've already been a couple of major betrayals of
Speaker 2: the quote unquote Maha movement. For one thing, a seat
Speaker 2: oil lobbyist is going to be chief of staff at USDA. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's right, As Thomas Massey pointed this out. For another thing,
Speaker 2: I don't know if you if you noticed this, but
Speaker 2: I know exactly Trump rolled back. So the Biden administration
Speaker 2: actually moved forward to to ban these they're called forever chemicals,
Speaker 2: which are linked to cancer.
Speaker 4: To ban them.
Speaker 2: It's a huge problem because there's been massive runoff it's
Speaker 2: in so many of our waterways, in the water we drink,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And so he had actually, you know, signed
Speaker 2: an executive order to limit these forever chemicals, which very
Speaker 2: much a step in the right direction.
Speaker 4: Trump rolled them back.
Speaker 2: So you know, the it already pretty clear those tensions,
Speaker 2: as you put it, and which side this Republican Party
Speaker 2: is ultimately gonna fall on. And also, you know, there
Speaker 2: there was no backlash against any of these to speak of.
Speaker 2: So I think Trump feels very much like he can
Speaker 2: sort of, you know, by having RFK Junior in there.
Speaker 2: He feels like he's satisfying the demands of that coalition
Speaker 2: without actually following through on policy pieces that they would
Speaker 2: theoretically want in place. And then number one, Trump doesn't
Speaker 2: have to run again. Number Two, people typically on the
Speaker 2: you know, in that coalition just kind of fall in
Speaker 2: line and are like, oh, well, if he's doing it's fine,
Speaker 2: or don't pay attention to the details or whatever. So
Speaker 2: I don't think he expects any backlash over this. And
Speaker 2: another one just on the labor front. I just saw
Speaker 2: this this morning. So one of the good things that
Speaker 2: the Biden administration actually did was the general counsel of
Speaker 2: the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Bruso. She didn't get
Speaker 2: as much attention as Alena Khan, but she was in
Speaker 2: some ways just as impactful and influential in terms of
Speaker 2: pushing for the ability for workers to organize in labor unions.
Speaker 2: The National Labor Relations Board under Biden was really quite good.
Speaker 2: They made a number of decisions which were really important
Speaker 2: for Stars working being able to organize, for Amazon drivers
Speaker 2: to potentially be able to unionize and be treated as
Speaker 2: employees versus subcontractors.
Speaker 4: These are really important directions.
Speaker 2: Well, Abruso has been officially fired, and no surprise, but
Speaker 2: you know, very indicative of a more regressive, less pro
Speaker 2: labor direction.
Speaker 4: And just this.
Speaker 2: Morning I see the news that Trump has ousted a
Speaker 2: Natural Labor Relations Board member, gwyn Wilcox, despite law forbidding
Speaker 2: firing board members absent neglect or malfeasons. This is support
Speaker 2: according to the labor reporter for Bloomberg News. So again
Speaker 2: taking control of the National Labor Relations Board and moving
Speaker 2: it much back in the you know, pro business, anti
Speaker 2: labor direction of the first Trump administration. So you know,
Speaker 2: I think very similar to like with RFK Junior where
Speaker 2: he feels like he can put in Sean O'Brien's pick
Speaker 2: as Labor secretary and feel like he threw a bone
Speaker 2: to that color. But underneath the service here and then
Speaker 2: in a lot of ways, to Nationally Relations Board is
Speaker 2: where the game is really played in terms of labor organizing,
Speaker 2: and all indications are that that is moving very much
Speaker 2: back to the standard Republican conservative anti labor position. And
Speaker 2: of course the presence of Elon Musk cannot be understated
Speaker 2: there as well. Elon, you know, and Trump were delighting
Speaker 2: in Elon's firing striking workers he wants he is in
Speaker 2: legal battles to deem the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: He is against labor union's period, end of story. So
Speaker 2: it seems like that's the direction that they are moving
Speaker 2: in here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Look, big tensions in this. Who will win or not?
Speaker 1: That's literally the open question.
Speaker 3: I am curious to see if Democrats because this is
Speaker 3: a big question mark for Democrats too, in terms of
Speaker 3: what they decide, what fights they decide they will pick.
Speaker 4: They if they decide to pick any. So far the
Speaker 4: answer is no.
Speaker 3: Well, they voted against almost all of the Trumpet nominees, right,
Speaker 3: so the only Trump nominee to get any unanimous mark
Speaker 3: consent was.
Speaker 4: Marco Rubery, which is so toleible.
Speaker 3: But yeah, because in terms of collegiality. But look, they
Speaker 3: all voted against Pete Hadgstath. I think most voted against
Speaker 3: Kersey Nome. They had like twenty nine no votes against her.
Speaker 3: There were most voted against Scott Bessant. So now it's
Speaker 3: like the question mark about labor. It's like, well, okay,
Speaker 3: like what are we doing here exactly? Is it going
Speaker 3: to be all opposition because we all know who's who
Speaker 3: could easily get a fifty three Republican votes.
Speaker 1: Some heritage fundation, right.
Speaker 3: To work, you know, take some ag what's the most
Speaker 3: right to work state in the country, Alabama? Right, probably
Speaker 3: take like the Alabama A G put him up.
Speaker 1: To be easy. Well last time, the biggest check bark
Speaker 1: in the country at.
Speaker 2: The beginning, that guy's name is like Puzzter And yeah,
Speaker 2: who was like the head of Hardy's of Arby's.
Speaker 1: Was is it Hardy's or has another name?
Speaker 3: I forget car Yeah, but I think it's two different names,
Speaker 3: one one international, one national terrible food.
Speaker 2: But yeah, but anyway, it was him and he's like
Speaker 2: obviously virulently anti labor et cetera. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: like I said, I think she's the best you're going
Speaker 2: to get out of a Republican administration. But it doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that you're going to get like actually good labor policy.
Speaker 3: Well, we'll see, why don't we get to wildfires? Lots
Speaker 3: of news there.
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed, so there has been an ongoing push to
Speaker 2: tie federal aid to for you know, recovery from these
Speaker 2: horrific wildfires in LA, to like forcing them to bend
Speaker 2: basically to Republican political priorities. Trump floated this in when
Speaker 2: he visited LA. I'll get to that in a minute.
Speaker 2: But Mike Johnson, speaker Mike Johnson obviously very sort of
Speaker 2: pivotal in terms of this direction, also saying that he
Speaker 2: agrees with the specifics of what Trump wants to tie
Speaker 2: this disaster funding too.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to.
Speaker 8: That ID is a condition for aid to California.
Speaker 9: Is that gonna be a red line for you?
Speaker 1: Can you insist on voter ID and in shade for
Speaker 1: age Californa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we've got to work out the details of that.
