Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: All right, you've just been listening to the once in
Speaker 2: future President Donald Trump once again assuming office. That's right,
Speaker 2: the once in current president. Uh Sager. Let me turn
Speaker 2: to you for your initial response. And you know, we've
Speaker 2: been sort of underscoring some of the contrasts between this
Speaker 2: Trump presidency versus the first Trump presidency, and to me,
Speaker 2: a lot of those were evident in the you know,
Speaker 2: the tone and the approach to this speech for versus
Speaker 2: the twenty sixteen American Garnrent speech.
Speaker 3: This was really a blend I thought of the two speeches,
Speaker 3: and it reflects the victory that Trump has now won
Speaker 3: as opposed to the underdog kind of surprise status that
Speaker 3: he had the first time American Carnage, and the themes
Speaker 3: of that speech were present, I would say in about
Speaker 3: the first ten to twelve minutes, where it was really
Speaker 3: a searing indictment of the Biden presidency, from foreign chaos
Speaker 3: to inflation, to an overall indictment of cultural liberalism and
Speaker 3: the left. So the way that the speech was structured
Speaker 3: was really interesting. It began, you know, both with the
Speaker 3: Golden Age of America starts right now if we think
Speaker 3: about it, almost like a college paper. The second paragraph
Speaker 3: then was one which laid out his theory of what
Speaker 3: went wrong in America, from immigration, chaos at the southern border, inflation,
Speaker 3: cultural liberalism, and then it came to his solutions. What
Speaker 3: was interesting actually was to hear many of the concrete proposals.
Speaker 3: That was the big thing that was very different from
Speaker 3: the first time around the specific executive orders. This was
Speaker 3: also tonally, you know, this is state of the Union Trump.
Speaker 3: This is his most disciplined. He only went off script
Speaker 3: one or two times. There was a weaving in of
Speaker 3: some of the most famous moments in American history, from
Speaker 3: the call to put a man on the Moon by
Speaker 3: John F. Kennedy, we will plant the stars and strikes
Speaker 3: on the planet Mars.
Speaker 4: He's talked specifically.
Speaker 3: I have here in my notes about many of the
Speaker 3: things that he ticked off from foreign chaos. But actually
Speaker 3: what's really interesting to me about the speech was this
Speaker 3: was only about thirty six some minutes. I think here
Speaker 3: as an inaugural address, relatively average in the number of times,
Speaker 3: but spent significantly less time on foreign affairs than I thought.
Speaker 3: And that is interesting to me because it is clear
Speaker 3: from what I could see with Trump's speech that this
Speaker 3: was all about politics here at home. So if we
Speaker 3: think about some of the previous big speeches by American presidents,
Speaker 3: the inaugural address is very often Famously, in two thousand
Speaker 3: and nine, Barack Obama extends his hand into our sorry
Speaker 3: his fist into a hand to the country of Iran,
Speaker 3: which led to the Iran Deal. President Reagan spent huge
Speaker 3: portions of his speech speaking about the Soviet Union, about communism, similarly.
Speaker 4: To George W. Bush. A lot of people will not
Speaker 4: George HW.
Speaker 3: Bush. Many people may not remember Bill Clinton spent a
Speaker 3: significant amount of time kind of thinking about.
Speaker 4: The post Cold War era.
Speaker 3: This was a speech about America and its problems, and
Speaker 3: to the extent that the foreign affairs were weaved into it,
Speaker 3: it was about our spirit of national unity and I
Speaker 3: will win to achieve the peacemaker unifier status. So I
Speaker 3: was really interested to see that tonally, how strikingly different
Speaker 3: that is than a lot of inaugural addresses that are
Speaker 3: often given. But yeah, overall, I would say it was
Speaker 3: a blend of the original twenty sixteen American carnage. We
Speaker 3: had the you know, the wealth that has been taken
Speaker 3: from you, with a really an indictment of the bipartisan
Speaker 3: elite of the Biden presidency, but then bringing it all
Speaker 3: really to a source of cohesive unity in America and
Speaker 3: that from that will flow prosperity both at home and abroad.
Speaker 3: So interesting for me to watch it, actually, I thought
Speaker 3: he did a pretty good job. Both he stuck to
Speaker 3: stuck to his overall text, which is difficult for him tonally,
Speaker 3: hit all of some of the most popular parts of
Speaker 3: his campaign promises and also that have been pulling as
Speaker 3: we've seen in some recent stuff.
Speaker 4: I'm sure we'll discuss in our shows going forward.
Speaker 3: So you know, overall, this is a speech that very
Speaker 3: much fits in the spirit of American carnage, but represents
Speaker 3: him coming into his second term. You know, will I
Speaker 3: will note you know there was not calls for unity
Speaker 3: quote unquote in terms of working with the Democrats. This
Speaker 3: was a defiant Trump, a popularly elected Trump that I
Speaker 3: thought was interesting also to see from him very much
Speaker 3: in terms of the lessons that he's taken over the
Speaker 3: last four years, linking his own persecution and you know,
Speaker 3: his legal you know, indictments from the Biden administration to
Speaker 3: how he was able to overcome that in the spirit
Speaker 3: of the American people, kind of fusing those two things.
Speaker 4: So very interesting speech, I.
Speaker 3: Thought overall, and I think it's quite effective in terms
Speaker 3: of him delivering his message.
Speaker 5: Emily, what were your thoughts.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, I think what we're seeing a lot
Speaker 6: of his advisors or his operatives tweet in unison is
Speaker 6: golden age. Golden age. He whoever wrote that speech was
Speaker 6: talking about sunshine pouring all over the world, and I
Speaker 6: think there was a really intentional effort to blend, or says,
Speaker 6: American carnage and optimism in a way that the original
Speaker 6: make America great Again never like that original catchphrase was
Speaker 6: not always forward looking in terms of the tone that
Speaker 6: Trump leveraged it in Reagan is very different than that.
