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 Thursday.
Speaker 2: Have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot to get to this morning,
Speaker 1: so we have more indications about how Israel might respond
Speaker 1: to those Iranian attacks.
Speaker 4: Will break that down.
Speaker 1: We're also taking a look at survivors of Hurricane Helen
Speaker 1: who are speaking out now, and also what it's going
Speaker 1: to take to rebuild in that area, if it's even
Speaker 1: really possible, so we'll show you some extraordinary video from there.
Speaker 1: We also have the polls post debate about who the
Speaker 1: people thought one it's actually it's kind of interesting, so
Speaker 1: we'll get into that. We'll also show you what the
Speaker 1: polls are saying in general, the state of the race,
Speaker 1: and some troubling indicators on the Kamala Harris side about
Speaker 1: the direction that working class voters are going in. We're
Speaker 1: also going to take a look at quite an interview
Speaker 1: Tanahise Coates, who was of course very much celebrated for
Speaker 1: his anti racist work. Now when he's speaking out about
Speaker 1: Israeli atrocities and apartheid, very different reception from the mainstream press.
Speaker 1: Quite an interview that will break down for you. And
Speaker 1: we're also going to be joined this morning by doctor
Speaker 1: Jill Stein of course Green Party nominee for president, candidate
Speaker 1: for president, about how she feels about the state of
Speaker 1: the race and also some extraordinary efforts being undertaken by
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party to keep her off the ballot in
Speaker 1: Nevada in particular. That's right, a lot to get to
Speaker 1: you this morning.
Speaker 2: We're very excited to talk to her. Before we get
Speaker 2: to that, we've got a discount going on right now.
Speaker 2: You want to take advantage of let's put that on
Speaker 2: the screen BP twenty twenty four at Breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: for fifteen dollars off our premium memberships. You get exclusive
Speaker 2: access to some of our election content, but you also
Speaker 2: get to support the show and participate in our exclusive
Speaker 2: of AMAS that happened weekly, So go ahead and take
Speaker 2: advantage of that. But with that, let's of course get
Speaker 2: to the major news out coming out of Israel, Iran,
Speaker 2: the United States, what a potential response response could look like,
Speaker 2: and you know, literally could happen tonight, could happen within
Speaker 2: a week.
Speaker 3: Nobody really knows.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's exactly right. Let's put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So of course we covered extensively on Debate
Speaker 1: night exactly how we got to this place of you know,
Speaker 1: really standing on the brink of a massive regional war
Speaker 1: that the US would undoubtedly get pulled into. The latest
Speaker 1: indications of Israel they're saying they're mulling attacks on Iranian
Speaker 1: oil rigs, nuclear sites as well in response to missile
Speaker 1: attack that would be you know, an extraordinary provocation.
Speaker 4: Let me just read from this article.
Speaker 1: This is was mostly reported out by Axios and is
Speaker 1: rewritten up here in Times of Israel. Israel may respond
Speaker 1: to Ron's major Tuesday ballistic missile attack striking strategic infrastructure
Speaker 1: such as gas or oil rigs that would obviously be
Speaker 1: devastating to the Iranian economy, or by directly targeting Iran's
Speaker 1: nuclear sites. Media reports that on Wednesday, siting Israeli officials,
Speaker 1: targeted assassinations and attacks on Iran's air defense systems are
Speaker 1: also possible responses. The absence, they RTE of a more
Speaker 1: specific decision was in part out of a desire to
Speaker 1: coordinate any plans with the US, the report said, adding
Speaker 1: that Phoebe was expected to speak with Joe Biden as
Speaker 1: soon as Wednesday afternoon.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 1: We have a big question mark about how the Iranians
Speaker 1: are going to respond to an attack, but we take
Speaker 1: into consideration the possibility they would go all in, which
Speaker 1: will be a whole different ballgame. The US on Wednesday
Speaker 1: signaling a willingness to support Israel in a potential response,
Speaker 1: with the White House promising quote severe consequences for the
Speaker 1: attack and saying it will work with Israel to make
Speaker 1: that the case. In a sign of just how hawkish
Speaker 1: the Israeli public is sort of across the board from
Speaker 1: the NETANYAHUO government as well as some of the opposition figures.
Speaker 1: Former Israeli Prime Minister and off Tolly Bennett took to
Speaker 1: cable news to indicate now is the time to attack
Speaker 1: Iran's oil and nuclear sites, saying it would be a
Speaker 1: gift of the Israeli people, the Jewish people, to the
Speaker 1: Iranian people to help foment regime change in that state.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen exactly to what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Arms that were sort of defending it, or they were
Speaker 5: its insurance policy against an Israeli strike, and that's Hisbala
Speaker 5: and Hamas. But those two arms are temporarily paralyzed, so
Speaker 5: it's like a boxer out in the ring without arms
Speaker 5: for the next few minutes. Now is the time that
Speaker 5: we can attack because Iran is fully vulnerable, the Islamic
Speaker 5: Republic of Iran. It's time to hit destroy the nuclear
Speaker 5: program and finally allow the Iranian people to rise up.
Speaker 5: The amazing Iranian people, who have the worst regime, one
Speaker 5: of the worst regimes on earth. This is the time.
Speaker 5: This would be the gift of the Israeli people, the
Speaker 5: Jewish people to the Iranian people.
Speaker 6: I just want to be precise, Prime Minister.
Speaker 7: You want Israeli airstrikes to blow up Aron's nuclear facilities
Speaker 7: and its energy facilities, all the oil wells and the
Speaker 7: oil related industry that is the main part of the
Speaker 7: Iranian economy.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Quite extraordinary comments there I mean, I just as a
Speaker 1: note I think is actually anti Semitic to conflate the
Speaker 1: entire Jewish people with this very belligerent foreign policy. It's
Speaker 1: also quite extraordinary to frame it as a gift to
Speaker 1: the Iranian people striking their strategic oil and nuclear sites.
Speaker 1: But that is the type of tone and rhetoric that's
Speaker 1: coming out of it.
Speaker 2: If you want to give them that gift, you're welcome
Speaker 2: to give it to them all by yourself. But we
Speaker 2: all know that that's not going to happen.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I recently just came across fantastic military analysts just put
Speaker 2: this out.
Speaker 3: The number of missiles that we.
Speaker 2: Fired on a couple of days ago to defend Israel
Speaker 2: was twelve, so roughly all of those allegedly made contact.
Speaker 2: That is the amount of missiles. It takes an entire
Speaker 2: year for US facilities to crank out, So we invested
Speaker 2: an entire year's worth of missile production in a single
Speaker 2: night to defend Israel. Now imagine this time's fifty times
Speaker 2: one hundred.
Speaker 3: This is part of why I'm so.
Speaker 2: Afraid here is because the US is green lighting these
Speaker 2: strikes potentially on nuclear sites or on energy and oil facilities.
Speaker 2: The oil facilities may actually be more dangerous because the
Speaker 2: current analysis that's coming out of Sentcom and others is
Speaker 2: that the likely Iranian response will not be to retaliate
Speaker 2: just against Israel, but will be specifically to retaliate against
Speaker 2: US and Western oil refineries and oil tankers in the region,
Speaker 2: which would of course immediately draw the United States into
Speaker 2: this war. And this is the problem I've had from
Speaker 2: the very beginning, is that it is clear as day
Speaker 2: now that the aero system did not perform all that well,
Speaker 2: which we will show you in terms of Israel's own
Speaker 2: battle defense assessments of their ability for the Iranians to
Speaker 2: hit military targets. And then on top of that, the
Speaker 2: only reason that the majority of the missiles were intercepted
Speaker 2: was because of the United States naval destroyers.
Speaker 3: So when we combine that whole picture, it is clear
Speaker 3: that if Israel actually.
Speaker 2: Had to bear one hundred percent cost of its own actions,
Speaker 2: like in the first time in April after it destroyed
Speaker 2: that Iranian embassy and this time around, that they would
Speaker 2: never be in a position where a tiny nation of
Speaker 2: ten million can consider regime change on a tens of
Speaker 2: millions country. Now you know, people always love to say this.
Speaker 2: It's like, oh, it's not representative the people.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: You know, it's one of those where it stood the
Speaker 2: test of time since the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 4: Clearly they're talking about the Iranian government.
Speaker 2: There's common cope in America to always be like, oh,
Speaker 2: the Venezuelan government doesn't represent the people or the Iranian people.
Speaker 2: And you know, maybe, like especially with all these legs,
Speaker 2: but as with all things, it's complicated.
Speaker 3: Are we going to say that they have no democratic support?
Speaker 2: Are we going to say that they have no representative
Speaker 2: of the people, And especially if you try and foist
Speaker 2: a new regime on them, how do you think that's
Speaker 2: going to go?
Speaker 4: You know, it's one of those where how it's gotten
Speaker 4: in the past, that's my times.
Speaker 2: So, you know, we have fantasies in America. Everybody's just
Speaker 2: like us, Oh, the Iraqis just want representative democracy. It's like, no, actually,
Speaker 2: you know, it's complicated, and especially when you put that
Speaker 2: into practice, they end up slaughtering each other. So it's
Speaker 2: one of those where are we really better off, you know,
Speaker 2: replacing it. What do we know that comes next? Nobody knows.
Speaker 2: Nobody knows the answer to that question. We always talk
Speaker 2: about that with Russia. Oh, he's a dictator and all
Speaker 2: that the likely replacement for Putin would be somebody who
Speaker 2: is more aggressive and more dictatorial and war mongering, not
Speaker 2: the other way around. And this is a fantasy that clearly,
Speaker 2: you know the Israelis, they're not stupid.
Speaker 3: They probably do know this.
Speaker 2: It's just one of those where they also know that
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, big brother America will
Speaker 2: come in to save their ass. And ultimately, if we
Speaker 2: have to do have to quote unquote save them, it
Speaker 2: will be with our own military force, our own ground
Speaker 2: forces that will get drawn into this and we will
Speaker 2: be the one sucked in for another twenty five years.
Speaker 2: Iran would make Iraq look like a cakewalk, and Iraq
Speaker 2: was a disaster. You don't have to take my word
Speaker 2: for it, take any war planner or others who has
Speaker 2: study this. There's a reason that we never wanted to
Speaker 2: cross this red line for ourselves, despite the protestations of
Speaker 2: all the neocons in Washington, but we are the closest
Speaker 2: that we've been to war with Iran probably since two
Speaker 2: thousand and nine. I encourage people, there's an Atlantic article
Speaker 2: written in O nine Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote this entire
Speaker 2: profile of bb back then saying to Obama, either you
Speaker 2: deal with the Iranian nuclear problem or I will by
Speaker 2: striking and destroying their nuclear facility. I'm pointing that out
Speaker 2: to show you this is a multi decade project by
Speaker 2: Bibi Netanyahu for regime change in Iran and specifically to
Speaker 2: draw the US into that conflict.
Speaker 3: It was only through the nuclear deal and others that were.
Speaker 2: Able to avoid that, but we came this close, you know,
Speaker 2: to getting back back into war that time, and not
Speaker 2: a lot of people remember. So this is It's terrifying.
Speaker 3: It really is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it absolutely is, especially when you look at I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got a president who is adult, who knows how
Speaker 1: engaged he is or not. I'm not sure whether it
Speaker 1: would be better or worse if he was able and
Speaker 1: engaged because his lockstep bear hug commitment to whatever Israel
Speaker 1: wants to do, specifically whatever BB Netna who wants to do. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: I might complain a little bit, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: back him up. Has been an utter disaster. This is
Speaker 1: the one outcome that they have asserted from the beginning
Speaker 1: they wanted to avoid, and yet here we are. So
Speaker 1: you seem to have a few key individuals, Brett McGirk
Speaker 1: perhaps chief among them, who have truly embraced the full
Speaker 1: neo con Let's, you know, install let's install democracy around
Speaker 1: the world, let's spread democracy on the around the world view.
Speaker 1: Who learned nothing from Iraq and other foreign misadventures? Because
Speaker 1: the reporting is that actually the US wanted Israel, at
Speaker 1: least the White House, over the objections of the State Departmentment,
Speaker 1: Department of Defense, wanted Israel to go forward with escalating
Speaker 1: vis A vi Hezblah, with invading Lebanon, thinking that now's
Speaker 1: the time when we can remake the Middle East.
Speaker 4: When have we heard that before?
Speaker 1: They think it's going to be different somehow this time around.
Speaker 1: And you know, with regards to the Iranian saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, we think US oil assets and other strategic
Speaker 1: assets in the region are fair game. Who can blame
Speaker 1: them for saying that we're an integral part of this.
Speaker 4: Of course we are.
Speaker 1: I mean, we directly involved in the Israeli response to
Speaker 1: the Iranian attack. We've been sharing intelligence with them. We
Speaker 1: enable this entire situation. Sager is one hundred percent correct.
Speaker 1: If the Israelis knew they had to bear alone the
Speaker 1: cost of their continued provocations and escalations. There's no way
Speaker 1: that they continue in this direction. But they know that
Speaker 1: we will back them up no matter what. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was asked about the potential targeting by Israel of Ronnie
Speaker 1: and nuclear sites. He seemed to be opposed to that.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to this exchange in front of
Speaker 1: Air Force.