Speaker 7: I haven't not spoken to the President about that issue,
Speaker 7: since he said that he'll be here tonight, of course
Speaker 7: for dinner with us, and that's one of the topics
Speaker 7: of discussion. Listen, there are a lot of issues going
Speaker 7: on in California, and we have been lamenting the lack
Speaker 7: of voter security there for some time. Election security. We
Speaker 7: were deeply concerned about it in this last election cycle,
Speaker 7: and we saw three of our seats frankly slip away
Speaker 7: from us in the weeks that it took to continue
Speaker 7: counting ballots in California when seemingly every other state in
Speaker 7: nation in America can get it done. It's inexcusable, Gavin
Speaker 7: Newsom provides, I think, such a lack of leadership there
Speaker 7: in so many ways, and it was highlighted by the
Speaker 7: disaster with the fires. It's so heartbreaking that California citizens
Speaker 7: are suffering because the lack of state and local leadership
Speaker 7: on those issues. They did not manage the forest well,
Speaker 7: they did not manage the manage the water well. And
Speaker 7: everyone knew for decades that the eventuality that we've seen
Speaker 7: over the last couple of weeks here since that the
Speaker 7: fire disasters began was foreseeable. They assumed the risk because
Speaker 7: of their far left policy. So we've talked about conditioning
Speaker 7: the aid that we'll go there to policy changes. I
Speaker 7: think that is a common sense notion that is supported
Speaker 7: by the vast majority of the American people who do
Speaker 7: not want to subsidize crazy California leftist policies that are
Speaker 7: dangerous for people.
Speaker 2: This is of course echoing some of what Trump said
Speaker 2: when he was on the ground, also bringing up specifically
Speaker 2: voter IDs, So not even anything to do with fire management,
Speaker 2: but just you know, pretty directly tied to like, we
Speaker 2: don't like the way you vote. You hear Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: there say like, oh, three of our Republicans slipped away,
Speaker 2: Like we lost these three races.
Speaker 4: We're upset about it.
Speaker 2: Pretty wild to just directly tie it to political outcomes
Speaker 2: that they're unhappy with in the state. Here is Trump
Speaker 2: when he was on the ground, singing a similar tune.
Speaker 9: I want to see two things in Los Angeles.
Speaker 8: Voter ID so that the people have a chance to vote,
Speaker 8: and I want to see the water be released and
Speaker 8: come down into Los Angeles and throughout the state.
Speaker 9: Those are the two things.
Speaker 8: After that, I will be the greatest president that California
Speaker 8: has ever seen.
Speaker 1: Well, there.
Speaker 9: I want the water to come down and come down.
Speaker 8: To Los Angeles and also go out to.
Speaker 9: All the farmland that's barren and dry.
Speaker 8: You know, they have land that they say is the
Speaker 8: equivalent of the land in Iowa, which is about as
Speaker 8: good as there is anywhere on earth. The problem is
Speaker 8: it's artificial because they artificially stop the water from going
Speaker 8: onto the land.
Speaker 9: So I want two things. I want voter.
Speaker 8: ID for the people of California, and they all want
Speaker 8: it right now. You don't have voter ID. People want
Speaker 8: to have voter identification. You want to have proof of citizenship.
Speaker 8: Ideally you have one day voting. But I just want
Speaker 8: voter ideas to start.
Speaker 2: Voter ideas as story and just a minor crash. That
Speaker 2: was actually when he was on the ground in North Carolina.
Speaker 2: Later in the day, I believe he went to LA
Speaker 2: I got one more clip from Trump saying that he
Speaker 2: is sort of floating the idea of getting rid of
Speaker 2: FEMA altogether, the Federal Management Agency and leaving leaving disaster
Speaker 2: aid solely up to the states, which is, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, no state in the country is equipped to
Speaker 2: be able to handle the disaster relief on the scale
Speaker 2: of what we're talking about when you're dealing with these
Speaker 2: repeated climate crises. Let's take a listen to what Trump
Speaker 2: how to say about that.
Speaker 8: North Carolina gets hit, the governor takes care of it.
Speaker 8: When Florida gets hit, the governor takes care of it,
Speaker 8: meaning the state takes.
Speaker 9: Care of it. To have a group of.
Speaker 8: People come in from an area that don't even know
Speaker 8: where they're going in order to solve immediately a problem is.
Speaker 9: Something that never worked for me.
Speaker 8: But this is probably one of the best examples of
Speaker 8: it not working.
Speaker 9: And there's been some others, like in Louisiana, et cetera.
Speaker 8: So we're going to be doing something on FEMA that
Speaker 8: I think most people agree. I'd like to see the
Speaker 8: states take care of disasters. Let the state take care
Speaker 8: of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the
Speaker 8: other things that happen. And I think you're gonna find
Speaker 8: it a lot less expensive. You'll do it for less
Speaker 8: than a half and you're gonna get a lot quicker response.
Speaker 2: This actually ties in Zagara with the executive order that
Speaker 2: we were talking about. This actually non executive order, but
Speaker 2: an agency directive I guess it was that is being
Speaker 2: parsed and debated right now. Calenrad points will cover in
Speaker 2: full tomorrow, but basically says that all agencies need to
Speaker 2: stop distributing all federal funds to any programs outside of
Speaker 2: those that go directly to individuals. So potentially included in
Speaker 2: that would be things like disaster relief, so you know,
Speaker 2: sort of ties in with these comments from Trump. And
Speaker 2: just one more note. You know, I know we're all
Speaker 2: thinking about California after these horrific fires, but because you
Speaker 2: have so many Red states along the coastline of the
Speaker 2: Gulf of America, I guess we'll say right that are tremendous,
Speaker 2: you know, tremendously impacted routinely by hurricanes. The bulk of
Speaker 2: FEMA money distributed goes to Red states, so it would
Speaker 2: be Red states that would be primarily affected. Not that
Speaker 2: that should matter, because I happen to believe that whether
Speaker 2: you vote for Republicans or Democrats, you should benefit from
Speaker 2: the federal government coming in to help you in your
Speaker 2: time of need. And I'm pretty sure that's something that
Speaker 2: most people in the country tend to accept.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've gone on the record I think for this,
Speaker 3: whether you look obviously, I think voter ID is a
Speaker 3: good policy or whatever. If Congress wants to pass a
Speaker 3: law that requires it for the entire nation, fine, I would.
Speaker 1: Have no issue with that.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that FEMA money or any of
Speaker 3: that should be tied to it. I also think that
Speaker 3: it's stupid. You know, every single time we have a
Speaker 3: major disaster, Congress has to come through and pass like
Speaker 3: some special supplemental as opposed to just actual checks that
Speaker 3: just kick in.
Speaker 1: Again.