Speaker 6: Reagan was much more forward looking whenever he talked about
Speaker 6: making America great again, which he literally used the same
Speaker 6: line that was from Reagan. And I think what Trump
Speaker 6: did was move a little bit more in that direction
Speaker 6: and tried to use the esthetic conjure, the aesthetic of sunniness,
Speaker 6: golden sunny. We're hearing this over and over again. I
Speaker 6: think that's what they wanted to be. The number one
Speaker 6: takeaway from the speech was the tone of like literally
Speaker 6: sunshine and gold Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and that's why I actually didn't think that
Speaker 2: it bore much of any resemblance in American Carners speech,
Speaker 2: because that one really went deep on not only painting
Speaker 2: a dark portrait of America, which you know many Americans
Speaker 2: agree with, and I also agree with painting that picture
Speaker 2: in a way that was an indictment of both party establishments.
Speaker 2: This is a much more partisan speech. But in addition,
Speaker 2: you know, the line in the speech that actually stood
Speaker 2: out the most to me as such an encapsulation of
Speaker 2: the difference between that speech and that moment and this
Speaker 2: moment is when he was talking about the La fires
Speaker 2: and he says, many rich and powerful people's homes burned down,
Speaker 2: and many of those rich and powerful people are with
Speaker 2: me here right now. So different from the theme of
Speaker 2: American Carnage was I'm for the forgotten man and the
Speaker 2: forgotten women. And now the optics are I have all
Speaker 2: of my billionaire buddies here with me, ready to run
Speaker 2: the government. If I could just I'm just going to
Speaker 2: read a portion so people could recall the American Carnage
Speaker 2: speech and what the tone was, and to me, how
Speaker 2: different it was from this almost felt like to your
Speaker 2: points are like a state of the Union. It was
Speaker 2: like a laundry list of working in that executive orders
Speaker 2: blah blah blah. But he said in that speech, which
Speaker 2: really painted the vision the sort of ideological orientation of
Speaker 2: trumpsm at least is the way it was sold to
Speaker 2: the public. We can talk about the differences between how
Speaker 2: it was sold and what it really was, but in
Speaker 2: any way, it was more of a sort of like
Speaker 2: let me lay out my vision, my view of the world,
Speaker 2: whereas this was more of sort of like a laundry
Speaker 2: list of policy. But in that original speech he said,
Speaker 2: for too long, a small group in our nation's capital
Speaker 2: has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have
Speaker 2: borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not
Speaker 2: share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left
Speaker 2: and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not
Speaker 2: the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been
Speaker 2: your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. The
Speaker 2: people who are sitting with him there on the dais
Speaker 2: in front of the cabinet members, the Elon Musks and
Speaker 2: the Jeff Bezos and the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world,
Speaker 2: they're the people that he was indicting in that original
Speaker 2: American carnage speech. And now they are giving him a
Speaker 2: million dollars or more for his inauguration. They're his best buddies.
Speaker 2: They're hanging out at mar A Lago, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: to me, that was what was most noteworthy about that speech.
Speaker 2: And actually Lee Fung, he had tweeted, over the next decade,
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley will replace blue and white collar workers with
Speaker 2: AI and outsource more jobs overseas. So the people that
Speaker 2: are standing around Trump. They're going to be They're on
Speaker 2: a mission to do that. Truckers, designers, engineers, lawyers, and
Speaker 2: far more power will flow to the dozen tech overlords
Speaker 2: standing next to Trump at his inauguration.
Speaker 5: Ominous optics.
Speaker 2: And you know, for me, that's sort of the biggest
Speaker 2: takeaway from this entire dynamic. And Lee made another great point,
Speaker 2: which was, you know, at Trump's rallies, he really went
Speaker 2: out of his way to have regular working people. I
Speaker 2: remember him going to McDonald's and driving the garbage truke,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. And now I think it was
Speaker 2: Stoller who said this, those people are literally out in
Speaker 2: the cold, while the tech oligarchs are there warmly, you know, warmly,
Speaker 2: snug in the embrace of the capital, standing there behind
Speaker 2: Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is interesting.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, Christal, what you're describing as the fundamental
Speaker 3: tension of the overall Trump movement, which is one both
Speaker 3: that is backed by an establishment consensus, most of it
Speaker 3: really freaked out by the popular vote victory mandate that
Speaker 3: Donald Trump was then delivered on the backs of working
Speaker 3: people of the United States. If we think about the
Speaker 3: working class coalition that delivered the popular vote here to
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, the swing state victory all seven, exactly right.
Speaker 4: Those are the people.
Speaker 3: And I see all of those people walking about the city,
Speaker 3: as you said, bundled up, some of them not bumbled
Speaker 3: up too much. You guys didn't listen.
Speaker 4: But it's okay. That yeah, well that's a whole which.
Speaker 2: By the way, in shorts for the inauguration of our president,
Speaker 2: wore a suit for bb net and yah whose visits.
Speaker 7: Wow, great, great call out. I love that very That
Speaker 7: is fantastic.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm going to I'm banking that one up there.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna steal that one from you. Just a little
Speaker 3: bit more on the speech. What is so you know,
Speaker 3: dynamics wise too, I have to say we should never
Speaker 3: have these in the capital again. I hate the applause
Speaker 3: lines in terms of pausing, just like the State of
Speaker 3: the Union. Inaugural addresses, both delivered outside with the magisterial
Speaker 3: view of the capital. Are those, like you said, Crystal,
Speaker 3: which focus on the masses and the hundreds.
Speaker 4: Of thousands of people.
Speaker 3: All of the inaugural tickets, some two hundred thousand, were
Speaker 3: given away, right, so the expected crowd was one hundreds
Speaker 3: and thousands of people to attend this inauguration because it
Speaker 3: is the people's president when you keep it inside, just generally,
Speaker 3: I don't think it's great optic specifically for what you're saying.
