Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing
Speaker 3: Ryan bro Show, People Live for the Pound and now Broch.
Speaker 4: I was just realizing we're going to get to talk
Speaker 4: about Napoleon and World War Two? Wow, what could be
Speaker 4: more bro show than that?
Speaker 1: That is very very bro show.
Speaker 4: That's right, Little Roman Empire? Can we talk about Coverty?
Speaker 3: I am not a Roman Empire guy, Sorry, everybody, I
Speaker 3: guess we could talk about Napoleon. Can we talk about
Speaker 3: the Napoleon movie and how awful it was? Maybe unk
Speaker 3: on Ridley Scott. That's when we'll make it a real
Speaker 3: bro show. All Right, what are we covering today? This
Speaker 3: is the most difficult part of Crystal's job, and I
Speaker 3: always find it so trying. All Right, all right, good,
Speaker 3: I've got my rundown there in front of me. We're
Speaker 3: going to start off with JD. Vans's speech at the
Speaker 3: Munich Security Conference. Some major international fallout as a result
Speaker 3: of that, Europeans running scared. You've got Zelensky and others
Speaker 3: making declarations, some movements on the Ukraine peace talks. We're
Speaker 3: going to talk about Donald Trump and a Napoleonic style
Speaker 3: tweet about he who saves the country cannot break a law.
Speaker 3: We're going to talk about Israel, Gaza and the and
Speaker 3: I ran some guarantees from BBE saying that he has
Speaker 3: been given the green light to attack Iran and then
Speaker 3: Trump will back him up. Some other however, indications about
Speaker 3: phase two of the ceasefire hostage deal. It's a complete mess.
Speaker 3: Ryan's going to break a lot of that down for us.
Speaker 3: We're going to talk about the Democrats. Jensaki absolutely stunned
Speaker 3: at John Stewart's declaration that the Democratic Party is not
Speaker 3: in fact democratic and Luisi man Luigi Angoni, he's resurfaced,
Speaker 3: He's got his first new public statement along with the
Speaker 3: website appears to answer a lot of fan questions. So
Speaker 3: even though he hasn't been in the news for a while,
Speaker 3: the Luigi fan club is alive and well. And then, Ryan,
Speaker 3: you've got a segment called woke or based? Are you
Speaker 3: gonna give us a preview of what it is? I've
Speaker 3: been ordered not to take a look at any of
Speaker 3: these elements.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what's going.
Speaker 4: To we want Tager going in fresh to our to
Speaker 4: our game show at the end hereo and or base
Speaker 4: we're based.
Speaker 3: So I guess just for the people who aren't terminally online,
Speaker 3: I think they probably know what woke is at this point.
Speaker 3: Based is often what it's a moniker that people in
Speaker 3: right wing circles will use to say, this is based.
Speaker 5: Action.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, and it's like hard.
Speaker 3: For example, we're going to show people a video of
Speaker 3: a German diplomat crying. That's I would call based, you know,
Speaker 3: in terms of being able to being able to elicit
Speaker 3: that type of reaction from one of the most pathetic
Speaker 3: societies in the world.
Speaker 1: Oh, Oops, I forgot that. Germany is one of our
Speaker 1: most few.
Speaker 3: Sorry Germany, anything before we get to that, Ryan, you
Speaker 3: want to plug it?
Speaker 4: No, I think you nailed that. All right, thank you.
Speaker 4: It's a tough part of the job, man, you got No.
Speaker 3: It is usually to sit here and drink my coffee.
Speaker 3: I'm off camera, so it's nice.
Speaker 4: When I do. When I do it, I go halfway
Speaker 4: through it and then I forgot it.
Speaker 1: It's hard.
Speaker 3: It's hard, all right, Okay, okay, let's get to Europe.
Speaker 3: As we said, jd Vance at the Munich Security Conference,
Speaker 3: returning He originally went to the Munich Security Conference. I
Speaker 3: recall I think he was back in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: where is one of the only people to speak against.
Speaker 1: US assistants for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: This time around, however, returning as vice President arguably one
Speaker 3: of the most important speeches given at the Munich Security
Speaker 3: Conference since two thousand and seven, when Vladimir Putin spoke there.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to the speech and we'll break
Speaker 3: it down.
Speaker 6: In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town, and
Speaker 6: under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views,
Speaker 6: but we will fight to defend your right to offer
Speaker 6: it in the public square, agree or disagree. We gather
Speaker 6: at this conference, of course, to discuss security, and normally
Speaker 6: we mean threats to our external security. I see many
Speaker 6: great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump
Speaker 6: administration is very concerned with European security and believes that
Speaker 6: we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine,
Speaker 6: and we also believe that it's important in the coming
Speaker 6: years for Europe to step up in a big way
Speaker 6: to provide for its own defense, the threat that I
Speaker 6: worry the most about visa e Europe is not Russia,
Speaker 6: it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And
Speaker 6: what I worry about is the threat from within, the
Speaker 6: retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values,
Speaker 6: values shared with the United States of America. Now I
Speaker 6: have struck that a former European commissioner went on television
Speaker 6: recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just
Speaker 6: annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't
Speaker 6: go to plan, the very same thing.
Speaker 4: Could happen in Germany too.
Speaker 6: Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years,
Speaker 6: we've been told that everything we fund and support is
Speaker 6: in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from
Speaker 6: our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as.
Speaker 4: A defense of democracy. But when we see.
Speaker 6: European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we.
Speaker 4: Ought to ask whether we're.
Speaker 6: Holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves,
Speaker 6: because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.
Speaker 6: We must do more than talk about democratic values, we
Speaker 6: must live them.
Speaker 3: So Ryan that has elicited a full fret fledged freakout
Speaker 3: in Germany and at the Munich Security Conference, our friend
Speaker 3: of the show. I can never pronounce his name properly.
Speaker 3: I really apologize, are not bertrand actually put out a
Speaker 3: very thoughtful obviously are not as very I don't know
Speaker 3: if you would call him from the left. I'm not
Speaker 3: really even sure which way you would say that he is.
Speaker 3: He's somebody who I guess is very critical of the
Speaker 3: US and European bipartisan establishment.
Speaker 1: So we put it that way. Well, he actually put
Speaker 1: it really well.
Speaker 3: He said, it's really hard not to make a parallel
Speaker 3: between JD Van's speech right now at the Muni Security
Speaker 3: conference and Putin's two thousand and seven speech at the
Speaker 3: very same podium. Both were watershed moments that fundamentally transformed
Speaker 3: the existing consensus. Putin, at the time delivered the speech
Speaker 3: that marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment.
Speaker 3: JD's speech will be probably remembered as the speech that
Speaker 3: marked the beginning of the end of the post World
Speaker 3: War two Western alliance. And so he goes on. It's
Speaker 3: quite lengthy. I highly recommend people go and read it.
Speaker 3: But basically, in this speech it was both a declaration
Speaker 3: of quote unquote universal Western values and a criticism of
Speaker 3: the European architecture for both taking advantage and free riding
Speaker 3: off of the US and nuclear umbrella, actively use in
Speaker 3: quote unquote anti democratic censorship policies and others to suppress
Speaker 3: nationalist movements and.
Speaker 1: Of course literally overthrow a government.
Speaker 3: Your Romania reporting, by the way, has probably got to
Speaker 3: be one of the most influential things drop site has
Speaker 3: ever done. I mean, considering how much it's been picked
Speaker 3: up by Elon by now being cited here by name
Speaker 3: by the Vice President of the United States, it's genuinely
Speaker 3: remarkable because it does show us that there is both
Speaker 3: kind of a horseshoe element to a lot of this,
Speaker 3: but really, at a very very high level, this is
Speaker 3: not about Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It's much much bigger than that.
Speaker 3: It gets to the point of that there is a
Speaker 3: fissure between the United States and between Europe, both economically
Speaker 3: but culturally. There's criticism here kind of the European EU
Speaker 3: led establishment there what they view as their most important
Speaker 3: single conflict, Ukraine is frankly, you know, more of a
Speaker 3: footnote to the United States. And then really what I
Speaker 3: think that they are grappling with is at the very
Speaker 3: same time that this Munich Security Conference speech and other
Speaker 3: and Secretary of State Mark or Rubio today is in
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia in a broke for brokered peace talks with
Speaker 3: the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and that demonstrates what
Speaker 3: I think is a true return to great power conflict
Speaker 3: and to multipolarity. We are no longer you know, working
Speaker 3: within the fakery of the United Nations or the European
Speaker 3: Union or some OSSEE guidelines. It is the two great
Speaker 3: powers involved in the conflict sitting down across the table
Speaker 3: and saying what are we doing here? Because at its
Speaker 3: heart that's what it's always been about, all the trustings
Speaker 3: of the European Union, the Munich Security Conference, and more so,
Speaker 3: I'm curious, you know, from your perspective, what you make
Speaker 3: of all of this before we get to some German reaction.
Speaker 4: It was interesting to me that Jadvance didn't kind of
Speaker 4: point out the Biden administration's role, because it's one thing,
Speaker 4: you know, he wouldn't have to necessarily say, okay, and
Speaker 4: the US is guilty on all of these things, but
Speaker 4: have just blamed it on Biden if you wanted to.
