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.
Speaker 3: Guys, the best independent coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do very busy day today here in the studio.
Speaker 1: We actually have two guests in town from Australia to
Speaker 1: Australian members of Parliament who are here to advocate for
Speaker 1: the release of Julian Asance.
Speaker 4: We're going to talk to them.
Speaker 1: We also have a presidential candidate coming in studio, Willhard
Speaker 1: going to talk to him about how he sees the
Speaker 1: race and the dominance of Trump within the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and within the Republican primary. Certainly, we also have big
Speaker 1: news about Ukraine. Updates on Zelenski's visit here. We've got
Speaker 1: updates on that UAWS strike that we want to bring
Speaker 1: to you. We also have some really interesting data about
Speaker 1: the way special elections have been going across the country,
Speaker 1: really painting a very different picture than the polls are painting.
Speaker 4: So we'll dig into that.
Speaker 1: Sager is looking at a January sixth conviction and I
Speaker 1: am looking at Ben Shapiro's commentary on the UAW strike.
Speaker 1: So a lot to get to this morning. Very exciting show,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 2: We wanted to thank everybody again for people who've been
Speaker 2: signing up premium subscribers. We've got an awesome interview that
Speaker 2: Jordan Cheriton did with Sean Fain, the head of the UAW,
Speaker 2: about the strike, as well as some footage that he's
Speaker 2: been able to get from the strike itself. We're partnering
Speaker 2: with Jordan on that. Your hard earned money is helping
Speaker 2: support some of this on the ground journalism. We're very
Speaker 2: proud to be able to bring that type of interview,
Speaker 2: that coverage again that we've been doing, and so this
Speaker 2: is an important part of our show and what you
Speaker 2: are signing up for, so Breakingpoints dot Com if you
Speaker 2: are able to it really helps us to be able
Speaker 2: to support partners creators like that and to be able
Speaker 2: to keep bring this to a wide audience. We're really
Speaker 2: proud of the fact that some of our UADW coverage
Speaker 2: and more has gotten more ratings, you know, than any
Speaker 2: other subject that we have done, which is why we
Speaker 2: get up in the morning this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we do a show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're really excited to get to partner with Status
Speaker 1: KUP on that. And by the way, guys, give them
Speaker 1: some love to sign up and become members for them
Speaker 1: as well, because they do a lot of great on
Speaker 1: the gross reporting. Ye, and I mean they broke a
Speaker 1: lot of news this trip, both in talking to the workers.
Speaker 1: We've got some video for you that's exclusive for us
Speaker 1: about how they feel about this whole Trump coming into
Speaker 1: town and Joe Biden's speech and whether he's going to
Speaker 1: go to the picket line and that interview with Sean
Speaker 1: Fain where he also broke some news. So thank you
Speaker 1: guys so much for supporting us and making all of
Speaker 1: that happen.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Okay, let's get to Ukraine. So President Zelenski, the
Speaker 2: schedule changed up a little bit. He is coming to
Speaker 2: town here today on Thursday's going to be meeting with
Speaker 2: the full Senate and with the House as the actual
Speaker 2: Ukraine funding is on the knife edge as well as
Speaker 2: a complete government shutdown. But some of Zelenski's comments are
Speaker 2: certainly getting that, not only at the United Nations but
Speaker 2: in Poland. We're going to dig into all of that.
Speaker 2: By coming to the US, he's inadvertently ignited multiple diplomatic crises,
Speaker 2: the first at the UN calling for the removal of
Speaker 2: Russia from the UN Permanent Security Council and for a
Speaker 2: policy of denuclearization against the state.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 5: Ukraine gave up its third largist nuclear arsenal. The world
Speaker 5: then decided Russia should become a keeper of such power.
Speaker 3: Yes, history shows it was Russia who.
Speaker 5: Disserved nuclear disarmament the most back in nineteen nineties, and
Speaker 5: Russia disserves it now.
Speaker 6: Terrorists have no.
Speaker 5: Right to hold nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: No right, no right to hold nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: So that is the policy that we've pursued against North
Speaker 2: Korea now for for forty some odd years.
Speaker 3: Ask somebody how it's worked out for them. But really
Speaker 3: what that.
Speaker 2: Is is that is an explicit call for regime change,
Speaker 2: and that is the question of or is that what
Speaker 2: we support now?
Speaker 3: I mean is that with the end goal of this.
Speaker 2: War is is to complete not only a regime change
Speaker 2: in Russia, but to subjugate Russia in order to take
Speaker 2: away their nuclear weapon status. I mean, this was not
Speaker 2: even crystal the dream of the most cold war hawks
Speaker 2: in the nineteen nineties. Like even then, it was understood
Speaker 2: by the Clinton administration, by the Bush administration. Other it's like, listen,
Speaker 2: we have to make sure that we're not creating a situation.
Speaker 2: We're like occupying the country, taking nukes away, taking any
Speaker 2: ability for them to have any sort of sovereignty or
Speaker 2: national pride. And he's effectively advocating for that at the
Speaker 2: United Nations. And that's why it is a stunning comment.
Speaker 2: He also, funnily enough, wants to swap Russia in Germany
Speaker 2: for permanent UN Security Council status. For those who don't know,
Speaker 2: the UN Security Council was created after the World War
Speaker 2: Two with the victors of World War Two, and the
Speaker 2: idea being that you know, these have a permanent objection
Speaker 2: the ability to veto at the UNSC. Of course, you know,
Speaker 2: there's lots of questions about whether that should stand or not.
Speaker 2: It's not like it particularly matters because the UN has
Speaker 2: all that much power. But I thought that the most
Speaker 2: significant call that he made there was for outright regime
Speaker 2: change in Russia as apparently one of the Ukrainian and goals.
Speaker 3: And you know, in a way I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, you should, we should know exactly what
Speaker 2: they are working towards or what they want. And the
Speaker 2: question is to the United States, is Biden support the
Speaker 2: same that is.
Speaker 1: At the beginning of the war, some people were out
Speaker 1: in the administration, we're outright saying it now. We haven't
Speaker 1: heard that directly for a long time. It's hard to
Speaker 1: conclude that there's any other goal, though, when you see
Speaker 1: the nature of our escalating level of support. Certainly, I
Speaker 1: don't know if they are so fanciful to imagine at
Speaker 1: this point that I think there was some wish casting
Speaker 1: at the beginning that Putin's regime might just collapse right
Speaker 1: without doing a whole lot, that they could easily weaken it,
Speaker 1: that it would fall apart, that they could, you know,
Speaker 1: prop up whoever they hoped would be the successor, which
Speaker 1: we have always said, you know, careful what you wish for,
Speaker 1: because can it may seem like it can't get worse
Speaker 1: than Putin, but trust me, one hundred percent could get
Speaker 1: worse than Putin. So we always were, you know, concerned
Speaker 1: about what could happen in the event that that was
Speaker 1: even a possibility, but it seems very unlikely at this point.
Speaker 1: I mean, there have been protests in favor of peace
Speaker 1: and against the war in Russia. Those have basically all
Speaker 1: fizzled out. You haven't seen a mass public revolt there.
Speaker 1: You know, you had this one weird sort of semi
Speaker 1: coup attempt that obviously has been dealt with and neutralized
Speaker 1: to put it, to put it kindly, at this point,
Speaker 1: so there's no sign that the regime is like in
Speaker 1: imminent danger of collapse. So perhaps they don't delude themselves
Speaker 1: into thinking that anymore. But it does beg the question, like, okay,
Speaker 1: what is the endgame? And I would like to see
Speaker 1: more direct commentary from our own president because, as you said,
Speaker 1: you know, Zelenski certainly willing to put it out there.
Speaker 1: The other thing, listen, I would love to see worldwide
Speaker 1: global nuclear disarmament. I am not so foolish as to
Speaker 1: think that we are on the brink of that happening,
Speaker 1: and I certainly don't support, you know, any sort of
Speaker 1: one sided direction and he also seems to indicate that like, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: Ukraine should.
Speaker 4: Have kept the news. Oh right, Russia should have gotten
Speaker 4: read way better. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: So at the same time, President Zelenski here, he's got
Speaker 2: his hat out. He's coming to Washington today asking for
Speaker 2: twenty five billion more from the United States.
Speaker 3: And as part of that, he's been giving a lot
Speaker 3: of interviews.
Speaker 2: I've been keeping my eye very closely for the case
Speaker 2: that he's making two American lawmakers, and in the latest one,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there. During a CNN interview with
Speaker 2: Wolf Blitzer, he says, quote, we are on the finishing line.
Speaker 3: I'm sure of that now.
Speaker 2: I really zeroed in on this because this is just
Speaker 2: a completely dishonest way of asking us for more money.
Speaker 3: Crystal.
Speaker 2: They need to be much more frank and honest about
Speaker 2: where the war is. Just to give everybody an idea,
Speaker 2: I always talk about the map. Let's actually look at it.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there here on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is from the counter offensive. Now, what you can see
Speaker 2: in red is held by Russia. That's approximately twenty percent
Speaker 2: of all of Ukraine. What you can see in blue
Speaker 2: are the Ukrainian counter offensive gains now that black rectangle
Speaker 2: for those who are watching in the left side of
Speaker 2: the screen, crystal, that was the goal of the counter offensive,
Speaker 2: to go all the way from where that tiny little
Speaker 2: shaded area of blue is to the Sea of Azov,
Speaker 2: and to split the Russian defensives and to make a
Speaker 2: breakthrough against the entire defensive line. As you can see
Speaker 2: quite clearly from that billions of dollars of weapons. Who
Speaker 2: knows untold hundreds of thousands wounded or dead, has got
Speaker 2: us the colored in blue shade line that is, by
Speaker 2: any military definition, the starting line of said counter offensive.
Speaker 2: It is not even be close to the finishing line.
Speaker 2: If they were, you know, even halfway through, I guess
Speaker 2: you could, you know, exaggerate and.
Speaker 3: Say that's the case.
Speaker 2: I also think it fits with a It fits with
Speaker 2: something that happened yesterday. There was an all Senate briefing
Speaker 2: by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff, the Intelligence
Speaker 2: community and others, and Senator Josh Holly, who tended that briefing,
Speaker 2: had this to say, this happened late last night, so
Speaker 2: we don't have the element quote. So if there is
Speaker 2: a path to victory in Ukraine, I did not hear
Speaker 2: it today. I heard there was going to be no
Speaker 2: end to funding requests. This latest request for what it is,
Speaker 2: twenty four billion is not the end.
Speaker 7: Quote.
Speaker 3: They made that very clear. It is not close to
Speaker 3: the end.
Speaker 2: I would say we were basically told buckle up and
Speaker 2: get out your checkbook. So US policymakers have made the
Speaker 2: case to Congress. They are not saying what's Lenski saying.
Speaker 2: They're like, no, no, no, this is gonna be the first
Speaker 2: many this is just the first quarter. We're not don't
Speaker 2: forget that. Whenever the Biden administration requested that another twenty
Speaker 2: four billion, they said, this is just one of quarterly
Speaker 2: requests that will be forthcoming. So if we are to
Speaker 2: then annualize that, we are talking about about one hundred
Speaker 2: billion per year. One hundred billion, again, is the same
Speaker 2: amount that we took twenty years to disperse to the
Speaker 2: entire Afghan national security forces through our entire time in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: It's an extraordinary amount of money. And then relative to
Speaker 2: the gains that the Ukrainians are making, you cannot, by
Speaker 2: any means say that this twenty four billion or whatever
Speaker 2: is going to make let's say, like a difference beyond
Speaker 2: marginal in what the gains are they're being set and
Speaker 2: behind closed.
Speaker 3: Doors, that's what they're admitting. That's what they're admitting to
Speaker 3: our lawmakers.
Speaker 1: These wars take on in a sort of endless circular
Speaker 1: logic where, you know, the idea before the counter offensive was, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're gonna you know, we're gonna fund them, we're gonna
Speaker 1: equip them, they're gonna have this counter offensive and then
Speaker 1: maybe we can get to the table and they'll be
Speaker 1: in a stronger negotiating position. Now the logic is, since
Speaker 1: the counter offensive didn't go well, well, we've got to
Speaker 1: you know, we've got to keep funding them so they
Speaker 1: can try again and get a stronger position before they
Speaker 1: get to the negotiating table. It's doesn't matter what really
Speaker 1: happens on the battlefield, there's always a logic in favor
Speaker 1: of continuing the conflict.