Speaker 3: I do think it's a very important call out, the
Speaker 3: one that you just made. But I also think that
Speaker 3: this is a natural extension of Donald Trump becoming the
Speaker 3: Republican Party, right, because when you are the leader of
Speaker 3: the Republican Party, you can't indict the Republican Party. So
Speaker 3: if I'm looking through all of my notes, we just
Speaker 3: see Trump's conquering of the Republican Party, and hence why
Speaker 3: it was much more quote unquote partisan spreech. So he
Speaker 3: began his first priority was immigration. Today I will declare
Speaker 3: a national emergency at the southern border. Flowed from that
Speaker 3: was drill Baby, drill, inflation, and energy prices. What came
Speaker 3: after that was about Doge, then bringing back free speech
Speaker 3: to America, then DEI ending those policies, then eventually transitioning
Speaker 3: to the military, and of course some classic Trump giveaways
Speaker 3: were taken back the Panama Canal. We are changing the
Speaker 3: name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
Speaker 2: I think that part is actually worth dwelling on a
Speaker 2: little bit, because we've talked about this a little bit
Speaker 2: on the show, and I do think, what, you know,
Speaker 2: Russia invading Ukraine and getting away with it, but even
Speaker 2: more so is committing a genocide in Gaza and getting
Speaker 2: away with it. This has really solidified a new era
Speaker 2: in foreign policy that Trump is seizing on. And so
Speaker 2: he is in this speech really overtly announcing a new
Speaker 2: American imperialism. I mean, he even uses the term manifest destiny,
Speaker 2: goes on and on about seizing the Panama Canal right,
Speaker 2: talks about renaming various things, and you know, it really
Speaker 2: is quite assertive. And also I would add into that,
Speaker 2: you know, as part of the immigration portion, he says
Speaker 2: he wants to declare the Cartels foreign terrorist organizations. That'll
Speaker 2: be one of the original executive orders. That means that
Speaker 2: he can go to war with Mexico with zero congressional
Speaker 2: input using the authorization for the US military force that
Speaker 2: was put in place for the War on Terror Post
Speaker 2: nine to eleven. So again another like quite imperialist, militaristic
Speaker 2: direction that he feels, you know that he is obviously
Speaker 2: unafraid of embracing and putting out there as part of
Speaker 2: his project for this term and this administration. And one
Speaker 2: more thing before I get you guys both to weigh
Speaker 2: in on that saga. You mentioned how little there was
Speaker 2: on for like Ukraine. I don't think you mentioned Ukraine.
Speaker 2: They're just sort of an illusion to like of the
Speaker 2: wars that wouldn't have happened if I had been there.
Speaker 5: There was one mention.
Speaker 2: Of the Gaza at least temporary ceasefire deal that's in
Speaker 2: effect right now, which was all, we're happy the hostages
Speaker 2: are coming home, and that was it. So nothing broader
Speaker 2: about the end of the war, the end of the
Speaker 2: suffering of the patent, none of just a one liner
Speaker 2: about the hostages and that was all.
Speaker 5: So that was noteworthy to me as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're absolutely right, and you know it's interesting. So
Speaker 3: this is where the vagueness of Trump he often weighs
Speaker 3: for himself. Right, So what he does is by not
Speaker 3: by just saying I'm the peacemaker, the the conditions of
Speaker 3: peace itself.
Speaker 4: It's like, okay, well we'll figure it out in time.
Speaker 6: Same es actually, because he's not a hardened idealogue that's
Speaker 6: like change like it. And sometimes he is right, like
Speaker 6: on trade he is a hardened idea lug. But there's
Speaker 6: something I'm just like, Oh, the Paly Canal. Though I
Speaker 6: remember the Jimmy Carter saying, yeah, let's get that, let's
Speaker 6: get that shipped back.
Speaker 3: I mean, I do want to stick on this because
Speaker 3: it's actually important because at a big level, it's zoom out.
Speaker 3: You know, I've got a bunch of these books behind me.
Speaker 3: And when we think about you know, when there's the
Speaker 3: Trump book is here, and there's multiple other presidents and
Speaker 3: we're looking past, you know, thirty forty years behind us,
Speaker 3: what we will see is a collapse effectively of much
Speaker 3: of the liberal world order under the Biden administration, both
Speaker 3: from Israel and from Ukraine. Afghanistan was also a significant
Speaker 3: part of that. We are now fully back in the
Speaker 3: era of great power competition, and so that's why invoking
Speaker 3: President McKinley and the Theodore Roosevelt era of the early
Speaker 3: nineteen hundreds brings us back spirit virtually, in his speak
Speaker 3: of manifest destiny and others, back to that moment over
Speaker 3: one hundred years ago where the United States is an
Speaker 3: open and vigorous competition with Germany, with the UK, the
Speaker 3: expansionist powers and the imperial powers of Europe. Now we
Speaker 3: have both China Russia, various world orders and other things
Speaker 3: that are emerging. And it's actually a sign of that
Speaker 3: return of geopolitics that probably we could take the most
Speaker 3: from it. I mean, Donald Trump will be the very
Speaker 3: first American president in seventy five years to declare an
Speaker 3: open policy of expansionism in his inaugural address. We really
Speaker 3: should consider that the phrase manifest destiny and others has
Speaker 3: been uttered in terms of looking back to the founders.
Speaker 4: This is the.
Speaker 3: First time in the post World War two era that
Speaker 3: an American president taking the oath of office openly announces
Speaker 3: an expansion both from the Panama Canal. He didn't mention Greenland,
Speaker 3: but obviously Mexico there while phrasing, and similarly in terms
Speaker 3: of the Peacekeeper how would all that work out?
Speaker 4: I have no idea, obviously, and there's some huge questions.
Speaker 3: But spiritually that's very important and it actually it fuses well,
Speaker 3: I think with a lot of the politics. And that's
Speaker 3: why I often tell people, you know, when you read
Speaker 3: a book, so much of our politics rhymes with that
Speaker 3: era of We have huge questions about immigration hyphenation, What
Speaker 3: do we do about this With our society, we have
Speaker 3: big questions about our global Do we want to be
Speaker 3: a global power? Do we want to just be a
Speaker 3: you know, a nation of farmers. Tariffs is the same
Speaker 3: thing that was a huge question as the United States
Speaker 3: becomes rapidly industrializing and we became an exporting nation, how
Speaker 3: should we raise this? And then also the Gilded Age,
Speaker 3: and that's where we can also fuse that, and I
Speaker 3: think bring this full circle where we have this extraordinary
Speaker 3: separation of wealth and of workers, and so, you know,
Speaker 3: bringing all of those themes together, I just feel like, yes, look,
Speaker 3: nothing changes on a dime, but we've known a lot
Speaker 3: of this for quite some time. But it does feel
Speaker 3: really it hits home to me.