Speaker 4: They didn't do that. He suggested that these European censorship
Speaker 4: and big tech policies kind of came out of nowhere,
Speaker 4: and that the Romanian election that was overturned was driven
Speaker 4: by this former EU Commissioner or other like elements within Europe.
Speaker 4: And certainly there were those elements that were fine to
Speaker 4: see that that election annulled. The first major power to
Speaker 4: call into question the validity of the Romanian election was
Speaker 4: the United States. Yes, and the United States basically greenlit
Speaker 4: the annulling of the election by coming out and saying that.
Speaker 4: And as we reported in our story, it was USAID
Speaker 4: funded entities that were involved in the concoction of this
Speaker 4: conspiracy scheme, conspiracy claim that said Russia actually came in
Speaker 4: and like used a fake TikTok.
Speaker 3: This is Operation's point where he's like, this, ob the
Speaker 3: skates much of the United States.
Speaker 4: So why would he do that? Like that's an inch,
Speaker 4: like a good.
Speaker 1: Question up, Probably you know, I don't. I honestly don't know,
Speaker 1: because I think you're totally right.
Speaker 3: That's one of the things that I actually most agreed
Speaker 3: with with ar No's threat is listen. I mean, I'm
Speaker 3: very critical of European migration policy and all that, but
Speaker 3: he is correct where he's like, hey, look, you guys
Speaker 3: are the people who destroyed Afghanistan.
Speaker 4: You're the ones for the most parting.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess what I would say is, it's
Speaker 3: not like there weren't a whole bunch of NATO troops
Speaker 3: there as well, and they weren't some of the biggest
Speaker 3: drivers of the permanent occupation of Afghanistan was built on
Speaker 3: much of these like European institutional liberal values, as in
Speaker 3: like oh, we need to stay there so girls can
Speaker 3: go to school, or you know, beyond any sort of
Speaker 3: national interest. That's largely what I think European policy has
Speaker 3: become it's about genuflecting, it's about you know, really it's
Speaker 3: you know, even the censorship, the censorship regime on Romania,
Speaker 3: the Ukraine, literal worship, like so much of it comes
Speaker 3: down to defending like capital l liberal values across the continent.
Speaker 3: It's part of the reason why they hate their own
Speaker 3: national movements so much, when in my opinion, they're more
Speaker 3: responsible for their rise than anyone. You know, Merkel's ideology
Speaker 3: leads to Brexit, it leads to the rise of the
Speaker 3: AfD in Germany, leads to the National Front winning unbelievable
Speaker 3: margins in the French election, is actually you know, the
Speaker 3: destruction of the French establishment. So when you think about
Speaker 3: all of that, the roots of it come down to migration,
Speaker 3: but I think a lot of the roots of it
Speaker 3: also come down to, you know, the subservience to this,
Speaker 3: to this non national identity, which is the European Union,
Speaker 3: and so much of the current European population and especially
Speaker 3: the European diplomatic and elite class, view themselves as Europeans
Speaker 3: first and not French and or German first, which is
Speaker 3: just not really compatible with you know, like putting your
Speaker 3: own citizens for which is why their own citizens are
Speaker 3: really revolting against a lot of these things.
Speaker 4: It is. And yeah, the other point I agreed with
Speaker 4: Arnaut there though, is that one of the shared European
Speaker 4: values that exists over the last hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 4: years is war. Yeah, that's true. Like they'd love to
Speaker 4: do war.
Speaker 1: They are warlike people.
Speaker 4: They are a warlike people. And so for the Trump
Speaker 4: administration to be pushing a combination of we need more
Speaker 4: nationalism in Europe and the European nations need to individually
Speaker 4: spend more money on their military budgets, it's like, have
Speaker 4: we completely forgotten what happened, you know in the nineteen
Speaker 4: thirties and nineteen forties and the nineteen tens and the
Speaker 4: eighteen seventies and the eighteen thirties.
Speaker 3: And right to that is that the United States should
Speaker 3: be the ones that's the guarante of all of their
Speaker 3: security while they free ride off of that with their
Speaker 3: free healthcare.
Speaker 4: Or maybe maybe US mass boarders, maybe we China and
Speaker 4: rush it together like just keep well, we're going to
Speaker 4: get baby babysit them, yea. At the same time, you've
Speaker 4: got China like sending its diplomats over to Europe being like,
Speaker 4: you know what, we already told you that the US
Speaker 4: is as a nasty landlord. I think it was Singapore
Speaker 4: Prime Minister said, you know, the US has gone from
Speaker 4: like being this this kind of hedgemon to now this
Speaker 4: like low rent landlord coming around hitting us up for
Speaker 4: the rent.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, they've also been delinquent on that rent for
Speaker 3: quite a long time. This is part of the difficulty,
Speaker 3: which is for all of our money and all of that,
Speaker 3: when the push comes to shob what do they do.
Speaker 3: They're the ones who are in major importers of Chinese cars,
Speaker 3: of Huawei, all their infrastructure. They openly buck any US
Speaker 3: attempts to try and tell them to try and implement
Speaker 3: the same sort of export control. So in a lot
Speaker 3: of ways, you know, they are the people who have
Speaker 3: created their own disaster. They've decided to both They've basically
Speaker 3: tried to ensnare our country through worship of the Transatlantic Alliance.
Speaker 3: And I'm not kidding it as is an actual worship.
Speaker 1: The one last thing the US over there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that Biden's dementia addled brain was able to cling
Speaker 3: to was what.
Speaker 1: I expanded NATO.
Speaker 3: They it literally like you, when he's on his deathbed,
Speaker 3: he'll be saying Aucus and NATO like that's what he
Speaker 3: views is legacy, as he'll literally, you'll probably forget his
Speaker 3: own grandchildren's name before he forgets NATO and the fact
Speaker 3: that he brought Finland into the alliance. So that just
Speaker 3: demonstrates what we're dealing with in terms of America's elite,
Speaker 3: part of the reason why a lot of this stuff
Speaker 3: is getting amplified. So we got that, we have the
Speaker 3: German Chancellor Olaf Schultz, who immediately criticized JD.
Speaker 1: Vance.
Speaker 3: You had the I think it was the vice Chancellor
Speaker 3: who took the podium immediately after Vance where he was like,
Speaker 3: I was going to give his prepared speech, but I
Speaker 3: have to just sit here and say how outrageous it
Speaker 3: is there. So I mean, at a basic level, number one,
Speaker 3: they're not used to being talked to this way. But
Speaker 3: two is like Arna said, they are dealing with the
Speaker 3: They are dealing with a shakeup in the way that
Speaker 3: things usually go. Usually, the way that this Ukraine peace
Speaker 3: talk stuff would go is like, oh, well, we would
Speaker 3: gather the G six, notf the G seven, right, we
Speaker 3: would gather the G six as sans Russia, I would
Speaker 3: all create prepared statements and there would be the European
Speaker 3: Union would sign on and NATO, etc. And then as
Speaker 3: a quote united front, we would go and we would negotiate. Now,
Speaker 3: it would never work because the Europeans, the UK and
Speaker 3: others are fanatically obsessed with defending Ukraine, and instead Trump
Speaker 3: is like, no, I'm the guaranteer of the NATO, I'm
Speaker 3: garantur of NATO security. I'm guaranteed of the EU's security.
Speaker 3: I'm going to go and hash this out with Putin
Speaker 3: and you guys are going to swallow it and deal
Speaker 3: with it. And I mean to be honest, I think
Speaker 3: that is basically true in terms of how it will
Speaker 3: all shake out. Now, I'm not saying that they will
Speaker 3: go quietly. And Zelenski himself has now made some declarations
Speaker 3: in a new interview with Meet the Press, let's take
Speaker 3: a listen to that.
Speaker 7: The President Trump said this week he did not say
Speaker 7: yes when he was asked if he sees Ukraine as
Speaker 7: an equal member in the peace process.
Speaker 1: He did say later that Ukraine would have a seat
Speaker 1: at the table.
Speaker 7: Have you been given any assurances that Ukraine will have
Speaker 7: an equal seat?
Speaker 1: At the negotiator table.
Speaker 8: So I will never accept any decisions between the United
Speaker 8: States and Russia about Ukraine. Never an our people, never
Speaker 8: an our adults and children and everybody it can be.
Speaker 8: So this is the war in Ukraine against us, and
Speaker 8: it is our human losses. We're thankful for all the support,
Speaker 8: unity between USA in USA around Ukraine, support by patisan unity,
Speaker 8: by patisan support.
Speaker 4: We're thankful for all of this.
Speaker 8: But there is no any leader in the world who
Speaker 8: can really make a deal with putting without us about us.
Speaker 8: The risk that Rusua will occupy Europe is one hundred percent.
Speaker 7: If the United States pulls out of NATO, Russia will
Speaker 7: occupy your Yes.
Speaker 4: Not all, not all the Europe.
Speaker 8: They will begin from those countries, as I said, are
Speaker 8: big our friends, but small countries who have been in
Speaker 8: the US assign the Soviet Union.
Speaker 4: They will begin and we'll see what.