Speaker 4: And we've seen a.
Speaker 1: Number of you know, media sort of planted reports that
Speaker 1: have helped to attempt to see the ground and to
Speaker 1: plant the seeds of this is just going to go.
Speaker 4: On and on and on.
Speaker 1: So at the same time, you know, put this next piece.
Speaker 4: Up on the street screen for the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: They have a good report here about how Zelenski's trip
Speaker 1: to Washington this time has a much different tone and
Speaker 1: character than the trip last time, which you know, he
Speaker 1: spoke to a joint session of Congress and it was
Speaker 1: very sort of there was a lot of grandiosity around it.
Speaker 4: It was very assertive.
Speaker 1: This time he's going to be meeting privately behind closed
Speaker 1: doors with lawmakers, including they say, some Republicans who want
Speaker 1: a grillam over a slow moving counter offensive and Ukraine's
Speaker 1: use of American assistants. This comes, of course at a
Speaker 1: time right now when Republicans, the Republicans are looking to
Speaker 1: shut down the government. They can't come to an agreement
Speaker 1: within their own caucus about what they want funding levels
Speaker 1: to be, and part of the disagreements revolve around aid
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. Now there's a lot of reporting about how
Speaker 1: much the tenor and the tone is shifted in Washington.
Speaker 1: I would just say, like keep in mind that in
Speaker 1: terms of elite elected politicians on the Republican side, you
Speaker 1: still have an overwhelming majority in favor of continuing aid
Speaker 1: to Ukraine.
Speaker 4: In the Republican caucus.
Speaker 1: You maybe have a third of the House Republican caucus
Speaker 1: that is at least in favor of reducing aid or
Speaker 1: not going forward with aid at all. So even within
Speaker 1: the Republican caucus in the House, you only have about
Speaker 1: a third that objects to continuing the direction that we
Speaker 1: have been going. So I do think some of you know,
Speaker 1: the journalists, some of the writing coming out of DC
Speaker 1: about this big split and how some of the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: aid is really in danger, and you know it's on.
Speaker 4: The precipice, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I think it's a little bit overstated, just given the
Speaker 1: numbers that are still overwhelmingly in favor of continuing.
Speaker 3: A to Ukraine. Yes, you're right.
Speaker 2: I spoke with some my Capitol Hill sources, and effectively
Speaker 2: what they're saying is like, look, we're going to fight
Speaker 2: as hard as we can. These are the people who
Speaker 2: are against adding aid. But here's the truth. It's a
Speaker 2: number one establishment priority and they're like, they will move
Speaker 2: heaven and earth to get this money through Congress. Now,
Speaker 2: I will say there, I would put it at a
Speaker 2: ten percent chance that it doesn't pass. Only for this reason.
Speaker 2: McCarthy has got an issue. They're facing a potential government shutdown,
Speaker 2: so to havet that shutdown, he probably has to work
Speaker 2: with Democrats. Well, if the Democrats work with him, they're
Speaker 2: likely to mandate or want Ukraine Aid as part of that. Well,
Speaker 2: that would give them the political power to some of
Speaker 2: the Matt Gates Republicans and the Freedom Caucus to call
Speaker 2: the motion to vacate on the Speaker and to replace
Speaker 2: him speakership so he could put his own political future
Speaker 2: ahead of that.
Speaker 3: There's another option that happens.
Speaker 2: They reach some sort of cr deal continuing resolution where
Speaker 2: they do fund the government, they leave Ukraine Aid out
Speaker 2: of that, and it passes potentially at some later date.
Speaker 2: But then the question is is that could the House
Speaker 2: and this contingent actually move forward to try and remove
Speaker 2: set aid. Then they could also pass this continuing resolution.
Speaker 2: The Senate could vote it down and say no, we're
Speaker 2: not going to fund the government at all unless you
Speaker 2: put in said Ukraine Aid, and like a late night
Speaker 2: you know, vote that actually adds it on at the
Speaker 2: very last minute. My point is that there is a
Speaker 2: little bit of uncertainty, and there was also some inkling
Speaker 2: of this just this morning that happened. Multiple GOP lawmakers,
Speaker 2: both Senators and House of Representatives, sent a letter to
Speaker 2: the Office of Management and Budget, where they rejected the
Speaker 2: request four for twenty four billion and asked specifically about
Speaker 2: what the actual endgame is by the Biden administration, saying
Speaker 2: we will not vote for this until we receive a
Speaker 2: real strategic plan from the administration about this aid about
Speaker 2: in the future, Senator Ran Paul vowing to hold up
Speaker 2: any procedural event that leads to more voting for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: So, as you said, ninety percent chance, I think it.
Speaker 2: Will pass absolutely ninety percent, but there's a lot of chaos,
Speaker 2: so you never know.
Speaker 1: The other thing that, just to clarify, I said the
Speaker 1: government is going to shut down. I mean I think
Speaker 1: there's very little, very little chance that it's not going
Speaker 1: to There was a reporting Litico Playbook, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: the insider rag whatever about how Democrats are not even
Speaker 1: planning a contingency for it to not shut down, Like
Speaker 1: there is no game plan in place from either side
Speaker 1: to avoid a government shutdown. At this point, Republicans in
Speaker 1: the House Caucus they thought maybe they had this deal
Speaker 1: between the House Freedom Caucus and the what is their
Speaker 1: mainstream Republicans is that what they call themselves anyway, the
Speaker 1: more moderate caucus within the Republican grouping, and that whole
Speaker 1: thing completely fell apart. So and that had you know,
Speaker 1: that was separate and apart from Ukraine funding, that was
Speaker 1: just on you know, the other budget spending levels that
Speaker 1: completely fell apart. So even within the House Republican Conference,
Speaker 1: they can't agree on a continuing resolution to pass.
Speaker 4: And that's before you even start talking.
Speaker 1: About the Democrats in the Senate or the Republicans even
Speaker 1: in the Senate. That's before you start talking about the
Speaker 1: White House. So it's very hard to see how they
Speaker 1: avoid a government shutdown at this point. And it's also
Speaker 1: very hard to see how McCarthy does anything at any
Speaker 1: point even after the governments shut down without working with Democrats,
Speaker 1: which is why I think it's very unlikely that you
Speaker 1: don't end up with this next trunch of eight Ukraine,
Speaker 1: because if he's having to work with Democrats anyway, you know,
Speaker 1: he and by the way, two thirds majority of his
Speaker 1: caucus overwhelmingly are in favor of continuing Ukraine aids. So
Speaker 1: some I don't know how this has all got to
Speaker 1: work out specifically, but it seems like they're probably going
Speaker 1: to have to make some kind of a deal with
Speaker 1: the Democrats after the government has already shut down and
Speaker 1: after some pain has already been exacted on you know,
Speaker 1: not just the federal government, but the American people. So
Speaker 1: we'll see how this all plays out. But I just
Speaker 1: you know, I wouldn't get people's I don't want you
Speaker 1: guys to get your hopes up that there's going to
Speaker 1: be some real significant change here in the direction, because
Speaker 1: in terms of the elected officials here in Washington, they're
Speaker 1: still overwhelmingly in support on both sides of the aisle
Speaker 1: of continuing the present direction.
Speaker 2: At the same time, there is a humorous incident in
Speaker 2: which a Ukrainian minister, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry,
Speaker 2: is an American transgender woman, Sarah Ashton Garillo, who has
Speaker 2: been making incendiary videos now basically since the beginning of
Speaker 2: the war that have been going very viral. Now recently,
Speaker 2: one of these videos that she had put out effectively
Speaker 2: advocated for assassination of anybody who goes against any of
Speaker 2: the Ukraine consensus, not just in Ukraine, but actually here
Speaker 2: in the United States. Just take a listen to that flavor,
Speaker 2: and we'll tell you what happened to her.
Speaker 8: Russia hates the truth that their obsessive focus on a
Speaker 8: Ukrainian volunteer is simply allowing the light of the Ukrainian
Speaker 8: nation's honesty to shine brightly. Next week, the teeth of
Speaker 8: the Russian devils will gnash ever harder and their rabid
Speaker 8: mouths will foam an uncontrollable frenzy as the world will
Speaker 8: see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes, and
Speaker 8: this puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war
Speaker 8: criminal propagandist will all be hunted down and justice will
Speaker 8: be served as we in Ukraine are led on this
Speaker 8: mission by faith in God, liberty and complete liberation. This
Speaker 8: is Sergeant Sarah Ashton Cerrillo of the Armed Forces of
Speaker 8: Ukraine and i'd like to thank the ex social media
Speaker 8: platform for carrying this exclusive message from Kiev. There has
Speaker 8: been much discussion recently related to my role within the
Speaker 8: Armed Forces of Ukraine. Before answering some of the questions
Speaker 8: put forward by Senator Vance of Ohio, I'd like to
Speaker 8: thank all those in the US who are supporting the
Speaker 8: Ukrainian people without Republicans and Democrats working together on behalf
Speaker 8: of Ukraine. Our growing and unstoppable success on the battlefield
Speaker 8: and the inevitable victory it will bring over the Russian
Speaker 8: invaders would take significantly longer. America is once more showing
Speaker 8: why it's history's greatest republic and the world's loan superpower,
Speaker 8: and all of us in Ukraine are humbled by the
Speaker 8: support we're receiving from the American people. Let me also
Speaker 8: take a moment, in my role as spokesperson for the
Speaker 8: afu's Territorial Defense Forces to state unequivocally that we and
Speaker 8: the TDF and across Ukraine believe journalists or heroes and
Speaker 8: have the right to report on Ukraine's war for liberation
Speaker 8: without interference. Free speech is the pillar of all democracy.
Speaker 8: The first Amendment of the US Constitution, along with the
Speaker 8: rest of that sacred document, is ordained by God.
Speaker 3: So Chrystal.
Speaker 2: The Defense Forces of Ukraine, let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen, have now announced Junior Sergeant Sarah Ashton
Speaker 2: Sirillo has been suspended from the duties of the spokesperson
Speaker 2: of the Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine while an investigation
Speaker 2: is now underway. In further statement, they said from the
Speaker 2: Armed Forces that the statements of Sergeant Cerrillo in recent
Speaker 2: days were not approved by Command of the TDF or
Speaker 2: the Command of the AFU while conducting military operations against
Speaker 2: the ukres aggressor the Defense forces of Ukraine strictly observe
Speaker 2: the norms of international humanitarian law. The Command of TDF
Speaker 2: will conduct an official investigation in the circumstances of these statements.
Speaker 2: Appropriate decisions will then be taken. She will be suspended
Speaker 2: immediately pending the investigation. So there was the only reason
Speaker 2: that this even came to light is because of that
Speaker 2: video where she was basically going to hunt down and
Speaker 2: kill anybody who doesn't agree with us. Senator Vance put
Speaker 2: out a letter being like, hold on, are we funding
Speaker 2: this person's salary?
Speaker 3: Like who is this person?
Speaker 2: And then from that the Ukrainians apparently took notice of
Speaker 2: what we're look Undeniably, she has become a hero amongst
Speaker 2: a lot of the Ukraine flag and bio people. She
Speaker 2: she just got an award in Las Vegas for like
Speaker 2: from the city, for being like a heroic American. It's
Speaker 2: just an example of this unhinged behavior by some of
Speaker 2: the people who are aligned with this cause, and that
Speaker 2: we're being directly in many respects like propped up. Not
Speaker 2: only by the US government by a lot of people
Speaker 2: here who just love these types of statements. But you know,
Speaker 2: ironically it came to bite them because they're like, hold
Speaker 2: on a second, this is creating problems for us in
Speaker 2: the US.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think Zelenski choosing to investigate this
Speaker 1: person and fire her effectively it's part of the charm
Speaker 1: offensive party came to Washington.
Speaker 4: I mean, they cleaned out a bunch of the like.
Speaker 1: Defense Cabinet ministers in an attempt to also show a
Speaker 1: series about corruption. So I don't really read into it
Speaker 1: anything more than that.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, I think you're right. I think it's
Speaker 2: what they were like, oh my gosh, this could be
Speaker 2: causing problems for us.
Speaker 1: They probably, I mean, they got a senator and was
Speaker 1: sending a messages about it. What they you know, they're like,
Speaker 1: all right, fine, goodbye, well a launch an investigations.