Speaker 4: One asked you what.
Speaker 3: The talk one around?
Speaker 2: Answer is no and Della, I think there's state.
Speaker 6: Will be discussion with the Israeli is what.
Speaker 8: We're going to do.
Speaker 7: But they all seven of us agree if they were
Speaker 7: right to respond, if they should respond.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear for people who struggled to
Speaker 1: hear that, he was asked directly, does he support an
Speaker 1: Israeli attack on Iron's nuclear sites?
Speaker 4: He says no.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say they have a right to respond,
Speaker 1: but they should respond proportionally. I mean, I play you
Speaker 1: this because he is the American President.
Speaker 9: But.
Speaker 1: Do his words matter at all? Doesn't seem to doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like they're willing to use any sort of leverage
Speaker 1: in order to enforce the direction that the US wants
Speaker 1: things to go in, or at least that they pretend
Speaker 1: that they want to go in. So these words, even
Speaker 1: though they're important because they're the US president's why playing
Speaker 1: for you, they're also sort of irrelevant and meaningless, given
Speaker 1: how incredibly impotent.
Speaker 2: Here, And you could go down that path and still
Speaker 2: get us into a war, which is okay, fine, don't
Speaker 2: strike the nuclear site, you know, you just take out
Speaker 2: a few oil refiners.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just.
Speaker 2: A small little tap on the sole source of income
Speaker 2: for the Iranian regime. That's part of the problem is that,
Speaker 2: you know, even if you rule out something like the
Speaker 2: nuclear strike, it doesn't mean that even strikes in the
Speaker 2: middle of Tehran would in itself invite major retaliation against
Speaker 2: the US. Not to mention, you know, we have tens
Speaker 2: of thousands now of troops who aren't in the region
Speaker 2: who are at risk from the hoopies from in Iraq,
Speaker 2: in Syria. I mean, all of these people are frankly
Speaker 2: just sitting ducks to any potential retaliation because of the
Speaker 2: Biden administration policy. And again there has been this disgusting
Speaker 2: effort in America to just whitewash what happened with these
Speaker 2: Iranian missiles. There is no way that you can call
Speaker 2: it a failure. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from the Times of Israel. This is again
Speaker 2: like a more right leading publication inside of the country
Speaker 2: where even through military censorship, quote, they acknowledge that Iranian
Speaker 2: missiles hit some air bases. Now they claim no major
Speaker 2: damage was caused. Maybe, I mean, you know, release some
Speaker 2: photos maybe of the air bases that are okay. But
Speaker 2: the point is is that if you only intercept a
Speaker 2: quote majority, and let's say you have a thirty percent
Speaker 2: hit rate, even forty percent, that's a failure. Ask anybody
Speaker 2: who's studied or involved in missile defense, if you have
Speaker 2: thirty or forty percent of these things that are coming
Speaker 2: through and that are precisely hitting military targets, including air bases,
Speaker 2: what does.
Speaker 3: That tell you about the future?
Speaker 2: Iran has one of the largest ballistical misslic stocks on Earth,
Speaker 2: and they're very relatively cheap to manufacture. What you saw
Speaker 2: was only two hundred. They have thousands that they could fire,
Speaker 2: and those two hundred were able to overwhelm the Arrow
Speaker 2: three system. So if there were thousands, do you have
Speaker 2: any doubt now that this would not immediately cripple at
Speaker 2: least some of the IDF and of their air force.
Speaker 2: So this is the problem is that we just believe
Speaker 2: our government in our idiot media, for example, in the
Speaker 2: VP debate, that's like, well, it was a failed attack.
Speaker 2: I'm like, what, hold on a second, just because it
Speaker 2: didn't kill anybody, or just because it didn't wipe every
Speaker 2: air base on the planet. If it made impact on
Speaker 2: an air base, I'm going to call that successful, especially
Speaker 2: in terms of establishing deterrence and establishing your ability to
Speaker 2: inflict damage if you want to. It's like anytime I
Speaker 2: don't know in the past, like when America would strike
Speaker 2: Assad air bases and the the Syrians would be like, oh,
Speaker 2: it was a failure because we were able to rebuild
Speaker 2: the airfield.
Speaker 3: I'm like, okay, but it did destroy the airfield.
Speaker 2: And the point is that the US military has capability
Speaker 2: to do that if they want to. So if you're
Speaker 2: watching this just from a pure military view of the
Speaker 2: missile's ability to make contact with those airbases, you can't
Speaker 2: call it a failure. And yet, you know how many
Speaker 2: people are gonna see this segment or read the follow
Speaker 2: up news which admits that bypassing military sensors that there
Speaker 2: was damage almost nobody.
Speaker 3: It's crazy.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Glenn was opining on this on Twitter, as he does,
Speaker 1: and he made a point that I think is disturbing
Speaker 1: but important one which is basically like, because of the
Speaker 1: savage savagery with which Israel has conducted itself in Gaza
Speaker 1: and now in Lebanon and also in the West Bank,
Speaker 1: the view from the West is now like, oh, if
Speaker 1: you didn't murder a bunch of civilians and take out
Speaker 1: hospitals and schools and aid agencies, then it wasn't a success.
Speaker 1: And you know, you see you see that sentiment effectively
Speaker 1: on Twitter and other places, and I think I think
Speaker 1: that's basically I mean, if they are downplaying the damage
Speaker 1: that was inflicted on military assets in the country in
Speaker 1: order to try to, you know, downplay the need for escalation,
Speaker 1: then I kind of support it. But I don't think
Speaker 1: that's what's going on here because you don't see any
Speaker 1: of that in terms of the rhetoric. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: threatening regime change, they're threatening strike in the nuclear facilities.
Speaker 1: They're saying basically like, we're cool if we go to
Speaker 1: all out war, which of course BB has been cool
Speaker 1: with that for a very long time, So I don't
Speaker 1: think that that's the game that's being played here. We
Speaker 1: also are learning some new and extraordinary things about that
Speaker 1: strike that Israel committed to assassinate and Estralla of course
Speaker 1: used over eighty gigantic two thousand pounds bombs killed hundreds
Speaker 1: of civilians in addition to killing Estralla. So, according to
Speaker 1: the Lebanese Foreign Minister, according to him, Nostralla had agreed
Speaker 1: to a cease fire deal, had been communicated to the US,
Speaker 1: had been communicated to Israel prior.
Speaker 4: To that assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: You know, it kind of tracks with also the fact
Speaker 1: that they assassinated Hania, the leader of Hamas, at a
Speaker 1: time when it still appeared there might be a possibility
Speaker 1: of a broader cease fire involving you know, Gaza strip
Speaker 1: and Hamas as well. So I mean that tells you
Speaker 1: everything you need to know about Bibna. Who's desire to coexist,
Speaker 1: desire to get to some sort of a diplomatic resolution.
Speaker 4: He is not interested in that. He's never been interested
Speaker 4: in that.
Speaker 1: Every time there's been a possibility of it, he has
Speaker 1: been I'm not going to say that.
Speaker 4: Hamas wasn't a roadblock two.
Speaker 1: At times he has been the primary impediment the entire
Speaker 1: time because his personal political interests and ideological interests are
Speaker 1: towards all out consistent war. So you know, as this
Speaker 1: as we're watching what's happening in Iran unfold, it's also
Speaker 1: important to keep an eye on what's happening in Lebanon.
Speaker 1: There were strikes over night in Beirut that killed dozens
Speaker 1: of individuals.
Speaker 4: Early indications are.
Speaker 1: And Israeli soldiers have begun that ground invasion, you know,
Speaker 1: with some limited incursions into Lebanon. Of course, you know,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't feel they were very limited if there was
Speaker 1: any sort of incursion into our borders, So let's keep.
Speaker 4: That in mind.
Speaker 1: But there is has already been a cost to the
Speaker 1: IDF in terms of this ground invasion in Lebanon.
Speaker 4: We can take a look at these images of.
Speaker 1: Israeli soldiers being evacuated here who had either been wounded
Speaker 1: or now we know that at least eight were killed
Speaker 1: in clashes with Hesbela here in southern Lebanon. So what
Speaker 1: you see on your screen is, you know, helicopters landing
Speaker 1: and people being carried down on stretchers. IDF soldiers being
Speaker 1: carried down on stretchers. So Hesbela certainly, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any doubt. Obviously they've been their capabilities have been degraded,
Speaker 1: their communications have been compromised, which may be as critical
Speaker 1: as absolutely anything. But that doesn't mean that they don't
Speaker 1: still have war fighting capabilities. As evidenced by these latest
Speaker 1: casualties from Israel. We can put a six up on
Speaker 1: the screen, which is the official acknowledgment of these deaths.
Speaker 1: Israel said on Wednesday eight of its soldiers were killed
Speaker 1: in combound in South Lebanon as its forces thrust into
Speaker 1: its northern neighbor in a campaign against HESBLA. The losses
Speaker 1: where the deadly is suffered by the Israeli military on
Speaker 1: the Lebanon front in the past year border area clashes.
Speaker 1: Hezela said its fighters were engaging Israeli forces inside Lebanon
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, reporting ground clashes for the first time since
Speaker 1: Israeli forces pushed over the border, and HESBLA said that
Speaker 1: it also destroyed three Israeli tanks with rockets near a
Speaker 1: border town there as well. So you know, you still
Speaker 1: have Israel bombing Gaza and killing people in Gaza.
Speaker 3: You still have.
Speaker 1: Israel bombing Bayrout, killing people in Beirut, you have this
Speaker 1: ground invasion going forward, which again the US greenlit and
Speaker 1: actively encouraged, and you have us all in wait and
Speaker 1: see mode about just how large a provocation and an
Speaker 1: escalation we will get from Israel visa the Iran.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's put the next one up there, because this
Speaker 2: is important. It's a decent analysis, and it actually shows
Speaker 2: this was the first time, actually that Israel and Hezbola
Speaker 2: came into direct fighting in Hesbola, and I think we
Speaker 2: should learn something from the fact that almost immediately, according
Speaker 2: to Israel, all eight people were killed, you know, in
Speaker 2: an ambush. This illustrates that in the actual ground war,
Speaker 2: the IDF has not performed all that well. They've been
Speaker 2: they've been relying heavily on air power. Now you can
Speaker 2: only get away with that to a certain extent, and
Speaker 2: you can definitely in Gaza if you want to just
Speaker 2: level the whole place. But in Lebanon we're talking about
Speaker 2: a very very different enemy. And this is something we've
Speaker 2: tried to talk about here quite a bit. The Hezbollah. Yes,
Speaker 2: you know, their regional commanders are dead, their infrastructure is
Speaker 2: certainly taken a major hit, but their military arsenal is significant.
Speaker 2: And if you don't think that the IRGC hasn't immediately
Speaker 2: sent over experienced battle commanders who've been fighting for almost
Speaker 2: twenty years or so between Iraq and Syria and now
Speaker 2: here and to replace these people, then you know you're
Speaker 2: an idiot. And that's the problem is that they don't
Speaker 2: just have rockets. They have actually very sophisticated military equipment.
Speaker 2: They have a fighting force which is battle tested for
Speaker 2: almost a decade. And also they've got Iran and Syria,
Speaker 2: which themselves are sovereign nations which are being intact by Israel,
Speaker 2: which have a direct interest in making sure that their
Speaker 2: borders allow weapons to flow through seriously, if not outright.
Speaker 3: Just giving it to them themselves.
Speaker 2: So the fact that you had these eight people from
Speaker 2: the IDEF who were already killed just demonstrates like what
Speaker 2: a real invasion would look like. If anything, it's probably
Speaker 2: why they almost immediately started retaliate bombing in Southern Bay Route.
Speaker 2: But the more that their troops want to create some
Speaker 2: sort of so called buffer zone you know, in the country,
Speaker 2: they're going to pay for it in blood. And I
Speaker 2: think that's really what this underscoore or this is not Hamas.
Speaker 2: It's a far more sophisticated force that the IDF has
Speaker 2: known this, they're afraid of it. That's part of the
Speaker 2: reason that they had to call up a lot of reservists.
Speaker 2: And you know, these were some of the more elite
Speaker 2: fighters actually in the IDF. If you look at the UH,
Speaker 2: if you look at the biographies of those that were killed,
Speaker 2: so that should tell.
Speaker 3: You special forces exactly.
Speaker 2: So it will tell you when you you know, when's
Speaker 2: the last time of America lost eight people in eight people
Speaker 2: from special forces. It doesn't happen all that often in
Speaker 2: an actual ground invasion, you know, especially maybe if they're
Speaker 2: shot down a helicopter or something. But it just demonstrates
Speaker 2: that the parody of the fighting force is much higher,
Speaker 2: and you should be afraid because this would also cause
Speaker 2: significant problems in Israel. Have hundreds, you know, thousands of
Speaker 2: people in the IDEF start dying. This is a small
Speaker 2: nation and they don't have all that many people. On
Speaker 2: top of that, their economy is suffering dramatically. I mean,
Speaker 2: who knows hundreds of billions of shekels who already been
Speaker 2: lost on the war, expanding it and creating all of
Speaker 2: this domestic turma on economic prosers like this is major,
Speaker 2: This is a major issue now that we're almost a
Speaker 2: year removed from October seven. It's kind of insane that
Speaker 2: they got themselves into this situation. But of course that's
Speaker 2: the project of their national leader, and at a certain
Speaker 2: point he clearly has some democratic support too.