Speaker 8: Will be the answer. But Youurope will not answer because
Speaker 8: they don't have They will begin to defend itself, each
Speaker 8: country defend itself at this moment. So Russia will get
Speaker 8: all the successes with all the territors they will want.
Speaker 8: I don't know, they will want percent of Europe.
Speaker 4: Fifty.
Speaker 8: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Nobody knows.
Speaker 3: So there we go from Zelenski in terms of his declaration.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know about this last part. If
Speaker 3: the US pulls out of NATO. I don't see anybody
Speaker 3: saying the US is going to pull out of NATO. Really,
Speaker 3: what he's upset about, Ryan is that Trump said no,
Speaker 3: you're not going to be in NATO, which is the
Speaker 3: most obvious declaration. But what's really crazy is you're watching
Speaker 3: the European Union trying to figure all this out and
Speaker 3: the Europeans, So let's put the next one, please up
Speaker 3: on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is what I alluded to.
Speaker 3: Quote left out of the Ukraine talks, Europe races to
Speaker 3: organize a response.
Speaker 1: Just yesterday, the.
Speaker 3: Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer, said that the
Speaker 3: UK would provide peace keep troops inside of Ukraine if
Speaker 3: the United States were to not do so now. Already,
Speaker 3: the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegsath has said number one,
Speaker 3: no US peacekeeping role will ever happen on the ground now,
Speaker 3: two that NATO membership for Ukraine is basically off the table,
Speaker 3: and three that their return to twenty fourteen borders is unrealistic.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I literally don't know how anyone could argue against those
Speaker 3: three proposals. People are saying, oh, it's a concession that
Speaker 3: to say, reality, I don't think that's a concession. I
Speaker 3: mean a concession would be, honestly, a concession would be
Speaker 3: putting our own forces on the ground for a place
Speaker 3: that has absolutely zero national interests to the United States.
Speaker 1: But overall, you're.
Speaker 3: Watching this all get shaken up. So I'm curious to
Speaker 3: where your reaction here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we threw all the weapons that we had stored
Speaker 4: outside the DC suburbs and ship them over to Ukraine
Speaker 4: and through them at Russia. Ukraine threw hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 4: of thousands of lives at the line there possibly possibly
Speaker 4: even more. And these are where the lines are. So
Speaker 4: if somebody didn't want that to be the case, what
Speaker 4: is the option for them, Like we don't. It's not
Speaker 4: it's not as if we have more weapons that we
Speaker 4: could really throw at them, like the Ukraine was allowed
Speaker 4: to strike you know, Russia inside Russia with some of
Speaker 4: those long range missiles. But even if we gave them
Speaker 4: every long range missile we had and let them shoot
Speaker 4: them as far as they want into Russia. Russia has
Speaker 4: an industrial base and a population that is many times
Speaker 4: larger than Ukraine's. That just and that's simply the case.
Speaker 4: Like there was some hope that Russia's economy would completely
Speaker 4: collapse as a result of sanctions and the war economy.
Speaker 4: The economy is struggling in Russia for sure, but it
Speaker 4: did not collapse. And so the reality it is that
Speaker 4: Ukraine is not playing with much of a deck at
Speaker 4: this much of a deck at this point. And Ukraine
Speaker 4: also knew that if Trump won this election, they were screwed.
Speaker 4: Oh absolutely that.
Speaker 1: They even kind of said that.
Speaker 4: They said that, They said that out loud. They knew it,
Speaker 4: We knew it, everybody knew it. Now it's happened, and
Speaker 4: now they're screwed. And then you have to ask what
Speaker 4: was all of this for? Right? Why did what? What
Speaker 4: did so many people sacrifice their life?
Speaker 3: Well, you know what it was for, because unfortunately the
Speaker 3: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and another kind of set
Speaker 3: it all out loud. It's about killing as many Russians
Speaker 3: as possible. I guess we just forgot it's.
Speaker 4: Just psychotic because yeah, it's about weakening Russia. But it's
Speaker 4: like Russia's not necessarily weaker, No, and be stronger.
Speaker 3: I'm honestly, I mean, I predict much difficult for them
Speaker 3: to get where they are. I'm stunned by how quickly
Speaker 3: they were able to bounce back. And by bounce back,
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, they ate like a twenty percent haircut
Speaker 3: or something on their initial GDP. But after that, they've
Speaker 3: just turned their country into a war economy. They've anction
Speaker 3: proved to all their financial institutions ten times more than
Speaker 3: ever before. The Chinese have stepped in to supply all
Speaker 3: their consumer electronics. North Korea's got plenty of AMMO. They're
Speaker 3: willing to send. They're willing to send their own troops
Speaker 3: to fight and die for Russia. This is the best
Speaker 3: thing that's ever happened.
Speaker 4: Do we believe that yet?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's a good point. You know, you're right.
Speaker 1: I probably shouldn't fall victim to something I don't.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm pretty active on Telegram in terms of
Speaker 3: these channels viewing videos. I've not yet seen any videos
Speaker 3: of actual North Koreans dying who are on the front line.
Speaker 1: If you see any, I guess send it to them.
Speaker 4: They keep shawannas Russians that look Korean. It's like, yeah, bro, half.
Speaker 1: Of that's true.
Speaker 3: There are a lot of Russian citizens who you know,
Speaker 3: who have quite literally Asiatic like from the Step or
Speaker 3: from Kyrgyzstan or whatever, you know, any of these places
Speaker 3: that are still inside of the current Russian federation.
Speaker 1: So a great point on that one, Ryan.
Speaker 3: So the Ukraine last ditch appears to be selling what
Speaker 3: mineral rights, and this is something that Lindsey Graham has
Speaker 3: been pushing for many years. He certainly has found a
Speaker 3: way to Trump's heart talking about how many awesome rare
Speaker 3: earth minerals they have and why that's the reason that
Speaker 3: we should support Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: I think the main thing for me is that Ukraine
Speaker 5: has value, literally has value. So you can talk about
Speaker 5: democracy and people love talking about democracy here, which is
Speaker 5: it's great to talk about democracy. But where were you
Speaker 5: in twenty fourteen when they actually needed you. So Trump
Speaker 5: now sees Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Differently because of the rarest stuff.
Speaker 5: Oh my god, I said, playing god, these people are
Speaker 5: sitting on literally a gold mine. What did he say?
Speaker 4: What do you mean?
Speaker 5: I showed him a map? Yeah, look, you know, everybody
Speaker 5: says poot wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and the
Speaker 5: Russian Empire.
Speaker 1: A map of the rare earth on the golf court.
Speaker 4: Not only okay, but later.
Speaker 5: Later, Yeah, I've seen this. Look this stuff is. That's
Speaker 5: one of the reasons the guys wanting to go into
Speaker 5: Ukraine is take their stuff. I mean, there's treads of
Speaker 5: dollars of very valuable rare earth minerals that he's trying
Speaker 5: to take by force. And I told President Trump that's
Speaker 5: not a good way to do business.
Speaker 4: So you made Donald Trump by Ukraine hawk. I showed
Speaker 4: him that map.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know if he's a Ukraine hawk, but
Speaker 5: I made him understand that if you let Putin get
Speaker 5: away with this grabbing stuff at not his, but force
Speaker 5: other people starting do us.
Speaker 3: So that's the I guess that's all they have now
Speaker 3: in terms of what it looks like. There's some reporting here.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen from Josh Rogan.
Speaker 3: He's very tapped in to the foreign policy elite, he says.
Speaker 3: Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me that the US
Speaker 3: Congressional delegation presented Zelenski with a piece of paper they
Speaker 3: wanted him to sign, which would grant the US rights
Speaker 3: to fifty percent of Ukraine's future mineral reserves. Zelenski quote
Speaker 3: politely declined to sign it. He continued, after a lot
Speaker 3: more reporting, I have more detail. This plan was presented
Speaker 3: to Zelenski by the US ambassador in advance of the
Speaker 3: Secretary Kiev, a Secretary Besson's trip to Kiev. Zelenski told
Speaker 3: those lawmakers about it today in today's meetings. Zelenski was
Speaker 3: telling them about the paper, which many of them didn't
Speaker 3: even know about, not the other way around. He said
Speaker 3: he couldn't sign it because it didn't contain any security
Speaker 3: guarantees for Ukraine. So that's that's the current status.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, so Josh had it a little bit backwards
Speaker 4: the first time around, but still a nice little scoop.
Speaker 4: But basically, yeah, what happened. So Secretary of the Treasury
Speaker 4: comes to Ukraine and ahead of his trip, the US
Speaker 4: ambassador presents Zelensky with this deal, like we will take
Speaker 4: fifty percent of your rare earth and there's not even
Speaker 4: a quote on it. There's not even a promise that
Speaker 4: and as a result you will get these security guarantees.
Speaker 4: It's just like, by the way, we're going to take
Speaker 4: fifty percent of what you have. Zelenski declines to sign that,
Speaker 4: and then and then kind of tattles to the law
Speaker 4: awmakers who come a couple of days later. One question
Speaker 4: I'm starting to have, though, is how rare these rare
Speaker 4: earths are?