Speaker 4: This is not worth ache.
Speaker 2: This is not worth the headache to put out this
Speaker 2: type of stuff. But you know, it does just give
Speaker 2: you an example of how some of their like some
Speaker 2: of their rhetoric, as we talked about with letter Block
Speaker 2: about the regime change and about is actually starting to
Speaker 2: invite some pushback in Washington, probably not enough in order
Speaker 2: to do anything about actual funding, but this is just
Speaker 2: one of the latest examples.
Speaker 3: So I wanted to give you guys that update. I
Speaker 3: thought it was funny.
Speaker 1: So let's give you an update on the autoworkers strike
Speaker 1: set to potentially escalate as contract negotiations continue without resolution
Speaker 1: of this morning. And this has created some very interesting
Speaker 1: political dynamics. So first person out, Joe Biden came out
Speaker 1: with a very strong statement I thought, in support of
Speaker 1: the striking workers, very clearly on their side. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: then has attempted to signal his support, his symbolic support
Speaker 1: for the workers, even without fully taking their side, by
Speaker 1: planning a speech in Detroit to worker union workers, not
Speaker 1: all auto workers but former union workers, current union workers, etc.
Speaker 1: But in Detroit on the day of the second GOP debate.
Speaker 1: And so, because this is how Democrats are, this has
Speaker 1: set off a whole series of like you know, pearl
Speaker 1: clutching and handringing about oh god, what do we do
Speaker 1: now work with regards to Joe Biden. So put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from Politico. They have the headline
Speaker 1: Trump scooped us dem sound alarm on Biden's handling of
Speaker 1: the auto workers strike. Donald Trump's decision I had to
Speaker 1: Detroit for a speech next week is setting off alarms
Speaker 1: among some Joe Biden allies. And the idea here is
Speaker 1: they quote a union advisor who spoke on the condition
Speaker 1: of anonymity to say that Trump is still himself and
Speaker 1: was saying, do crazy shit. But they added, he actually
Speaker 1: has people who know what they're doing. He boxs Biden in.
Speaker 1: It's kind of genius. Another Democratic strategist said, Trump scooped us. Now,
Speaker 1: if we announce we're going to we're going, it looks
Speaker 1: like we're just going because of Trump. We waited too long.
Speaker 1: That's the challenge worth remembering. Actually, Trump did better among
Speaker 1: union members in twenty sixteen than he did in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: Biden was able to double the.
Speaker 1: Margin that Hillary Clinton achieved among union members in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: So he does perform better with this group.
Speaker 4: But I mean, I just think it's silly.
Speaker 1: Their whole concern The question is whether or not Joe
Speaker 1: Biden should go and walk the picket line. And basically
Speaker 1: every Democrat who's advising him, and every Democrat mission Michigan
Speaker 1: is like, yes, go and walk the picket line, go
Speaker 1: make an appearance, go meet with these striking autoworkers. The
Speaker 1: union itself has said, you know, of course they.
Speaker 4: Would welcome him.
Speaker 1: I mean, who wouldn't welcome the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: regardless of who it is, to come and.
Speaker 4: Show support for striking work.
Speaker 1: But they're doing all this hand ram Oh gosh, now
Speaker 1: that Trump's going, maybe we can't go and it'll look
Speaker 1: like we're just following him, et cetera. I think that's
Speaker 1: so silly, all of that thinking, of course he should
Speaker 1: just go. And if he does go, I mean, it
Speaker 1: would be a big deal. No president in over a
Speaker 1: century has shown up at a picket line, so it
Speaker 1: would be an extraordinary action. And they're just kind of like,
Speaker 1: you know, dragging their feet about whether or not it
Speaker 1: would be the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of the East Palestine situation whenever Trump
Speaker 2: visited and then Buddhajed came afterwards and he was like, no,
Speaker 2: I didn't come just because Trump came, and he was like,
Speaker 2: it's ridiculous. But one of the reasons that we had
Speaker 2: written a scene behind the scenes was that the Biden
Speaker 2: advisors were wary of going after Trump had visited because
Speaker 2: they didn't want to seem as if they were following him.
Speaker 2: As you said, I don't think it mattered to the
Speaker 2: people there actually though at the time, and I don't
Speaker 2: think it matters this time around. In fact, you know,
Speaker 2: it would just be you could spin it and be like, yeah, good,
Speaker 2: I'm glad he's there.
Speaker 3: It's a show of bipartisanship. Yeah, the two of us
Speaker 3: support this thing.
Speaker 2: That's how things should be in American politics should be,
Speaker 2: and that's why all GEOP lawmakers should do the same.
Speaker 2: There'd be an easy way to play it from a
Speaker 2: position of strength.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he could say, yeah, I'm glad to see him
Speaker 1: symbolically supporting him now while he was screwing workers while
Speaker 1: he was in office and giving away direct tax catt
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, you would use it as a
Speaker 1: messaging opportunity. And you're the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're going to attract a lot of attention
Speaker 1: if you take what would be again a historic action
Speaker 1: by going and walk in the picket line, put those
Speaker 1: next peace up on the screen. Jeffstein's been doing some
Speaker 1: really great reporting over at the Washington Post about the
Speaker 1: strike and from the worker's perspective, and he's got this
Speaker 1: political insight here, he says his Trump wooz Detroit Unions.
Speaker 1: Democrats urge Biden to join UAW strikers. He's coming under
Speaker 1: increasing pressure, they say, from some Democratic lawmakers, to do
Speaker 1: something none of his prodecessors apperative done in office, join
Speaker 1: striking workers walking a picket line. He also is the
Speaker 1: one who points out, according to Director of Labor Education
Speaker 1: Research at Cornell University, that he would be the first
Speaker 1: president in a century to join a picket line. The
Speaker 1: White House declined to comment when asked if Biden is
Speaker 1: weighing a visit, but they say an interviews with The
Speaker 1: Washington Post, more than a half dozen Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: and the Michigan state legislator said he should go. UAW
Speaker 1: leadership has also communicated to the White House that a
Speaker 1: presidential visit would be welcomed. So I think there's a
Speaker 1: decent possibility that he shows up. I think he one
Speaker 1: hundred percent should show up. In my opinion, this is
Speaker 1: an absolute no brainer. If you don't want to get
Speaker 1: out maneuvered by Trump and his you know, symbolic nonsense,
Speaker 1: then there's a really clear path to doing that he's
Speaker 1: already rhetorically Biden has already clearly taken the side of
Speaker 1: striking workers, So this is just going one step further
Speaker 1: further and actually physically showing up in solidarity for them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what I read is that one of the complications,
Speaker 2: apparently is that the GM CEO and Biden are close
Speaker 2: and apparently has been.
Speaker 3: She's been making Mary Bara yes, because she's busy.
Speaker 1: She was a Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, so yeah, she's.
Speaker 2: Like, they know, so they know each other, and apparently
Speaker 2: there's some uh, there's been communication about you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: doing such a thing, and I don't want to sacrifice
Speaker 2: our relationship shift apparently as the CEO.
Speaker 3: But yeah, you know, I think it's it would have
Speaker 3: been a no brain. I agree.
Speaker 2: You know, the easy way to not go off Fox
Speaker 2: or whatever is we've just been doing it earlier or
Speaker 2: announcing it, you know, whenever it happens.
Speaker 3: But I agree, even now, I.
Speaker 1: Oh, they'll think this and that. No, they'll just be
Speaker 1: happy that you're there with them. Like, no one's gonna
Speaker 1: you know, think, oh you look weak and you were pressured,
Speaker 1: et cetera. They're just going to be happy that you're
Speaker 1: there so showing support for workers, so don't overthink it, guys,
Speaker 1: that would be my recommendation. At the same time, thanks
Speaker 1: to our partnership with Status KUP and Jordan Sheridan on
Speaker 1: the ground, he was able to talk to workers themselves
Speaker 1: about how they are viewing all of these political machinations.
Speaker 1: And again, guys, thank you so much for helping support
Speaker 1: us so we can get this kind of exclusive reporting.
Speaker 1: And also, you know, shout out to Jordan Chardan and Status,
Speaker 1: so if you're able to support them as well, please
Speaker 1: do so. Take a listen to what the workers had
Speaker 1: to say about the politics of this.
Speaker 7: Do you welcome a visit from Trump?
Speaker 9: And do you agree with them as far as we
Speaker 9: need to shift away from the electric vehicle transition?
Speaker 2: I do agree with shifting away from the electric electric vehicles.
Speaker 6: I do agree with that.
Speaker 10: You know.
Speaker 7: Also it's all about the support for us.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't really know what to say.
Speaker 9: Do you think in terms of the electric vehicles that
Speaker 9: it's kind of hurting the workers there's not enough demand
Speaker 9: for it. Why why do you agree with shifting away
Speaker 9: from electric Really?
Speaker 7: Job security?
Speaker 6: Job security?
Speaker 7: Most of me.
Speaker 11: Sixty percent less workforce means we're gonna lose a lot
Speaker 11: of UAW jobs.
Speaker 6: That's what I believe.
Speaker 9: What do you think of the former president who says
Speaker 9: he's coming here next week to I guess talk to
Speaker 9: the workers.
Speaker 7: What do you think about him saying.
Speaker 9: He would reverse these electric vehicle policies compared to President Biden.
Speaker 12: Well, first of all, he's a politician, So whatever he
Speaker 12: says that, I'm not gonna believe him anyway. But the
Speaker 12: main thing is for electric vehicles here is a concern
Speaker 12: for the future for autoworkers. I think part of this
Speaker 12: contract party fight has to secure that future, whatever it is.
Speaker 12: You know, I don't think there's any way to tell
Speaker 12: how a popular elected vehicle is going to be, how
Speaker 12: well they're going to sell. But we have to have
Speaker 12: jobs and jobs. There are secure jobs and well paying jobs.
Speaker 12: So whatever that is, whether they are more electric vehicles
Speaker 12: being sold or less, we still got to make sure
Speaker 12: that autoworkers have jobs. That we have to defend our
Speaker 12: jobs and our pay rate and our futures. So if
Speaker 12: if they're going to be more electric vehicle produced, we
Speaker 12: have to make sure the jobs in the battery plans,
Speaker 12: for example, are union jobs. They are high their jobs
Speaker 12: at the same pay rate, and people have a chance
Speaker 12: to work there. Because right now, if an engine planet closed,
Speaker 12: for example, because they have fewer gas parted vehicles, the
Speaker 12: battery plants where there are going to be jobs might
Speaker 12: not be in the same city are given the same state.
Speaker 12: So we have to be a way to secure our
Speaker 12: jobs as autoworkers, whatever the future is.
Speaker 9: What do you think about you know, the Biden administration
Speaker 9: gave Ford to nine point two billion dollar loan. Doesn't
Speaker 9: see it for electric doesn't seem to be a lot
Speaker 9: of strings attached, does not you know, demands for wages
Speaker 9: for workers, making them union shops. What do you think
Speaker 9: about Ford getting that big loan without some requirements.
Speaker 12: Well, it shows you which side the governments they're subsidizing
Speaker 12: the auto company, not just Ford, all the all the
Speaker 12: company being subsidized by the Inflation Reduction Act and building
Speaker 12: battery of ficialities in his company in this country. So
Speaker 12: they're subsidizing them without any protection for the workers. So,
Speaker 12: but that's what the government nobody does right in my opinion,
Speaker 12: they're out there serving big businesses and not the workers.
Speaker 9: Former President Trump says he's coming here next week he's gonna.
Speaker 7: Talk to the workers.
Speaker 9: UAW President Sean Fain had some not so nice words
Speaker 9: for him, saying, we're fighting against billionaires like him.
Speaker 7: What do you think about Trump coming here?
Speaker 6: I have no comment about Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: Not a supporterizer, no comment. What do you think? In general?
Speaker 9: He criticized the electric vehicle shift, saying, you know, if
Speaker 9: he becomes president again, he would shift away from this
Speaker 9: investment in electric.
Speaker 7: Vehicles, He'll be in prison.
Speaker 9: Okay, do you agree with I agree with him because
Speaker 9: I've talked to workers who feel electric They don't have
Speaker 9: job security with these electric jobs, and there's not enough
Speaker 9: demand for the electric Do you do you agree with him?
Speaker 7: Or do you think this electric transition is a good thing.