Speaker 3: Philosophically, California is the biggest economy in our state. Federal
Speaker 3: federal revenue wise, they probably pay more than any other
Speaker 3: state and turn into the coffers. So Alabama, which I
Speaker 3: don't like talking this way, but it is true. Most
Speaker 3: of these states Alabama, Misissippi, or whatever, are downwardly mobile
Speaker 3: and are almost certainly more beneficiaries of recipient tax dollars
Speaker 3: than they are paying.
Speaker 1: In the system.
Speaker 3: It would be genuinely outrageous. I would say this about
Speaker 3: Texas too, which is also a G fifteen economy in
Speaker 3: and of itself. If there's a Biden administration and they're like, oh,
Speaker 3: you need to implement ESG, I'd be like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: we'll just take our oil and go somewhere else. Same
Speaker 3: with California. So I feel the same way in terms
Speaker 3: of neutrality for overall disaster relief. We've got thirty million
Speaker 3: Americans I think who live that it might be more
Speaker 3: a thirty something million, one tenth or so of the
Speaker 3: entire US population that lives in the state.
Speaker 1: I think we should just get.
Speaker 4: Many of them Republicans. By the way, yes, they for Democrats.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't even have to talk this way. It's not
Speaker 1: about Republican Democrats. They're citizens.
Speaker 3: Many of them again tax wise, have paid more than
Speaker 3: anybody else into the federal coffers. So when they need
Speaker 3: to be bailed out, I think we should bail them out.
Speaker 3: And in general, tying this political stuff to just as
Speaker 3: aid is really bad policy because, like we just said,
Speaker 3: you could easily foresee some future Democratic president who said,
Speaker 3: if there's an issue in Texas, they're like, okay, well
Speaker 3: you have to pursue green energy, and they're like, okay,
Speaker 3: well we don't want to. So what are they supposed
Speaker 3: to do? You know, it's a bad policy to set.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Well in the voter.
Speaker 2: I d think is particularly crazy because I mean I
Speaker 2: would find it objectionable to put any conditions on it,
Speaker 2: even if it was like you have to do the
Speaker 2: water management in the way that we want.
Speaker 4: But at least that would relate. Yeah, that's right in theory,
Speaker 4: you know, the water.
Speaker 1: Thing, if it's real.
Speaker 3: I don't know nearly enough about water. I've tried to
Speaker 3: read about it. It's way too political of the way
Speaker 3: that it is. But if theoretically that was genuinely what.
Speaker 1: Caused it, okay, I could live with it.
Speaker 3: But the voter thing and anything generally political again, if
Speaker 3: we want national voter id, fine, pass it through an
Speaker 3: Act of Congress.
Speaker 1: I'm totally fine with that.
Speaker 3: But conditioning aid to each state specifically to compel behavior
Speaker 3: is very different, for example, than the national what was it,
Speaker 3: you know, then the thing that set the drinking age
Speaker 3: at twenty one. They're like, oh, if you want your
Speaker 3: highway dollars, then you have to do that. Okay, I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't even love that per se, but at least
Speaker 3: that's one that applies to all states.
Speaker 1: Singling out an individual state.
Speaker 2: It seems wrong and very clearly being like we don't
Speaker 2: like how you voted, so you're not going to get
Speaker 2: our help is crazy.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mentioned this before.
Speaker 2: But one of the things that really radicalized me against
Speaker 2: Democrats when I lived in Kentucky, which you know, had
Speaker 2: trend into the right and just elected Republican and governor,
Speaker 2: and they were passing all kinds of legislation through that
Speaker 2: we you know, getting rid of, like implementing quote unquote
Speaker 2: right to work versus anti labor an, attacking pensions whatever.
Speaker 4: I got a lot on.
Speaker 2: Twitter of like, we'll screw those people. They voted the
Speaker 2: wrong way. And I just think that once you start
Speaker 2: thinking that way, it's really it's like the end of
Speaker 2: the country. It's like it's over, Like we may as
Speaker 2: well just break up and dissolve. If it's just going
Speaker 2: to be you know, retribution against states and country and
Speaker 2: counties and cities that don't vote the way that you
Speaker 2: want them to, it's very bad.
Speaker 4: Direction to go in.
Speaker 2: There were some additional sort of underlying pieces here that
Speaker 2: have come out after the fires that you know, have
Speaker 2: really caused additional pain and suffering for people there and
Speaker 2: helped to explain why, for example, the fire department in
Speaker 2: La County, among other reasons, why they were under resourced
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 4: And we put this up on the screen, this.
Speaker 2: Was actually from Ben Norton tweeted it out, but this
Speaker 2: was from Matt Stoler's sub stack. He had a guest
Speaker 2: author on who I believe is an antitrust attorney something
Speaker 2: like that, who wrote a long piece about the fact
Speaker 2: that US fire trucks their costs have skyrocketed because a
Speaker 2: private equity firm bought up the manufacturers and made a monopoly.
Speaker 2: Can put the piece up on the screen and I'll
Speaker 2: give you some of the details here. So the cost
Speaker 2: of fire trucks has skyrocketed, going from three hundred to
Speaker 2: five hundred thousand for a pumper truck and seven fifty
Speaker 2: to nine hundred thousand for a ladder truck just in
Speaker 2: the mid twenty tens. We're not talking about like the
Speaker 2: eighties or nineties. We're talking about the mid twin tens
Speaker 2: a decade ago. Now they've skyrocketed to around a million
Speaker 2: for a pumper truck and two million for a ladder truck.
Speaker 4: And not to mention the time to even get some if.
Speaker 2: You can afford that and you're willing to shell out
Speaker 2: the cash, the time to actually take delivery receipt of
Speaker 2: that truck has gone to now being between two and
Speaker 2: four and a half years used to be less than
Speaker 2: a year. And the TLDR here and again I recommend
Speaker 2: you read the piece because it's very instructive, not just
Speaker 2: about fire trucks, but about so many problems within our economy.
Speaker 2: Is that a private equity firm car called American Industrial Partners,
Speaker 2: decided to roll up the fire truck industry, forced prices
Speaker 2: up across the board, consolidated all these previously like regional
Speaker 2: sort of like small manufacturing manufacturers. Originally, they had all
Speaker 2: this propaganda about, oh, we're going to continue to allow
Speaker 2: you to operate in your facilities, and you're gonna have
Speaker 2: your own brand and we'll just be like the parent
Speaker 2: company and you guys are going to do your own thing.
Speaker 2: But they've since dropped that act. They've significantly reduced capacity,
Speaker 2: like factory capacity, in order to actually build and deliver
Speaker 2: these trucks. Spike the prices, and now you have an
Speaker 2: industry that is just, you know, tremendously consolidated, very little competition,
Speaker 2: very little choice. So when these fires struck, over half
Speaker 2: of the LA Fire Department's trucks were currently out of service,
Speaker 2: and part of that is because of this price they
Speaker 2: weren't able to replace the trucks, and then even things
Speaker 2: like being able to get the parts from these same
Speaker 2: manufacturers gets wildly more expensive. You add on top of
Speaker 2: that they had seen budget cut cuts that we talked
Speaker 2: about before, and you know, you end up with a
Speaker 2: situation where even as the fire risk has obviously dramatically
Speaker 2: increased in this era of climate crisis, they are significantly
Speaker 2: under resourced and unable to even marshal the equipment necessary
Speaker 2: to be able to combat the fires that they wear.