Speaker 3: I just talked about.
Speaker 1: No doubt about it, so you know, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of natural support for this program there. Obviously
Speaker 1: there have been protests about wanting a deal in order
Speaker 1: to bring the hostages home, which but you know, in
Speaker 1: terms of the hawkishness, the attacks on Hezbla, as far
Speaker 1: as I can tell, in terms of the public polling,
Speaker 1: this is widely supported across.
Speaker 4: The Israeli political spectrum.
Speaker 1: And you know, Sager, you made this point when we
Speaker 1: were talking on debate night, like where's all the rhetoric
Speaker 1: about the hostages that's just gone gone, Like they've outlived
Speaker 1: their usefulness. Sorry for the horrible cross nature of that language.
Speaker 1: But to Bbnatan Yahoo, he doesn't care if they live
Speaker 1: or die, does not care. In fact, for him, may
Speaker 1: be more convenient if they end up dying, because then
Speaker 1: they can't come back and talk about the way that
Speaker 1: they were abandoned by the Israeli government. And that's what happened,
Speaker 1: I mean, extraordinarily enough. I don't know if you saw
Speaker 1: this soccer. Nancy Pelosi went on CNN with Dana Bash
Speaker 1: and she was asked about the attacks in Lebanon and
Speaker 1: the attacks, you know, the coming attacks on Iran and
Speaker 1: all of that, and she said, I think Boebe should
Speaker 1: be using his might to get the hostages home.
Speaker 4: Hey how about that?
Speaker 1: Remember when that was when you pretended like that was
Speaker 1: a key priority.
Speaker 4: Not so much anymore.
Speaker 1: And you know, for the broader long term outlook for Israel,
Speaker 1: what does this look like for them? Their credit rating
Speaker 1: was downgraded again purportedly the goal of this, these attacks
Speaker 1: in Beirut and this ground invasion in Lebanon is so
Speaker 1: that Israelis can return to northern Israel where they you know,
Speaker 1: have been evacuated and you know they haven't been there
Speaker 1: since post October seventh.
Speaker 4: Well, this is no way to accomplish that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're just creating warhas sties, You're just creating
Speaker 1: more danger in that region. What the mayors of those
Speaker 1: towns wanted was a ceasefire deeal so that there would
Speaker 1: be you know, coexistence and at least some limited amount
Speaker 1: of peace, so that people could go home. Like there's
Speaker 1: no end in sight, there's no there's no immediate timeline
Speaker 1: for Israelis in that region to be able to return.
Speaker 1: You have enormous burdens on the workforce because of the
Speaker 1: continued call ups of reserves to go and fight on
Speaker 1: how many fronts. Even at this point, you know, you're
Speaker 1: in Gaza, you're in the West Bank, you're in Lebanon,
Speaker 1: you're starting a war with Iran, et cetera, and so,
Speaker 1: and you're increasingly, even though the US supports you wholeheartedly,
Speaker 1: you are increasingly isolated in terms of the world stage,
Speaker 1: where this fading superpower is increasingly becoming one of your
Speaker 1: only friends. So you know, there's no there's no long
Speaker 1: term planning here. It's an ideological project. It's a political
Speaker 1: project for BB It's a project of revenge. And that's
Speaker 1: where we are. And because the US is too weak
Speaker 1: or actively supports this direction, you know it's all completely
Speaker 1: enabled and greenlit and funded and supplied and made possible
Speaker 1: by US and our tax dollars. So we're all just
Speaker 1: waiting to with baited breath to see what happens next.
Speaker 2: That's a good transition to where our tax dollars should
Speaker 2: be going and where our national attention should be going.
Speaker 2: I wish that we were in hostage to a regional
Speaker 2: war in the Middle East, because we literally have hundreds
Speaker 2: of people potentially dead and tens of thousands who are
Speaker 2: now affected by the horrific Hurricane Helen in North Carolina.
Speaker 2: We have some interviews here we want to show you
Speaker 2: from some of the survivors, just to show what the
Speaker 2: conditions remain like on the ground and what the experience was.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen. We don't have any power.
Speaker 10: We haven't had any since Friday morning. We had water,
Speaker 10: running water, but we can't drink it, and now the
Speaker 10: pressure is so low that there's no water for me
Speaker 10: out anymore.
Speaker 4: Really, it's undescribable.
Speaker 11: I don't know.
Speaker 10: It just was covered in litter and trees and mud
Speaker 10: and it's stinky, and it was all the way up
Speaker 10: the street up here. It just looks like the bottom
Speaker 10: of a river.
Speaker 9: That couple, Dylan and Larson that came across the bridge,
Speaker 9: they had a cat as well. They got they got
Speaker 9: inside to our house and we sat there for a
Speaker 9: little bit, and before we knew it, it was dire
Speaker 9: that we needed to get out, and we had gotten
Speaker 9: the cat bags ready, and you know, that's all we
Speaker 9: were worried about at the moment, is saving our animals.
Speaker 9: And we were looking around at things, and that's when
Speaker 9: I really realized that none of what we own matters
Speaker 9: right now, and our lives, their lives are cats lives.
Speaker 6: That's all we have.
Speaker 8: When we were going around just looking to see if
Speaker 8: anybody was okay. I drive those roads all the time,
Speaker 8: and I just couldn't even I couldn't even picture where
Speaker 8: we were anymore. And knowing that nobody is ever going
Speaker 8: to be able to live there, probably most of the
Speaker 8: people who have built their lives there aren't going to
Speaker 8: be able to finish their lives there, and it's just
Speaker 8: really horrifying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's that's what it's like in North Carolina,
Speaker 2: and that's what is happening now in terms of our
Speaker 2: government response.
Speaker 3: Don't worry.
Speaker 2: This is a real thing. It's become a meme, but
Speaker 2: I checked into it. FEMA says you can get up
Speaker 2: to seven hundred and fifty dollars for grocery assistance if
Speaker 2: you happened to survive that. Meanwhile, we spend one hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars in a single night shooting down a bunch
Speaker 2: of missiles on Israel's behalf. So if you're a North
Speaker 2: Carolina resident, I would think about that and say, hey,
Speaker 2: you know, how exactly should US government resources be spent?
Speaker 2: On top of that, it is going to cost tens
Speaker 2: of billions, if not hundreds to rebuild after this. Let's
Speaker 2: put this on the screen. We were talking about this privately,
Speaker 2: but it really is going to be an important, you know,
Speaker 2: real story about whether America and our government even cares
Speaker 2: about rebuilding this city, particularly Ashville. Because the The Streetjournal
Speaker 2: wrote this and it's a fantastic guard I encourage everyone
Speaker 2: to read it. The hurricane that threatens to think Ashville's
Speaker 2: feel good success Asheville, North Carolina has been one of
Speaker 2: the boom towns of the East Coast now for a decade.
Speaker 2: It had huge population inflow from all across the US.
Speaker 2: It became a genuine tourist destination in its own right.
Speaker 2: It has, of course, all the fundamentals of beautiful weather scenery.
Speaker 3: The Biltmore Mansion etc.
Speaker 2: But it also became like a real refuge for a
Speaker 2: lot of people all across the country who wanted someone
Speaker 2: that was cheaper.
Speaker 3: They had a good vibe, and they enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: This is not just Ashville, by the way, that's a
Speaker 2: huge inflow into North Carolina. Raleigh and Charlotte are two
Speaker 2: of the most dynamic cities for young people in the
Speaker 2: United States, wage wise and affordability wise. What they point
Speaker 2: out here is that the devastation has wiped out almost
Speaker 2: all the development of the last decade, to the point
Speaker 2: where if the government does not expend literally I mean
Speaker 2: billions and billions of dollars, then it's gone.
Speaker 3: All of their hard fought resources.
Speaker 2: The businesses I believe it had more craft breweries than
Speaker 2: any other city in the United States, is gone. The
Speaker 2: tourist destinations, all you know, mountain resorts, et cetera. And
Speaker 2: I'm not just talking about like the ability to visit.
Speaker 2: It's the fact that lots of people had built great
Speaker 2: lives in this city and they were wiped out completely.
Speaker 2: And I really do feel like America is already forgetting them.
Speaker 2: Our national politics and more is not focusing on the
Speaker 2: ability to rebuild this place. Yes, it's great the politicians
Speaker 2: came and visited, but it took New Orleans more than
Speaker 2: a decade, and arguably it never really recovered, you know,
Speaker 2: from Katrina, and now we're in a similar situation. So
Speaker 2: I'm honestly outraged at the way that they're not getting
Speaker 2: the help that they need.
Speaker 4: There's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I actually went down to Louisiana after Katrina.
Speaker 4: This was another life.
Speaker 1: I worked for a federal government contractor that did like
Speaker 1: accounting systems. Since I was there for this very sort
Speaker 1: of tedious, boring reason of helping people be able to
Speaker 1: itemize some of their losses and help them figure out
Speaker 1: what they could expense and get reimbursed for from the
Speaker 1: federal government. But I'll never forget the experience of being
Speaker 1: down in that state and just the absolute devastation individual
Speaker 1: personal losses. Because while you know, the task sounds this
Speaker 1: very boring, like accounting task sounds very cut and dry,
Speaker 1: what people are actually bringing you are like the photos
Speaker 1: of what their home used to be and how it's
Speaker 1: just destroyed.
Speaker 4: Now, the stories of.
Speaker 1: We just thought, you know, okay, it's a hurricane. We've
Speaker 1: seen this before in this area, let me pack a
Speaker 1: bag for the weekend, and that bag I packed for
Speaker 1: the weekend is.
Speaker 4: Literally all I have left. You're right that, you know.
Speaker 1: New Orleans yet they rebuilt and other you know surrounding
Speaker 1: areas Lafayette Home, et cetera. But the population did not
Speaker 1: return to New Orleans. There were many people who just
Speaker 1: left and never came back. There were many businesses that
Speaker 1: closed and never came back. There are you know, neighborhoods
Speaker 1: that never came back. And when you think about Asheville,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, which is the place I've spent some time
Speaker 1: in that it's truly one of my favorite places in
Speaker 1: the entire country. It is a small business economy.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Part of what made makes Ashville have this very like
Speaker 1: special feel that a lot of people really love is
Speaker 1: that it isn't all the big chains.
Speaker 4: It's unique. You know, there's these little you know, the little.
Speaker 1: Coffee shop and incredible food, you know, incredible dining scene,
Speaker 1: the arts district, all of those things that made people
Speaker 1: feel like and the reality being this is a special
Speaker 1: place with things and people and places that we can't
Speaker 1: get anywhere else. And you know, I read the stats
Speaker 1: here in this article from the Wall Street Journal. They
Speaker 1: say that almost half of small businesses never reopen after
Speaker 1: a disaster. So it's heartbreaking to think about. I mean,
Speaker 1: just think about if you're a business owner, you know
Speaker 1: someone in your family like the way they put their
Speaker 1: heart and soul into this idea. It truly is heartbreaking.
Speaker 1: And you hear these survivors who you know, they escape
Speaker 1: with their lives and their their cat's lives, thank goodness,
Speaker 1: but the whole their home, their community, every their livelihood, all.
Speaker 4: Of that it's gone. It's gone.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's also I think part of why
Speaker 1: this doesn't get the attention anymore in the news media
Speaker 1: that Katrina got is that these, you know, extreme weather
Speaker 1: events are more and more and more common. But the
Speaker 1: chief meteorologist quoted in this Wall Street Journal piece says
Speaker 1: that the scale of the records suggests it might be
Speaker 1: one of the worst flooding disasters in US history. So
Speaker 1: you have a failed media respond, you have you know,
Speaker 1: a lack of an aggressive political response, and not to
Speaker 1: say that there are federal resources going there. I know
Speaker 1: that there are, but you know, this is like the
Speaker 1: new normal that I've even seen interviews with people who
Speaker 1: moved to Asheville from Florida to escape extreme weather events,
Speaker 1: because who would think that, you know, in the mountains
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, you're not anywhere close to the coast
Speaker 1: that you could face this type of natural disaster wrought
Speaker 1: by a hurricane. And yet because you know, and this
Speaker 1: is definitely partly because of climate change and the fact
Speaker 1: that the waters in the Gulf were so much warmer
Speaker 1: that helped to strengthen the storm incredibly rapidly, so it
Speaker 1: makes landfall as a category four. This is the new
Speaker 1: horrific reality that we are living through. So my heartbreaks
Speaker 1: for the people who are affected there, My heartbreaks for
Speaker 1: this region just in general, which is so beautiful and
Speaker 1: so special. And I know they will rebuild, but there
Speaker 1: will be things that will be lost. The reality of it,
Speaker 1: there will be things that can't be rebuilt. There will
Speaker 1: be people who never come back, there will be businesses
Speaker 1: that never recover, and it's a devastating loss for them
Speaker 1: first and foremost, but really for the whole country and for.