Speaker 4: Just it's very rare you get to live.
Speaker 3: Through a complete paradigm shift, and I think that this
Speaker 3: will be the beginning truly of that paradigm shift. And
Speaker 3: it raises a lot of really interesting questions about the
Speaker 3: United States, our role in the world, really, who we
Speaker 3: are at home.
Speaker 4: We all get to decide that. And it was it
Speaker 4: was messy, and.
Speaker 3: It was brutal, and there was a lot of arguments
Speaker 3: that happened then. And yeah, so that's that's really like
Speaker 3: my big macro takeaway from the speech.
Speaker 6: Well in soccer. One thing I think useful that frames
Speaker 6: it is we haven't mentioned he is now the oldest
Speaker 6: man to take the oath of office. Donald Trump is
Speaker 6: so obviously truly like at the time of him taking
Speaker 6: the oath of office, he is seventy eight years old,
Speaker 6: and that I think is a huge fact given the
Speaker 6: amount of time with port into discussing it in the
Speaker 6: context of Joe Biden, but also in the context of
Speaker 6: why Donald Trump has this sense that manifest destiny is
Speaker 6: what will return in America to pride, this is make
Speaker 6: America great again again, to return to manifest destiny, to
Speaker 6: the Monroe doctrine, to totally owning the hemisphere, and not
Speaker 6: having China come into Panama as he talked about he
Speaker 6: said in the section on Panama, who did we We
Speaker 6: didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama.
Speaker 6: So now we're taking it back and that is really interesting.
Speaker 6: The other thing I'll add Sager, both of your Crystal
Speaker 6: I think said something really really wise about how it's
Speaker 6: a tide shifting moment. It's a paradigm shifting moment, but
Speaker 6: there's still so much unsettled, And in reference to the
Speaker 6: Lee Fong post that Crystal brought up, I just want
Speaker 6: to say, we know, we have all talked to a
Speaker 6: lot of the people who spent the last half decade
Speaker 6: of their work in the Republican Party and the quote
Speaker 6: unquote broader conservative movement focused on antitrust and on the
Speaker 6: concentration of power in the hands of the people who
Speaker 6: are now at that stage, who are now sitting behind
Speaker 6: Donald Trump in front of some of the cabinet secretaries.
Speaker 6: And I'm pessimistic just by nature, and I think Donald
Speaker 6: Trump is making all of these signs that he's siding
Speaker 6: with Elon and Bezos, and he thinks that he has
Speaker 6: truly co opted them because the culture war has sort
Speaker 6: of loosened up. Republicans feel like, you know, they spent
Speaker 6: years saying the cultural problems like DEI whatever, our downstream
Speaker 6: of economic concentration. But now that they feel like they've
Speaker 6: won the culture war, they're not so much concerned about
Speaker 6: economic concentration for all of the reasons that they should be,
Speaker 6: even though the culture stuff feels to them like it's solved.
Speaker 6: There are people going into this administration who do care
Speaker 6: and I just want to say, I think part of
Speaker 6: what will be settled is going to be concentrated in
Speaker 6: this boring wonky policy battle, specifically over antitrust behind closed doors.
Speaker 6: In the next several months, I think we'll get an
Speaker 6: idea of what's about to happen when it comes to
Speaker 6: how much power those oligarchs actually have versus the thirty
Speaker 6: something forty something year old staffers to law school graduates
Speaker 6: who are not room in the halls.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a good thing.
Speaker 2: I think we probably know the answer to that if
Speaker 2: past experience of DC holds. Emily, I know you got
Speaker 2: a jump. Thank you as always great insights.
Speaker 5: We love you and everybody.
Speaker 2: Emily will be on counterpoints Wednesday like normal with Ryan.
Speaker 5: I'll get stuff. We'll see you then, you guys.
Speaker 2: I think Emily makes a very important point there about
Speaker 2: the I mean, you know, I'm cynical, and I think
Speaker 2: most of the people on the right, not all, most
Speaker 2: on the right who postured is caring about concentration of
Speaker 2: wealth and power really only cared about the cultural domination
Speaker 2: and wokeism and you know, censorship that they perceived as
Speaker 2: going disproportionally against conservatism. And we're right about it that
Speaker 2: at times. And once that's done, and you could see
Speaker 2: this with like the elon must takeover of Twitter, right, Well,
Speaker 2: now that it's our billionaire that owns Twitter and it's
Speaker 2: sensory in the way that we want him to, then
Speaker 2: we're comfy with it. And I think Trump has sort
Speaker 2: of you know, he's embraced that. And that's why there
Speaker 2: was a significant portion of the speech that was about
Speaker 2: wokeism and DEI and in the military and all that
Speaker 2: sort of stuff, because I mean, the censorship, he's full
Speaker 2: of shit on censorship, but whatever. But you know, those
Speaker 2: are pieces that the entire coalition can agree with, and
Speaker 2: all of the talk of you know, Matt Gates is
Speaker 2: a Lena Conservative and JD. Vance is going to be
Speaker 2: on board with he likes Lena Khan.
Speaker 5: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Well, Lena Khan is out of the job. Now, like
Speaker 2: that's done. It's over. And I fully expect these guys
Speaker 2: to get what they effectively paid for. So I mean
Speaker 2: it's a two way street, right. It's beneficial for Trump,
Speaker 2: so in that way, he loves having them there, having
Speaker 2: bent the knee all that sort of stuff, but they
Speaker 2: also are going to get quite a lot out of
Speaker 2: the deal, and you know, got quite a lot on
Speaker 2: the Bide administration too, Like all of those men are
Speaker 2: wildly wealthier now than they were before the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: They're wildly wealthier now than they were even when you know,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump won the election just a few months ago.