Speaker 6: I think it's a good thing. I think it's it's
Speaker 6: the way of the future.
Speaker 12: They're going to have to figure out how it's gonna
Speaker 12: all work, where people are going to have to plug
Speaker 12: in their cars and whatnot.
Speaker 6: But you know, it's change and we have to embrace change.
Speaker 1: So I talked to Yeah, those were really interesting, A
Speaker 1: good spectrum of views there, and you know, I thought
Speaker 1: the gentleman in the middle who was like, listen, we're
Speaker 1: not opposed to evs.
Speaker 4: We just got to have job security. I think that's
Speaker 4: the general of you.
Speaker 1: I asked Jordan, you know what was the overall vibe
Speaker 1: as he was talking to workers about the politics of it,
Speaker 1: and he was like, most of them don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about these guys, Like most of them are skeptical
Speaker 1: of both of these politicians. It's not their primary focus.
Speaker 1: Like they're focused on their fight against the Big three,
Speaker 1: against the bosses, trying to win job security, trying to
Speaker 1: win decent wages, like that is the primary thing that
Speaker 1: they're focused on and want to talk about. And this
Speaker 1: stuff over here all seems like kind of a sideshow.
Speaker 3: Makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, While he was into Troy, Jordan Tardan of Status,
Speaker 1: who was also able to get an exclusive interview with
Speaker 1: UAW President Sean Fain, covered a range of issues.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to some of the highlights.
Speaker 9: Joe Kernan, who's worth three million dollars, that's his salary
Speaker 9: at CNBC. He said, that's just optics. What the CEOs make,
Speaker 9: it doesn't really matter. UAW is deploying a quote politics
Speaker 9: of envy by continually hammering the.
Speaker 7: CEO pay are you and the workers just quote envious
Speaker 7: of the CEOs.
Speaker 11: I call it a politics of reality, the reality of
Speaker 11: what our members go through every day. I mean, the
Speaker 11: majority of our workers are scraping to get by paycheck
Speaker 11: to paycheck.
Speaker 6: I mean, you know that's not envy.
Speaker 11: You know, when workers start out at fifteen or sixteen
Speaker 11: dollars an hour and it could take them years as
Speaker 11: attempt to even get the full time. If they get
Speaker 11: the full time, there's no guarantee they'll get there. If
Speaker 11: they do, they go to eighteen and then they have
Speaker 11: an eight year progression to get the full pay. They're
Speaker 11: not our members are. This isn't the old Big three
Speaker 11: where you know, it was the gold standard. When you
Speaker 11: got a job at the Big three, you were set
Speaker 11: for life. That's not what this is anymore. And that's
Speaker 11: what we're fighting to bring back. These jobs should matter.
Speaker 11: And we're generating a quarter of a trillion dollars in
Speaker 11: profits in the last decade, twenty one billion the first
Speaker 11: six months this year, and our workers are falling further
Speaker 11: and further behind.
Speaker 6: That's got to stop.
Speaker 11: And you know it's it's ironic, you know, when you
Speaker 11: know Kramer's compared me to Trotsky or anyone else and
Speaker 11: talking about, you know, the ninth class at Harvard's going
Speaker 11: to be Sean Fayne and in communism, and I laugh.
Speaker 11: You know it's like I tell them, you know, yeah,
Speaker 11: there's I come from Central Indiana. I said, yeah, that's
Speaker 11: Central Indiana is really known for a breeding ground for
Speaker 11: cornfields and communism.
Speaker 6: It's it's laughable.
Speaker 9: I don't know if you saw Mary Barraw, she the
Speaker 9: General Motors CEO, did a bit of a robotic interview
Speaker 9: on CNN. She was asked, you know, how do you
Speaker 9: kind of justify you're getting a thirty four percent increase?
Speaker 9: Why should workers get She gave some weird math equation
Speaker 9: that ninety two percent of her salary is based on
Speaker 9: company performance. I kind of take that reading in between
Speaker 9: the lines, is the stock price? Could you kind of
Speaker 9: talk about because it seems like they're just doing this
Speaker 9: scheme of buying back the stock that juice up the
Speaker 9: stike so the CEO and executives make more pay not
Speaker 9: she's not specifically talking about like the workers.
Speaker 11: Well, the worst part of this, like I tell people,
Speaker 11: when she talks about performance, she's getting paid and the
Speaker 11: stock price goes up and down based off the performance
Speaker 11: of our members, of our workers. Because they're in their
Speaker 11: busting their asses doing this work, delivering great product, sales happen.
Speaker 11: That generates the massive profits. But the sick twisted part
Speaker 11: of this is you look at the last four years,
Speaker 11: incomes of went up. Sales have went up sixty five
Speaker 11: percent in the Big three, CEO pay went up forty percent,
Speaker 11: stock buybacks went up fifteen hundred percent. This is our time,
Speaker 11: this is our we call this our generation defining moment.
Speaker 6: This is it.
Speaker 11: And so you know, and when I talk about not
Speaker 11: having limits, you know, throughout my campaign, ain't running for
Speaker 11: this job. And even since then, when we're talking about
Speaker 11: our issues, when we put our demands out there, I
Speaker 11: can't tell you how many people would say, you know, oh,
Speaker 11: you'll never get cost of living back, that's the thing
Speaker 11: of the past. You'll never Why are you fighting for pensions?
Speaker 11: We'll never see a pension. And all I hear is
Speaker 11: what we can't do and our unfortunately that was driven
Speaker 11: by a leadership that had a can't do mentality, settling
Speaker 11: for the bare minimum and making people think that's okay.
Speaker 11: The sky has to be the limit. We cannot limit ourselves.
Speaker 11: And what we can achieve if the founders of this
Speaker 11: union would have went into negotiations saying what they can't do,
Speaker 11: if they would have went in and they would have fought,
Speaker 11: or if they wouldn't they fought, They fought, They got
Speaker 11: beat up. They some gave their lives to have this opportunity,
Speaker 11: and they didn't give a damn what anybody told them.
Speaker 11: They couldn't have. They said, no, we're going to take it.
Speaker 11: We're going to get what we have to get, no
Speaker 11: matter how to buy any means necessary.
Speaker 9: I don't really care if you endorse President Biden. That's
Speaker 9: all that Ceenn cares about. But I'm interested. You know,
Speaker 9: you hear some verbally kind of pro worker language. He did,
Speaker 9: you know, stop around road strike at the end of
Speaker 9: last year. But aside from you know, occasional vague support,
Speaker 9: there hasn't been a lot of action. There was no
Speaker 9: push for the pro Act, which would have, you know,
Speaker 9: been a big boost for organized labor when Democrats had
Speaker 9: complete control. You know, Biden apparently is sending two top
Speaker 9: aids here. I don't know what they'd be doing, but
Speaker 9: we know the Republicans and their views on labor. Do
Speaker 9: you need more from the Democratic Party, aside from you know,
Speaker 9: talk and showing up when the cameras are here.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean, the proof's got to be in a pudding.
Speaker 11: The proof's going to be in the work.
Speaker 6: I mean.
Speaker 11: And as we said, our endorsements are going to be earned.
Speaker 11: It would drive me nuts as a worker to just
Speaker 11: watch sometimes we just endorse people and there's really no
Speaker 11: body of work behind that. And we can't be taken
Speaker 11: for granted. No more, workers shouldn't allow themselves to be
Speaker 11: taken for granted. And so, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 11: of things going on in this economy, and there's a
Speaker 11: lot of things with the ev transition. I mean, we're
Speaker 11: not against a green economy.
Speaker 6: I mean, we got to.
Speaker 11: Have clean air, we got to have clean you know,
Speaker 11: we've got to have a world for people to live in,
Speaker 11: future generations to live on. And but it's got to
Speaker 11: be a just transition where you know, labor is guys,
Speaker 11: the seeds a table. You know, there's a lot of money,
Speaker 11: you know, with the IRA that was put in play
Speaker 11: with the government, a lot of our taxpayer dollars to
Speaker 11: help fund this transition. But again, like always, the corporation
Speaker 11: has come with their hands out there's always way the
Speaker 11: government finds a way to put money in our pockets,
Speaker 11: but labor gets left behind.
Speaker 6: Labor cannot continue to be left behind.
Speaker 11: And that's been our message to the White House, to Congress,
Speaker 11: and to anyone that'll listen.
Speaker 6: And so you know, that's that's got to change.
Speaker 1: So you can really see there the way that his
Speaker 1: vision is to try to restore the previous eras understanding
Speaker 1: of what an auto worker job should mean, that it
Speaker 1: should be the gold standard. As he put it, it
Speaker 1: should mean that you can have a stable middle class life.
Speaker 1: And by doing so, he's trying to redefine what that
Speaker 1: looks like for the entire working class, with the entire
Speaker 1: you know, blue collar and also service sector working class
Speaker 1: should be able to expect from their job.
Speaker 4: So, you know, I think he's very compelling.
Speaker 1: It's very clear he was just elected, as I've pointed out,
Speaker 1: and over the sort of like historic more company tied leadership.
Speaker 1: The members for the first time had a truly democratic election.
Speaker 1: This is the leadership that they chose. They wanted to
Speaker 1: go in this more militant direction because they've seen the
Speaker 1: way that their wages have been eaten away and eaten
Speaker 1: away and eaten away over years. They've seen the way
Speaker 1: that they got nothing back after basically bailing out these automakers.
Speaker 1: And the latest information just this morning is that they've
Speaker 1: set a kind of a new deadline of new non Friday.
Speaker 1: If they aren't able, which it doesn't look like they're
Speaker 1: likely to be, aren't able to come to some sort
Speaker 1: of a contract agreement before noon on Friday, they're going
Speaker 1: to then escalate the strike and bring in additional plants
Speaker 1: from the Big Three in order to strike and join
Speaker 1: what's already about ten thousand workers out of I think
Speaker 1: it's ten thousand out of the one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand UAW workers who are already on the picket line.
Speaker 1: So you can hear a lot of clarity there in
Speaker 1: what his goals ultimately are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's really interesting the way that he's
Speaker 2: phrasing it. It's very important. Actually, it probably comes at
Speaker 2: the best possible time. I also think that his confrontational attitude,
Speaker 2: specifically toward the boss class, as you said, you know,
Speaker 2: coming in a time of historic acceptance of unions, of
Speaker 2: growing political I wouldn't say there's political opposition in the
Speaker 2: same way that there would have been you know, ten
Speaker 2: or fifteen years ago. So anyway, I think it's very
Speaker 2: interesting to see how he's positioning himself, but also to
Speaker 2: see how much, you know, given the interviews that we
Speaker 2: saw with the workers, all of them they don't want
Speaker 2: to get involved in the politics.
Speaker 3: They're just like, well, we just want better pay.
Speaker 2: So clearly he is speaking, you know, on behalf of them,
Speaker 2: and that militant attitude is reflective of what they elected
Speaker 2: him to do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's probably the biggest take.
Speaker 4: He's critical of.
Speaker 1: It was very critical of Trump, saying we are fighting
Speaker 1: with every fiber of our being against the billionaire class
Speaker 1: and need to stop electing these people who are you know,
Speaker 1: basically screwing everybody over. But he also has been very
Speaker 1: critical of the Biden administration and saying, you know, their
Speaker 1: big rub is not that they don't want to transition
Speaker 1: to evs. It's that they want to ma make sure
Speaker 1: that those jobs are going to be union jobs.
Speaker 4: That's the big rub.
Speaker 1: The original plan of the idea of the Administration and
Speaker 1: Inflation Reduction Act is that those incentives to the carmakers
Speaker 1: would come with a requirement that they be union jobs,
Speaker 1: but that got dripped out in negotiations, Joe Manchin in
Speaker 1: particular didn't want it, and so there are now no
Speaker 1: protections in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure that
Speaker 1: these new battery plants and the new ev manufacturing facilities
Speaker 1: are actually union.
Speaker 4: So that is at the core of this fight.