Speaker 2: All of us absolutely, and you know it also, I
Speaker 2: mean it's not in a cross way, but there will
Speaker 2: be just like there was with Hurricane Sandy or previous
Speaker 2: hurricanes it could have a political effect depending on how
Speaker 2: things go.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Already, there have been quote a massive challenge for election
Speaker 2: officials in terms of just getting votes in, including mailing ballots.
Speaker 2: They say many residents have temporary already left the area
Speaker 2: because of the damaged roads, the lack of potable water.
Speaker 2: They don't know whenever they're going to return. Quote, the
Speaker 2: challenging circumstances could suppress turnout in a part of the
Speaker 2: state where almost a million people cast ballots in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty of almost six million casts statewide, So that's one
Speaker 2: six of the North Carolina election. And they talk about
Speaker 2: how Trump actually defeated Biden by less than eighty thousand votes,
Speaker 2: his smallest margin of victory in any state in the country.
Speaker 2: And the Washington Post poll found that before Helene hit
Speaker 2: that Trump only held a two point lead over Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: So they say that Trump actually won some twenty five
Speaker 2: of these counties under the disaster declarations with almost sixty
Speaker 2: five or sixty two percent of the vote at the time.
Speaker 2: But one of the hardest hit communities, which was Ashville,
Speaker 2: was where Biden won some sixty percent of the vote,
Speaker 2: so it actually could wreak havoc on the election itself too.
Speaker 2: Just actually saw some of this after Katrina. I remember
Speaker 2: there was a lot of machinations. People didn't know what
Speaker 2: to do with all these North Carolina residents who moved
Speaker 2: to Texas where I was, and there was all kinds
Speaker 2: of you know, what do we do? Are they residents?
Speaker 2: Where did they move? Are they ever going to come back?
Speaker 2: How should we consider them? Also, apparently some overseas and
Speaker 2: military balance were sent to those who had requested them.
Speaker 2: Domestic absentee bounces were sent on September twenty fourth, and
Speaker 2: that meant were probably in transit when the storm hit
Speaker 2: and were potentially destroyed. At least one post office in
Speaker 2: the county was flooded and hundreds of mailboxes are now gone,
Speaker 2: so people have to be able to track and see
Speaker 2: where things are.
Speaker 3: Currently, the US.
Speaker 2: Postal Service has suspended service to one point three million
Speaker 2: North Carolinians that are in the state. So it is
Speaker 2: a logistical nightmare, you know, ahead of the election, and
Speaker 2: to say that it won't have any impact whatsoever is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: We just don't know yet what it will be. But yeah,
Speaker 2: heart goes out to these people, because what a mess.
Speaker 2: You know, both of the election people and then also
Speaker 2: those who want to vote. We all know what bureaucracy is.
Speaker 2: Like they are maybe going to try and vote wherever
Speaker 2: they went to, in their relative's house or whatever. We're
Speaker 2: going to face issues. So the state's going to have
Speaker 2: to step up and make sure that something can happen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well there's a lot to say about this.
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, you have to think like
Speaker 1: the people that we show to, do you think that
Speaker 1: their top priority right now is like how do I vote?
Speaker 1: They're like, how do I eat? How do I survive?
Speaker 1: How do I put a roof over my head? How
Speaker 1: do I make sure that my loved ones are still
Speaker 1: alive and fine? So it's probably not top priority right now.
Speaker 1: But then there are these really key logistical issues. So
Speaker 1: this is a weird there's a sort of weird butterfly
Speaker 1: effect thing here that happened. To take you into the backstory,
Speaker 1: their absentee ballots were actually supposed to go out weeks earlier,
Speaker 1: so would have been out and in voters' hands, presumably
Speaker 1: before Hurricane Helene hit. However, RFK Junior, after endorsed Trump,
Speaker 1: wanted to be taken off the ballot and went to
Speaker 1: court and sued in order to get taken off the
Speaker 1: ballot in North Carolina. The legal system agreed with him.
Speaker 1: But that meant that since the ballots were already printed,
Speaker 1: North Carolina sends out their absentee ballots. You know, they're
Speaker 1: really on the early side in terms of when those
Speaker 1: goes out go out. They had to restart the process
Speaker 1: reprint those ballots, and that delayed those ballots sufficient amount
Speaker 1: of time so that they're going out right at the
Speaker 1: time basically that Hurricane Helene hits. So there's that. Then,
Speaker 1: as Saga was known, you have post office that was flooded.
Speaker 1: You also have many polling locations that are either destroyed, inaccessible, etc.
Speaker 1: So even you know the roadways, you guys have seen
Speaker 1: the pictures of money the highways washed out, like it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to get anywhere in that region right now.
Speaker 4: And then you have polling locations that have been destroyed.
Speaker 1: Then the Republican controlled state legislature actually made it more
Speaker 1: difficult last year to be able to take emergency actions
Speaker 1: like being able to change polling locations in an emergency.
Speaker 1: This is part of the like stop the steel fallout,
Speaker 1: so they specifically made it more difficult for the election
Speaker 1: board staff to take emergency actions like allowing counties to
Speaker 1: swap out one polling location for another. They also changed
Speaker 1: state law or require absentee ballots to arrive in their
Speaker 1: county no later than election dates, so there's no grace
Speaker 1: period now to deal with this sort of catastrophe that
Speaker 1: is unfolded. That used to allow any ballot postmark by
Speaker 1: that day to drive up to three days later. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's made it even more difficult to be
Speaker 1: able to get the machinery of the election working here
Speaker 1: in western North Carolina in particular.
Speaker 4: You know, other states are affected as well.
Speaker 1: We're focusing a lot of North Carolina, but Georgia, Florida,
Speaker 1: also South Carolina also very much affected. But this area
Speaker 1: could be the most consequential, you know, in terms of
Speaker 1: the electoral politics. And it's it's it's quite it's a disaster.
Speaker 1: I mean again, this is like the least of the
Speaker 1: concerns of the people that are there. But we would
Speaker 1: be negligent if we didn't note that this could for
Speaker 1: sure have a political impact.
Speaker 6: Thing.
Speaker 2: Go let's turn now to the vice presidential debate, where
Speaker 2: we have some polling in now about who won, who lost,
Speaker 2: who was more favorable, who did better on the issues.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen from CBS News.
Speaker 2: I talked a little bit about this in our post show,
Speaker 2: but it does show the partisanship is alive and well
Speaker 2: in America. Who won the vice presidential debate forty two percent, JD.
Speaker 2: Vans forty one percent, Tim Wall seventeen percent.
Speaker 3: It was a tie. If we continue along.
Speaker 2: The issues, what do we see who did a better
Speaker 2: job talking about abortion? So sixty two percent of viewers
Speaker 2: said Wals did compare to Jdvans at thirty eight percent.
Speaker 2: You will note that's roughly where abortion favorability ratings and
Speaker 2: support for pro life, for pro choices healthcare fifty nine
Speaker 2: percent for Walls, and for Dvance fifty nine percent versus
Speaker 2: forty one. Conflict in the Middle East was a fifty
Speaker 2: to fifty Economy was forty nine fifty one, with Vans
Speaker 2: taking the edge, and then immigration was forty eight fifty two.
Speaker 2: So not a lot of surprise in terms of where
Speaker 2: they are, and they break down very much long partisan lines.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next one here, Favorable opinion of candidates.
Speaker 2: So before the debate, Tim Waals was at fifty two.
Speaker 2: After the debate, he was at sixty before the debate.
Speaker 2: Jadvance was at forty. After the debate he was at
Speaker 2: forty nine. So actually a rough equivalent increase in the
Speaker 2: favorability of both of those candidates. Of course Tim Walls
Speaker 2: experiencing these sixty percent and then find something that I
Speaker 2: talked a little bit about last time.
Speaker 3: Let's put the next one up.
Speaker 2: There is just about who won the debate when you
Speaker 2: compare it to the past. So this was actually CNN's snapshot.
Speaker 2: It had Walts at forty nine and Vance at fifty one.
Speaker 2: But if you compare the Vance the Advance performance compared
Speaker 2: to pass Republicans, it's actually pretty significant. Fifty nine percent
Speaker 2: has said Kamala Harris beat Mike Pence, forty two percent
Speaker 2: said Kane beat Roughly it was forty eight percent Pence,
Speaker 2: then forty two percent there for Tim Kaine, for Biden
Speaker 2: Ryan it was forty eight forty four with Ryan and
Speaker 2: then Biden. Palin was fifty one thirty six, So Sarah
Speaker 2: Palin of course taking the last, but Jad does a
Speaker 2: nudge out fifty one and forty nine so the best
Speaker 2: performance there within the last what is it last fourteen
Speaker 2: to fifteen years something like that. So yeah, roughly, oh,
Speaker 2: I forgot we didn't include this, but there was there
Speaker 2: was a poll it was like will this impact your vote?
Speaker 3: And only one percent said yes, As.
Speaker 2: We always try and tell you you're the VP debate, Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: they just don't make a big impact here.
Speaker 3: I mean in country.
Speaker 4: There's something interesting here.
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, I think people it was
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty, not just in this poll, but a
Speaker 1: lot of other polls. I think people were kind of
Speaker 1: like impressed with JD came off a lot better than
Speaker 1: he's come off and you know other instances on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail where it's just been consistently and attack dog mode.
Speaker 1: But I think they also found Tim Walls to be
Speaker 1: just like nice and relatable. You know, even his being
Speaker 1: nervous at the beginning is like if he's he's not
Speaker 1: just putting on the character of the Auschucks, what am
Speaker 1: I doing here? Like if you really are that person,
Speaker 1: you would be nervous at the beginning. So I think
Speaker 1: people just there was a weird thing saga where I
Speaker 1: think the normally reaction was like Oh, this is so
Speaker 1: much more normal and respectful than the Trump Harris debate,
Speaker 1: and why can't we have this type of politics? But then,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, when you look at the polling
Speaker 1: of how Trump's pulling versus how every you just sort
Speaker 1: of like, standard issue, more normal Republican is pulling in
Speaker 1: the Senate races, he's doing better than JR.
Speaker 4: So it's like, you know, people profess that they would
Speaker 4: rather have.
Speaker 1: This more sort of like normal, more boring exchange, but
Speaker 1: then what they actually vote for and find appealing, like
Speaker 1: on some level they also want the show. So there's
Speaker 1: some internal contradictions going on.
Speaker 3: Very astute and correct observation.
Speaker 2: I actually said that, I was like, you know, watching
Speaker 2: that to somebody like me, I'm educated, I you know,
Speaker 2: come from an upper middle class family. I look at that,
Speaker 2: I'm like, Wow, that actually seems very attractive. You got
Speaker 2: somebody who's like decently high IQ can articulate a position
Speaker 2: that these people allegedly want you have. Tim Wall seems
Speaker 2: like a nice enough guy. I don't see anything particularly
Speaker 2: wrong with that. But then you ask Republican voters what
Speaker 2: they love most about Trump, and it's the circus like,
Speaker 2: let's all just be honest about what's happening here and
Speaker 2: about what is most animating for not even Republican voters,
Speaker 2: but for the vast majority of the people who do
Speaker 2: vote for If you look at the amount of turnout
Speaker 2: that Trump has been able to drive in American politics,
Speaker 2: it is historical, I mean especially compared to George W.
Speaker 3: Bush, to any so called normal politicians.
Speaker 2: So I think this is a classic example of people
Speaker 2: who allegedly say that they want one thing.
Speaker 3: But it's kind of like social media. If you tell.
Speaker 2: Everybody like, oh, my social media algorithm, I don't seek
Speaker 2: out rage content.
Speaker 3: That's for other people. It's like, well you do.
Speaker 2: Statistically you do, and statistically it's what gets you to
Speaker 2: perform or to spend more time on the platform, so
Speaker 2: your actions are much better predictors. And I think that, Look,
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a good thing, you know, per se,
Speaker 2: but it is clear, like I think it's a reflection
Speaker 2: of what people actually want, and their voting behavior shows
Speaker 2: us this quite clearly. Trump is polarizing in a sense
Speaker 2: where people hate him love coming out to vote, and
Speaker 2: people who love him also love to come out to vote.
Speaker 2: And that's why twenty twenty was one of the highest
Speaker 2: voter turnouts in modern American history. So I think the
Speaker 2: truth is is that everybody who professes wanting to return
Speaker 2: to this. There was another thing I also saw, which
Speaker 2: is some teenagers who came of age during Trump. This
Speaker 2: is purely anecdotal, but I saw, you know, some analysis
Speaker 2: floating around there. They're like, oh, mom, Dad, that was
Speaker 2: so boring, And yeah, it was boring, you know in
Speaker 2: a traditional sense. I guess the Rush Act test is
Speaker 2: like what do you prefer? Do you want boring politics
Speaker 2: or not. There's pluses and minuses, I think, to both sides.