Speaker 2: This to me is one of the central issues of
Speaker 2: our era. And that's why, you know, especially as Crypto
Speaker 2: takes off and is one more vehicle for a massive
Speaker 2: upward transfer of wealth, AI takes off is another vehicle
Speaker 2: for a massive upward transfer of wealth, and the guys
Speaker 2: who have their hands on the controls are the beneficiaries
Speaker 2: of that, you know, massive heist from the American public
Speaker 2: and the global public too.
Speaker 3: What you'll find interesting, Crystal, is the talk of the
Speaker 3: town right now, from over the weekend is not just
Speaker 3: about antitrust. It really is actually about AI. And I'm
Speaker 3: glad that you brought that up, because one of the
Speaker 3: undernoiced stories of the last couple of days is that
Speaker 3: Sam Altman actually briefed Donald Trump's incoming advisors about an
Speaker 3: alleged breakthrough in chat GPT technology to establish PhD level intelligence. Now,
Speaker 3: Sam Altman has tried to pour cold water on this,
Speaker 3: but you know, crypto is nothing compared to artificial intelligence,
Speaker 3: and then the leaps in that and that because all
Speaker 3: of those men that were behind Donald Trump, I guess
Speaker 3: kind of with the exception of Elon, are deeply invested
Speaker 3: and have poured billion tens of billions into artificial intelligence.
Speaker 5: Well world too.
Speaker 2: With GROC, I mean, he's clearly making a quite the
Speaker 2: same well and he started open AI with Sam Altman
Speaker 2: and is now trying to make his play to be
Speaker 2: a competitor to him.
Speaker 5: So I would put him in the same camp.
Speaker 4: Yes, but it's not.
Speaker 3: It's just to me, it's she's not industrial as much
Speaker 3: like look, Grock, It's fine, but like it's not Chat, GPT,
Speaker 3: it's not Claude, it's not Perplexity, right, It's not like
Speaker 3: one of these big players, not Google, it's not Facebook.
Speaker 4: All of those companies have gone.
Speaker 3: So hard with AI that what they're the most fearful
Speaker 3: of is actually government policy around that.
Speaker 4: And that's why I think a lot of eyes.
Speaker 3: Should be on David Sachs, Shrirann Christian and others who
Speaker 3: are working with the White House under Michael Kratzio's around
Speaker 3: the policies surrounding AI, about questions in terms of open
Speaker 3: source and also in terms of what the standards will
Speaker 3: be an interpretation of data. Trump did not use the
Speaker 3: phrase AI, but it did make some you know, allusions
Speaker 3: to technology. It could be, you know, in the way
Speaker 3: that we look back on the Clinton era, what's the
Speaker 3: one thing that sticks out the Internet?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 3: I was at the White House recently and there was
Speaker 3: a photos of Clinton sending his very first email, and
Speaker 3: I think that that's very possible. You know, a photo
Speaker 3: or you know, a visual of Donald Trump chatting live
Speaker 3: or something with AI, and by the end of these
Speaker 3: four years, it could look totally different technologically in the
Speaker 3: way that ninety six was an Internet revolution compared to
Speaker 3: ninety two. Focusing specifically on what those guys want. With
Speaker 3: the heavy level of investment from Amazon, Google and others,
Speaker 3: the potential questions about breakup is really important. I will say,
Speaker 3: like I said I alluded to, Steve Bannon has really
Speaker 3: been the person on the outside to take that dissident
Speaker 3: view crystal of these technology oligarchs against Aylon, against Mark Zuckerberg,
Speaker 3: and look there's there, as we also can see here,
Speaker 3: things change with Trump all the time it only you're
Speaker 3: only one tweet away, as Vey can show us from
Speaker 3: being shunted to the gubernatorial race in Ohio.
Speaker 4: I don't think the same will.
Speaker 3: Apply to Elon per se, but Trump enjoys toying with
Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg and Bezos. I have no idea yet you
Speaker 3: know what that policy will look like, and even if
Speaker 3: what the Department of Justice policy on antitrust, as you said,
Speaker 3: will be, because the explicit ones will be and they
Speaker 3: have real buy maarring choices to make. Do we pursue
Speaker 3: this continue to pursue this case against Google or not?
Speaker 3: Do we continue to pursue this case against Facebook or not?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 3: Obviously they are all praying that they don't. Many of
Speaker 3: them were started under the first Trump administration, and many
Speaker 3: of those lawyers are now back working under Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Equally distrustful and hateful of those technology figures who were
Speaker 3: there and embraced by Trump.
Speaker 4: Now, Trump is a decider.
Speaker 3: We have no idea which way we'll go in that direction,
Speaker 3: which is why I think there's still so many major
Speaker 3: open questions right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think a the AI guys and
Speaker 2: the crypto Rise like basically bought both parties and one
Speaker 2: like there was so with regard to crypto, and these
Speaker 2: things are kind of tied together because it's some of
Speaker 2: the same cast of characters. But you're right, the AI
Speaker 2: is the bigger deal, and it doesn't get talked about
Speaker 2: nearly enough. The amount of resources that all of these
Speaker 2: companies are, you know, flowing into AI, the amount of
Speaker 2: data centers that are being the amount of compute I mean,
Speaker 2: and this is also massively impactful in terms of garbage
Speaker 2: emissions in that as well. But and the US government
Speaker 2: being a major player in this and the Chinese government
Speaker 2: being a major play there is an ongoing massive arms
Speaker 2: race in AI development, and effectively, I think that the
Speaker 2: people who want by and large unfettered AI development have won.
Speaker 2: I think they I think Kamala was going to go
Speaker 2: in the same direction. This isn't even a partisan point.
Speaker 2: But you know, Trump with all of these guys behind them,
Speaker 2: just really underscores that that's the era that we live
Speaker 2: in now. And you're right about I actually think perhaps
Speaker 2: the better comparison isn't to the nineties and the development
Speaker 2: of the Internet. It's more to the industrial revolution and
Speaker 2: how disruptive that is a very live possibility that the
Speaker 2: level of disruption that we saw in like an industrial
Speaker 2: revolution where you truly have people, you know, leaving the
Speaker 2: farm surge into the cities and all of this new
Speaker 2: like low paid exploited all that chaos that was generated
Speaker 2: by that shift industrialization. That's what we're looking at in
Speaker 2: a blink of an eye, like in a much shorter
Speaker 2: time period. And what's disturbing to me is that there
Speaker 2: is no even semblance of a democratic process around that.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: It's a handful of people who even know what's going on.