Speaker 1: Yes, everywhere in the world. That is such a good
Speaker 1: They're everywhere. I hear about it all. Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 3: The Congo Afghanistan people said, Afghanistan's a trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: I think Mexico does have a large lithium deposit.
Speaker 4: They do Chile. But isn't that rare? Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 1: I guess it's not. I hadn't thought about that. So
Speaker 1: we should get into Trump's here and be like, they're
Speaker 1: not that rare.
Speaker 3: They're They're actually in Wyoming, you can, they're sitting right here.
Speaker 3: We could go tap it right now. They're even in Canada.
Speaker 3: You know, we don't even have to annex Canada. We
Speaker 3: could just buy it from them. We don't need to
Speaker 3: sign it. Would send a bunch of people to die
Speaker 3: for all of this. So I will say I think
Speaker 3: that remains the base obstacle to any sort of future
Speaker 3: Ukraine peace deal. Is this, you know, convincing Donald Trump
Speaker 3: that in fifty years from now will be able to
Speaker 3: have access to all.
Speaker 1: Of these mineral rights or whatever.
Speaker 3: Apparently this is an active thing that Zelenski and them
Speaker 3: are pushing, but at a big level.
Speaker 1: Again, just to prepare everyone.
Speaker 3: The Munich speech is paired with the Saudi Arabia Pea
Speaker 3: stocks which.
Speaker 1: Are ongoing right now in Riod. We will stay tuned
Speaker 1: for what that looks like.
Speaker 3: But it is the first real bilateral talks between the
Speaker 3: United States and Russia in years since the outbreak of
Speaker 3: the Ukraine conflict.
Speaker 1: Trump literally said he spoke to Putin.
Speaker 3: They mutually agreed to visit each other's countries, and we'll
Speaker 3: continue to keep everybody updated speaking of that, this is
Speaker 3: definitely something very close to Ryan and I's heart. Was
Speaker 3: an off the cuff re mark by Donald Trump where
Speaker 3: neither of us really believe it's true, but we would
Speaker 3: like for this to be true.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: We have the greatest military equipment in the world. We're
Speaker 9: building it. At some point when things settle down, I'm
Speaker 9: going to meet with China and I'm going to meet
Speaker 9: with Russia in particular those two, and I'm going to say,
Speaker 9: there's no reason for us to be spending almost a
Speaker 9: trillion dollars on military. There's no reason for you to
Speaker 9: be spending four hundred billion dollars. China is going to
Speaker 9: be at four undred billion, We're at a trillion, We're
Speaker 9: going to be close to a trillion. And I'm going
Speaker 9: to say, we can settle this on we can spend
Speaker 9: this on other things. We don't have to spend this
Speaker 9: on military because and I'm going to be meeting with China.
Speaker 9: You know, we were trying to de escalate nuclear and
Speaker 9: I was in a position where Russia had agreed and
Speaker 9: had agreed we were going to start, and then we
Speaker 9: had a rigged elect and so that never took place.
Speaker 9: But this one was too big to rig. We won
Speaker 9: by so much that it was too big to rig that.
Speaker 10: President Putin really liked the idea of cutting way back
Speaker 10: on nuclear and I think the rest of the world
Speaker 10: we would have gotten them to follow, and China would
Speaker 10: have come along too. China also liked it. Tremendous amounts
Speaker 10: of money of being spent on nuclear and the destructive
Speaker 10: capability is something that we don't even want to talk
Speaker 10: about today because you don't want to hear, it's too depressing.
Speaker 10: So we want to see if we can denuclearize, and
Speaker 10: I think that's very possible.
Speaker 1: So Ryan.
Speaker 3: Is the most radical proposal since what since Richard Nixon
Speaker 3: or prior to that.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think maybe the Kennedy administration.
Speaker 3: The start treaties, the nuclear treaties. This is definitely in
Speaker 3: that vein. Now, obviously there's not a single is there
Speaker 3: maybe one law maker in Washington, maybe two or three
Speaker 3: who might have go along with this, but Bernie all
Speaker 3: five hundred and thirty two other members definitely going to
Speaker 3: be against this.
Speaker 4: So again, Bernie, Bernie, as long as you don't go
Speaker 4: after whatever they're making in Vermont, that's right.
Speaker 3: As long as you're not touching whatever is made in Vermont,
Speaker 3: he says, Well, you know, we don't have to spend
Speaker 3: this on other things. We can lower our defense spending
Speaker 3: all around, and then we won't have to spend it
Speaker 3: on the military.
Speaker 1: It's a nice idea. It's certainly a nice idea.
Speaker 4: You have to go back to JFK's American University peace speech, Oh,
Speaker 4: the one that got him killed, the one that probably
Speaker 4: got him killed, right, And also people should go back
Speaker 4: and check out the conspiracy analysis around that that where
Speaker 4: he may have been influenced by LSD towards the end
Speaker 4: of his life.
Speaker 1: Is that true.
Speaker 4: I didn't know that from Mary Pinchot Meyer, who he
Speaker 4: was having an affair with, who was cord Meyer's ex wife.
Speaker 4: Cord Meyer one of the kind of top original goons
Speaker 4: in the CIA. She was also very close friends with
Speaker 4: Timothy Leary. And she definitely dosed David Bradley and a
Speaker 4: bunch of other like illuminaries in the nineteen sixties and fascinating.
Speaker 4: And so there's some right now, no question she smoked
Speaker 4: weed with with JFK. It's the older. There is some
Speaker 4: question did they trip. It's possible. Yeah, she was then
Speaker 4: murdered on the towpath. So have fun down.
Speaker 1: I'm unfamiliar with all of this.
Speaker 4: This is a good one. Yeah, that's a good one.
Speaker 1: I need to talk to ol of her about it.
Speaker 1: We got to give him a call.
Speaker 4: So Trump's so Trump is creeping into dangerous territory.
Speaker 1: You're right, but he's obviously correct.
Speaker 4: If you can sit down with China and Russia and
Speaker 4: be like, look, we're dropping a trillion, you're dropping four
Speaker 4: hundred billion, Russia, you're dropping insane percentage of your GDP
Speaker 4: on military spending and nuclear spending. You can't afford that
Speaker 4: we're getting bankrupted China. Don't you want to do more
Speaker 4: Belton road stuff instead of you know, nuclear weapons, And
Speaker 4: if they can come to an actual agreement on that,
Speaker 4: that's Nobelt Peace Prize worthy.
Speaker 3: That's again why I'm so supportive of ditching all of
Speaker 3: these fake institutions, which I think either propagate conflict or
Speaker 3: do everything to trust up, you know, great power competition
Speaker 3: in the language of international values. We were talking a
Speaker 3: lot about this last time with Krystal, about is you know,
Speaker 3: the idea of propping up and sending a million or
Speaker 3: so Ukrainians to their death or to being maimed for democracy,
Speaker 3: And it's like, this is obviously obviously not about democracy.
Speaker 3: It's about real politique a bad reading in my opinion,
Speaker 3: about trying to get all these Russians killed. But it
Speaker 3: especially falls apart with real politique policy in Israel.
Speaker 1: So you're like, oh, well, actually we're.
Speaker 3: Okay with it over here, but we're definitely not okay
Speaker 3: with it over here. It's just it's ridiculous, right, and
Speaker 3: it falls apart on its own face any neutral observer
Speaker 3: out there. Her point was, well, maybe it was a
Speaker 3: good thing to at least still trust it up with democracy.
Speaker 3: But this gets to my point that there is no
Speaker 3: true balance of power in the language of human rights
Speaker 3: democracy institutions. Great powers are the people who run the world.
Speaker 3: It has just been through these institutions that have been
Speaker 3: their vehicle. At its heart, the future of the world
Speaker 3: will be, you know, basically decided by the nuclear powers,
Speaker 3: and especially by the United States and China, to a
Speaker 3: s lesser extent, Russia here with respect to Europeans. So
Speaker 3: just sit down with them and be like, okay, what
Speaker 3: are we doing here? This is something that we did
Speaker 3: so much in the past. I mean, one of the
Speaker 3: things I respect so much about our leaders like Eisenhower
Speaker 3: and Truman and FDR, is I mean, outside of FDR's case,
Speaker 3: Truman and Eisenhower deeply optical of Khrushchev or of Stalin,
Speaker 3: they still met with them all the time because they
Speaker 3: even you know, mutually distrusted each other at those alliance tables,
Speaker 3: but they had obviously a common enemy under Nazi Germany.
Speaker 3: But even beyond that, trying to figure out what can
Speaker 3: we do about you know, making sure that there is
Speaker 3: not such another devastating war. And I think, if anything,
Speaker 3: the removal of consequence like of war what you were
Speaker 3: talking about earlier with Europe, has turned all of this
Speaker 3: into like an intellectual exercise that Bill Eyes what how
Speaker 3: important it is to actually have true balance of power,
Speaker 3: to have honesty in international relations, where hypocrisy, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: just breeds too many gaps for people like Russia and
Speaker 3: others to view what is US national policy with respect
Speaker 3: to Ukraine. When we don't speak in the language of
Speaker 3: national interest, we both cannot understand one another. But it
Speaker 3: leads to so much ambiguity, hypocrisy and others that it
Speaker 3: leads to things like Iraq, Libya, you know, the North
Speaker 3: Koreans being unable to trust us for giving up their
Speaker 3: if we had never if we had never taken down
Speaker 3: the Libyan regime and destroyed Gadafi. I think there's a
Speaker 3: not as big chance, but there's somewhat of a chance
Speaker 3: that the North Koreans would listen.