Speaker 3: It was really interesting action to look at that there's
Speaker 3: also been this price gouging that we should mention. Put
Speaker 3: it up there please on the screen one of the
Speaker 3: things that we immediately flagged here at breaking points. But
Speaker 3: the rent has now risen by some twenty percent across
Speaker 3: LA counties after the fires, even though that's actually in
Speaker 3: direct violation of the legal limit of ten percent, which
Speaker 3: is meant to be an anti price gouging maneuver that
Speaker 3: kicks in in terms of disaster.
Speaker 1: But the real issue is.
Speaker 3: That the housing stock has now obviously massively shrunk in
Speaker 3: some of the richest areas. There are huge question marks
Speaker 3: about insurance, property tax, the ability to even rebuild, and
Speaker 3: then whether a lot of those people even want to rebuild.
Speaker 1: I mean, as I said, if something like that happened
Speaker 1: to me, I'm done.
Speaker 3: I'm not paying all that much income and property tax
Speaker 3: just to be screwed. Whenever it actually matters, whether it's
Speaker 3: private equity, whether it's lack of investment or whatever, we
Speaker 3: can all agree that it was completely incompetent the way
Speaker 3: that it was run. And so put that together and
Speaker 3: you're just seeing a real crisis of what I would
Speaker 3: say is like capital l liberalism. Like these cities San Francisco,
Speaker 3: Los Angeles, you know, New York and others have relied
Speaker 3: on this like weird balance of like progressivism through rhetoric
Speaker 3: but nimbiism and rich people that come together. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: la Is now the best example of this is one
Speaker 3: of the greatest places in the entire world.
Speaker 1: No one can dispute that.
Speaker 3: Weatherwise, it's incredible, and you know that you have the
Speaker 3: dynamic effect of the city. You've got land, you've got sun,
Speaker 3: you've got you know, all this stuff happening. But the
Speaker 3: fact is is that if anything, it's resources are a
Speaker 3: curse that enables all of this bullshit to like surround it,
Speaker 3: And what we see here now is there's huge question
Speaker 3: marks as to whether they're even going to change their
Speaker 3: housing policy. Now, I'm not some universal yimbi person. I'm
Speaker 3: actually skeptical of a lot of this, like we need
Speaker 3: you all need to live in a box, five minute
Speaker 3: city stuff, et cetera. But California and New York are
Speaker 3: the places where I'm like, guys, this is undeniable.
Speaker 1: This It clearly is not working.
Speaker 3: When you have millions and millions and millions of dollars
Speaker 3: and the average salary is like one hundred grand with
Speaker 3: thirteen percent incometax, right, It's like, how.
Speaker 1: Does shit even work? So I think they need to
Speaker 1: ask big questions.
Speaker 3: And if we're going to tie federal aid, I would
Speaker 3: like it to be tied to something like this and
Speaker 3: be like, yeah, let's make sure that normal people can
Speaker 3: actually live here, you know, instead of just either bailing
Speaker 3: out the ultra rich or just accelerating what was accelerating
Speaker 3: building pathways for the richest residents who lost their homes
Speaker 3: as opposed to lowering the price for everybody. Look at
Speaker 3: what has happened in Austin. This is where a red
Speaker 3: state is genuinely beneficial. They don't have all this yimbie bullshit.
Speaker 3: Rent in Austin is down twenty three percent over the
Speaker 3: last three years. That's incredible, and it's literally just because
Speaker 3: they built a shit.
Speaker 1: Ton of housing everywhere. Houston not the most beautiful city.
Speaker 1: It's cheap to live if you want to live there.
Speaker 3: You know, listen, you know, it's one of the only
Speaker 3: places that made me want to maybe have some zoning
Speaker 3: laws because.
Speaker 1: Like, should a auto body shop.
Speaker 3: Be next to a single family house? I don't know,
Speaker 3: but that house is pretty cheap, and the people there
Speaker 3: seem to like it's one of the biggest cities in
Speaker 3: the country. That's my been my main takeaway from this
Speaker 3: LA situation.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to some interesting comments from AOC who
Speaker 2: has become one of the more vocal members of Congress
Speaker 2: on the Democratic side. I mean, I was just seeing Zager,
Speaker 2: like the Democrats apparently just got their act around to
Speaker 2: do like some press conference condemning the partning of January
Speaker 2: six rioters and we're like, I mean, we're ten other
Speaker 2: outrageous moves later, like they're just I don't know, they're
Speaker 2: a mess. They don't understand the landscape. They don't know
Speaker 2: what to do. They're totally pathetic in terms of any
Speaker 2: sort of a fight. This time around, I've seen a
Speaker 2: lot of just like normy Democratic base type people who
Speaker 2: are loyal, vote blue no matter who, MSNBC types who
Speaker 2: are furious with the way that the Democratic Party has
Speaker 2: reacted or their lack of response to Trump two point
Speaker 2: zero this time around. So in any case, AOC is
Speaker 2: one of the people who has asserted herself more. John
Speaker 2: Stewart had her on and she made some interesting comments
Speaker 2: about insider training, but also some insider and some interesting
Speaker 2: comments about Joe Biden on his way on of office,
Speaker 2: being like, oh, there's a problem with oligarchy, really is there?
Speaker 2: Tell me more about that. Let's take a listen to
Speaker 2: what she had to say.
Speaker 10: There need to be democrists who walk the walk and
Speaker 10: talk to talk. There is an insane amount of hypocrisy,
Speaker 10: and the hypocrisy is what gets exploited to use the
Speaker 10: cynicism and wherever there's a hypocritical window. For example, I
Speaker 10: think one of the most biggest examples of this is
Speaker 10: insider trading in Congress.
Speaker 11: Like, dude, like, I don't know if I like, do
Speaker 11: I give snaps do I don't know what the kids
Speaker 11: do anymore, but like, dude.
Speaker 10: It's yes, it is.
Speaker 11: That's so crazy, so crazy.
Speaker 10: I mean, like that's the end. This is the thing.
Speaker 10: It's like like people think that everyday people are stupid.
Speaker 10: I'm like, do do you really think that people don't
Speaker 10: see this shit?
Speaker 11: Like they sit on a committee, they get information about
Speaker 11: a drug or a contract or a thing, they immediately
Speaker 11: make a call, the stockbroker changes thing, and and their
Speaker 11: portfolio swells explodes.