Speaker 2: He even know what sorts of decisions are being made,
Speaker 2: and the types of people who are techno optimists who
Speaker 2: by and large see the upside and aren't really weighing
Speaker 2: the downside risk. And that I think is you know,
Speaker 2: to me, as I'm watching these players and these characters
Speaker 2: and who Trump is listening to and all of that,
Speaker 2: and you know, David sax and Mark Andresen and Elon himself,
Speaker 2: like that's the part that I am maybe most concerned
Speaker 2: about in the Trump administration. And it's the battle that
Speaker 2: is playing out under the surface that gets almost no
Speaker 2: talk time from him or any of the other politicians.
Speaker 2: And it's deeply, it's deeply anti populist. It's deeply elite
Speaker 2: because these are truly a small group of like masters
Speaker 2: of the universe types who are making decisions that will
Speaker 2: have massive, reverberating consequences for all of us. Just to
Speaker 2: give one more except that the Sam Altman thing is
Speaker 2: really important. And you know, for people who don't know
Speaker 2: the backs, like he and Elon they started opening Andy
Speaker 2: together in they had falling out and their rivals and
Speaker 2: they sort of like hate each other, but then they're
Speaker 2: kind of like friend me, I don't know whatever. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Sam was always a big Democratic giver. He also gave
Speaker 2: a million dollars and was at the Trump inauguration as well,
Speaker 2: so he wants his seat at the table too. But
Speaker 2: you know, in any case, the chat GPT development is
Speaker 2: really important. But there's also been research that has come
Speaker 2: out that has already shown Chat GPT and a bunch
Speaker 2: of these other lms engage in what's called scheming, where
Speaker 2: if you try to say, okay, well now you're gonna
Speaker 2: have a different goal, they will lie to you, they
Speaker 2: will sandbag, they will copy themselves onto a different server
Speaker 2: to try to protect themselves. Like that's already the level
Speaker 2: that we're at, and I don't feel like anyone is
Speaker 2: really grappling with that. So that's one of the things
Speaker 2: that I'm very concerned about, not just because it's Donald
Speaker 2: Trump in office, but because these guys have so much
Speaker 2: money and so much influence that they basically have already
Speaker 2: won the war and are going to get everything they
Speaker 2: want right and well.
Speaker 3: And that's the point, right, is not only about well,
Speaker 3: just like the Industrial Revolution, there was no conscious policy
Speaker 3: about it. We react to it after it already happens.
Speaker 3: And I think that's probably basically the case here. And
Speaker 3: that's where those fights inside of the ADMIN and the
Speaker 3: theories about setting a baseline or even thinking about economic
Speaker 3: concentration and others are going to be the biggest questions
Speaker 3: for them to handle. And you know, just kind of
Speaker 3: wrapping generally, like my overall thoughts with the inauguration and
Speaker 3: with the set policies put forward, I think what I'm
Speaker 3: struck most is by how much the Republican Party has changed.
Speaker 3: Is not just to see JD. Vance, who was outsider
Speaker 3: now the Vice President of the United States.
Speaker 4: After just two year.
Speaker 3: Stint in the United States Senate. He went from writing
Speaker 3: a book and hang out with idiots like me to
Speaker 3: literally being the vice president.
Speaker 5: And now well CNN and the New York Times.
Speaker 4: That's right, Yeah, no, you're not right. You're not wrong.
Speaker 3: And then he changed just you know, completely, and now
Speaker 3: he has become a Trump warrior and the inheritor of
Speaker 3: I think we'll see maybe Trump Junior wants it. Well,
Speaker 3: I'm sure that'll be a fight later, but probably the
Speaker 3: inheritor of the Trump coalition. He's the first. By the way,
Speaker 3: we've explicitly moved over gen X. So thank god for that.
Speaker 3: We went straight from boomer to millennial and I think
Speaker 3: that's great.
Speaker 4: I hope that.
Speaker 7: The Democrats don't change the genis no, no, yeah, we're millennials, Crystal.
Speaker 7: You have to stand up for our cohort. We're just
Speaker 7: as big as the boomers and we deserve power.
Speaker 3: Gen X.
Speaker 4: You suck. All you gave us was friends.
Speaker 3: Anyways, moving past that, what we see with the Republican
Speaker 3: Party is that there's no Jeff Flake. There's no John McCain,
Speaker 3: there's no Paul Ryan. This is speaker Maga, Mike Johnson,
Speaker 3: this is John fun who, yes, does is more establishment
Speaker 3: tis I watched an interview that he gave this morning,
Speaker 3: and it was totally in support of Donald Trump. Mitch
Speaker 3: McConnell is gone, then no votes are gone, and the unanimity,
Speaker 3: which way they will be able to govern is going
Speaker 3: to be, in my opinion, their greatest strength and their
Speaker 3: greatest weakness. So when they hate it out of the
Speaker 3: park and they're going to be able to actually pass things,
Speaker 3: it will be good. However, all presidents, especially those in
Speaker 3: Trump's position, overreach and they end up finding themselves in
Speaker 3: big problems. So, for example, George W. Bush comes into office,
Speaker 3: Let's be honest, it was because people were afraid of
Speaker 3: nine to eleven and Iraq, and he's like, you know what,
Speaker 3: the American people have given me a mandate to privatize
Speaker 3: Social Security. Insane, goes for it. Disaster Crystal. It was
Speaker 3: a huge part of why he lost the two thousand
Speaker 3: and six midterms. FDR, same things nineteen thirty six. People
Speaker 3: think he's a king. He thinks he's a king, and
Speaker 3: he's like, I'm going to reform the Supreme Court. Boom,
Speaker 3: total backlash towards that one. And Trump is very much
Speaker 3: in that position right now. It will be so his
Speaker 3: ability actually just like those two presidents who had popular mandates,
Speaker 3: and to then use that mandate but instead misinterpret it
Speaker 3: possibly which most do, can often lead to big, thermostatic
Speaker 3: changes in public opinion. And that's why, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: the most important thing for Trump and them is don't
Speaker 3: misread the mandate, And second is competence. The reason he
Speaker 3: lost the Oval office in twenty twenty was the feeling.