Speaker 1: That is a genuine rub between the auto workers and
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. It's something that of course Trump honed
Speaker 1: right in on and is trying to use to create
Speaker 1: a gulf there. And you know, is obviously going to
Speaker 1: be in town next week. But you know, from what
Speaker 1: I can tell from from Sean Fain and from the
Speaker 1: rest of the membership, like those political fights are really
Speaker 1: secondary to them. They're very much focused on the here
Speaker 1: and now, what's my wage going to be, what are
Speaker 1: my benefits going to be, what's the future going to
Speaker 1: be for me and my family in this industry, and
Speaker 1: how are we going to make sure that we secure
Speaker 1: our part in it? And that way, it really reminds
Speaker 1: me of lot of some of the fights with the
Speaker 1: writers and actors who are also looking at the way
Speaker 1: their industry is changing and saying, this is our chance
Speaker 1: to make sure that we have a secure spot in
Speaker 1: what this future looks like with AI and also with streaming,
Speaker 1: and they can already see the way that they're getting
Speaker 1: completely screwed in terms of streaming revenue. I'man just basically
Speaker 1: cut out completely from streaming revenue, whether you're an actor
Speaker 1: or a writer. And so they're saying, we're using this
Speaker 1: point little moment that we have when contracts are up
Speaker 1: and when the labor market is tight, and when we
Speaker 1: have an administration, a national ab relations board that at
Speaker 1: least is not going to completely screw us, to try
Speaker 1: to make sure we can secure our future in a
Speaker 1: changing industry. And it's the exact, very similar dynamics here
Speaker 1: with autoworkers.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah, I'm fascinating to see how it continues to spiral.
Speaker 2: It seems like the lawmakers aren't sorry, the bosses aren't
Speaker 2: giving in here, so a wider strike obviously really hit
Speaker 2: their bottom line. And we'll see if they can hold
Speaker 2: out as long as the studios can. I don't think so,
Speaker 2: given the current economic just how united the UAW is
Speaker 2: and you know, get their ability to stretch and all that.
Speaker 3: But hopefully it's not a long one.
Speaker 1: Hopefully they seem very committed, and you know, we'll see
Speaker 1: what the automakers ultimately do. The ball is in their court,
Speaker 1: as they say, that's all right. Now we're going to
Speaker 1: shift gears. We have some special guests joining us in
Speaker 1: studio here, two Australian members of Parliament who are advocating
Speaker 1: for the release of Julian Assange.
Speaker 4: They are in town. They're going to join us right now.
Speaker 1: We're very excited to have two special guests in studio
Speaker 1: here with us this morning. Two members of Parliament all
Speaker 1: the way from Australia, from two very different political ideologies,
Speaker 1: who are in town to advocate for the release of
Speaker 1: Julian Nossane. We have a Member of Parliament Barnamy Joyce
Speaker 1: and also Member of Parliament Monique Bryan.
Speaker 4: Great to have both of you here with us.
Speaker 3: Thanks you, thanks having us on your show.
Speaker 1: Absolutely course, So if you could start just by telling
Speaker 1: us why are you in town? Why make what is
Speaker 1: a very long trip to come here and advocate on
Speaker 1: behalf of Julian Assange.
Speaker 3: Oh thanks Chris. Yes, it's a long way to come.
Speaker 10: And the parliamentary delegation that's come Australia, there's six of us,
Speaker 10: is unique, I think, as far as we can tell
Speaker 10: us unprecedented for three members from our Lower House and
Speaker 10: our Upper House to come in this way. But we're
Speaker 10: also people from across the political spectrum in Australia, which
Speaker 10: basically reflects the fact that our electorates feel really strongly
Speaker 10: about the Assange case. More than nine out of ten
Speaker 10: Australians now feel that it's pastime for Julian the signs
Speaker 10: to be released and to be allowed to go home
Speaker 10: to be with his wife and his two children. There's
Speaker 10: a real wave of support for him in Australia. We're
Speaker 10: very anxious about the prospect that he could be extradited
Speaker 10: from the United Kingdom to the States, and we're here
Speaker 10: to advocate on his behalf.
Speaker 3: So to talk up a little bit about that, Sarah,
Speaker 3: what are the issues at stake? Is about us standing
Speaker 3: up for journalism. He's a citizen.
Speaker 2: What are some of the issue areas that have united
Speaker 2: you know all these disparate political coalitions do for them
Speaker 2: to come to Washington and say this is something that
Speaker 2: we demand.
Speaker 13: Let's go through the issues here. For me, it's not
Speaker 13: so much about Julian Nossinge. It's a principle all about
Speaker 13: extra territorial reach. Let's put a turn around. Let's imagine
Speaker 13: a guy from Ohio and all of a sudden, he
Speaker 13: lives in Ohio. He's never committed an offense in the
Speaker 13: United States at a state level or federal level, and
Speaker 13: then Australia says, well, he's committed offense for US, and
Speaker 13: then he goes overseas. The next thing you know, Australia
Speaker 13: is saying, well, he's coming to jail in Australia. He's
Speaker 13: going to stay there for one hundred and seventy five years.
Speaker 7: The people of the.
Speaker 13: United States would rightly say, what on earth is going
Speaker 13: on here? Let's go through some other things. Julian or
Speaker 13: Sanche never stole anything from the United States. A guy
Speaker 13: by the name of Bradley Manning who then became Chelseah's
Speaker 13: then Chelsea Manning did and then he published it Let's
Speaker 13: go through a Nothing. He didn't publish it first. An
Speaker 13: American guy by the name of John Young published it
Speaker 13: first from cryptome. I think it was the name website.
Speaker 13: It's just a Julian had a much large reach in Australia.
Speaker 13: Julian actually got a Walkly Award journalism award. Now I'm
Speaker 13: not here to advocate. Actually think that morally it was wrong,
Speaker 13: but it wasn't a criminal offense in Australia, and that's
Speaker 13: a big difference. And we've got other issues. We've got
Speaker 13: a lady by the name of Chung Lei. She's in
Speaker 13: jail in China. She's a journalist. So what do we
Speaker 13: say there?
Speaker 6: Do we say?
Speaker 13: The Chinese are, well, you should send her back. Let's
Speaker 13: go back and say, hey, how about how about you
Speaker 13: work on your first roll in your bone, in your
Speaker 13: backyard and then come and talk to us. So as
Speaker 13: a principal, it's where a lot of australianers said, are
Speaker 13: this is messy. And I think for us, in our
Speaker 13: relationship close relationship with the United States, especially on defense
Speaker 13: a new world, we see it as a mess and
Speaker 13: we just won't cleaned up and moved on.
Speaker 4: Miss Ryan.
Speaker 1: How is the reception here in Washington, Ben, How the
Speaker 1: politicians that you've been speaking with Are they receptive?
Speaker 3: They have been really receptive.
Speaker 10: So we've met thus far with representatives from the Department
Speaker 10: of State and the Department of Justice and a couple
Speaker 10: of politicians, and we're meeting with a number more today.
Speaker 10: And I think the thing that's really resonated is the
Speaker 10: center which this really matters to Australians, and I think
Speaker 10: people are a bit surprised, and we've heard on several
Speaker 10: occasion people saying, well, we didn't think you guys were
Speaker 10: that fussed about it, that worried about it, that you
Speaker 10: cared that much about Juliana Sanje's situation, but also that
Speaker 10: they weren't as aware as we want them to be.
Speaker 10: In that's while we're here about how strongly we feel
Speaker 10: about freedom of the press and about protection of our citizens' rights.
Speaker 10: And one of the things we've said repeatedly is that
Speaker 10: Australians have huge respect for the US and our countries
Speaker 10: work really closely together in lots of ways, economic, on defense,
Speaker 10: in any number of other ways, and there's not many points
Speaker 10: of difference between the US and Australia.
Speaker 3: We have great respect for.
Speaker 10: Your Constitution, in your First Amendment right to freedom of
Speaker 10: the speech of speech and freedom of the press, and we,
Speaker 10: I guess expect a reciprocal level of respect for our
Speaker 10: press and for the speech of our citizens, and we
Speaker 10: don't want this to become a point of difference between
Speaker 10: Australia and the US. Right that's something we're trying to
Speaker 10: say we come here not to pick a fight, but
Speaker 10: to advocate on behalf of someone that matters to us
Speaker 10: and hopefully to strengthen the relationship between Australia and the US,
Speaker 10: not the reverse.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a very powerful message and so just outlines
Speaker 2: on the steps for what comes next. And there's currently
Speaker 2: an extradition fight about bringing him over from the UK.
Speaker 2: If the US were to drive the charges, would that
Speaker 2: drop the extradition You'd be free to go home?
Speaker 3: Is that what we're advocating.
Speaker 13: For Saga, Yeah, precisely, right, there's no point extraditing someone
Speaker 13: to the United States if there's no charge to answer
Speaker 13: exactly right now. During the science was probably in prison
Speaker 13: for around about eleven years impact I'm more about thirteen.
Speaker 13: Part of it sort of set self in prison and
Speaker 13: the Ecuador and AMBERSIEMI saw that. But right now he's
Speaker 13: in a place called Belmarsh Prison, which is a high
Speaker 13: security prison in England. He gets out for one out
Speaker 13: or two hours a day. And if you think about it,
Speaker 13: he said, well why are you in jail? Look, you
Speaker 13: didn't commit a crime in Australia. There is no Australia.
Speaker 13: It's not like a you know, sort of a backwater
Speaker 13: in a remote corner of the world that goes around
Speaker 13: deliberately persecuting people, or we have special laws. We're very
Speaker 13: similar on a common law principle, and how we the
Speaker 13: United States works, and we just we're trying to take
Speaker 13: people on the journey and trying to say this is
Speaker 13: not a right or left thing. I was Deputy Prime
Speaker 13: Minister of Australia and I'm from the right. Now I'm
Speaker 13: strongly from the right. And if we in Australia both
Speaker 13: the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, who
Speaker 13: polls apart in both ones from the left of the
Speaker 13: left once from the right of the right, have both
Speaker 13: landed in the same spot, it really just calls into question,
Speaker 13: you know, think about it, Just think about this principle,
Speaker 13: because we don't we have a strong belief in the
Speaker 13: United States, and therefore United States is such a leading
Speaker 13: role in so many areas of the globe, and you
Speaker 13: don't want one sort of barnacle, the sort of sullied reputation.
Speaker 13: You just say, let's park the scene and move on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, unfortunately we've got more than one bon We can
Speaker 1: talk about that another time. Has public sentiment in Australia shifted.
Speaker 1: Has pressure been building on this?
Speaker 10: It really has, for a number of different reasons. The
Speaker 10: first thing is that this has gone for more than
Speaker 10: eleven years, during which time Julian has married, and he
Speaker 10: has two small children who've never had an opportunity to
Speaker 10: live with him, and so we do feel like enough
Speaker 10: is enough. In that context, Chelsea Manning has been tried,
Speaker 10: found led guilty, been found guilty, convicted to thirty five
Speaker 10: years in jail, but then had her sentence commuted by
Speaker 10: President Obama, so she now walks free, whereas mister a
Speaker 10: Stunt has never actually been sent to trial as such,
Speaker 10: and eleven years later, is still being detained. It seems
Speaker 10: egregious that contrast to us really hits very poorly. But
Speaker 10: the other thing that's happened over time is that we
Speaker 10: have understood more about our own military's engagement in Iraq
Speaker 10: and Afghanistan and around some of the circumstances of that engagement.
Speaker 10: A number of criminal trials in Australia underway now are
Speaker 10: about to start of military personnel from Australia interesting for
Speaker 10: potential war crimes. And so I think we see the
Speaker 10: information that mister Assange released in a different light now
Speaker 10: than we did when it was released, and I think
Speaker 10: that probably to some extent as well, reflects some of
Speaker 10: the things that have happened in the US. Sure with
Speaker 10: the vision and the documents that he released. With the
Speaker 10: passage of time, we recognize their significance and their value,
Speaker 10: and we would not be seeing that sort of information
Speaker 10: if journalists feel that they can't take classified documents and
Speaker 10: publish them in the public interest if they're truthful.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that there may also be a bit
Speaker 1: of an opportunity with this administration because under the Obama
Speaker 1: Biden administration, they were no fan of Julian Assange, but
Speaker 1: they evaluated the relevant laws and said, we don't see
Speaker 1: how we can prosecute this man without criminalizing all of
Speaker 1: journalism and criminalizing publishers and the other out It's like
Speaker 1: the New York Times that we're also reporting on this
Speaker 1: in for.
Speaker 10: Me, de Spiegel, LeMond, El Pos, the Guardian, all of
Speaker 10: those would have been drawn into the same thing and
Speaker 10: they would have had to have been prosecuted.