Speaker 2: But it does tell me about Trump's power, and you
Speaker 2: can see that in all of the neck to neck polling,
Speaker 2: for all of his downsides, he is just the most
Speaker 2: singular candidate in modern history, and he's changed everything about
Speaker 2: the way that we look at the president's.
Speaker 1: I mean, in some ways this is like Trump's central
Speaker 1: insight is that even though people may say like, oh,
Speaker 1: I liked the Jdvan, like the respectful tone of the debate,
Speaker 1: and I want the decorum and whatever, they also can't
Speaker 1: resist the show. And I don't put myself above this either,
Speaker 1: Like everyone's the same, was it more fun to talk
Speaker 1: about the you know, like insane cats and dogs debate.
Speaker 4: What did I have more to say about that? Did
Speaker 4: we like, you know, did.
Speaker 1: We have more energy around that and probably do a
Speaker 1: lot more blocks on way? Yeah, we did because it
Speaker 1: was more interesting, even though obviously the content of the
Speaker 1: policy ideas that were articulated by Walls and JD. Vance
Speaker 1: are important, although you know they're the vice president, so
Speaker 1: how important are they?
Speaker 4: Also in the Grodthers that plays into it as well.
Speaker 1: But Trump has this view of the world that all
Speaker 1: attention is good attention, all controversy is good like no
Speaker 1: publicity is bad policy.
Speaker 4: That's his view of the world.
Speaker 1: Now I think sometimes he takes that too far, like
Speaker 1: for example, the Haitian pet's thing he thought was good
Speaker 1: for him, It was not good for him.
Speaker 4: Right, there are ways you can go too far with that.
Speaker 1: But that was kind of his central insight into American
Speaker 1: politics is that no, you people profess that you want
Speaker 1: the decorum, you want the norms, you want the niceties
Speaker 1: and the civil discourse, but you don't. You don't you
Speaker 1: want the messy show. And that's what I'm going to
Speaker 1: give you. And you know that's been one of the
Speaker 1: kind of defining characteristics of the Trump era. And to
Speaker 1: your point about the teenagers, like, for young people today,
Speaker 1: that's all they know of American politics, is it just
Speaker 1: being this messy, outrageous reality show.
Speaker 4: And it's the.
Speaker 1: Bar also becomes higher and higher for what is even
Speaker 1: going to grab people's attention and have that shock value,
Speaker 1: because we're also becoming so anored to like constant shock
Speaker 1: value in our politics that things don't rate in the
Speaker 1: same way. But I just go back to you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know that Trump will win the selection. He's
Speaker 1: certainly in a position to have a shot to do it.
Speaker 1: I do think he's probably a little bit behind right
Speaker 1: now in terms of the battleground states. It's very difficult
Speaker 1: to say because it's so ultimately close. But if you
Speaker 1: look at the Republican Senate candidates, they are all underperforming
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, all of them across the.
Speaker 4: Board as far as I know. So what does that
Speaker 4: tell you.
Speaker 1: About what people really want in our politics? And you know,
Speaker 1: although they may profess to appreciate that sort of more
Speaker 1: dignified debate, when it comes down to it, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people out there who are interested in the
Speaker 1: show and gravitate towards the show and like the show,
Speaker 1: and like the aggressiveness of it and the nastiness of
Speaker 1: it and.
Speaker 4: All of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I mean I think it's an elite thing.
Speaker 3: I genuinely do.
Speaker 2: It's that an old In the modern two thousands the
Speaker 2: nineteen nineties, elite gatekeepers had much more control on who
Speaker 2: was able to make it into politics and not.
Speaker 3: It was a much less democratic system.
Speaker 2: In the modern media environment, most people can vote not
Speaker 2: only with their eyeballs, but literally with their ability to
Speaker 2: engage in the process, and then with the Internet. They
Speaker 2: chose Donald Trump. Really it was like the first like
Speaker 2: truly modern candidate in this sense, and that is why
Speaker 2: he is outperforming everybody. He even has a higher favorability
Speaker 2: than jad I mean, to me, that's nuts. That's actually
Speaker 2: crazy that you can look and be like, you know what,
Speaker 2: between these two individuals, Trump is the one that should
Speaker 2: be president.
Speaker 3: But I'm not dumb.
Speaker 2: I know that's the base circus instinct. It's a tame
Speaker 2: tale as old as time. You go back and you
Speaker 2: read about Rome and about what got the mob all
Speaker 2: jazzed up and why they wanted to through who they
Speaker 2: eventually just started to back, and I think it does
Speaker 2: tell you something. At the same time, you know, the
Speaker 2: caution is that that circus and all that does ignite
Speaker 2: such passion in an equal number of the electorate that
Speaker 2: you do risk actually defeat at the ballot box.
Speaker 3: And so for this, you know, we talked about that
Speaker 3: election moment.
Speaker 2: The Kamala Harris campaign immediately ended up cutting an ad
Speaker 2: about the JD answer on whether Trump won the election.
Speaker 3: C Five Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 12: It's really rich for democratic leaders to say that Donald
Speaker 12: Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully
Speaker 12: gave over power.
Speaker 3: He is still saying he didn't lose the election. I
Speaker 3: would just says to that, did he lose the twenty
Speaker 3: twenty election, Tim, I'm focused on the future. That is
Speaker 3: a damning non answer, America.
Speaker 2: I think you've got a really clear choice of who's
Speaker 2: going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. So look, I mean, we knew at the
Speaker 2: moment that that was going to be turned into it
Speaker 2: and that's exactly what's happening. We see it all around.
Speaker 2: We see it all in the battleground states. If you
Speaker 2: look at the midterm elections that was a major issue
Speaker 2: why Republicans underperformed, and I do think it remains a
Speaker 2: risk for Trump, especially because a lot of these constituencies
Speaker 2: who he's gaining with, like younger Latino or black men.
Speaker 2: Here's the truth, they don't vote statistically as much as
Speaker 2: seniors and upper middle class whites.
Speaker 3: Those people vote in DROs.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that they won't vote.
Speaker 2: It's just a lot riskier to pace your electoral ambitions
Speaker 2: amongst non voters or infrequent voters. You would always want
Speaker 2: to bank people who are like very civically engaged, and
Speaker 2: that is a message very geared towards them. The type
Speaker 2: of folks will order their mail in ballot or the
Speaker 2: type of people we covered in Northern Virginia who mile
Speaker 2: you know, will line up for a mile on day
Speaker 2: one of early voting just to make sure that they
Speaker 2: can bank their vote.
Speaker 3: So that's the risk we'll see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there's no doubt that was the moment
Speaker 1: that will be most remembered from this debate. Do I
Speaker 1: think it'll be electorally consequential, Not really, because I do
Speaker 1: feel like people feel about Donald Trump however they feel
Speaker 1: at this point, you know, being reminded of stop the steal.
Speaker 1: Being reminded of January sixth isn't going to change any
Speaker 1: minds at this point. The people who are on there
Speaker 1: who are still undecided, I think, are more likely to
Speaker 1: be deciding on economic issues, bread and.
Speaker 4: Butter issues, potentially whether we're getting.
Speaker 1: Dragged into a war in the Middle East, you know,
Speaker 1: those sorts of things. If the port strike ends up
Speaker 1: impacting the economy, some other unforeseen thing that happens between
Speaker 1: now an election to I doubt that at this point
Speaker 1: that really moves the needle.
Speaker 4: To me, it's more of a warning sign for uh.
Speaker 1: If this election is close, I don't think there's any
Speaker 1: doubt that Trump is going to try to pull the
Speaker 1: same thing again. And you know, Jade Vance was put
Speaker 1: on this ticket with the assumption that he would stick
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump through all of those you know, election
Speaker 1: lies in a way that Mike Pence ultimately at the
Speaker 1: end of the day didn't. And so this was I
Speaker 1: think indication number one that he may Right then he's
Speaker 1: up there on the debate stage and he's faced directly
Speaker 1: with the question did he win? He can't, says he
Speaker 1: knows what Donald Trump wants him to do, and he's
Speaker 1: going to stick with that through thick or thin, And
Speaker 1: you know, for JD in his future career and whatever,
Speaker 1: it is, like probably the determination of that is not
Speaker 1: going to be made in this campaign. It's going to
Speaker 1: be made if Trump loses and goes down the same direction,
Speaker 1: which if he loses, he will go down the same direction.
Speaker 4: How he handles that moment.
Speaker 1: Because obviously it's like it's the no one situation. Either
Speaker 1: end up with Mike pen in Mike pence Land where
Speaker 1: the Republican base hates you and once you.
Speaker 4: Literally did, or you know, you're all in with the.
Speaker 1: Most the greatest insanity you can possibly imagine, and then
Speaker 1: you can kiss any sort of like mainstream respectability goodbye.
Speaker 1: And the truth of the matter is that while Trump
Speaker 1: can get away with those sorts of things, no other
Speaker 1: politician has shown an ability to. So it's a it's
Speaker 1: a very you know, if they win and he'll you know,
Speaker 1: that's a different scenario, and that's very possible, right if
Speaker 1: they lose. I don't think there's any ultimate winning for
Speaker 1: JD vance out of this.
Speaker 2: Politics is about gambles. The gamble was that Biden was president.
Speaker 2: They're easily going to cream him and it would be
Speaker 2: a very you know, easy cruise to the nomination, I
Speaker 2: guess in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3: In this case, Yeah, if he loses, I've always that.
Speaker 2: I think it's a problem just because you have to
Speaker 2: endorse stop the steal which were really put off, no matter,
Speaker 2: especially if we do it twice.
Speaker 3: I mean, can you imagine the exhaustion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if they were man like, this show doesn't
Speaker 1: go on forever and this.
Speaker 2: Well, Trump will be around though, no matter what, until
Speaker 2: the day he dies, and so he will basically does
Speaker 2: he will demand if he doesn't run again, that at
Speaker 2: the very least, whoever his successor is, has to pick
Speaker 2: up that mantle. The question will be the ability to
Speaker 2: people pull away from it. I don't think that will exist.
Speaker 2: I think the Republican electorate will stick with him if
Speaker 2: he does win, though then of course, you know, this
Speaker 2: debate performance and others was significantly was good for him,
Speaker 2: especially inside of the campaign.
Speaker 3: Probably a good segue.
Speaker 2: Then to the actual polls where the election is right now,
Speaker 2: all right, let's go ahead and start with the first one,
Speaker 2: which is about kind of the themes of the actual
Speaker 2: debate itself around working class support, where people are trending
Speaker 2: in more.
Speaker 3: Harry Enton Over at CNN had a good summary of this.
Speaker 3: Let's listen, it ain't.
Speaker 6: What it used to be.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 11: You go back to nineteen ninety two, Bill Clinton won
Speaker 11: that union vote by thirty points. Hillary Clinton only won
Speaker 11: it by twelve points back in twenty sixteen. That was
Speaker 11: the lowest mark for a Democrat since nineteen eighty four
Speaker 11: Mondale versus Reagan. But look at where Kamala Harris is today.
Speaker 11: She's only leading.
Speaker 3: By nine points.
Speaker 11: That would be the worst Democratic performance in a generation,
Speaker 11: ten points off the mark of Joe Biden, who of
Speaker 11: course won four years ago, was sort of that union
Speaker 11: guy Union Joe right won it by nineteen points. She's
Speaker 11: ten points off his mark. And the worst in a
Speaker 11: generation is margin among vocational and trade school of grads
Speaker 11: and pre election pullo, Bill Clinton was leading that vote
Speaker 11: over George H. W. Bush by seven points. Look at
Speaker 11: where Donald Trump is today over Kamala Harris, a thirty
Speaker 11: one point advantage. When I think people think of the
Speaker 11: working class, they think of people who use their hands.
Speaker 11: And we know that Donald Trump has been going after
Speaker 11: that vote and he is in a very very strong position.
Speaker 2: Well, that's one that it's obviously been tracked for quite
Speaker 2: a long time. But when you put it together with
Speaker 2: the Latino vote as well, those are probably the two
Speaker 2: biggest changes in modern politics. Let's put that on the
Speaker 2: screen please. This is from NBC News's poll Telemundo. This
Speaker 2: is specifically with Latinos. It shows that Republicans now have
Speaker 2: some thirty seven percent of Latinos backing the party, as
Speaker 2: opposed to just forty nine percent for the Democrats, first
Speaker 2: time that they're under fifty in modern politics. Twenty three
Speaker 2: percent supporting Latinos supporting Trump back in twenty twenty fifty
Speaker 2: four percent Democrat. Twenty sixteen it was lower, it was
Speaker 2: twenty versus fifty nine, and in twenty twelve it was
Speaker 2: actually twenty one and sixty two. So that massive increase
Speaker 2: in Latino support, some fifteen points in the span of
Speaker 2: just a decade or so, is very significant for the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. It also does if you split it apart
Speaker 2: with men. That's where things get even more interesting, because
Speaker 2: Mattaglaci is actually out with the piece today about how
Speaker 2: to win back mail votes, and he talks specifically about
Speaker 2: how if you look at men and basically all demographic groups.