Speaker 1: But sure, that's what.
Speaker 4: They always say.
Speaker 1: I'm not listening to you. Yeah, I will never trust you.
Speaker 1: Look at Gadafi. I don't blame them. If I were them,
Speaker 1: there's no way I would.
Speaker 4: Give it on bout it right, he gave it nuclear
Speaker 4: weapons and then said the only place where I'd slightly
Speaker 4: disagree with you there is that I would draw some
Speaker 4: daylight between the approaches of FDR and Truman. Whereas FDR,
Speaker 4: I think, if he had lived, was willing to and
Speaker 4: the whole if he had lived, you can kind of
Speaker 4: fill in your own utopia. But there's a lot of evidence.
Speaker 4: I think that FDR had decided that in a post
Speaker 4: World War two era, it was time to share the
Speaker 4: world with communism and was with the Soviet Union like, yeah, definitely,
Speaker 4: it was not going to be It wasn't going to
Speaker 4: be a cold war. That was a contest, that was
Speaker 4: a zero sum contest of uh, you know, we must
Speaker 4: defeat them or they will defeat us. That he believed
Speaker 4: that there was enough of a world order that could
Speaker 4: be that and that the pressure of communism because it
Speaker 4: was going to blunt the ills of capitalism and create
Speaker 4: enough of a social welfare state that it would be
Speaker 4: more stable in a Kinesian kind of way, Whereas Truman
Speaker 4: and the kind of the national security apparatus that was
Speaker 4: behind him really saw it as a zero sum. So
Speaker 4: in some ways we're now getting We now have another
Speaker 4: opportunity to make that bargain with another version of communism.
Speaker 4: But now it's instead of FDR, it's Trump, and instead
Speaker 4: of Stalin, it's she, and let's share the world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well she is a lot smarter than Stalin, so
Speaker 3: let's rather talk to him.
Speaker 4: But let's share it instead of fighting over it. It
Speaker 4: doesn't have to be a zero sum competition.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I'm not.
Speaker 3: So sure about that, but at the very least zero
Speaker 3: sum competition can actually still have a more stable outcome
Speaker 3: than whatever the hell is currently happening with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It's not in NATO. We're treated like NATO.
Speaker 3: We're send a lot of troops there, and it's a
Speaker 3: vital of interest in NATO, except NATO countries are supposed
Speaker 3: to be vital interest. It doesn't make any sense. All
Speaker 3: of it falls apart in itself. You got to defend
Speaker 3: Ukraine so that we can defend anight. It's like, well,
Speaker 3: the whole purpose is defend NATO. And then before that,
Speaker 3: NATO knocked off Mohamar Gaddafi, So what Libya was a
Speaker 3: vital interest to NATO That still remains one of the
Speaker 3: most insane things that ever happened. Let us, however, not
Speaker 3: say that they're is. Let us, however, say that their
Speaker 3: resistance right now to reducing military spending is titanic in.
Speaker 1: Terms of what you're up against. In Washington.
Speaker 3: We have an example here from Dan Crenshaw. Crenshaw, some
Speaker 3: people have called him. I don't know why they would
Speaker 3: here on face the nation.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11: When it comes to the military and military spending. The
Speaker 11: US spends about three point four percent of its GDP
Speaker 11: on defense. Are you on board with boosting it to
Speaker 11: five percent, which is what President Trump is saying Western
Speaker 11: countries need to do. Are Republicans going to do that?
Speaker 12: It's it's quite the target. Look, we've got a lot
Speaker 12: of work to do right now on We've got a
Speaker 12: budget's pass from the last year's budget. Government funding expires
Speaker 12: on March fourteenth, so we got to deal with that.
Speaker 4: We've got to deal with the debt ceiling.
Speaker 12: We've got a finance uh disaster aid for California wildfires.
Speaker 12: We've got a reconciliation bill coming up. Look at you
Speaker 12: look at the world at the moment, and where America
Speaker 12: stands and the investments we need to make it's pretty
Speaker 12: obvious we need to increase the defense spending, and then
Speaker 12: the exact amount, of course, will get worked out in Congress.
Speaker 4: So there you go, and yes, and Pentagon spending is
Speaker 4: the only thing that the media will ever talk about
Speaker 4: in its proper terms, which to me, the proper way
Speaker 4: of talking about spending is a percentage of GDP obviously,
Speaker 4: because that's how you can understand something. You know, what
Speaker 4: do you spend in rent as a percentage of what
Speaker 4: you make? That's what matters, That's right, And so three
Speaker 4: point four percent, and all of a sudden, now it sounds, oh,
Speaker 4: that's kind of timy. We could do a little bit
Speaker 4: more than that. They never will talk about, like assist
Speaker 4: you know, the actual foreign aid to like Africa as
Speaker 4: a percentage of GDP. That isn't the like regime change.
Speaker 3: Well you're going to hear it from me at least, right, Well,
Speaker 3: that's part of why I get annoyed. Everyone's like this
Speaker 3: is an American revolution, like guys point seven of the
Speaker 3: federal budget.
Speaker 1: Okay, like it actually.
Speaker 4: That includes whatever this hit I was gonna say.
Speaker 3: So if you take out the woke bullshit, it's like
Speaker 3: maybe point two five percent of the federal budget. If
Speaker 3: you want a real American revolution, you got to go
Speaker 3: for the Pentagon, or you got to go for the
Speaker 3: entitlement programs.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should go for the entitlement program.
Speaker 1: So what do we have it? Let's talk right If
Speaker 1: anybody ever wants to talk about.
Speaker 4: That, I might.
Speaker 3: My door is open, my phone line is ready. However, conveniently,
Speaker 3: there's just way too much. I mean, as you and
Speaker 3: I know right now, of all the talk for firing
Speaker 3: federal workers, et cetera, there has not been even a
Speaker 3: modest dent in what the economy of Washington really is.
Speaker 3: If those should all those other people actually go after
Speaker 3: the Pentagon, that's when you're going to see a real
Speaker 3: fall in housing values and a destruction of the Northern
Speaker 3: Virginia economy. Until that time, we're not talking about the
Speaker 3: close substantial amount of people.
Speaker 4: The closest we got was we reported last week that
Speaker 4: Elon Musk had a four hundred million dollar contract.
Speaker 1: Yes, oh yeah, we had You're on the show.
Speaker 4: And then they nixed that contract.
Speaker 1: So did they nix it? I thought they only changed
Speaker 1: the name.
Speaker 4: First they changed the name, and then a day or
Speaker 4: two later they said, actually, this whole thing's on hold,
Speaker 4: really which and frankly from a green let's talk about
Speaker 4: clean energy real quick. From a green perspective, this was
Speaker 4: stupid anyway, because if you are driving around in an
Speaker 4: armored diplomatic vehicle, then by definition you're in a difficult country.
Speaker 4: It's developing country.
Speaker 1: Yes, So where you're going to charge your car, you're.
Speaker 4: Going to charge it at the embassy, which is fired
Speaker 4: by a coal powered plant, like all any country. If
Speaker 4: you're in Norway, you don't need an armored tesla. You
Speaker 4: can get around in an uber but and there you
Speaker 4: can maybe find some renewable energy. But in Congo, where
Speaker 4: you do need armored vehicles to get around, those are
Speaker 4: coal plants that are firing your electric vehicle. So you've
Speaker 4: got the carbon footprint of making the thing. Then you've
Speaker 4: got the carbon and of getting the rare earth it's.
Speaker 1: Certainly sound like me on an electric vehicle.
Speaker 4: Then you got the carbon footprint of shipping it over
Speaker 4: to Congo, and then you're plugging it into a coal fired.
Speaker 3: That's actually stupid because you take the cobol out of
Speaker 3: the Congo, you ship it to China or the United States,
Speaker 3: you re find it, you put it in the country,
Speaker 3: and you ship it back to the.
Speaker 4: And then you plug it into a coal fired.
Speaker 1: Plug it into a coal fired power plan.
Speaker 4: So they've they've paused that contract. Okay, good, you're welcome.
Speaker 4: That's four hundred million dollars for you.
Speaker 1: Right, But now, what are they going to buy? Lan?
Speaker 1: They should just buy a land cruiser. That's what we
Speaker 1: all know.
Speaker 3: Look, you know what's that what's that truck that all
Speaker 3: the terrorists hues highlights think a sec Let's be honest,
Speaker 3: you know, we haven't got a lot of proof in
Speaker 3: a lot of these videos.
Speaker 4: I want to buy what. I want to see the
Speaker 4: diplomats riding in the back of the white Toyota.
Speaker 3: In the back of a Toyota highlucks, it's indestructible. When
Speaker 3: I lived in the Middle East, all the Arabs are
Speaker 3: rolling around in Toyota land cruisers.
Speaker 1: You got to learn from them. You gotta learn from them.