Speaker 4: And the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: And so Biden was obviously vice president then so is
Speaker 1: there a sense that, okay, potentially we can make the
Speaker 1: argument like let's just go back to what was decided previously.
Speaker 4: Under the Obama Biden administration.
Speaker 13: Well, we look for the outcome and we'll leave the
Speaker 13: process up to the United States, and we understand that
Speaker 13: you can't turn up in another country with the process
Speaker 13: of duress. And it's really on the same principles. You've
Speaker 13: got to turn up and show your case, plead your case,
Speaker 13: explain yourself. And that's that's why we are here. My
Speaker 13: position is not so much on as a person who
Speaker 13: has involvement in military and Australia, I'm not here to
Speaker 13: justify on a moral basis what Juan Thessanche did. That's
Speaker 13: if I've never met the guy. I don't even know
Speaker 13: whether i'd like him.
Speaker 4: That's it's kind of irrelevantly.
Speaker 3: It's kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 13: I think it's important for people to know that because
Speaker 13: a lot of the times what people are doing is
Speaker 13: they looking at the action making a judgment on the process.
Speaker 13: The process must be right, because I don't I have
Speaker 13: a view of this person, and you guys say no,
Speaker 13: you've got to separate that as you know that in law,
Speaker 13: the lady who represents justice as a sword, she has scales,
Speaker 13: but she's also got a blindfold, and you've got to
Speaker 13: be blinded to the person and not make a judgment.
Speaker 13: And let's see where that process ends. I just think
Speaker 13: on a cogent examination of it, people has to say
Speaker 13: exactly what you will have everybody in see an end
Speaker 13: everyone in fox. I mean, they better build a really,
Speaker 13: really really big jail, because if this is the case,
Speaker 13: there's a lot of people going to jail, and that's
Speaker 13: obviously peytently absurd.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's not just the journalists to a bit risk,
Speaker 10: it will impact all of us because we wouldn't receive
Speaker 10: the news that we need to receive if journalists are
Speaker 10: afraid to publish it.
Speaker 1: Is there any action that you would ask our audience
Speaker 1: to take to support your efforts here?
Speaker 4: Anything that people.
Speaker 13: Could do to be a I think the really important
Speaker 13: thing is to think about the case and then lobby
Speaker 13: your Congress, your senator, make them aware of it. I
Speaker 13: have found in some instances I'm surprised at the lack
Speaker 13: of understanding maybe a view in a certain way after
Speaker 13: a discussion, But I think it's really important that people
Speaker 13: see it and see it for me through the light
Speaker 13: of a process and say, look, this is the United
Speaker 13: States of America. You know this. We're not some Central
Speaker 13: American Republic or something like that. This is kind of crazy,
Speaker 13: and we're certainly not the CCP in China. This is
Speaker 13: the kind of the way they carry on how we
Speaker 13: should be carrying on.
Speaker 14: Last words, Yeah, tell you I'm aware here because people
Speaker 14: lobbied US politicians listen to their constituents, and so we
Speaker 14: would really ask people to do that and to speak
Speaker 14: out about this because it matters to all of us.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you both so much for joining us, for
Speaker 2: making the trip, and hopefully thank you, thank.
Speaker 13: You thanks for having us.
Speaker 1: Had a couple of special elections this week. Both of
Speaker 1: them went in the direction of the Democratic candidate, and
Speaker 1: this led to some new analysis of how all of
Speaker 1: these special elections have been going, which points in a
Speaker 1: very different direction from how the polling has been going.
Speaker 1: Of course, the polling has Biden and Trump very tight,
Speaker 1: it has Republicans with a significant edge in terms of
Speaker 1: the congressional ballot. But these special elections have sort of
Speaker 1: consistently swung towards the Democrats by double digits over what
Speaker 1: would be expected. So go ahead and put this analysis
Speaker 1: up on the screen. We want to make sure and
Speaker 1: flag this for people. This is from ABC News and
Speaker 1: they say that Democrats have been winning big in special
Speaker 1: elections on average, so not in one race or the other.
Speaker 1: On average, they have won by margins up eleven points
Speaker 1: more than the weighted relative partisanship of their district. So
Speaker 1: whatever you would expect based on presidential results and based
Speaker 1: on what the normal partisan lean of a district is,
Speaker 1: Democrats have been out performing that by about eleven points.
Speaker 1: One of the special elections this particular week was actually
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire discre that is six percentage points more
Speaker 1: Republican leaning than the nation as a whole. It went
Speaker 1: for Trump, yet the Democrat won by twelve points, So
Speaker 1: that is an eighteen point Democratic overperformance above their partisan baseline. Okay,
Speaker 1: so now you may be asking does any of this matter? Well,
Speaker 1: that's kind of an open question. But usually put the
Speaker 1: next piece up on the screen. Usually what happens in
Speaker 1: these special elections does seem to correlate with what happens
Speaker 1: in terms of the national House popular vote. So if
Speaker 1: you have Democrats who are overperforming the special elections, they
Speaker 1: tend to overperform when it comes to the congressional ballot.
Speaker 1: When it comes to midterm or presidential year elections, they
Speaker 1: go through the data here.
Speaker 4: Now, the relationship does not always hold.
Speaker 1: There was a year here in nineteen ninety seven and
Speaker 1: ninety eight where Republicans were overperforming by twelve points, but
Speaker 1: then when it came to the national House popular vote
Speaker 1: it was more or less even they were at point nine.
Speaker 4: So not a big correlation there.
Speaker 1: But if you look at a lot of these other years,
Speaker 1: you can see there seems to be a trend of
Speaker 1: whatever party is overperforming the special elections tends to do
Speaker 1: wellme the congressional vote. Now, you could probably guess some
Speaker 1: of the reasons that might be contributing to this, same
Speaker 1: as when the predicted red wave did not materialize in
Speaker 1: the midterms, could very much be discussed with Trump and
Speaker 1: stop the steal and crucially abortion, which obviously has really
Speaker 1: motivated the Democratic part of the electorate. You could also say,
Speaker 1: you know, this could have to do and this may
Speaker 1: actually lessen the impact when it comes to a presidential
Speaker 1: election year. But it used to be that Republicans were
Speaker 1: the party that had more of the college educated voters
Speaker 1: who were more likely to be to routinely show up
Speaker 1: election after election after election, it was more difficult for
Speaker 1: Democrats to turn out their base. That dynamic has now
Speaker 1: flipped where it is Democrats, who overwhelmingly are bay college
Speaker 1: educated voters who are more likely to consistently turn out
Speaker 1: for elections. So you could say, Okay, well, maybe they're
Speaker 1: turnout for these special elections, but when you have a
Speaker 1: general election with likely Trump and Biden on the ballot,
Speaker 1: you may get a very different electorate. Another reason why
Speaker 1: you may have a discrepancy between what's happening in these
Speaker 1: special elections versus what the polls look like at this
Speaker 1: point is, right now, the polls do not have.
Speaker 4: What's called a likely voter screen.
Speaker 1: They're just looking at everybody, all registered voters, and they
Speaker 1: haven't started to factor in all right, but who's going
Speaker 1: to actually show up and who's not going to show up?
Speaker 1: So that could account for the difference. But it is
Speaker 1: very interesting to note that when people have actually been
Speaker 1: going to the polls and voting for candidates, Democrats have
Speaker 1: on average been outperforming by about eleven points.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think all these points are very valid.
Speaker 2: I think the only reason why we should all zero
Speaker 2: in as you said, is they've been especially predictive, and
Speaker 2: look in retrospect, they were one of the most predictive
Speaker 2: things of what was to come in the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two midterm elections. And also, I mean, the real thing
Speaker 2: is is that I believe very strong that one of
Speaker 2: the problems with polls is that they are unable to
Speaker 2: account for massive, small change, massive changes in a very
Speaker 2: short period of time. So one of the reasons that
Speaker 2: the polls were completely wrong in twenty sixteen is that
Speaker 2: Trump activated a ton of people who just had never
Speaker 2: voted before, and so pollsters had not built that into
Speaker 2: their model. All of these white working class voters crawled
Speaker 2: out of the would work, they hadn't voted since Ronald Reagan,
Speaker 2: and decided to come out to vote for Trump. The
Speaker 2: same thing happened with abortion. A lot of people who
Speaker 2: never voted before, never cared about electoral politics, crawled out
Speaker 2: of the would work and decided to vote. Also, even amongst
Speaker 2: people who do vote, these were people who increased their
Speaker 2: voting percentage. So, as you said, I even if you
Speaker 2: increase college educated voters who usually come out to vote,
Speaker 2: let's say sixty whatever percent they're voting in eighty ninety percent.
Speaker 2: That's why some of these were happening. Well, that still
Speaker 2: represents a big change in the election. I think that
Speaker 2: these special elections are so indicative for that reason that,
Speaker 2: especially when we're living through such crazy times, nobody and
Speaker 2: to pid the level of voter turnout.
Speaker 3: That we saw in twenty twenty or twenty twenty yea,
Speaker 3: that was.
Speaker 2: Massive, then everyone's like, uh, damn's gonna get blown out midterms.
Speaker 3: They always follow the script.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but in the aftermath of COVID, all this insanity
Speaker 2: and the dobbs, it's like, who boom, we have just
Speaker 2: had a big election. I think we'll probably have just
Speaker 2: as big. A one big voter turnout is usually a
Speaker 2: bad sign, at least right now for Republicans, because it
Speaker 2: just means newer voters who are entering the fray. Why
Speaker 2: in this moment would you be new to voting For
Speaker 2: a lot of reasons, it's abortion, and if abortion skews
Speaker 2: dramatically towards Democrats, so it's a big flashing red sign
Speaker 2: I think for Republicans.
Speaker 1: I've also seen some data to indicate that young voters
Speaker 1: zoomers and young millennials have really been surging to the polls,
Speaker 1: I guess your elections, and obviously that benefits Democrats, and
Speaker 1: I do think that there is a direct line between
Speaker 1: that and Trump, but also largely abortion. Now the other
Speaker 1: side of it is, listen, the midterms did not have
Speaker 1: Donald Trump on the ballot, and the you know, the
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen midterms did not have Donald Trump on the ballot.
Speaker 1: Also when Democrats did very well, Donald Trump likely is
Speaker 1: going to be on the ballot this time around. So
Speaker 1: does that bring back the dynamics we had in the
Speaker 1: past where the polls then under state Republican support. I
Speaker 1: have no idea at this point, but I will say
Speaker 1: I think it's really important to take note of this
Speaker 1: data because the polls we've seen misses at this point
Speaker 1: in both directions on the polls, but when people actually
Speaker 1: have to show up to vote, I think taking note
Speaker 1: of that voter behavior may actually be more indicative of
Speaker 1: the direction that we're heading in. With a million caveats,
Speaker 1: we don't know what the economy is going to be like,
Speaker 1: we don't know what the war in Ukraine is going
Speaker 1: to be like. We don't know what inflation is going
Speaker 1: to be like, we don't know what Trump's trials are
Speaker 1: going to be like, we don't know. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a million factors between now and then, not to mention,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are going to be things that are
Speaker 1: that happened that we have no concept of right now
Speaker 1: and could not possibly name, even as a potential chaos
Speaker 1: X factor. So a million caveats. But this is really interesting.
Speaker 1: Let me put another one as a former Kentucky resident
Speaker 1: who's kind of obsessed with Kentucky politics. One of the
Speaker 1: few states that has elections on the ballot this year.
Speaker 1: Virginia also has legislative elections on the ballot this year,
Speaker 1: but Kentucky's electing a governor this year. Now, back bear
Speaker 1: with me for a minute. Back in twenty fifteen, the
Speaker 1: year before Trump is elected, Kentucky had what ended up
Speaker 1: being a very canary in the coal mine kind of election.
Speaker 4: Now, people nationally.
Speaker 1: They have this conception of Kentucky as a red state.