Speaker 2: I believe it's every geographic group except for black men
Speaker 2: that there has been huge increases in Republican support. A
Speaker 2: lot of this is gender gap stuff, which we've talked
Speaker 2: about like ad nauseum here on the show, but it
Speaker 2: is indicative of like where things go and for what
Speaker 2: messaging is. There's a reason why the whole January sixth
Speaker 2: thing is very targeted for these more like upper middle
Speaker 2: class and white voters. Not to say that people don't
Speaker 2: care about it, just statistically that's going to be the
Speaker 2: main one. Abortion to you know, generally aligns with educational
Speaker 2: levels if you look at it.
Speaker 3: And then on immigration, it's the flip side.
Speaker 2: And I think that probably is the number one reason
Speaker 2: why you see this increase in working class support is
Speaker 2: because of the bifurcation between the parties on the issue
Speaker 2: of immigration and it being the true like irreconcilable issue
Speaker 2: for the GOP and then same for abortion amongst the Democrats.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I think I think it's fascinating just nonetheless,
Speaker 2: and no, don't let anyone tell you that American politics
Speaker 2: can't change, you know, like this this whole four year's
Speaker 2: idea from James Carville was nonsense. The Obama coalition fell
Speaker 2: apart in a single generation.
Speaker 3: That's amazing.
Speaker 1: There's a reason they called it the Obama coal Listen, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they only want to bullet.
Speaker 4: I mean that man won.
Speaker 3: Indiana, right like Ohio. Of course, Ohio.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, it was a totally different.
Speaker 1: Of course, he didn't win Georgia, didn't win Arizona. The
Speaker 1: map has shifted dramatically. But yeah, I mean the college
Speaker 1: divide has become a central one.
Speaker 4: And you know, there are some things.
Speaker 1: That really challenge my view of politics and what I
Speaker 1: would like to see because the Biden administration, if we
Speaker 1: look at the economics, they've been way better than the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, way better than in my opinion, any on
Speaker 1: the on the long term like industrial policy, labor policy,
Speaker 1: anti trust policy, they've been way better than any president
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. Now, I think in the short term stuff,
Speaker 1: I think they screwed up a lot, right because the
Speaker 1: entire COVID safety net is dismantled under them, you have inflation,
Speaker 1: you have an inability to deal with that or really
Speaker 1: articulate what's going on. They're not pointing fingers at the
Speaker 1: corporations who are gouging people not taking any action, not
Speaker 1: taking a lot of action. I shouldn't say any not
Speaker 1: taking a lot of action or reign that in and
Speaker 1: you know that certainly plays into this. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of the we're going to talk about some numbers
Speaker 1: of the out of Philadelphia that show that the lowest
Speaker 1: income areas are the places that are shifting right within
Speaker 1: the city. And I do think the immediate like inflation
Speaker 1: numbers have to do with that. But I also do
Speaker 1: think that our politics is just it's becoming totally de aligned.
Speaker 1: It's becoming very much about these cultural issues, which the
Speaker 1: liberal set of cultural issues tends, like you said, zagerb,
Speaker 1: more to align with like higher education levels, and the
Speaker 1: conservative cultural landscape tends to align more with like high school,
Speaker 1: trade school, et cetera. And that's truly becoming the central divide.
Speaker 1: And the union numbers are the most indicative of that,
Speaker 1: because it continues to be the case that union membership
Speaker 1: is more likely to lead you in the direction of
Speaker 1: voting democratic. But you know what we saw with like
Speaker 1: the Teamsters not endorsing and the union vote in terms
Speaker 1: of the rank and file shifting to the right, so
Speaker 1: that Democrats are only more narrowly leading in that vote.
Speaker 1: It does indicate because you have a very clear divide
Speaker 1: between the parties in terms of union issues. It just
Speaker 1: does indicate that the cultural issues what some political scientists
Speaker 1: call like status issues, have become more central to American
Speaker 1: politics than economic issues. And it makes some sense when
Speaker 1: you feel like neither party, no matter who's in power,
Speaker 1: is really delivering for you economically, you can at least
Speaker 1: feel like you have, you know, a cultural warrior on
Speaker 1: your side on those issues. And I don't want to
Speaker 1: pretend like those issues don't matter either, Like certainly a
Speaker 1: lot of people, women in particular, feel that abortion rights
Speaker 1: matter quite a bit in terms of their life and
Speaker 1: their ability to make their choices. But you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is a big part of crystallizing this trend. But it's
Speaker 1: also a trend that we see across advanced democracies and
Speaker 1: across like Western society, and it's a trend that in
Speaker 1: some ways predates Trump as well.
Speaker 4: This realignment.
Speaker 1: So as with many things, I think he's an accelerant,
Speaker 1: but he's not entirely the entirety of the story that's
Speaker 1: going on here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've recommended this book a million times The Age
Speaker 2: of Acrimony, How Americans fought to fix their democracy eighteen
Speaker 2: sixty five to nineteen fifteen.
Speaker 3: It was written just in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: But the central story of post Civil War America and
Speaker 2: the reason why the Gilded Age was allowed to happen,
Speaker 2: is because the central dividing line in American politics was
Speaker 2: basically reconstruction and whether black people should have rights and
Speaker 2: Jim Crow should be allowed.
Speaker 3: That was it, that was all we thought about.
Speaker 2: It led to the rise of Southern populism, you know,
Speaker 2: down in the South, and the segregation and the rise
Speaker 2: of Jim Crow on top of in the North, and
Speaker 2: how much we hated the South, and at the same time,
Speaker 2: mass industrialization was allowed to happen. But the sad part
Speaker 2: is that that actually is the time when Americans were
Speaker 2: most engaged. It was not on the progressive reformer issues.
Speaker 2: That took decades of fighting basically about black rights before
Speaker 2: we ever had a conversation about it. So I think
Speaker 2: it's similar today with abortion and with immigration. These questions
Speaker 2: just have to be solved. One side has to win,
Speaker 2: then we will litigate. And unfortunately that's just the way
Speaker 2: that things are going. I mean, as you said, you
Speaker 2: know with The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote the story, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is the educational divide. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: please on the screen. In deep blue Philly, working class
Speaker 2: voters are shifting towards Republicans. But it's not just saying
Speaker 2: working class voters. It really is bifurcated on income. Go
Speaker 2: to the next part because this shows the slide more
Speaker 2: than anything else. If you see here, average net Republican
Speaker 2: vote shift sixteen to twenty twenty, so just four years
Speaker 2: zero to ten percent in poverty minus twenty five, towards
Speaker 2: Democrats zero to sixteen percent minus twenty twenty Democrats sixteen
Speaker 2: to twenty four percent minus nine. But then once you
Speaker 2: get to the twenty four and thirty five percent of
Speaker 2: shriff residents in poverty, swing of thirteen points amongst Republicans,
Speaker 2: and the most significant is thirty five percent or more.
Speaker 3: Thirty five percent or more.
Speaker 2: Think about what that means of shriff residence in poverty
Speaker 2: precincts have now shifted plus forty seven towards Republican. Of course,
Speaker 2: in our modern economy, that is almost entirely indicative of
Speaker 2: what educational levels look like, and that tells us that
Speaker 2: these cultural issues are the number one reason that people
Speaker 2: are either shifting right or left and is what determining
Speaker 2: them to come out and to vote. And so when
Speaker 2: you see this, I fully expect this to replicate all
Speaker 2: across the US. And it also tells us why the
Speaker 2: Sun Belt would drift a little bit more democrat.
Speaker 3: These are the most dynamic areas. This is where the
Speaker 3: net population influor are all people who are college educated.
Speaker 2: It's also why the Midwest, the Midwest is going to
Speaker 2: have a lot more working class white support, but the
Speaker 2: will only be offset potentially by upper middle class law
Speaker 2: white liberals and or seniors who are a whole other
Speaker 2: you know thing that happens in America. But the point
Speaker 2: is is that when the boomers die off, this is
Speaker 2: what America is most likely going to look like.
Speaker 1: To me, one of the most interesting things happening in
Speaker 1: American politics, as sort of an experiment, is happening in Nebraska,
Speaker 1: where we've covered this Senate race. The Democrats just basically decided, like,
Speaker 1: we're not going to win a Senate race in Nebraska,
Speaker 1: so we're not going to even try. And there's an
Speaker 1: independent Populace Counterpoints interviewed him named Dan Osborne, who was
Speaker 1: a strike leader, like very grounded in the labor movement.
Speaker 1: Populist economics are like the.
Speaker 4: Core of his pitch.
Speaker 1: He wants to secure the borders. He sort of tries
Speaker 1: to be more or less neutral on cultural issues, although
Speaker 1: he is, you know, has expressed himself being pro choice,
Speaker 1: but really leans into that labor populism.
Speaker 4: And the latest.
Speaker 1: Poll that just came out, I don't know if a
Speaker 1: zacurate or not has them up five points. An independent
Speaker 1: Senate candidate running on like a you know, less populist
Speaker 1: agenda and minimizing some of the cultural issues is winning
Speaker 1: or close in the state of Nebraska. And so if
Speaker 1: you're looking for, like what's the path forward, that seems
Speaker 1: like in the red states where the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: just poison for like and frankly a lot of understandable
Speaker 1: reasons where it's just poison, that seems to be a
Speaker 1: pretty good playbook.
Speaker 4: For them to run.
Speaker 1: So that's the place that I'm watching with the most
Speaker 1: fascination in terms of like, you know, democratic experiments and
Speaker 1: what could what could also kind of shake. Imagine he
Speaker 1: ends up being the fiftieth vote. Imagine how much power
Speaker 1: this union worker labor leader, strike leader. Imagine how much
Speaker 1: political power he ends up. Instead of Joe Manchin, we
Speaker 1: have Dan Osborne. Like, it can't possibly happen because it
Speaker 1: would be too exciting and too good. But the fact
Speaker 1: that he's even in the running is I think quite
Speaker 1: an extraordinary development, and you know, should be an indication
Speaker 1: of some good directions to go in that really could
Speaker 1: kind of shake some of the bedrock foundation of the
Speaker 1: two party system anyway, would be incredibly helpful.
Speaker 2: You can always learn a lot from people like that.
Speaker 2: Even if he doesn't win. Let's see what marginie puts up.
Speaker 2: If he comes within two, that should be something that
Speaker 2: tells you. This is also why national parties need to
Speaker 2: let go of a lot of litmus tests. Who I
Speaker 2: think his name was Brian Sandebal. He was that governor
Speaker 2: of Nevada. He was pro choice and he was a Republican.
Speaker 2: He was massively popular in twenty sixteen, totally ruled out
Speaker 2: for because he was pro choice. I remember looking at
Speaker 2: approval rating and being like, Hey, we've got a Latino
Speaker 2: Republican governor here with like a plus seventy percent approval rating,
Speaker 2: and we're all just going to pretend he's not Nash.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's the thing. You get ruled out.
Speaker 2: I also forget who the governor was of louis I
Speaker 2: think it was Louisiana.
Speaker 3: He was a Democrat, John.
Speaker 4: Bell l Edwards.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, John Bell Edwards. But he's pro life and
Speaker 2: so the same thing. It just gets totally ruled out.
Speaker 2: And something I always respected about Bernie is even as
Speaker 2: earliest as latest twenty seventeen, he was endorsing pro life
Speaker 2: Democrats as long as they were.
Speaker 3: He got so much shit for it, but he was like, look,
Speaker 3: these are the only people they can win.
Speaker 2: I would rather they win as long as you know,
Speaker 2: they need to satisfy whatever things for their constituents, but
Speaker 2: let's do it. And those people, actually, those people need
Speaker 2: to be more elevated by the National Party in my opinion,
Speaker 2: because in the future, if you want to contest more
Speaker 2: swinging areas, especially in a more fifty to fifty country
Speaker 2: where people everyone's totally divided, that's the portrait of how
Speaker 2: you actually break open, you know, something new. That's what
Speaker 2: Trump did. That's what a lot of you know, this
Speaker 2: Belle Edwards and other figures. They were basically just kept
Speaker 2: out of the national conversation only because of national party
Speaker 2: litmus test, and I think that's really stupid.
Speaker 3: I don't think it works.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it would be pretty cool if we got
Speaker 1: a new independent in the Senate and what that would mean,
Speaker 1: and you know, if his was up for grabs, he
Speaker 1: said to counterpoints, he didn't really plan on caucusing with
Speaker 1: either party. And so one to watch for sure, one
Speaker 1: to watch going forward. All right, we wanted to bring
Speaker 1: you this really extraordinary interview between Tony easy Coats and
Speaker 1: Tony Dekopel of NBC News. And so Tony Easy of
Speaker 1: course really rose to prominence as like a prominent intellectual
Speaker 1: based on first he wrote the Case for Reparations in
Speaker 1: Atlantic Magazine, and then he's also an author of a
Speaker 1: number of books, and.
Speaker 4: So he's most associated with like.
Speaker 1: The anti racism movement, and in particular I think it's
Speaker 1: fair and I don't know if.
Speaker 4: He would object to this character.
Speaker 1: He's sort of a race pessimist, right, the idea like
Speaker 1: this is the founding sin and you know, this is
Speaker 1: America's legacy and this is something we can never get over,
Speaker 1: which I have disagreements with you certainly have.