Speaker 3: All right, let's go to Donald Trump and his Napoleonic
Speaker 3: Declaration in addition to some updates around dough. So Donald
Speaker 3: Trump shocked America, I guess maybe not so shocking. Let's
Speaker 3: put this up there on the screen he who saves
Speaker 3: his country does not vy elate any law. So Ryan
Speaker 3: who and what came up with this saying? What is
Speaker 3: the what is the echo historical echo here?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so this is this is an apocryphal Napoleon quote
Speaker 4: that comes from the good, the good Napoleon movie Waterloo,
Speaker 4: which was like that nineteen sent I've never seen it.
Speaker 1: Maybe watch it.
Speaker 4: It's on YouTube. Yeah, that's cool. Yeah, and they like
Speaker 4: they famously they have like one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 4: like extras like actually do the battle. So so I
Speaker 4: don't know it was one hundred and fifty thousand, but
Speaker 4: tens of thousands of people dressed as Prussians and French soldiers.
Speaker 4: It was. It was the most sophisticated and like gigantic
Speaker 4: battle scene like ever filmed by Hollywood. And so you know,
Speaker 4: you don't know, not not the cgi like whip up
Speaker 4: that made a suffer through. But yes, so, whether Napoleon
Speaker 4: said this or not, this was this how this is
Speaker 4: how Napoleon felt like.
Speaker 1: He's been attributed to him.
Speaker 4: He definitely did say I am the revolution.
Speaker 3: Right am the state, and then you say that that
Speaker 3: was the king.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but what Napoleon said is his his version of
Speaker 4: that exact same thing was I am the revolution, because
Speaker 4: he was saying, like people are saying, like, hey, I
Speaker 4: thought the revolution was for all of these you know,
Speaker 4: fraternity equality, like we didn't we just talked about all
Speaker 4: this stuff. And He's like, well, no, I am the revolution.
Speaker 4: So whatever I do is therefore in advancement of the
Speaker 4: of the of the revolutionary values, of the French revolutionary values.
Speaker 4: And Trump's saying this is really only a kind of stating,
Speaker 4: a textualizing of what has always been his subtext that
Speaker 4: there isn't really ideology behind trump Ism. It's whatever Trump says.
Speaker 4: Now he's taking it to the place that it's not
Speaker 4: even illegal if I if I do it, which ended
Speaker 4: Nixon when.
Speaker 1: The president it's not illegal.
Speaker 4: That was considered to be the worst thing that a
Speaker 4: president had ever said.
Speaker 1: Did he say that.
Speaker 3: I don't think he said that in office, though I
Speaker 3: think he s David Frost.
Speaker 4: But it was like he was trying to make his comeback,
Speaker 4: and when he said that, like, yeah, banished this stand.
Speaker 1: It's not illegal.
Speaker 3: Let's put the next screenshot up there from Elon. He
Speaker 3: had lots of American flags there. I guess Elon is
Speaker 3: a console, a deputy of one of Napoleon's generals.
Speaker 4: Here he's a talerrand yeah, yeah, that's right, although I
Speaker 4: mean does it fit well, Yes, that's true.
Speaker 1: But you know he was.
Speaker 3: Also tallerand was he was like, how would you say
Speaker 3: he's an opportunist? He was an opportunist. He was constantly
Speaker 3: playing people off of each other. He was a vassal
Speaker 3: to the king and then to the revolutionaries and then
Speaker 3: eventually to Napoleon. He features very prominently in the popular
Speaker 3: book I'm Forgetting forty eight Laws of Power. There are
Speaker 3: a ton of Talleran.
Speaker 4: Quotes and then yeah, and then Tallyrand sells the Napoleon out,
Speaker 4: So that's careful.
Speaker 1: I'm not nearly as well read on my French revelation.
Speaker 3: It's just the black hole, to be honest, because there's
Speaker 3: so much rights a revolution, and then you know, the
Speaker 3: revolution goes through all these phases, and there's Napolion and
Speaker 3: then Napolean Lee's and the king comes back, and then
Speaker 3: Napoleon the third comes in. I'm like, I can't get
Speaker 3: my add around all this shit. It's just too much.
Speaker 3: I think there is there's that Revolutions podcast. Why what's
Speaker 3: that guy named Mike Duncan. It's so long, but all
Speaker 3: my friends who have listened to it highly recommend it.
Speaker 1: I eventually, one day I will get my head around
Speaker 1: the entire French Revolution.
Speaker 3: But let's, you know, kind of put this together with
Speaker 3: Trump and with Elon, kind of affusing of the two forces.
Speaker 3: They did a joint interview on Fox News. Let's take
Speaker 3: a listen, tried it.
Speaker 13: Then they stopped. That was they have many different things
Speaker 13: of hatred. Actually, Elon called me, he said, you know
Speaker 13: they're trying to drive us apart. I said absolutely. Now
Speaker 13: they said we have breaking as Donald Trump has seated
Speaker 13: control of the presidency to Elon Musk. President Musk will
Speaker 13: be attending a cabinet meeting, and I say, it's just
Speaker 13: so obvious. They're so bad at it. I used to
Speaker 13: think they were good at it. They're actually bad at it.
Speaker 13: Because if they were good at it, I'd definitely be president,
Speaker 13: because I think nobody in history has ever gotten more
Speaker 13: bad publicity than me. I could do the greatest things.
Speaker 13: I get ninety eight percent bad publicity. I could do
Speaker 13: outside of you, a few of your very good friends.
Speaker 13: It's like the craziest thing. But you know what I
Speaker 13: have learned eland that people are smart. They get it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they do it.
Speaker 1: They get it.
Speaker 13: They really see what's happening.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: So joint interview there Bible White House with Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Pretty obviously moved by Trump to quell some of the
Speaker 3: elon as president, although I'm not so sure because I've
Speaker 3: never seen Trump do that for literally anybody else, maybe
Speaker 3: his vice president. I mean, that's it. A joint interview.
Speaker 3: I am coming around to the crystal point of view
Speaker 3: that there's something weird going on here.
Speaker 1: It's odd.
Speaker 3: I've never seen Trump like this act so not even
Speaker 3: subservient but accepting of obviously an equal power center. I
Speaker 3: guess all we can take away from it is I
Speaker 3: think he just agrees with Evon.
Speaker 1: I mean, is that what it is?
Speaker 3: I really have no idea what it is because and look,
Speaker 3: I mean I've said this before. I do think that
Speaker 3: there is like a popularist aspect to dose. People hate
Speaker 3: the government. You know, they hate the government n til
Speaker 3: they need the government. But in the interim, people hate
Speaker 3: the government and they don't have any particular I don't
Speaker 3: think that outside of a lot of liberals who are
Speaker 3: reading the news constantly and like blued to their phones.
Speaker 3: I'm just not so sure that the so called popular
Speaker 3: revolution against all this stuff will materialize.
Speaker 1: Maybe in the future if you can pin.
Speaker 3: A natural disaster or something on them, but I'm not
Speaker 3: seeing it at least.
Speaker 1: Yet outside of the democratic faithful.
Speaker 3: All I took away from that interview is Trump is
Speaker 3: totally dedicated to him, which again I think is crazy. No,
Speaker 3: I really don't understand this dynamic, how it really came
Speaker 3: to be and so close, especially because if you're a
Speaker 3: Trump aid or others, if you're Trump yourself, you want
Speaker 3: to be in control of your narrative. You want to
Speaker 3: be control of your own story. Like even Advance works
Speaker 3: for Trump. He's not a separate power center in and
Speaker 3: of himself in the way that Elon is, and so
Speaker 3: Elon's main character energy I always assumed would rub up
Speaker 3: against Trump, and maybe it will eventually in the future,
Speaker 3: but even to this extent, I never would have predicted
Speaker 3: that he would have tolerated anything.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Elon's out there doing his own thing and creating
Speaker 4: his own reality and then forcing Trump to respond to it.
Speaker 4: And it's it's it's quite incredible because I find myself
Speaker 4: in this very unusual and almost uncomfortable situation of kind
Speaker 4: of pulling for Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the same way Trump, like stand up.
Speaker 4: For yourself then come on and sort of pulling for
Speaker 4: the maga folks to be like get some dignity and
Speaker 4: some self respect to your guys, Like you fought for
Speaker 4: eight years to get back into power, and you let
Speaker 4: this guy come in in September and stroke a check
Speaker 4: and he's he gets to just be along for the ride,
Speaker 4: Like don't you have any dignity here?
Speaker 1: No, that's actually the actual answer.
Speaker 3: And I mean, look, maybe there's some lessons in this
Speaker 3: as that being rich and famous is actually all that
Speaker 3: really matters in terms of the currency for Trump. Trump
Speaker 3: in a certain sense either agrees with all of this
Speaker 3: or he's fine. Maybe let's say a galaxy brain case,
Speaker 3: which is Trump is here more popular than ever, high
Speaker 3: approval rating, people are describing him as energetic. All he
Speaker 3: really cares about is tariffs and maybe Russia Ukraine, right
Speaker 3: ish in terms of like getting on the phone being
Speaker 3: president at a bit at a high level and just
Speaker 3: let elon deal with all the unpopular stuff which all
Speaker 3: the donors and all these other people go crazy for.