Speaker 4: Of chaos with COVID.
Speaker 3: He barely lost forty thousand votes, right, so this time around,
Speaker 3: if you're the same shit show feeling, it will be
Speaker 3: detrimental to Republican chances going forward into his overall popularity.
Speaker 5: Well, because there's a dichotomy right now.
Speaker 2: And Ezerklin actually wrote I thought a pretty good piece
Speaker 2: on this in the New York Times. You probably saw
Speaker 2: it as well, where you know, on the one hand,
Speaker 2: it's like Trump won one of the most narrow popular
Speaker 2: vote victories in history. It was a point and a half, right,
Speaker 2: so by historical standards, not a landslide. We're not talking
Speaker 2: about you know, Reagan's reelect or anything like that. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, the vibe shift has been definitive, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, just look at those people sitting on the
Speaker 2: stage right, all the young bros, like the you know,
Speaker 2: the cultural figure carry Underwood up there singing after he
Speaker 2: gives his speech. The vibe shift has been incredibly significant.
Speaker 2: So you're left with this sense of and I can
Speaker 2: do anything, overwhelming mandate, and the Supreme Court has said
Speaker 2: like criminally can basically do anything, and there's no checks
Speaker 2: in place, and nobody wants to stand up to him,
Speaker 2: even the Democrats don't really want to stand up to
Speaker 2: him this time. So you've got, on the one hand,
Speaker 2: all of this power, and on the other hand, the
Speaker 2: country is still quite narrowly divided and it can go
Speaker 2: in the other direction very very quickly. So you know,
Speaker 2: it really is quite in a fascinating political moment, you
Speaker 2: might say, in terms of you know, what it's going
Speaker 2: to mean and how this is going to look like
Speaker 2: moving forward, and even on things like you know, he
Speaker 2: thinks and there's a lot of data to support this
Speaker 2: that his immigration you know, very like hardline immigration policy
Speaker 2: has been embraced by the public. And if you ask
Speaker 2: the public like we'll probably cover the polling tomorrow nasal deportation,
Speaker 2: they're like, yes, let's go. But then if you ask
Speaker 2: them more details about how that looks and you know
Speaker 2: how that goes. There's a lot more trepidation about what
Speaker 2: that actually looks like in real life when you are
Speaker 2: dealing with not just theoretical sure, get the bad guys out,
Speaker 2: but the reality of like people who are sympathetic or
Speaker 2: who have been here for a long time, or deploying
Speaker 2: the military to the border and having this you know,
Speaker 2: militarized situation, it gets a lot disier. So there is
Speaker 2: a danger for Republicans of overreaching and overreading the mandate.
Speaker 2: One last thing point I wanted to make about Biden
Speaker 2: and the corporate concentration and the antitrust and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: and it's you know, it's both a compliment and a
Speaker 2: criticism of Joe Biden and that administration. There were things
Speaker 2: that were done that were genuinely good, right Lena Khan,
Speaker 2: Jonathan Canter, actually being serious about antitrust, actually being serious
Speaker 2: about labor, and you know some of the things that
Speaker 2: were done at the National Relations where those things were
Speaker 2: genuinely good. However, because you have a president in Joe
Speaker 2: Biden who is so aged and so unable to articulate
Speaker 2: or understand basic things, there is never even an effort
Speaker 2: made to enlist the American public in a story of
Speaker 2: why those actions are important. So, you know, like they
Speaker 2: successfully sued Google, there's now an open question of Google
Speaker 2: could be broken up, like that is monumental. Have you
Speaker 2: heard Joe Biden say anything about that until his last
Speaker 2: his last speech, he's like, oh, I'm.
Speaker 5: Concerned about Oliver.
Speaker 2: He's like, oh, well, what did you do? You know,
Speaker 2: I'm concerned about these tech tech giants. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: but and you know what, you have some credibility. Your
Speaker 2: administration did do some things in that regard, but you
Speaker 2: ended up with the worst of all worlds because now
Speaker 2: all the tech billionaires hate you and are going to
Speaker 2: do everything they can to make sure you're out of office.
Speaker 2: And the public was never enlisted in this project and
Speaker 2: never understood what you were even doing, let alone how
Speaker 2: it could better their lives. And also, by the way,
Speaker 2: you can't just do that which is a longer term project.
Speaker 2: You also have to deliver for people materially in the
Speaker 2: short term. So that's part of how these tech billionaires
Speaker 2: won such an overwhelming victory and why if Tamala had
Speaker 2: been elected, I think of the policies would have looked
Speaker 2: similar to what Trump is ultimately going to do here.
Speaker 2: But you know, Trump, with the embrace of all these guys,
Speaker 2: it's like, very clear, is this attempt to you know,
Speaker 2: if you come at the king, you best not miss.
Speaker 2: Biden came at these kings and was not forceful enough,
Speaker 2: was not able to enlist the American public in this project,
Speaker 2: and now the project is basically dead.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean I could write an entire book about the
Speaker 3: failures of Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: I think that's a good point.
Speaker 3: I mean, basically, one of the problems with having unpopular
Speaker 3: presidents for various reasons is that all of the other
Speaker 3: stuff attached to them.
Speaker 4: Dies as well.
Speaker 3: I know a lot of people who supported many things.
Speaker 3: Actually know a lot of evangelical Christians who will tell
Speaker 3: you that George W.
Speaker 4: Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to.
Speaker 3: Them, because his disastrous war in Iraq sank many of
Speaker 3: the Christian right policies that they supported. Now I disagree
Speaker 3: with them, but politically I think that they're correct. That's
Speaker 3: a huge reason, exactly like you said. And then there's
Speaker 3: also a big question here, what does victory look like.
Speaker 3: I mean, the thing is Trump's cultural and Vibe victory
Speaker 3: specifically over young guys, has been so extraordinary, so overwhelming,
Speaker 3: and so different than last time around.
Speaker 4: I'm still, honestly like.