Speaker 3: I will tell you etcetera.
Speaker 2: I despise him solely for that, regardless of what he says. Now,
Speaker 2: I blame him actually for a huge amount of the
Speaker 2: intellectual anti s racism revolution. But regardless, we can stick
Speaker 2: to this subject for right now.
Speaker 1: So he has a new book out called The Message,
Speaker 1: and in it, I actually I've been reading it almost
Speaker 1: all the way through it, and in it he tells
Speaker 1: three different stories and the book. The central theme of
Speaker 1: the book is basically that writers have a responsibility to
Speaker 1: be to speak out for the voiceless, to tell stories
Speaker 1: in a way that matters. And so he goes to
Speaker 1: Senegal and talks about what that's like and what that
Speaker 1: experience is like for him, reflecting on his ancestry and
Speaker 1: the legacy of slavery. He talks about going to Columbia,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, where a teacher was being viciously attacked for
Speaker 1: teaching one of his books in the classroom in her
Speaker 1: I think ap English class. And then he goes to
Speaker 1: Israel and he talks about Israel being an apartheid state,
Speaker 1: and is the largest section of the book, and it's also, obviously,
Speaker 1: in the American political context, the most provocative. So what's
Speaker 1: interesting about Tanahi seacoats is that he was overwhelmingly celebrated
Speaker 1: for his previous work, you know, and really became like
Speaker 1: an insider, an insider you know, in these like elite
Speaker 1: circles and media circles, and beloved in those circles from
Speaker 1: his previous work. Now he's telling a story that is
Speaker 1: very uncomfortable for them and that they don't want to hear,
Speaker 1: and that they don't celebrate, and is incredibly challenging and
Speaker 1: not often heard in Western media. So the result of
Speaker 1: that tension is this interview right here. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: When I read the book, I imagine if I took
Speaker 12: your name out of it, took away the awards and
Speaker 12: the acclaim, took the cover off the book, the publishing
Speaker 12: house goes away. The content of that section would not
Speaker 12: be out of place in the backpack of an extremist.
Speaker 12: And so then I found myself wondering, why do is
Speaker 12: Tanahashi Coates, who I've known for a long time, read,
Speaker 12: has work for a long time, very talented, smart guy,
Speaker 12: leave out so much? Why leave out that Israel is
Speaker 12: surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave
Speaker 12: out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to
Speaker 12: eliminate it. Why not detail anything of the first and
Speaker 12: the second inti fat of the cafe bombings, the bus bombings,
Speaker 12: the little kids blown to bits? And is it because
Speaker 12: you just don't believe that Israel in any condition has
Speaker 12: a right to exist.
Speaker 13: Well, I would say the perspective that you just outlined,
Speaker 13: there is no shortage of that perspective in American media.
Speaker 6: That's the first thing I would say.
Speaker 13: I am most concerned always with those who don't have
Speaker 13: a voice, with those who don't have the ability to talk.
Speaker 13: I have asked repeatedly in my interviews whether there is
Speaker 13: a single network, mainstream organization in America with a Palestinian
Speaker 13: American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice
Speaker 13: to articulate their part.
Speaker 6: Of the world. I've been a reporter for twenty years.
Speaker 13: The reporters of those who believe more sympathetically about Israel
Speaker 13: and it's right to exist don't have a problem getting
Speaker 13: their voice out. But what I saw in Palestine, what
Speaker 13: I saw on the West Bank, what I saw in
Speaker 13: Haifa in Israel, what I saw in the South Heblin Hills,
Speaker 13: those were the stories that I have not heard, and
Speaker 13: those were the stories that I was most occupied with.
Speaker 1: So that's basically the first question out of the gate.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I said, NBCs, CBS, but yeah,
Speaker 1: basically accusing him of being a terrorist effectively and the
Speaker 1: frame of the question to me is incredibly significant because
Speaker 1: it gives up the game that if he didn't have
Speaker 1: this elite insider status that he can now trade on
Speaker 1: and effectively burn because that's what he's doing right now.
Speaker 1: All the political capitally built up in this world he's
Speaker 1: now burning through at a lightning pace because of what
Speaker 1: he says in the message, Like he doesn't even get
Speaker 1: that interview, if he's not Tanahasey Coats, if he hasn't
Speaker 1: won those awards, if he doesn't have that elite status,
Speaker 1: And that's part of what his book doesn't say. You know,
Speaker 1: it's he's an excellent writer, it's well written, it's you know,
Speaker 1: extraordinarily provocative in terms not provocative, but evocative in terms
Speaker 1: of taking you into the life of a Palestinian living
Speaker 1: in Israel or living in the occupied territories. So it's important,
Speaker 1: but it's not really new ground. What makes it incredibly
Speaker 1: important is because of who he is and the fact
Speaker 1: that he's allowed into these rooms. So that was the
Speaker 1: opening question out of the gate. I have another clip
Speaker 1: that I'm going to show you, which is basically the
Speaker 1: rest of the interview. Also, these formats of like five
Speaker 1: minute interviews are so absurd. But when it gets your
Speaker 1: reaction to that before we move, I just the second wile.
Speaker 2: That's a wild thing to say, as I literally said,
Speaker 2: I don't like Donnie Eastecast.
Speaker 3: I genuinely Belieme.
Speaker 2: I think he might be the godfather of a lot
Speaker 2: of the race problems that we have today. Don't That's
Speaker 2: not an exaggeration in terms of his That essay, the
Speaker 2: Case for Reparation single handedly radicalized every white girl on
Speaker 2: a college campus who eventually ended up working at the
Speaker 2: New York Times because of the BLM movement of all
Speaker 2: this other nonsense that we have today. So I again,
Speaker 2: I really do find him a villain in American politics.
Speaker 2: That said, I don't like him, and I would not
Speaker 2: open with a question like that, because that's wild. It
Speaker 2: would be an interrogation of the book itself, and not
Speaker 2: to say something like that would belong.
Speaker 3: What did he say in an extremist a back that's
Speaker 3: an insane thing to say.
Speaker 2: Especially considering that that guy didn't disclose a lot of
Speaker 2: his own biases whenever it comes to Israel.
Speaker 3: So that's another problem I think that was going into that.
Speaker 3: Do you want to listen to the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I just want to respond a little
Speaker 1: bit since sure, I mean I disagree with his with
Speaker 1: the race pestimist view, but I don't know to be
Speaker 1: so like call him a villain and evil and like
Speaker 1: the problem in America is crazy.
Speaker 3: That Essay was the godfather of the anti.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's allowed to have perspective and what he wants.
Speaker 4: That doesn't make him a village.
Speaker 1: And to acknowledge the like, you know, racism in America
Speaker 1: and that this continues to be a legacy that matters today.
Speaker 1: There's not like that's a noble thing to do. So
Speaker 1: the fact he comes to different conclusion than you were,
Speaker 1: of course it's noble that he comes to a different
Speaker 1: conclusion than you or I.
Speaker 4: I don't know, you're villainizing.
Speaker 1: Him in a way that's not that different from the
Speaker 1: way Tony Deols.
Speaker 2: I would say to his face. And I also wouldn't
Speaker 2: call him an extremist. I would say I think your
Speaker 2: case for reparations would basically was the reason that we
Speaker 2: have all this DEI bullshit, and that you effectively radicalize
Speaker 2: a bunch of white liberals into thinking that racism is
Speaker 2: the single biggest problem.
Speaker 3: You coast absolutely.
Speaker 1: Over okay, the police that murdered George Floyd, over Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and all of his many provocations. I mean, I
Speaker 1: just think that to lay the blame at the feet
Speaker 1: of one person is.
Speaker 2: Tonovan saying his pace for reparations again is what radicalized
Speaker 2: a bunch of white liberals into thinking that burning the
Speaker 2: country down because a single cop murder George Floyd was
Speaker 2: a good idea or for everybody to start quoting Martin
Speaker 2: Luther King in this all bullshit about like the riot
Speaker 2: is the voice of the unheard, all of that stems
Speaker 2: from him.
Speaker 4: That is correct.
Speaker 3: I'm not the only person who's.
Speaker 1: Saying that is crazy to lay the blame. Okay again,
Speaker 1: He's allowed to hold his political questions that he has,
Speaker 1: and he's allowed to make, you know, a case in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic magazine or wherever for whatever he.
Speaker 5: Wants to be.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't got him more of a villain than a
Speaker 1: police officer that murdered someone for doing nothing is to
Speaker 1: me wild. But anyway, let's go ahead and move on
Speaker 1: to the rest of this interview, because this is also
Speaker 1: quite extraordinary because that was just the beginning. The opening
Speaker 1: question is basically Archie a terrorist for thinking this, and
Speaker 1: then the rest of it he goes on to insinuate
Speaker 1: that he's effectively an anti Semite, must be an anti
Speaker 1: Semite for holding these views.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: But if you were to read.
Speaker 12: This book, you would be left wondering why does any
Speaker 12: of Israel exist? What a horrific place, committing horrific acts
Speaker 12: on a daily basis. So I think the question is
Speaker 12: central and key if Israel has a right to exist.
Speaker 12: And if your answer is no, then I guess the
Speaker 12: question becomes why do the Palestinians have a quite to
Speaker 12: twenty different Muslim countries.
Speaker 13: I answer is that no country in this world establishes
Speaker 13: its ability to exist through rights. Countries establish their ability
Speaker 13: to exist through force, as America did. And so I
Speaker 13: think this question of rights to Israel does exist.
Speaker 6: It's a fact.
Speaker 13: The question of its right is not a question that
Speaker 13: I would be faced with with any other country.
Speaker 12: But you write a book that delegitimizes the pillars of Israel.
Speaker 6: It seems like an effort to topple the whole building
Speaker 6: of it.
Speaker 12: So I come back to the question, and it's what
Speaker 12: I struggle with throughout this book. What is it that
Speaker 12: so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish
Speaker 12: state that is a Jewish safe place and not any
Speaker 12: of the other states out there.
Speaker 6: There's nothing that offends me about a Jewish state.
Speaker 13: I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy,
Speaker 13: no matter.
Speaker 6: Where they are.
Speaker 13: Muslim concluded, I would not want a state where any
Speaker 13: group of people laid down their citizenship rights based on ethnicity.
Speaker 13: The country of Israel is a state in which half
Speaker 13: the population exists on one tier citizenship, and everybody else
Speaker 13: that's ruled by Israelis exists on another tier, including Palestine
Speaker 13: Israeli citizens. The only people that exist on that first
Speaker 13: tier are Israeli Jews.
Speaker 6: Why do we support that? Why is that? Okay, I'm
Speaker 6: the child of Jim Crow.
Speaker 13: I'm the child of people that were born into a
Speaker 13: country where that was exactly the case of American apartheid.
Speaker 13: I walk over there, and I walk through the occupied
Speaker 13: territories and I walk down the street in Hebron and
Speaker 13: a guy says to me, I can't walk down the
Speaker 13: street unless I profess my religion.
Speaker 6: I'm with another No, no, no, no. This is very valua support.
Speaker 6: It's extremely important. Lay it down. I'm working with.
Speaker 13: The person that is guiding me is a Palestinian whose father,
Speaker 13: whose grandfather and grandmother was born in this town. And
Speaker 13: I have more freedom to walk than he does. He
Speaker 13: can't ride on certain roads, he can't get water in
Speaker 13: the same way that Israeli citizens who live less than
Speaker 13: a mile away from him.
Speaker 6: Again, why is that okay? Is that?
Speaker 12: Why is there no agency in this book for the Palestinians.
Speaker 12: They exist in your narrative merely as victims of the Israelis,
Speaker 12: as though they were not offered peace at any juncture,
Speaker 12: as though they don't have a stake in this as well?
Speaker 3: What is their role in the lack of a have.
Speaker 13: A very very moral compass about this. And again, perhaps
Speaker 13: it's because of my ancestry. Either apartheid is right or
Speaker 13: it's wrong. It's really really simple. Either what I saw
Speaker 13: was right or what's wrong. I am fascist against the
Speaker 13: death penalty. What the person did to get the death penalty.
Speaker 13: It really doesn't matter to me. I don't care if
Speaker 13: they were selling a nickelbag of marijuana or if they
Speaker 13: were a serial killer.
Speaker 6: I am against the death penalty.
Speaker 13: It's a state that discriminates against people on the basis
Speaker 13: of ethnicity.
Speaker 6: I'm against that.
Speaker 13: There is nothing the Palestinians could do that would make
Speaker 13: that okay for me. My book is not based on
Speaker 13: the hyper moraleic what the Palestinian people.
Speaker 1: And that's basically the entirety of the interview. And I
Speaker 1: think that the key point he makes there is like, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't care. There's nothing the Palatines could have done
Speaker 1: that would make me say apartheid is morally acceptable, Like
Speaker 1: that would make me change my value. So it's either
Speaker 1: right or it's wrong. And all this attempt and this
Speaker 1: is part of what really, you know, upset people and
Speaker 1: became a whole conversation online is in an excerpt he
Speaker 1: had said, listen to people as a dodge say that
Speaker 1: this is all very complicated, when sure, like the history
Speaker 1: is complicated, no doubt about it, the morality of it,
Speaker 1: if you have some basic principles, really isn't. And so
Speaker 1: again it's not that no one said these things before.