Speaker 10: And you're doing this on public trust right on like
Speaker 10: taxpayer finance, public you know, facilities like it.
Speaker 11: You're regulating the market that you're trading on exactly, and
Speaker 11: we're on the casino.
Speaker 8: And then we're.
Speaker 10: Supposed to act like money doesn't only corrupt Republicans, give
Speaker 10: me a fucking break. Biden on his way out, it
Speaker 10: was only his way out that he was like, this
Speaker 10: country's controlled by oligarchs by like we couldn't use that
Speaker 10: energy a couple of years ago.
Speaker 4: Accurate on all of that.
Speaker 1: Isn't this a little too late?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: I was, I mean talk it's like you endorsed Biden, Okay,
Speaker 3: not only not defended Bien.
Speaker 1: She and Bernie.
Speaker 2: Actually they were in the like, you know, we're all
Speaker 2: in with Biden here today.
Speaker 3: They were more with Biden than like Nancy Pelosi. So
Speaker 3: that's where part of it.
Speaker 2: Is just like shut up, all right, Well here's here's
Speaker 2: the part to I think one of the there's a
Speaker 2: few points she makes that I think are important.
Speaker 4: Number one about the.
Speaker 2: Way that hypocrisy is used against Democrats and understandably so,
Speaker 2: I mean she's talking about the insider trading piece, also
Speaker 2: talking about you know, you had a lot of people,
Speaker 2: including Joe Biden, who were like Trump's a fascist and
Speaker 2: then are like, welcome to the way, welcome home, h
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. And people are not going to believe you
Speaker 2: next time you raise the alarm about something if you
Speaker 2: are not acting like this was really this was really
Speaker 2: bad that he got elected. And I you know, still
Speaker 2: think the things that I said before were true and
Speaker 2: this is a real threat. And so you know, to
Speaker 2: see democrats the way that they buy and large responded,
Speaker 2: which is to be like yeah, we'll see and maybe
Speaker 2: we'll work with him or whatever. It's like, this is
Speaker 2: a wildly different energy than you were bringing up until
Speaker 2: five seconds ago. So even though your point about her
Speaker 2: and Biden is a correct one and it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: well where was that energy.
Speaker 4: Critiquing him previously?
Speaker 2: She is right in what she's saying here about you know,
Speaker 2: the Democratic response this time around to Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And that's why when you think about when you're
Speaker 3: thinking about how this is all shaping up, I think
Speaker 3: it all comes to credibility and say whatever you want
Speaker 3: about Trump. And he's switched his you know, his tune
Speaker 3: on many many Yeah, but he's like core thing about
Speaker 3: immigration and trade.
Speaker 1: She's been saying this in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 3: You know, he's got a consistency of message, and even
Speaker 3: when he's inconsistent, it's within his like Trumpean Maga like framework.
Speaker 3: As you always point out, what are things people like about?
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders basically been saying the same stuff since he's
Speaker 3: been running for office.
Speaker 1: And was it Burlington mayor The.
Speaker 3: Problem I have here with the aocs and all of
Speaker 3: that is you both try to be consistent on these
Speaker 3: and let's be clear, she actually has been. She cosponds
Speaker 3: to that legislation with Matt Gates on stock trading, So
Speaker 3: I'm not calling around on whatever on this specifically but
Speaker 3: she's a capital D Democrat and that works for her sometimes.
Speaker 1: But it didn't.
Speaker 3: You know, when you have that inability to call out
Speaker 3: your own side when it's happening in the midst of
Speaker 3: the big existential question of the time, do we support
Speaker 3: Biden or do we ditch Biden? I don't know if
Speaker 3: a lot of people can have a lot of trust
Speaker 3: with you on this issue. So trust is everything politics.
Speaker 3: I mean, why did Kamala at the end of the
Speaker 3: day lose you know, her whole border hawkstick. People were like,
Speaker 3: I don't believe you because of all this crap that
Speaker 3: you said in twenty nineteen. I think that you either
Speaker 3: still are open borders or maybe worse, you don't believe anything.
Speaker 1: And that's not a problem.
Speaker 3: That's not a version that vibes with Trump, who has
Speaker 3: been one hundred percent of consistent at least on illegal immigration.
Speaker 3: And that's mostly the valance of where people decided to
Speaker 3: fall with.
Speaker 1: So with AOC, with a lot of.
Speaker 3: These progressive Democrats, it's like, I think Biden was like
Speaker 3: poison for them because they both had to defend him.
Speaker 3: But even in the times when they knew that he
Speaker 3: was being bad, they had to stay silent. They lost
Speaker 3: a lot of trust, and so it's like it's easy
Speaker 3: to say when you're out of power. And by the way,
Speaker 3: of course, this applies to Republicans too, right, this is
Speaker 3: the eternal problem of the insider outsider dynamic. Yea, but yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know. I just I see, you know, she
Speaker 3: we're about to play Charlem Mane. He's people should be
Speaker 3: more like AOC and like should they really like I
Speaker 3: don't think that she's been a very a successful politician
Speaker 3: over the last time. I would say she's actually one
Speaker 3: of the most failed politicians of the last ten years.
Speaker 2: I mean, here's here's what went wrong for her. She
Speaker 2: came in as a true outsider, true outsider. Yeah, takes
Speaker 2: out Joe Crowley, who was you know, in leadership and
Speaker 2: close to Pelosi and all these people and just sort
Speaker 2: of took a seat for granted, and she comes in
Speaker 2: and she knocks them out, and it's an earthquake. Right.
Speaker 2: She decides, before she's even I think, before she's sworn in,
Speaker 2: she's going to protest outside of Nancy Pelosi's office and
Speaker 2: make this statement. And there was a there were two
Speaker 2: different pathways, right, One was to maintain that outsider status
Speaker 2: and really be that bomb throw and leverage the social
Speaker 2: media following that she had and continues to have, by
Speaker 2: the way, and use that grassroots power against the established
Speaker 2: Democratic Party power. She step by step by step, chose
Speaker 2: the other path, which was to try to play the
Speaker 2: inside game, and we just really saw an example of
Speaker 2: how that was a completely failed tactic. I mean, she
Speaker 2: wanted to be ranking member on Oversight, and she pledged
Speaker 2: reportedly as part of that, like if you let me
Speaker 2: do this, I am not going to primary any Democratic incumbents,
Speaker 2: which is an extraordinary, extraordinary concession, Okay, extraordinary concession to
Speaker 2: basically say like I'm gonna lay down my arms against
Speaker 2: any critique I have against any of y'all in the
Speaker 2: Democratic Caucus. And they still blocked her and put in
Speaker 2: Jerry Connolly, who you know, is literally suffering with cancer
Speaker 2: and is aged. It's and nobody's idea of a fire brand, right,
Speaker 2: nobody's idea of a firebrand for a position that actually
Speaker 2: made sense for AOC because oversight, you know, it's all
Speaker 2: about like getting that clip that goes viral and sharing
Speaker 2: on social media.