Speaker 1: That's sort of true, but at the state level back
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen, actually Democrats still held the state House
Speaker 1: and they held the governorship. So the Kentucky Democratic candidate
Speaker 1: for governor was significantly in the seem to have large margins,
Speaker 1: seemed to be beating the Republican nominee god by the
Speaker 1: name of Matt Bevan by a large amount. Bevan was
Speaker 1: this kind of like Trumpian businessman, kind of a character,
Speaker 1: and out of nowhere there was a low turnout election
Speaker 1: and Bevin massively outperforms the polls and ends up sweeping
Speaker 1: into power, even though this was very unexpected in Kentucky politics. Okay,
Speaker 1: so ends up being a bellweather then for Trump precipitates,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump coming into twenty sixteen. Okay, so this
Speaker 1: time around, you have an incumbent Democratic governor, a guy
Speaker 1: by the name of Andy Basheer, who surprisingly is actually,
Speaker 1: even as a Democrat in red state, one of the
Speaker 1: most popular governors in the entire country. And he's running
Speaker 1: against a Mitch McConnell protege by the name of Daniel Cameron,
Speaker 1: who's currently the ag Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is poles. Take it with a grain of salt.
Speaker 1: They could be just as wrong as they were last
Speaker 1: time in Kentucky. But every pole that has come out
Speaker 1: of this race in recent months has had Andy Basheer leading,
Speaker 1: the Democrat leading, and actually by a quite significant margin.
Speaker 1: So this one, this is an internal pole. So I
Speaker 1: always take those with a grain of salt, but it
Speaker 1: actually reflects similar margin to what we've seen in other polls,
Speaker 1: and it has Andy Basheer up on on Daniel Cameron
Speaker 1: by a margin of nine points and he's over fifty percent.
Speaker 1: It's fifty one percent to forty two percent, again in
Speaker 1: the relatively read state of Kentucky. So if this result holds,
Speaker 1: that would be another thing to take a look at.
Speaker 1: The other survey that was taken the summer had Andy
Speaker 1: Wassheer leading Dan Cameron by eight points. So even though
Speaker 1: this is an internal it seems to track with some
Speaker 1: of the other polling that is out there. So that
Speaker 1: is another one, another potential bell weather to watch, which
Speaker 1: has been indicative at other times in the past. Now
Speaker 1: it's not the end all be all again, a million
Speaker 1: things can happen. You got Donald Trump on the ticket,
Speaker 1: who is a wild card in and of himself. But
Speaker 1: I think it's really interesting to take note of what
Speaker 1: is happening when voters are actually showing up at the polls.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean, of course, that was the most indicative
Speaker 2: thing of the polls, and it's why we have to
Speaker 2: zero in on it. And when you see a Republican underperformance,
Speaker 2: it's still a big problem, especially in state like Kentucky.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's also smart for Bashir to be talking
Speaker 2: about abortion all the time. We already know from that
Speaker 2: law that went up for a referendum in the state
Speaker 2: of Kentucky that even in a deep red state, what
Speaker 2: in Trump went by like thirty points or something outrageous
Speaker 2: like that, T twenty thirty points just blown out of
Speaker 2: the water.
Speaker 3: They still can't get it past the finish line.
Speaker 2: So it also a lot of people, as I was
Speaker 2: talking about, who don't traditionally vote, came out to vote
Speaker 2: for that one. They came out to vote in Michigan,
Speaker 2: in Ohio, Kansas, and the story is.
Speaker 3: Over and over and over and over again on the
Speaker 3: same thing.
Speaker 2: So any politician who's attached to that cause is the
Speaker 2: best possible thing that you can do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Andy Cher is running a brutal right now, did
Speaker 1: you watch it about abortion? It's this young girl who
Speaker 1: is straight to camera and you know, she's the picture
Speaker 1: of the you know, white all American girl talking about
Speaker 1: the fact that she, at twelve years old, was raped
Speaker 1: and that Dan Cameron would have forced her to have
Speaker 1: that baby.
Speaker 4: It is brutal and you.
Speaker 1: Know, again, just shows you even in a state like Kentucky,
Speaker 1: which is very religious, very culturally conservative, Even in Kentucky,
Speaker 1: this issue is a killer for Republicans, and the Democratic
Speaker 1: governor is making as much out of it as they
Speaker 1: possibly can.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, all right, sagary looking.
Speaker 3: At well, who is a journalist?
Speaker 2: Not that long ago? Actually not that hard to answer
Speaker 2: that question. They work for a news outlet.
Speaker 3: Easy.
Speaker 2: But around nineteen ninety six, when the Internet really began
Speaker 2: to take off and user generated content slowly began to
Speaker 2: eat into the attention span of Americans, it started to
Speaker 2: become not so easy.
Speaker 3: Is someone who just posts something that happened to them?
Speaker 3: Is that person a journalist? It's a tough question.
Speaker 2: A tougher question is this, Well, we have well enshrined
Speaker 2: rights as journalists here in the United States. Should those rights,
Speaker 2: as expressed in the Constitution and subsequent case law apply
Speaker 2: to that person. I've always aired on the side of yes.
Speaker 2: In fact, I err on the side of even if
Speaker 2: you're not a journalist, and don't even consider yourself one,
Speaker 2: I believe that if you're an everyday citizen, but then
Speaker 2: you produce an act of journalism like Let's say you're
Speaker 2: in public and something happens and you post about it,
Speaker 2: it should still apply to you for that instance. This
Speaker 2: is still the fight of our time, especially with the
Speaker 2: rise of the Internet and non institutional media. And the
Speaker 2: reason it matters today is how these people are treated
Speaker 2: by the LAE law, as expressed in a troubling new
Speaker 2: verdict here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: Concerning January sixth.
Speaker 15: Now.
Speaker 2: Stephen her Horn is a twenty three year old North
Speaker 2: Carolina resident. He was just found guilty of four misdemeanors
Speaker 2: in federal court in Washington relating to charges of having
Speaker 2: entered the US Capitol on January sixth. Horn's case is
Speaker 2: different from others because he has claimed since January sixth
Speaker 2: he was a journalist documenting the event rather than a protester.
Speaker 2: Horn's case has garnered scrutiny ever since the day of
Speaker 2: the attack, when he posted video to his Facebook page
Speaker 2: documenting the event with the captain quote, I was in
Speaker 2: DC today when the Capitol was stormed. Horn did not
Speaker 2: try to actually hide his presence in the attack. He
Speaker 2: followed up with footage with that was a post on
Speaker 2: January seventh, twenty twenty one, Here's what he wrote, quote,
Speaker 2: I was in DC today the Capitol was stormed. This
Speaker 2: is the full unedited footage that I took. He adds quote,
Speaker 2: this was not a peaceful protest. I saw many instances
Speaker 2: of pushing against police officers, as well as at least
Speaker 2: one instance where a barrage of projectiles was thrown. At
Speaker 2: the end, he says this quote, I did not enter
Speaker 2: the Capitol building as part of the protest or for
Speaker 2: cheap thrills, but to document and accurately record a significant
Speaker 2: event which was taking place. Feel free to share, download,
Speaker 2: repost his video or any clip from it. The footage
Speaker 2: was from video that was taken by a helmet cam
Speaker 2: that he was wearing at the time. Now, DC prosecutors
Speaker 2: have argued Horn is a sham journalist, that he invented
Speaker 2: the excuse the day after the attack to avoid criminal charges.
Speaker 2: Their argument is that the footage doesn't even show him
Speaker 2: trying to ask questions of people at the attack, and
Speaker 2: the footage was actually not even that good that I
Speaker 2: don't disagree with. They zoomed in on, particularly on a
Speaker 2: photo of him standing atop in Abraham Lincoln statue with
Speaker 2: a camera that was pointed at the crowd in selfie fashion.
Speaker 2: The defense, however, argued a different story. They noted that
Speaker 2: the entire footage does not show him ever participating in
Speaker 2: any stop to steal chance. They show that he was
Speaker 2: never an aggressive towards law enforcement. He did not destroy
Speaker 2: or participate in any destruction of property. In fact, public
Speaker 2: record himself shows that Horn turned himself in after the
Speaker 2: FBI wanted to question him in relation to the incident,
Speaker 2: and he even shared all of his footage with the
Speaker 2: FBI so they could identify other people involved in the attack.
Speaker 2: Since the event, Horn has produced a documentary on January
Speaker 2: sixth with an expansive list of tactical failures, the timeline
Speaker 2: perspectives on crowd control, and despite his defense in the
Speaker 2: expansive firstmen of protections provided to journalists under US law,
Speaker 2: the jury took only hours to convict him of the
Speaker 2: following entering or remaining in a restricted area, disorderly or
Speaker 2: disruptive conduct in a restricted area, disorderly conduct in a
Speaker 2: capitol building, parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, this is a major miscarriage of justice
Speaker 2: for several reasons. Number one is obvious the federal prosecutors
Speaker 2: here sought to cross the line of firstmen of protections
Speaker 2: to go after someone who, all evidence shows, did not
Speaker 2: engage in any egregious activity in the Capitol except for entering.
Speaker 2: If he was a normal citizen, it would be a
Speaker 2: different matter. But considering the decent enough evidence here that
Speaker 2: he genuinely was producing acts of journalism and has since
Speaker 2: committed set acts, it was not worth bringing charges and
Speaker 2: going to trial over such a matter. To be clear,
Speaker 2: I am not saying if you murder someone and then
Speaker 2: say it was for a documentary, you shouldn't be charged.
Speaker 2: I'm saying here that, considering how blurry the line is,
Speaker 2: and considering how many dozens of journalists that were present
Speaker 2: within the capital on that day, that establishing a precedent
Speaker 2: like this one makes it more difficult, not less, to
Speaker 2: conduct journalism from this day forward. In fact, one of
Speaker 2: the arguments that DC prosecutors made was that Horne was
Speaker 2: not credentialed. This is an insulting and an antiquated consideration
Speaker 2: of journalism.
Speaker 3: Think of it.
Speaker 2: Of some of the most monumental footage that you have
Speaker 2: seen taken in the last decade, very very little of
Speaker 2: it comes from credential journalists. They come from citizens in
Speaker 2: the wild who upload that content for the world to see.
Speaker 2: The act must be predected at all costs. Here it
Speaker 2: is clear the FED sought to make a statement that
Speaker 2: crossing into the Capitol building is so awful that it
Speaker 2: is worth impeding on First Amendment case law.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Crystal?
Speaker 2: And by the way, I'm not particularly sympathetic to this
Speaker 2: guy because it's a tough one.
Speaker 1: It's a tough case because here's the thing that gets
Speaker 1: me is he'd ever done anything, Like you've never done anything.
Speaker 1: He'd never produced any journalism before, and so it does
Speaker 1: feel very convenient.
Speaker 4: And he was, you know, he was on.
Speaker 1: Facebook, he was like supporting stop this deal groups and whatever.
Speaker 1: So it does feel very convenient that the day after
Speaker 1: he's like, I'm a journalist, guys, here's my journalistic footage.
Speaker 3: I get that.
Speaker 4: I think it's a tough one.
Speaker 2: I think it's tough that said, like, look, if he
Speaker 2: had beat somebody, if he had destroyed property, I'd say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, then that makes it much clear more clearly,
Speaker 1: because those are you know, those are separate crimes.
Speaker 4: But even if you are like you're not allowed to
Speaker 4: beat people up if you're a journal exactly right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think it's really a difficult one because,
Speaker 1: like I said, the thing that really sticks with me
Speaker 1: is he'd never done anything like this before.
Speaker 3: If I had to guess, he probably did invent it.
Speaker 2: But I still don't even care because I think that
Speaker 2: the fact is is that you if you.
Speaker 1: How do you, though, keep from having a principle that
Speaker 1: anyone can just like bring a camera and then commit
Speaker 1: a crime and then pretend to at to the fact like,
Speaker 1: oh it was all for journalism.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the thing it's about it. It depends on
Speaker 2: the saveria of the crime and like what it was.
Speaker 2: So if he had destroyed a structure, if he whatever,
Speaker 2: Like what is trespassing, We're talking about a misdemeanor entree
Speaker 2: charge here, like more separate one unrestricted ground. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's basically making it so that if you don't have
Speaker 2: a press For example, I don't have a press pass, okay,
Speaker 2: so when I have to go, I have to get
Speaker 2: a visitors pass. So let's say I didn't do that properly.
Speaker 2: But while I'm there, I'm like filming something, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, nobody would, but they could. And that's
Speaker 2: one of those work with you.
Speaker 1: I mean, it would be much more clear cut here
Speaker 1: you like we do with show. It's just why prior
Speaker 1: works of journalism and so it wasn't just an after the.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree.