Speaker 1: It's because he was so uniformly celebrated in these circles,
Speaker 1: and he's allowed in these circles. For him to say
Speaker 1: it is part of why there's, you know, this sort
Speaker 1: of like collective meltdown, and why Tony Dikoppel takes such
Speaker 1: a I don't know if he's ever taken such an
Speaker 1: aggressive posture with an interview subjects previously.
Speaker 4: This is morning show stuff.
Speaker 1: Normally it's like very fluffy, and he comes in loaded
Speaker 1: for bear with every single talking for you can imagine
Speaker 1: that's not a surprise.
Speaker 2: I mean, look again, my disagreement with Coates is Coates
Speaker 2: believes America as much as an apartheid state as Israel,
Speaker 2: and that's why I can't stand the game.
Speaker 4: He believes that it was under Jim Crow, which is coorect.
Speaker 2: But his essay about the case for reparations makes the
Speaker 2: case that we effectively still live in apartheid society, which
Speaker 2: is insane, and.
Speaker 4: We still have a massive wealth that's partheid.
Speaker 2: And that's what I'm saying is exactly is that he
Speaker 2: sees moral equivalents between the two, which I think is
Speaker 2: outrageous for a country that has done more not.
Speaker 1: What he articulates in this book, and it's not what
Speaker 1: he articulates in this interview.
Speaker 4: But I think.
Speaker 3: That's a lot of credit push him on. I think
Speaker 3: he deserves a.
Speaker 1: Lot of credit for the fact that he, you know,
Speaker 1: he is burn all of that elite credibility that he got.
Speaker 1: He's burning it right now to say something that is
Speaker 1: should be obvious on its face, that is, you know,
Speaker 1: powerfully true and certainly impacted him when he went and visited.
Speaker 4: And the fact that he is.
Speaker 1: Willing to burn that elite credibility in capital that he
Speaker 1: has on behalf of, yes, a group of people who
Speaker 1: in the American political media contexts are voiceless. I think
Speaker 1: he deserves nothing but praise and admiration for having the
Speaker 1: courage to do that which is not an easy thing
Speaker 1: to do and what most people avoid.
Speaker 3: I could see how you arrive at that conclusion.
Speaker 2: I think that it's only a furtherance of his project,
Speaker 2: which is to traw some equivalents between our country or
Speaker 2: society and theirs, which again I think is outrageous and insane.
Speaker 4: Where are you getting that from.
Speaker 3: From his own writing?
Speaker 4: I literally am reading this book.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about it, and he does not say that.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Compare what he compares Tide Israel modern
Speaker 1: day Israel too, is the Jim Crow South. That's what
Speaker 1: he compares it to. And I think that's accurate. I
Speaker 1: think that is highly accurate, and it's obviously a very
Speaker 1: powerful comparison to make in terms of the American political context,
Speaker 1: and especially compare, you know, given him and how people
Speaker 1: think of his credibility on these issues.
Speaker 4: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: Why it's so difficult for you to just say, like, hey,
Speaker 1: I disagree with him on these other things, but good
Speaker 1: on him for like using his elite capital to say
Speaker 1: something that's powerful and true in a space that it's
Speaker 1: normally never heard.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess I could say that.
Speaker 2: I get Look for me, I'm frankly I have t
Speaker 2: what is a tnc CO derangement syndrome? Anything him, Nicole,
Speaker 2: Hannah Jones, Abraham Kenny and all these other people, I
Speaker 2: honestly just don't care.
Speaker 3: I blame them for so many problems.
Speaker 1: That we curlear And I think it's fine you say
Speaker 1: disagree with them, but to like say they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to have that idea? Tell you that, but you've them
Speaker 1: are you're blaming them for you know, every ill, every
Speaker 1: racial ill in America, which is insane when you consider
Speaker 1: the amount of continued discrimination, when you consider, you know.
Speaker 4: George Floyd being murdered, when.
Speaker 1: You consider Donald Trump going out and in citing terror
Speaker 1: in a small Ohio town lying about Haitian immigrants. To say, oh,
Speaker 1: every racial problem we have is because of tany you
Speaker 1: see coats word an article in The Atlantic.
Speaker 2: I think that is wild radicalize the American elite to
Speaker 2: believe that race is the only problem that we have
Speaker 2: in America. And as we just covered in our working
Speaker 2: class segment, the actual people who are working class don't
Speaker 2: agree with that. They're very a lot of Latinos are
Speaker 2: very anti more immigration.
Speaker 3: So is that race.
Speaker 2: That's my point is that his viewpoint gives us nothing
Speaker 2: in the American context.
Speaker 1: But Taccer again, to say you disagree with his viewpoint legitimate.
Speaker 1: I have disagreements with his viewpoint, which I have expressed
Speaker 1: previously and have expressed in this segment. To say he's
Speaker 1: a villain, I mean, you're doing the same thing they're doing.
Speaker 1: You're an extremist, you're a terrorist terrorist, I mean that's
Speaker 1: you basically are so I don't understand why, especially someone
Speaker 1: who who believes in the you know, open exchange of
Speaker 1: ideas and freedom of speech and you know, the ability
Speaker 1: to articulate and argue through these things, what you would
Speaker 1: just denigrate him as a human being. I don't versus
Speaker 1: attacking the idea that you disagree with.
Speaker 2: Okay, if somebody who you despise and said something bad
Speaker 2: had a good idea a single sentence, would you think
Speaker 2: it was appropriate to castigate them as a like a
Speaker 2: hero for saying one thing?
Speaker 3: I think they.
Speaker 1: Deserve no credit for doing something that. Here's the thing,
Speaker 1: this goes against his own personal career interest.
Speaker 4: Yeah, very clearly. So does he deserve credit for that? Yes?
Speaker 1: Think of how many people, when faced with this issue,
Speaker 1: when either totally close their eyes or know that it's
Speaker 1: wrong and keep their mouths shut because they want to
Speaker 1: keep their gig. How many American elites do so many?
Speaker 1: And so yes, of course, of course he deserves credit
Speaker 1: for like that political capital, for actually living up to
Speaker 1: what he claims, which is to be a voice for
Speaker 1: the voiceless. And there are plenty of people who you
Speaker 1: know in the Black Lives Matter.
Speaker 4: Movement who they you know, the.
Speaker 1: Kendy and these sorts of people who it just appears
Speaker 1: to be like a career ambition grift. And I think
Speaker 1: with this action in these writings and the way he
Speaker 1: responds in these interviews, he's proven himself to be different,
Speaker 1: to have a different kind of moral character than people
Speaker 1: who are just you know, grifting off of something that
Speaker 1: was popular in elite circles. So yeah, I give him, Yes,
Speaker 1: I give him credit for that.
Speaker 2: You'd be different, yes, absolutely, I'm just I don't want
Speaker 2: people to have some takeaway that I think this person
Speaker 2: is like a hero or whatever.
Speaker 4: You've made it clear that you don't think good.
Speaker 3: I hope so.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I didn't say research censorship. If
Speaker 2: he came here, I would say it to his face too,
Speaker 2: and we could go into it for an hour. I
Speaker 2: would let him speak. I don't think that other guy
Speaker 2: was allowing. I don't think what he said was anti
Speaker 2: Semitic or anything like that.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I just have a very different.
Speaker 2: View of who he is and the way that he's
Speaker 2: trying to like further his whole like race only project.
Speaker 2: And I think it's obviously fused in an ideology which
Speaker 2: I core disagree with less.
Speaker 1: Here's the other thing that you're missing from his writing
Speaker 1: here that I actually think you would potentially agree with
Speaker 1: is he writes that the fact that you've been oppressed
Speaker 1: or that you've been a quote unquote victim, does not
Speaker 1: absolve you, does not mean that you cannot then go
Speaker 1: and turn around and do the very things that were
Speaker 1: done to you. That's again, that is the core of
Speaker 1: the message in the book, the message that is a
Speaker 1: core of what he's articulating here, which I think is
Speaker 1: a very important concept when you think about, you know,
Speaker 1: the Israeli state founded out of the Holocaust, and he
Speaker 1: talks about the fact that, you know, in his in
Speaker 1: the Case for Reparations, he made this point about how
Speaker 1: using the Israeli state and you know, German reparations to
Speaker 1: help found the Israeli state as a positive example of reparationations.
Speaker 1: And it was actually someone some of you may know,
Speaker 1: Ronnie Kollik, went to one of his events and stood
Speaker 1: up and said, you know, you really, you really misunderstand
Speaker 1: this because those reparations were not to the Jewish people
Speaker 1: or survivors of the Holocaust. They were to create a
Speaker 1: new state that has caused new oppression and.
Speaker 4: He sat with that. That's what he said. He that
Speaker 4: bothered him like that Ronia got shouted down?
Speaker 3: Is that a synagogue and.
Speaker 4: He got shouted down?
Speaker 1: You know, she was like demonized in that group.
Speaker 4: She was very nervous.
Speaker 1: She said on Twitter to have stood up and said
Speaker 1: that at the time. But he actually sat with that,
Speaker 1: and that led him down this path, and it leads
Speaker 1: him to this, you know, to this central thesis that
Speaker 1: it's really important to understand that, yes, of course the
Speaker 1: victims of the Holocaust horrifying, like the fact that there
Speaker 1: was this you know, pressing sense of a need for
Speaker 1: a Jewish safe space, obviously horrifying, obviously important. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean the fact that you were a victim or you
Speaker 1: were a victim of oppression doesn't mean you can't turn
Speaker 1: around and that the roles can't be reversed, and that
Speaker 1: these you know, designators of like oppression and oppressed are
Speaker 1: locked in time and place, and so you know, I
Speaker 1: think that's something that you agree with, and I certainly
Speaker 1: think it's something that's important to be heard.
Speaker 4: And so I appreciate the fact that while I have.
Speaker 1: Disagreements with him, that he gets to have that voice
Speaker 1: in these elite spaces where those sorts of concepts, and
Speaker 1: especially you know, speaking for the Palestinians, where that is
Speaker 1: never heard.
Speaker 2: So that's my life I understand, at least on that point,
Speaker 2: is that that the only reason he's allowed on CBS
Speaker 2: this morning is because of who he is. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 2: And yeah it's true he's going to burn a lot
Speaker 2: of bridges doing this. And it is true that the
Speaker 2: not even Palestinian perspective, but really anything that goes against
Speaker 2: what's that guy's named.
Speaker 3: Tony whatever, like Tony's ideology, that is not.
Speaker 2: Common and there's a reason I think that you're going
Speaker 2: to see it here on this show or any Actually, frankly,
Speaker 2: a lot of independent media these days, frankly a lot
Speaker 2: more interesting is specifically because of this. So, yeah, it's true.
Speaker 2: I think he burns probably some bridges. He's going to
Speaker 2: experience a lot of pushback.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 2: My only point was that within his ideology and specifically
Speaker 2: like who he is as a figure in American politics,
Speaker 2: I think it's still important to evaluate like what this
Speaker 2: book is and also why he was able to get
Speaker 2: that CBS News post and what and then also consider
Speaker 2: what it meant for that to be, you know, for
Speaker 2: him to be such a respected figure, and I don't
Speaker 2: you know, for me, I just can't erase what I
Speaker 2: see as like a decade, honestly, of him pouring fire
Speaker 2: on a horrible accelerant in American politics, only to then
Speaker 2: excuse it because I went on CBS News and wrote
Speaker 2: a book about Palestine. That's just not enough, I guess.
Speaker 2: And look, I invite him here on the show. I'd
Speaker 2: be happy to talk to him.
Speaker 4: I doubt he Okay, good, I will tell you this.
Speaker 2: We can go as long as he wants. We can
Speaker 2: go for three hours, we can go for five hours.
Speaker 2: Don't will I will not cut him off, and we
Speaker 2: will sit there and we will. And I would say
Speaker 2: everything I just said right to a space.
Speaker 4: I think what I would say is that.
Speaker 1: It says something that the previous writings were comfortable for
Speaker 1: these spaces, because I mean, first of all, the reparations
Speaker 1: is such an unlikely political outcome that when you propose
Speaker 1: something that is outside of what anyone really thinks is
Speaker 1: politically possible, that becomes sort of inherently safe. And because
Speaker 1: if there's this sense, this race pasimas, sense of like
Speaker 1: this is just how things are in America. It can
Speaker 1: never change. Then it also sort of absolves you from
Speaker 1: having to make political change that could be threatening to
Speaker 1: elite circles. So I think it's telling that the previous
Speaker 1: work was very comfortable for people in this space and
Speaker 1: that this work is not. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's an important thing to note.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and sign up at breakingpoints dot com and
Speaker 2: take advantage of the discount BP twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, we'll probably.
Speaker 2: Stee you over the weekend for some breaking news with
Speaker 2: respect to Iran. Yeah, exactly don't want to be doing it,
Speaker 2: but almost certainly we'll be half to doing it. Otherwise,
Speaker 2: we'll see you on Monday.