Speaker 4: Whatever it was.
Speaker 2: It really was a good position for her within the
Speaker 2: context of the Democratic Party, even in that she's blocked.
Speaker 2: So I think you're right Saga that ultimately the tests
Speaker 2: will come. Like now it's kind of comfortable to have
Speaker 2: these critiques of like Joe Biden has done, he's out.
Speaker 4: It's all easy to see in.
Speaker 2: Retrospect the way this all went sideways, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Are you going to have that energy when it's difficult,
Speaker 2: when it goes against the where the party is and
Speaker 2: what they're doing, because you know, that's that's when it
Speaker 2: really counts. Like we could have used that voice back
Speaker 2: when the Democrats were like, we're just not going to
Speaker 2: have a primary. You know, forget about the like Biden
Speaker 2: Kamala thing, because I think you could justify that when
Speaker 2: it turns out that Kamala actually on economics was going
Speaker 2: to be worse than Biden, like with regard to antitrust,
Speaker 2: sec crypto, possibly labor was not going to be as
Speaker 2: good as Biden. You could justify it from an ideological perspective.
Speaker 2: I mean, though Biden obviously is too old blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: But the real moment was back when Democrats said we're
Speaker 2: going to cancel the primary. We're not going to have
Speaker 2: any debates, We're not going to have any choice, and
Speaker 2: that there was none of that energy from anyone at
Speaker 2: that point. So I think that is the quiet. If
Speaker 2: she wants to and I think she does. If she
Speaker 2: wants to be an actual leader of a reformed, different
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, she's going to have to say things like
Speaker 2: this when it is difficult, when it is uncomfortable, and
Speaker 2: requires her to bump up against her friends and colleagues.
Speaker 2: In this institution, we tease the Charlamagne clips, so let
Speaker 2: me go ahead and play it. But you know, he's
Speaker 2: been interesting also in the aftermath. I mean, he's very
Speaker 2: frustrated with the Democratic Party for a whole variety of reasons,
Speaker 2: but it was interesting to hear him pick up on
Speaker 2: AOC at least having some fight in her. Let's take
Speaker 2: a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 12: And don't get me wrong, you should be angry at
Speaker 12: people suddenly making nice with Donald Trump. But instead of
Speaker 12: snooping Nelly, what about the Democratic politicians who spent four
Speaker 12: years calling Trump the new Adolf Hitler and then started
Speaker 12: doing stuff like this.
Speaker 5: President Biden welcoming his successor to the White House observed
Speaker 5: all the traditional niceties.
Speaker 10: Joe Biden greeting Donald Trump at the White House with
Speaker 10: two words welcome home.
Speaker 5: There were smiles, there were handshakes.
Speaker 6: I mean, there was a real respect between the two.
Speaker 2: This moment between former President Barack Obama and President elect
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has gone viral.
Speaker 1: They chuckled like old buddies. Trump even made Obama laugh.
Speaker 12: I'm sorry, if you tell us someone is hitler, you
Speaker 12: at least have to act like he's hitler. I know
Speaker 12: when Barrock got home, Michelle was.
Speaker 6: Like, he he hell.
Speaker 1: So hit Look god jokes, hump.
Speaker 12: In fact, here's the energy I wanted to see more of.
Speaker 13: On Monday, all these journalists are like, congresswomen, are you
Speaker 13: going to the inauguration? Congresswoman, are you going to the inauguration?
Speaker 13: Are you going to the inauguration? Let me make myself
Speaker 13: clear here. I don't celebrate rapists. So no, I'm not
Speaker 13: going to the inauguration.
Speaker 12: See that's right, that's right, that right there, that's backbone.
Speaker 1: That's principles.
Speaker 12: Man, I'm gonna miss AOC when she's deported to Nicaragua.
Speaker 2: Now, whether or not you particularly agree with Akritik Sagar,
Speaker 2: think about the difference though, between Joe Amiga, who spent
Speaker 2: all this time and made lots of money and got
Speaker 2: super famous saying comparing Trump to fascists and yes Nazis,
Speaker 2: and then immediately he's elected and they're like, Oh, we're.
Speaker 4: Gonna make nice and we're gonna go down to mar
Speaker 4: Alago blah blah.
Speaker 2: Blah versus Listen, she's been consistent on this, and she
Speaker 2: is acting the way you would act if you actually believe.
Speaker 4: The things that you said.
Speaker 2: And that's the piece of this that I think is
Speaker 2: important is you know, Democrats have by and large decided
Speaker 2: that the thing to do in this moment is just
Speaker 2: to like sort of be quiet and see what happens
Speaker 2: and in certain respects like capitulate to him, etc. Think
Speaker 2: and then I will gain them credibility with the country.
Speaker 2: But I think that's the completely wrong calculus, because we
Speaker 2: all remember the things you said, and you need to
Speaker 2: act consistent with those threats that you lay down and
Speaker 2: you claim to believe in.
Speaker 4: So I think Charlemagne is corrected.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that they really do. I don't
Speaker 3: think that they really do like believe it. I think
Speaker 3: they only believed one thing that this resistance and to
Speaker 3: all the rhetoric and everything, it was always fake. It
Speaker 3: was always just about getting elected. They didn't believe in it.
Speaker 3: They didn't believe in healthcare, they didn't believe in whatever.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Almost all of it was just to get themselves either
Speaker 3: elected twin some mid terms to keep control of power,
Speaker 3: and then eventually around Biden, it was like to worship
Speaker 3: this cult of personality. And so really what's been revealed
Speaker 3: is they don't believe anything.
Speaker 1: Really, what I.
Speaker 3: Think that they did believe is that Trump was democratically illegitimate.
Speaker 3: That was really it, Like that was their core belief
Speaker 3: that they could sell to the country. The reason why
Speaker 3: they're so in shambles is that obviously that's just no
Speaker 3: longer a case than you can advance. So now what
Speaker 3: and like that's I mean, look, it's exciting. I think
Speaker 3: if you're a Democrat, because you're like, wow, you know
Speaker 3: everything's up for grabs. You have the lowest party I
Speaker 3: d in a national century, Like, you have so many
Speaker 3: different ways that you could think about, you know who
Speaker 3: we are and what's next. But it's also, yeah, like
Speaker 3: you said, if I was one of those MSNBC people,
Speaker 3: these are normal folks, and yeah, I don't begrudge them.
Speaker 1: They are fellow citizens.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a lot of them did believe it, and so
Speaker 3: it's humiliating for them in some ways to look at
Speaker 3: this and to see what it really is.
Speaker 1: And I would tell you guys, you guys got taken
Speaker 1: for a ride. They never believed anything. I know that.
Speaker 1: I hope, I hope they do.
