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