Speaker 3: Coming to grips with it. I still don't even know
Speaker 3: what it really means, what even victory is to them.
Speaker 3: All they care about is when he owns libs.
Speaker 7: Right right there is though, there's a lot of people though,
Speaker 7: It's not just Vibe. There's a lot of people though,
Speaker 7: who did vote, you know, on material grounds. There's a
Speaker 7: lot of people who do pay attention, and those people also,
Speaker 7: I think will be the great swing voters of America.
Speaker 7: I think the bro coalition will always stick with Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: I mean he is, you know, like this uber mentioned
Speaker 7: figure if you think like philosophically and just like fite bit,
Speaker 7: fight is going to endure with that generation, I think forever.
Speaker 7: In the same way, Reagan was a cultural icon more
Speaker 7: than a political figure to an entire generation of guys.
Speaker 4: But what you want is how quickly that.
Speaker 3: Can dissipate and be destroyed under George H. W.
Speaker 4: Bush.
Speaker 3: So victory for Reagan is not victory for the RepA
Speaker 3: Publican party and vice versa. I guess, just thinking broadly here,
Speaker 3: about Trump and about the first hundred days will be
Speaker 3: the ultimate test of all of these questions. It's not
Speaker 3: just going to be about technology, of course, which is
Speaker 3: very important. Immigration will be the big test for them
Speaker 3: as well. Will the public.
Speaker 4: Support, endure and go and go along.
Speaker 3: With We have immigration raids schedule for tomorrow in Chicago
Speaker 3: and elsewhere.
Speaker 4: This will be the first.
Speaker 2: Apparently they pulled back from Chicago after the details leaked,
Speaker 2: but I think that expectations are still there will be
Speaker 2: some significant immigration raids somewhere.
Speaker 3: There will be an immigration raid somewhere in this country,
Speaker 3: and there will be you know, ride alongs and media
Speaker 3: appearances and things like that which will dominate our news waves.
Speaker 3: Let's see, you know, I look, I have believes. Obviously,
Speaker 3: we've ashed it out.
Speaker 4: A million times.
Speaker 3: I'm curious too, I'm like, let's see it, Let's see
Speaker 3: what happens. We've still got big question marks here about
Speaker 3: who's going to take over TOLCI Gabbard and RFK Junior
Speaker 3: in terms of their confirmation hearings, and there could be
Speaker 3: fights about that. So I believe that these first hundred
Speaker 3: days will be a big test for thermostatic public opinion,
Speaker 3: and I have a very close eye on the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party and then also on the Democratic voters. The resistance
Speaker 3: was a natural phenomenon last time. It doesn't exist right now.
Speaker 3: I'm curious to see if it can reform and what
Speaker 3: the general theory of opposition to Donald Trump and with
Speaker 3: the various forms that it will take. So it's a
Speaker 3: crazy moment here in Washington.
Speaker 4: That's all I could really say.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, in terms of the resistance, the liberals are really
Speaker 2: they really are in disarray. I think they feel many
Speaker 2: feel betrayed by some of the elite, especially media figures
Speaker 2: that they trusted. I mean you mentioned before, Sager Joe
Speaker 2: Biden being like welcome home Trump. I mean, Joe Biden
Speaker 2: may not have really believed you was a fascist and
Speaker 2: of democracy, but the liberal base really did and really
Speaker 2: does feel betrayed on a lot of levels. And I
Speaker 2: was mentioning before, you know, I think part of why
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party feels less inclined to resist and fight.
Speaker 2: There's a variety of factors, but one of them is
Speaker 2: they're kind of comfy with this like oligarchy thing. They've
Speaker 2: been cozy enough to these billionaires, the same way you
Speaker 2: had the lead candidate for DNC chair Ken Martin be like, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're gonna still raise.
Speaker 5: Money from our good billionaires.
Speaker 2: We're just going to stay away from the bad billionaires,
Speaker 2: which is like, of course, his definition of a good
Speaker 2: billionaire is one that gives to the Democratic Party versus
Speaker 2: you know, maybe the country and the party should not
Speaker 2: be owned by billionaires whatsoever.
Speaker 5: Maybe that's ultimately the direction to go in.
Speaker 2: So I think that there's going to be a reckoning,
Speaker 2: which will probably occur bits and starts over the next
Speaker 2: four years, but certainly in the next Democratic primary presidential contest.
Speaker 2: That's really a fight for the soul in the direction
Speaker 2: of the Democratic Party. And you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: the like whether some similar resistance is going to arise,
Speaker 2: they're figuring out who they trust, what they believe, what
Speaker 2: view of politics makes sense, because you know, the version
Speaker 2: that was sold to them of like resist on the
Speaker 2: grounds of Russia Gate and you know, the the high
Speaker 2: minded democracy talk, which I don't personally disagree with, the
Speaker 2: you know, the threat that Donald Trump poses, but this
Speaker 2: was clearly inadequate to the task. The legal cases were
Speaker 2: clearly inadequate to the task. So they're kind of regrouping
Speaker 2: and figuring out. Okay, well, if that didn't work, what
Speaker 2: could work to, you know, to to fight back against
Speaker 2: this political force that we're opposed to. So Sager, I
Speaker 2: don't know if you I think we lost, Sager. So
Speaker 2: in any case, we were coming to wrap here in
Speaker 2: any any way. But in any case, thank you guys
Speaker 2: so much for watching us on a livestream today as
Speaker 2: we watch President Donald Trump retake the Oval office. What
Speaker 2: extraordinary times that we live in. It's going to be
Speaker 2: very interesting. Saga and I are going to be back
Speaker 2: to cover. We're going to do another live stream tomorrow,
Speaker 2: just because the news is coming in so fast and furious,
Speaker 2: so we want to make sure that we're as current
Speaker 2: as we possibly can covering all of this raft of
Speaker 2: executive orders that are going to be issued both today
Speaker 2: and tomorrow. So we'll be doing that live show again
Speaker 2: for you tomorrow just so we can make sure that
Speaker 2: we are on top of all of the news. But
Speaker 2: we appreciate you guys, and it's certainly going to be
Speaker 2: an interesting four years.
Speaker 5: See you soon.