Speaker 2: I mean that's why like you do see I mean,
Speaker 2: first of all, I'm ass it's almost like you can't
Speaker 2: even pick on them at this point because it's so pathetic, right,
Speaker 2: But yeah, I think they have lost total credibility, and
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 4: Liberals have really had their trust.
Speaker 2: In those institutions the Washington Post, the Times and MSNBC
Speaker 2: and whatever has been shattered. I think their trust in
Speaker 2: the mainstream Democratic Party that they you know, we're talking
Speaker 2: about like really hardcore normy Dems has been dramatically shaken,
Speaker 2: and you know, I think that they're waiting for someone
Speaker 2: to have some energy and some fight left in them.
Speaker 2: And I do think like these battles are going to
Speaker 2: play out in the next Democratic primary, and I don't
Speaker 2: think that the Democratic base is going to I'm going
Speaker 2: to skip this sack because we've just We've gone on
Speaker 2: a long time here. But you know, there was a
Speaker 2: reporter who was like, ah, maybe John Fennerman's what the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party means. Like that is not going to be
Speaker 2: the direction the base wants to go in of k
Speaker 2: of now being like, Oh, I'm going to go and
Speaker 2: have a meeting with Trump and I'm going to.
Speaker 4: Back his priority with the Lake and Riley Act.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to basically sound like a Republican on
Speaker 2: any manner of things. That is not what the base
Speaker 2: is going to want. So while you know, I think
Speaker 2: the most likely direction is that the next Democratic nominee
Speaker 2: is someone like a Gavin Newsom, some very standard you know,
Speaker 2: you know, cut from the normal Democratic cloth. There is
Speaker 2: more of an opening now than there was previously because
Speaker 2: of the way that the trust in those liberal institutions
Speaker 2: has been broken, and Democrats are really going to have
Speaker 2: a like whose side are you on moment because the
Speaker 2: way that you have to combat the you know, the
Speaker 2: Trumpest view of the world is with your own worldview
Speaker 2: that points the finger in a different direction and says,
Speaker 2: actually the problem, you know, these Robert Baron oligarchs that
Speaker 2: he surrounded himself with, they're the problem. And this is
Speaker 2: actually a good transition into the next block, because as
Speaker 2: of right now, most Democrats want to have their cake
Speaker 2: and eat it too. They want to complain about elon
Speaker 2: which you know, I'm the first to do right correct
Speaker 2: the problem of oligarchy and government, big problem. But you
Speaker 2: don't get to then still say but we're going to
Speaker 2: take our money from our billionaires, because those are the
Speaker 2: quote unquote good billionaires. And most of these Democrats who
Speaker 2: are in positions of power, it's not because they had
Speaker 2: an inspiring vision. It's not because they have a grassroots base.
Speaker 2: There a few exceptions. It's not because they were like
Speaker 2: good at delivering for their district. It's because they were
Speaker 2: good at sucking up to rich people and separating them
Speaker 2: from their money. And so the minute you change course
Speaker 2: on that, the minute many of these people lose what
Speaker 2: has been their claim to and grip on power. So
Speaker 2: that's where the rubber is going to meet the road
Speaker 2: with regard to the Democratic Party. But I know for
Speaker 2: many normal Democrats it has been radicalizing to watch so
Speaker 2: many of their liberal media figures and liberal political icons
Speaker 2: just basically laid down in these early days of the
Speaker 2: Trump av.
Speaker 3: Estion and again. You know they care about power. That
Speaker 3: was the way to get it. Now they've got to
Speaker 3: figure out what's next. Let's quickly just do this Bill
Speaker 3: Gates thing just because it is funny and it gets
Speaker 3: to what you're talking about. Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 3: this up there on the screen. Bill Gates gave an
Speaker 3: interview to The Sunday Times where he said a lot
Speaker 3: of interesting stuff. He said he was very stupid to
Speaker 3: be caught.
Speaker 1: Being with Jeffrey Epstein. Do you remember did you hear
Speaker 1: the operative word there? What was the operative word? It
Speaker 1: was to be caught with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: Okay, but on elon, here's what he had to say,
Speaker 3: he said. He said, it's really insane. He can destabilize
Speaker 3: the political situations and countries. I think in the US
Speaker 3: foreigners aren't allowed to give money. Other countries maybe should
Speaker 3: adopt safeguards to make sure super rich foreigners aren't distorting
Speaker 3: their elections. The Microsoft founder said he was not at
Speaker 3: all concerned about influencing politics like Musk.
Speaker 1: However, he has told friends.
Speaker 3: He has since donated fifty million dollars to Democratic nominee
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris. He said he obviously criticizes him about the
Speaker 3: AfD and about Nigel Faraj in the UK, but he
Speaker 3: also offers muted praise for MUCKs.
Speaker 1: He said, Musk, we can all overreach.
Speaker 3: If someone is super smart, and he is, they should
Speaker 3: think about how they can help out. But this is populous, stirring,
Speaker 3: and what I think is really funny throughout this is
Speaker 3: Gates trying to square. He's like you just said, He's like,
Speaker 3: he's got his hatred of Elon. He doesn't like Elon
Speaker 3: for being kind of like a cultural trader. But whenever
Speaker 3: it comes to this idea of influencing politics or world politics,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't have to be the first one
Speaker 3: to tell you that nobody has influenced politics in Africa
Speaker 3: probably more than any other American than Bill Gates through
Speaker 3: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I mean, the Bill
Speaker 3: and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically a private USAID which
Speaker 3: doles out more than USAID and has influenced malaria, AIDS
Speaker 3: or whatever policy vaccination in those countries. You can be
Speaker 3: fine with that if you think it's good. Some of
Speaker 3: it's been fine, but you have to also think they're like, dude,
Speaker 3: you're wielding immense power as a nation state. And then
Speaker 3: you know, not to mention the fifty million dollars for
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris or that's fine. I don't know if you
Speaker 3: saw this, but you know Reid Hoffman is now spending
Speaker 3: even more money behind the Democratic machine. And there's a
Speaker 3: hilarious tweet going back to twenty sixteen I'm sure you
Speaker 3: saw from Sam Altman being like, we all need to
Speaker 3: credit we all need to credit Reid Hoffman for spending
Speaker 3: more money than anybody else to defeat Donald Trump. He's like,
Speaker 3: what a hero this guy is. I mean read is
Speaker 3: the biggest single donor I think in the entire Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: So yes, look Elon and all that. It's extraordinary, right,
Speaker 3: But if you actually look at the equivalent number or
Speaker 3: whatever a billionaires, I think that there were they're either
Speaker 3: more or like in terms of the overall absolute number
Speaker 3: who would endorse Kamala Harris who had been giving to them?