Speaker 1: So I have all my donors are happy.
Speaker 3: The media is obsessed with a foreign target who's literally
Speaker 3: absorbing all the bad press, and I'm just sitting pretty
Speaker 3: up here at the top, like he's like a whipping boy.
Speaker 3: I guess for what the real agenda is, But like
Speaker 3: you said, that's not really what the coot real agenda
Speaker 3: was supposed to be. So I do honestly find the
Speaker 3: entire thing bizarre. I just think that at a certain level,
Speaker 3: Trump is fascinated by Elon.
Speaker 1: Maybe he buys the hype.
Speaker 4: Maybe he just in that spaces he's like, you're an
Speaker 4: interesting cost.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's he's an interesting character. Yeah, yeah, he talks.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no Trump is. Whatever you can say
Speaker 1: about Trump.
Speaker 3: He's definitely a weird guy in his own right, but
Speaker 3: he's a very social person. He was a socialite for
Speaker 3: many years. He's met a lot of people. He has
Speaker 3: to know Elon is a total weirdough and yet you know,
Speaker 3: for some reason, it doesn't seem to run rub him
Speaker 3: the wrong way, where anybody else who treated Trump like
Speaker 3: this would just never get away with it. At a
Speaker 3: policy level, there have been some flags here around some
Speaker 3: of the latest Doge cuts. Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 3: this one up on the screen. This was kind of
Speaker 3: a hilarious plot point.
Speaker 1: So there was what was it?
Speaker 3: There were some cuts blind across the board. One of
Speaker 3: them was apparently at a nuclear weapons facility near Amarillo, Texas,
Speaker 3: where some thirty percent of cuts took place, and the
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons role of those workers and the FEDS who
Speaker 3: oversee it is some of the most sensitive missions apparently
Speaker 3: in the US. So after discovering that many of these
Speaker 3: workers who are in something called a probationary period, legally,
Speaker 3: Feds hire people on a probationary period before they convert
Speaker 3: to full time. While you're probationary, you can still be fired,
Speaker 3: and when you're not, it's just much more legally difficult
Speaker 3: to fire you. That probationary period can last up to
Speaker 3: three years. So people understand it's not like they've been
Speaker 3: disciplinary place, it's just that they're more newer entrants. So anyway,
Speaker 3: the Trump administration just fired across the board all probationary employees,
Speaker 3: but apparently they have reversed it for these twenty eight
Speaker 3: employees who are in charge of the nuclear weapons facility.
Speaker 3: Also for people who don't know the nuclear weapons are
Speaker 3: overseen by the Energy Department, which I've always found very
Speaker 3: interesting that I forget exactly when it happened. But we
Speaker 3: decided to take away that authority, specifically from the Pentagon
Speaker 3: and turn it into a civilian practice to make sure
Speaker 3: that civilian control command and control over the nuclear chain
Speaker 3: of command always remained ironclad.
Speaker 4: Yes, and the real heads when they're adding up military spending.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they add that.
Speaker 4: You're right, they add that in because when you're like, oh,
Speaker 4: how do we get to a trillion? When Department of
Speaker 4: Defense is this, it's like, well, because a lot of
Speaker 4: these other departments have spending that is fundamentally military. Yeah,
Speaker 4: you can also be probationary if you get a promotion,
Speaker 4: so you could be ten years in then you get
Speaker 4: a promotion and a raise. It's only like a three
Speaker 4: month stretch, but there are definitely significant numbers of people
Speaker 4: who got a promotion in like December and then found
Speaker 4: themselves like vulnerable to just getting whacked. And I think
Speaker 4: the politics of this can work out for Republicans if
Speaker 4: it's all spectacle like if they're taking if they're doing
Speaker 4: launching a spectacular assault on federal workers, and you've got
Speaker 4: Democrats defending these federal workers, the public.
Speaker 1: That's where we're at right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the public probably sides with the attack on the
Speaker 4: federal workers. But if it goes beyond spectacle and as
Speaker 4: actual substance, which it seems like it is, like firing
Speaker 4: ten percent of federal workers, that's a substantial cut, you
Speaker 4: risk genuinely harming things that voters want to be taken
Speaker 4: care of, like nuclear safety is an excellent example of it.
Speaker 4: Some of the stuff, for instance, getting rid of the
Speaker 4: people whose job it is to make sure that the
Speaker 4: last few birds of an instant endangered species like survive,
Speaker 4: like you're going to you know, you're going to drive
Speaker 4: these number of like animals into extinction. Does public care
Speaker 4: about that? I would say they probably don't. Now the
Speaker 4: next one, if we put this one up on the screen,
Speaker 4: huge cuts at the FAA. So I think we've had
Speaker 4: nine airplane crashes since in the last month or so,
Speaker 4: including military, including the and including the deadliest since like
Speaker 4: two thousand and nine, And to respond onto that by
Speaker 4: cutting hundreds of FAA employees, some of whom say that
Speaker 4: they were directly involved with safety, to me is not
Speaker 4: just like offensive as to me as an American citizen
Speaker 4: who wants to fly and not you know, crash into
Speaker 4: a military helicopter or like just have the plane blow up.
Speaker 4: It's it's also politically moronic because now if and when
Speaker 4: there is another plane crash, you can quite honestly and
Speaker 4: genuinely point to Hey, the way that Trump responded to
Speaker 4: nine plane crashes at the beginning of his term was
Speaker 4: to fire hundreds of FAA ploys. And now there are
Speaker 4: more crashes, and there's also reporting that FAA is allowing
Speaker 4: SpaceX technicians to come on in and you know they're
Speaker 4: gonna they're going to show the FAA how to how
Speaker 4: to do things, and so you're taking full political control
Speaker 4: and responsibility for something that could be a huge political liability.
Speaker 4: So that's where the spectacle. The spectacle can work for Republicans,
Speaker 4: but if they're if it drifts into substance and they
Speaker 4: actually destroy the government, which it seems like they're trying
Speaker 4: to do, that could actually backfire.
Speaker 3: I totally agree, and I've always warned that about the
Speaker 3: dough stuff where look usaid sorry, like I just don't
Speaker 3: think anybody will care outside of the people who actually
Speaker 3: work in that or people in Africa. But FAA, I mean,
Speaker 3: I always point to that, And I also tried to
Speaker 3: really highlight how quickly public.
Speaker 1: Opinion can change.
Speaker 3: And I don't think people really understand how quickly you
Speaker 3: can go from like an eighty percent approval rating to
Speaker 3: thirty or thirty five.
Speaker 1: It can happen on a dime, and in the span
Speaker 1: of nine months.
Speaker 3: I mean Joe Biden when he took office, he was
Speaker 3: like seventy four or seventy five percent. Now maybe it
Speaker 3: was fake, I don't know you could say that. But
Speaker 3: by October he's underwater as a result of Afghanistan inflation
Speaker 3: so much, you know, so many different expiro programs. Nate
Speaker 3: Silver actually had a good tweet on this. He goes
Speaker 3: keep in mind Obama went from sixty nine percent approval
Speaker 3: rating to Democrats losing a Senate seat in Massachusetts in
Speaker 3: the span of.
Speaker 1: Less than a year. I always try to highlight that.
Speaker 3: Remember the bush Ford five period, he literally went from
Speaker 3: winning the popular vote and you know, reaffirming all these
Speaker 3: conservative things about the country to getting absolutely blown out
Speaker 3: eighteen months later in.
Speaker 1: Public approval by going after Social Security.
Speaker 3: Exactly, and Iraq obviously, those two things, you know, you
Speaker 3: put them two together. So I'm just always pointing out
Speaker 3: with Doge and all of this and as triumphal and
Speaker 3: all this can sound really good. Political movements and actors
Speaker 3: think strategically and in the long term. And these Doge
Speaker 3: cuts through the FAA is a perfect example of why
Speaker 3: why would you ever allow this to Why would you
Speaker 3: even give the Democrats the option of if there's another
Speaker 3: plane crash, you know they're gonna crucify you. That's what
Speaker 3: they did with FEMA under Some Republicans said about FEMA. No,
Speaker 3: I'm talking about with the response to the North Carolina floods.
Speaker 3: Remember all of a FEMA dollars going to illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: That was a real thing. People in North Carolina were
Speaker 1: really bissed about that. This is the same thing. You
Speaker 1: don't want that on your head no matter what.
Speaker 3: So can there be reform? Can there be changed? The
Speaker 3: counter to what I'm saying is like, you people are
Speaker 3: just talking heads. You guys are idiots. You don't even
Speaker 3: know what you're talking about. Never bet against elon right.
Speaker 3: These SpaceX guys, one of them is worth fifteen Maybe,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's where it wilsewhere we'll find out. I guess it's
Speaker 1: a great national experiment.
Speaker 4: I'm curious for your take on the NIH cuts too,
Speaker 4: because I'm very pro actually, but I feel like this
Speaker 4: is a place where you and the people who are
Speaker 4: supportive of this our internet brained and are like, Okay,
Speaker 4: you're probably right. They're connecting NIH to like funding the
Speaker 4: lab in Wuhan, which they did, and they should be
Speaker 4: criticized for and they should actually, I think, ban all
Speaker 4: gain and function research, just like Obama did. And then
Speaker 4: they connect NIH to COVID hysteria and lockdowns, and then
Speaker 4: from there they say, well, NIH sucks, let's let's nuke NIH.