Speaker 2: I still believe in the most expansive protection for the
Speaker 2: exact reason of always there will be the educase. And
Speaker 2: on the EDU case, we should side on the side
Speaker 2: of the First Amendment, especially whenever we're talking about misdemeanor.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about destruction. We're talking about you know,
Speaker 2: some bs trespassing here. Look, he probably invented it, to
Speaker 2: be honest, I really do. I really think he probably
Speaker 2: invented it.
Speaker 3: That's it. I don't care.
Speaker 2: I think that the precedent that's being set here is
Speaker 2: bad enough that it's like we shouldn't we shouldn't be
Speaker 2: bringing this charge. If he's a quanon shaman or whatever,
Speaker 2: that's a whole other matter, right, But like, even on that,
Speaker 2: it's like going to the length of a trial just
Speaker 2: to set a precedent for this.
Speaker 3: I don't know that that seems like on their I.
Speaker 2: Mean, think about how many people came out of Ferguson, right,
Speaker 2: who were I mean, they were right in the middle
Speaker 2: of it, Guys like Tim Poole or I forget some
Speaker 2: of the others. There's a lot of journalists today actually
Speaker 2: who made their name on for Not one of them
Speaker 2: were credential. They were just people with YouTube channels. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and they were caught up in the melee.
Speaker 1: The credential piece is obviously complete bullshit, right, But there's
Speaker 1: the additionalists on there who are But I mean, to me,
Speaker 1: the most compelling argument is like it's a low like
Speaker 1: since it's an edge case and it's this low level
Speaker 1: misdemeanor trespassing, it's like, all right, do we really want
Speaker 1: to set this back? That's to me the most compelling.
Speaker 1: But do I actually believe this guy that he was
Speaker 1: there for Johnalis purposes? No?
Speaker 3: Not really. I don't believe them, Crystal, What are you
Speaker 3: taking a look at?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: A new poll reveals that as autoworkers have gone and
Speaker 1: strike against the big three car companies, the public is
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly on their side. Courty Morning Console. Only eight teen
Speaker 1: percent of Americans oppose the autoworker strike, in contrast to
Speaker 1: the solid majority fifty four percent who explicitly support it.
Speaker 1: The rest are not sure. These numbers put opposition to
Speaker 1: the strike at about the same level of popularity as
Speaker 1: complete abortion bans and defunding the police. In other words,
Speaker 1: getting on the wrong side of this strike is politically moronic.
Speaker 1: Post pandemic Americans have become incredibly clear about their disgust
Speaker 1: for corporate greed and their support for the workers who
Speaker 1: our nation relies on every single day just to function.
Speaker 1: So I've been watching with great amusement as many Republicans
Speaker 1: have just gone ahead and stuck with their same old
Speaker 1: Reagan era anti union rhetoric, while also accidentally kind of
Speaker 1: making Joe Biden sound way more amazing on unions than
Speaker 1: he actually is.
Speaker 4: Just take a listen.
Speaker 16: It tells you that when you have the most pro
Speaker 16: union president and he teuts that he is emboldening the unions,
Speaker 16: this is what you get. And I'll tell you who
Speaker 16: pays for it is the taxpayers. You know here, from
Speaker 16: what I understand, the union is asking for a forty
Speaker 16: percent race. You know, the companies have come back with
Speaker 16: a twenty percent raise. I think any of the taxpayers
Speaker 16: would love to have a twenty percent raise and think
Speaker 16: that's great. But you know the problem is this is
Speaker 16: gonna we're all going to suffer from this. This is
Speaker 16: going to cost things to go up, and you know
Speaker 16: this is going to last a while. But you know,
Speaker 16: when you have a president that's constantly saying, go union,
Speaker 16: go union, this is what you get. The unions get
Speaker 16: emboldened and then they start asking for things that you
Speaker 16: know that companies have a tough time doing. And so
Speaker 16: I don't think government should get involved in this. These
Speaker 16: are private sector matters. But I do think the tone
Speaker 16: of how a president talks about unions and how a
Speaker 16: president emboldens them does play a role in this, and
Speaker 16: we're seeing what Biden has done play a role in this.
Speaker 15: I think Brunald Rayton game is a great example when
Speaker 15: federal voice side there must write that you strike your fire.
Speaker 15: Civil concept to me to extend that we can use
Speaker 15: that once again. Absolutely. The second thing I would do, though,
Speaker 15: is very important.
Speaker 17: This is a.
Speaker 15: Probably not a well known fact.
Speaker 17: The first thing part of the challenge that we have
Speaker 17: today with President Biden is I don't mean this would
Speaker 17: be disingenuous, I mean this would be sincere. I'm not
Speaker 17: sure if the words are bought and paid for but
Speaker 17: it certainly he has been leased by the unions. And
Speaker 17: I say that because the first bill he passed, y'all
Speaker 17: remember the one point nine trillion dollars COVID relief backage,
Speaker 17: I only had one percent for COVID vaccines and had
Speaker 17: eighty six billion dollars I believe for union pensions because
Speaker 17: they keep making these deals and as a result of
Speaker 17: the deal, they promised too much, deliver too.
Speaker 15: Little, and the tax payers pick.
Speaker 17: Up the tab.
Speaker 18: All of this stuff, These strikes, these UAW strikes again
Speaker 18: all right, just part of a broader whole picture here,
Speaker 18: which is that the unions have paid off Joe Biden,
Speaker 18: the no credit part for literally decades on end, and
Speaker 18: finally they got their man in the White House, the
Speaker 18: most pro union president since Barack Obama, and probably more
Speaker 18: pro union even than Barack Obama, who's too elitist. Joe
Speaker 18: Biden has been in the pocket of the union since
Speaker 18: day one in Wilmington, Delaware. Well, now all of these
Speaker 18: unions are seeing their moment to shine. It is amazing
Speaker 18: how we can keep relearning the same lessons over and
Speaker 18: over and over again.
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley, by the way, goes on to probably describe
Speaker 1: herself as a union buster. Tim Scott, as you heard there,
Speaker 1: apparently thinks that all workers exercising their rights to take
Speaker 1: collective action should just be summarily fired. No wonder these
Speaker 1: two are big donor favorites in a way. I actually
Speaker 1: they'll kind of appreciate the anti worker clarity of their
Speaker 1: message as opposed to Trump wants to signal symbolic support
Speaker 1: for workers in spite of the fact that his administration
Speaker 1: was stuffed with aggressive union busters, which fits with his
Speaker 1: business track record also as an aggressive union buster. But Haley,
Speaker 1: Scott and Shapiro here are giving Biden an accidental assists
Speaker 1: when they basically accept his rhetoric of being the most
Speaker 1: pro union president in history. This is, of course a
Speaker 1: wild overstatement, is true, Biden is way more pro union
Speaker 1: Barack Obama or any other president in my lifetime, as
Speaker 1: Nationhal Labor Relations Board has been phenomenal as his his
Speaker 1: rhetoric on this particular strike. But I am quite sure
Speaker 1: it will come as a surprise to Sean Fain and
Speaker 1: a lot of other union workers and leadership that Biden
Speaker 1: is a quote one hundred percent union shill. After all,
Speaker 1: the UAW has withhold held their endorsement over frustration that
Speaker 1: EVE incentives for new factories did not include requirements that
Speaker 1: those jobs be union. They might also want to talk
Speaker 1: to the rail workers who saw the White House work
Speaker 1: with rail bosses to cram down a deal that blocked
Speaker 1: their ability to strike. So, yeah, he is better than Obama.
Speaker 1: He is better than Clinton. He is wildly better than Trump,
Speaker 1: w Bush, or Reagan. But he could do a hell
Speaker 1: of a lot more than he has done. This commentary
Speaker 1: also completely denies workers any power agency. It was not
Speaker 1: Joe Biden who voted to authorize these strikes. It was
Speaker 1: rank and file workers who elected Sean Fain because of
Speaker 1: his more militant approach and voted almost unanimously to go
Speaker 1: out on this strike. These workers bailed on the automakers
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight. They have every reason in
Speaker 1: demand that their jobs do decent jobs at a time
Speaker 1: when automakers are turning massive profits and issuing billions in
Speaker 1: stock buybacks. After all, these companies have spent sixty six
Speaker 1: billion dollars in stock buybacks and dividends over the past
Speaker 1: ten years. Corton Robert Reich. This would be enough to
Speaker 1: hand out four hundred and forty thousand dollars to every
Speaker 1: single one of the striking autoworkers. So spare me your
Speaker 1: tiers for the billionaires and their multiinational corporations here now,
Speaker 1: for Haley and Scott, this is just kind of knee
Speaker 1: jerk Reagan Republicanism. It's like a doll that you pull
Speaker 1: a string and Chamber of Commerce anti union talking points
Speaker 1: come out.
Speaker 4: For Ben Shapiro, though he lays on.
Speaker 1: A lengthier ideological argument, he's clearly thought a lot more
Speaker 1: about this for why unions are always bad and had
Speaker 1: nothing to do ever with American middle class prosperity. Trashing
Speaker 1: as adults, anyone who thinks otherwise, take a listen.
Speaker 18: All adults who suggest that it's unions that made American
Speaker 18: light so wonderful during the nineteen fifties nineteen sixties. It
Speaker 18: was the union job, the union job where you sat
Speaker 18: there for ten hours a day doing riveting or whatever.
Speaker 18: And neglect the fact that a lot of those jobs
Speaker 18: you know now is use sitting in an air conditioned
Speaker 18: office doing another kind of job, and that your grandfather,
Speaker 18: who had to sit out there in the fact for
Speaker 18: doing the riveting, would kill for your job. Right now,
Speaker 18: put that aside, The fact is that the real reason
Speaker 18: America boom during the nineteen fifties is because every other
Speaker 18: place on Earth was on fire during the nineteen forties.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, I don't think anyone suggesting that
Speaker 1: blue collar work is easier or more desirable than cushy
Speaker 1: office jobs. On the contrary, the fact that autoworkers are
Speaker 1: doing demanding, difficult, physically taxing jobs only makes the case
Speaker 1: stronger for good pay and good benefits. But the evidence
Speaker 1: on unions helping and build American dream, it's really pretty indisputable.
Speaker 1: This chart right here, this says it all. So the
Speaker 1: blue line is union density, which has been on a
Speaker 1: steady decline since the nineteen seventies. The red line is
Speaker 1: middle class share of income low and behold as union's
Speaker 1: lost power and traction in our economy, the middle class
Speaker 1: fell off a cliff. More accurately, they were pushed off
Speaker 1: a cliff. Today, even with union power at a low EBB,
Speaker 1: they still benefit not only their own membership, but all
Speaker 1: workers within industries which are significantly unionized. So, for example,
Speaker 1: non unionized FedEx workers benefit from the fact that UPS
Speaker 1: is unionized. Tesla workers are likely to benefit from the
Speaker 1: fact that the Big Three are unionized. A recent Treasure
Speaker 1: report actually analyzed these impacts and found union workers on
Speaker 1: average earn twenty percent more than their non union counterparts,
Speaker 1: and that non union workers share in a spillover effect
Speaker 1: of increased wages themselves. Interestingly, they also find union membership
Speaker 1: is associated with some of the civic values that can
Speaker 1: serve as like Ben say they care a lot about
Speaker 1: Union members are more likely to vote, They're more likely
Speaker 1: to buy a house, to donate to charity, to attend
Speaker 1: community meetings, to volunteer, and to participate in neighborhood projects.
Speaker 1: That all makes a lot of sense. When you earn
Speaker 1: a good wage and you don't have to work a
Speaker 1: second or third job, you've got more time and mental
Speaker 1: energy for that type of civic engagement. Still think that
Speaker 1: only adults would believe that unions help build the two
Speaker 1: parent white picket fence broadly shared prosperity that conservatives in
Speaker 1: particular harken back to One thing I'm appreciating about this
Speaker 1: strike is how it creates a kind of political clarity.
Speaker 1: It's all fine and good to say vague things about
Speaker 1: the working class, but when the chips are down, what
Speaker 1: do you say, and more importantly, what do you actually do?
Speaker 1: We all know American workers cannot depend on the political
Speaker 1: class to have their backs and cut them in on
Speaker 1: the incredible prosperity of this nation. And that is why
Speaker 1: unions are so incredibly essential, because they give workers the
Speaker 1: ability to fight for themselves and to win in a prosperous,
Speaker 1: empowered working class could actually make America great again.
Speaker 4: I thought it was very interesting to see, and
Speaker 2: If you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.