Speaker 3: And you know, you haven't even seen this because we've
Speaker 3: been doing the show. Gary Peters, the senator from Michigan,
Speaker 3: says he won't run in twenty six We all know
Speaker 3: who lives in Michigan, maybe Pete, you know.
Speaker 2: So they're going to governor there too. Yeah, well I
Speaker 2: prefer that to him running for president.
Speaker 3: No, but this will be the stepping stone, Crystal. He'll
Speaker 3: pull an RFK the senior not junior in terms of
Speaker 3: running in two years and then immediately vault or an
Speaker 3: Obama or a JD vance. You know, this is what
Speaker 3: these people do. So you know, you know the amount
Speaker 3: of money that's behind Pete Boots.
Speaker 1: It's crazy.
Speaker 3: And Boomers love Pete Pete.
Speaker 4: They love to watch him.
Speaker 2: I mean, I enjoy why he's good at like going
Speaker 2: on Fox News and like doing the thing. And I
Speaker 2: do worry that that's going to substitute for like.
Speaker 4: An actual change erection because there are.
Speaker 2: So many liberals who just love to see him be
Speaker 2: able to like go into lines and same thing with
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom, which I get, but you you're going to
Speaker 2: need something more than that if you're actually going to
Speaker 2: make a material difference in people's lives and be able
Speaker 2: to fight back against this, you know, the right wing
Speaker 2: Trumpet movement, you know. Just going back to Bill Gates
Speaker 2: here for a second, there's the p as you mentioned. Also,
Speaker 2: we spent a lot of time covering on Rising the
Speaker 2: way that he was so influential in shaping the COVID
Speaker 2: vaccine response and making it so that it was controlled
Speaker 2: by these private, big pharma companies because he's a big
Speaker 2: believer in patents, rather than making it widely available and
Speaker 2: you know, a public good, so that the entire world
Speaker 2: could benefit from it and not just you know, originally
Speaker 2: primarily the developed world. So he, you know, even on
Speaker 2: that was very influential. And then to hold up the
Speaker 2: US model of campaign finance like it's anything to be
Speaker 2: emulated is fricking insane, right, It's insane. Yes, we do
Speaker 2: bar foreigners from contributing, that is the one good thing
Speaker 2: you can say about it. But there is no way
Speaker 2: in hell that we should have the system that we
Speaker 2: have where Bill Gates can give fifty million or Elon
Speaker 2: Musk can give a quarter of a billion, probably more,
Speaker 2: in order to elect their favored candidate.
Speaker 4: That is crazy.
Speaker 2: And I can tell you all day long, which is
Speaker 2: true that a Kamala had a larger number of billionaires
Speaker 2: who endorsed her. Trump had a larger concentration of a
Speaker 2: handful was like three billionaires who gave them something like
Speaker 2: half a billion dollars. So that's why they've ended up
Speaker 2: with such extraordinary power Elon in particular, Miriam Madison as
Speaker 2: well in this administration. So I can tell you how
Speaker 2: this is different in terms of the scale. But anyone
Speaker 2: can look and say, well what about Bill Gates, Well
Speaker 2: what about George Soros? Well what about Reed Hoffman? And
Speaker 2: how much does my little like parsying of Oh, but
Speaker 2: technically they didn't give as much as this one or
Speaker 2: no one cares because they also had way too much power,
Speaker 2: way too much influence, shape everything about the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: in terms of what policies they're really going to fight for,
Speaker 2: what they're really going to pursue, who's going to be
Speaker 2: in their administration, what those priorities are ultimately going to be.
Speaker 4: So Democrats, if.
Speaker 2: You actually want to have a compelling political alternative trump Ism,
Speaker 2: you have to reject all. There are no good billionaires.
Speaker 2: You have to reject it all. You have to do
Speaker 2: it aggressively. It has to be clear what side you
Speaker 2: are actually on. And you know, there is a lot
Speaker 2: of polling out there that the Achilles heel of this
Speaker 2: Trump administration is how much influenced these billionaires have. People
Speaker 2: hate it right. Elon's approval rating has fallen off a cliff.
Speaker 2: He's dramatically unpopular. Now that was not the case in
Speaker 2: the past. They are really skeptical of even Doge, which
Speaker 2: I'm surprised at because just the like, oh government efficiency,
Speaker 2: like that sounds good, but because it's seen as this
Speaker 2: billionaire project a lot of skepticism. You only have twelve
Speaker 2: percent of Americans who say they like the idea of
Speaker 2: billionaires advising government.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: To me, this is the potential Achilles heel for this administration.
Speaker 2: But if you're around there still, you know, in league
Speaker 2: with Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman, and that is the
Speaker 2: center of gravity in your party, and you are not
Speaker 2: willing to make a clean, clear break with them, then
Speaker 2: all of your complaints about that are going to fall
Speaker 2: on deaf ears and you will be seen as hypocrites.
Speaker 2: And I've mentioned this several times, but I think it
Speaker 2: is so emblematic. The lead candidate for DNC chair right now,
Speaker 2: Ken Martin, I'm sure has other things to recommend him.
Speaker 4: I know people like him, know him whatever.
Speaker 2: I don't know anything about him other than he ran
Speaker 2: a state party, okay, and when he got asked about
Speaker 2: money in politics, he said, of course, we're going to
Speaker 2: continue to take money from good billionaires good billionaires.
Speaker 3: And who's one of the leading candidates to become the
Speaker 3: nominee in twenty twenty eight, JB. Pritzker, who bragged on
Speaker 3: the DNC stage that he was an actual billionaire. You know,
Speaker 3: I mean, that's another one which drives me crazy. It's like,
Speaker 3: did you earn it? You're an air Is there anything
Speaker 3: more grotesque in the American tradition than the billionaire air? Well,
Speaker 3: it's a universally despised person.
Speaker 2: A page from the Trumpian playbook, where you know, first
Speaker 2: time he was like, well, I'm a billionaire, so I
Speaker 2: don't need.
Speaker 4: These people's money. He could pull that page. But I mean,
Speaker 4: he is, but he hasn't. No, he hasn't. He's done
Speaker 4: a decent job.
Speaker 2: I don't know enough to like lay out all of
Speaker 2: his track record, but I know he's done some things
Speaker 2: that were positive in the state and in some ways
Speaker 2: been you know, in certain instances a class trader.
Speaker 4: But he is not. He is not.
Speaker 2: You really need an outsider, you do, because all of
Speaker 2: these other people are too infected in the way things
Speaker 2: are currently in the Democratic Party and their current way
Speaker 2: of thinking and their current power structures, et cetera. So,
Speaker 2: in any case, Bill Gates, you're right about Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: but you need to look in the mirror, buddy, You
Speaker 2: need to look.
Speaker 4: In the mirror.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think that's gonna be happening, all right.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for joining us. We really appreciate.
Speaker 3: Its a great counterpoint show for everyone tomorrow, and we
Speaker 3: will see you all on Thursday.