Speaker 4: And you throw in this idea that universities are, you know,
Speaker 4: are hogs at the trough with the with the overhead
Speaker 4: that NIH is paying for, and then you convince yourself that, Okay,
Speaker 4: this is actually a good target for us. This is
Speaker 4: a politically ripe target. When I think going after cancer research,
Speaker 4: going after medical research just period is a is a
Speaker 4: huge mistake, just on a kind of human level, because
Speaker 4: government spending on medical research is the thing that drives
Speaker 4: the advances, and then the corporations, the big farmer comes in.
Speaker 4: They swoop up the innovations, they patent them, they make
Speaker 4: all the money off of it. That system should be
Speaker 4: changed and they should not be able to make the
Speaker 4: amount of money that they're making off it, and it
Speaker 4: should be cheaper for us. But we do want this
Speaker 4: process happening where scientific advances happen because they save lives.
Speaker 3: Of course, I just think it's a little bit more reductive.
Speaker 3: So I mean, they're university thing. For example, Again, I
Speaker 3: grew up in University of Town. My parents work in academia.
Speaker 3: I think universities are genuinely hogs at the trough. Okay,
Speaker 3: let's look at it this way. Let's look at actual
Speaker 3: spending by public universities, all of which books are public,
Speaker 3: and look at the rise of what administrative costs. Administrative
Speaker 3: cost accounts for the vast majority of tuition increase. A
Speaker 3: lot of this is DEI you know. And but it's
Speaker 3: not just that it's just general administrating bloat. So what
Speaker 3: the NIH thing did is what it took it from
Speaker 3: sixty nine to a cap of fifteen percent. Now I
Speaker 3: talked about this with Crystal. They're like, oh, well, some
Speaker 3: of it is all this non administrative cost. But like
Speaker 3: the base assumption within the NIH freeze in terms of
Speaker 3: what is it the administrative cost freeze comes down to
Speaker 3: you guys are not good stewards of the pack tax money.
Speaker 1: I think that's probably basically true.
Speaker 3: Anything, by the way, which attacks the center of gravity
Speaker 3: of university power, I'm also fine with. So I'm being
Speaker 3: very honest about where I would like to see a
Speaker 3: complete change in all university financing, which heavily relies on
Speaker 3: the government, as you said, also begs all of their
Speaker 3: alumni for money. Plus the taxpayer and student loan is
Speaker 3: like the architecture on top of all of that. But
Speaker 3: on the public research and medical financing thing, I'm not
Speaker 3: saying it's all bad, and obviously I think it's a
Speaker 3: case by case basis, but it's one of those where
Speaker 3: zoom out. And this is where I really just agree with,
Speaker 3: like with a lot of the RFK critique, It's okay,
Speaker 3: we've been throwing all this money at all of this
Speaker 3: for literally decades, and actually the rates of disease are increasing,
Speaker 3: and actually fundamentally we have this wrong, which is all
Speaker 3: of the money goes into creating a quote drug when
Speaker 3: ninety percent of this could probably be solved by changing
Speaker 3: lifestyle factors. That's a much bigger zoom out thing. Nothing
Speaker 3: about the NIH will solve that today. But it's about
Speaker 3: fullhilosophy and allocation of resource fundamentally, like political economy, is
Speaker 3: the allocation of public resources to what you think is important.
Speaker 3: And so it's about thinking it. For me, at least,
Speaker 3: if I were to create like a grand design of
Speaker 3: what I could, it would be moving dollars away from whatever,
Speaker 3: creating some drug or you know, molecule or whatever that
Speaker 3: fixed supposedly not even fixed as cancer, because that's not
Speaker 3: really how it works, as opposed to looking at the
Speaker 3: lifestyle factors, food, substy whatever that leads to this explosion
Speaker 3: in cancer over the last fifty years or so.
Speaker 4: No, i'd love to see them address the lifestyle front.
Speaker 4: I'm skeptical that they're actually going to do that. I
Speaker 4: don't think you have to destroy the you know, you
Speaker 4: don't have to take the NH money away from universities
Speaker 4: in order to do that. And I think our university
Speaker 4: system it gets a lot of you know, legitimate criticism,
Speaker 4: but what it But it is also in many ways
Speaker 4: our crown, like it is the thing that separates us
Speaker 4: from other countries. And you know, you never know exactly
Speaker 4: how this stuff is going to work out, you know,
Speaker 4: because my wife's going through this now. I was actually
Speaker 4: studying how it is that the diagnosis that she has
Speaker 4: would have been basically a death sentence in the year
Speaker 4: of two thousand and today is extremely treatable and will
Speaker 4: be a hopefully just a bump in the road and
Speaker 4: go through treatment. And it was, you know, in nineteen
Speaker 4: eighty seven, the UCLA hosted a conference where a gen
Speaker 4: and tech scientists spoke and said, we've you know, I
Speaker 4: identified this hurt too protein. I'll get the language of
Speaker 4: it wrong, he said, But he said, but we don't
Speaker 4: know what on earth to do with it. And this
Speaker 4: this guy Slayman, who was at the UCLA on Collegist
Speaker 4: at the time, happened to be at the conference and
Speaker 4: he heard it. He's like, I bet that there's a
Speaker 4: potential like cancer link there. So he gets he reaches
Speaker 4: out to the guy, gets some samples to some against
Speaker 4: the samples he got, and he discovers that, you know,
Speaker 4: all of the in all the biops he's had the
Speaker 4: hurt too, the higher the positivity, the more aggressive the
Speaker 4: cancer was, and that was the one that was killing
Speaker 4: so many women. So that he tells the genin tech
Speaker 4: person that the gen tech person goes back to his lab.
Speaker 4: It says, who can develop an antibody for this hurt too,
Speaker 4: because if we can actually hit this hurt too target it,
Speaker 4: we could actually stop this this this cancer from being
Speaker 4: so deadly. And then genin Tech's like, yep, we're not
Speaker 4: We're not investing in cancer research anymore because it's not
Speaker 4: it's not commercially viable right now. Too many cancer drugs
Speaker 4: failed FDA and if we fail another one, forget it.
Speaker 4: So he goes around and he and this guy slam
Speaker 4: it like fights for NIH funding and other ways to
Speaker 4: make sure that this research actually gets done. And it
Speaker 4: has revolutionized the approach to breast cancer. And now women
Speaker 4: who twenty years ago were dying from these diagnoses in
Speaker 4: their forties, thirty four fifties up, now we're now we're
Speaker 4: surviving like almost. I think that's that's huge rights And
Speaker 4: without the NIH indirect money and without the university system
Speaker 4: and like what was that conference where they met that
Speaker 4: was overhead?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, right, well that's part My point is that
Speaker 3: there's definitely quote unquote justifiable expenses. I think you would
Speaker 3: probably agree with me though that by and large the
Speaker 3: way that the current system is deeply corrupt. Yes, if
Speaker 3: it's not just about NIH, it's like how many of
Speaker 3: these are funded by that?
Speaker 4: The number of the number of administrators that they've got
Speaker 4: now is absurd.
Speaker 3: Yes, and it hasn't stopped them talking for money right
Speaker 3: to every every alumni.
Speaker 1: But do something about.
Speaker 4: Like just go directly at the administration, like rather than
Speaker 4: like saying that ni H just only is going to
Speaker 4: choke it off.
Speaker 3: I think that's a totally fair point. And by the way,
Speaker 3: it will be very politically uh.
Speaker 4: And they're going to start taxing endowments. So maybe you're
Speaker 4: in DOWB. Maybe the tax on your endowments, I.
Speaker 1: Will I'll eat a sock here. If you actually talks
Speaker 1: tax endowment, I would love to see it.
Speaker 3: There's nothing I would love to see more than how
Speaker 3: about we make that trade. We'll take the endowments, we'll
Speaker 3: tax it at one hundred percent, we'll take all of that,
Speaker 3: will forgive student loans once, and then we'll get rid
Speaker 3: of the system.
Speaker 1: And then fine, we can have as much NIH funding
Speaker 1: as we want.
Speaker 3: We'll even take a token amount from these from Harvard's
Speaker 3: endowment tax, and we'll give it to as long an ihe.
Speaker 4: Fund, as long as we make college free or affordable again,
Speaker 4: I don't know free down today free but back to
Speaker 4: the nineteen sixties where you can actually like afford it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm absolutely, I'm totally on board.
Speaker 3: That's part of what I'm saying, though, is that so
Speaker 3: much of the increase in intuition costs. If you ever
Speaker 3: look go around, I highly encourage us use I use Claude,
Speaker 3: you can use chrat, GPT or any of that and
Speaker 3: peg university tuition inflation to the CPI and see how
Speaker 3: it's up there with like college textbooks and a few
Speaker 3: others from.
Speaker 1: One of the single biggest increases in costs.
Speaker 3: It's ludicrous, and these administrators and others are getting filthy
Speaker 3: rich off of it. Hence my general skepticism where I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't like trust a lot of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: But excellent point right with boot it back putt