1/30/23: Trump Campaign Heats Up, Jordan Peterson on Desantis, Biden 2024 Run, Ukraine Fighter Jets, Trump Peace Deal, Iran Drone Attack, Tyre Nichols, Gain of Function Ban, Affirmative Action, French General Strikes, Jeffrey Stein on Debt Ceiling Fixes

Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do lots of big political and foreign affairs news that is breaking this morning. First of all, the Trump campaign has now I guess officially launched like it had launched before, but then kind of really do anything now. He actually seems like he's doing some stuff. He was

in New Hampshire, he's in South Carolina. Really interesting comments made there, in particular about a couple of his would be rivals, Rnonda Santis and Nikki Haley. So we'll tell you about that. We also, this is a great soccer find. Jordan Peterson was on with Joe Rogan and he was actually going after Ronda Santis, which I was fascinated by it.

I thought we would talk. Yeah, very interesting exchange. So in the spirit of like twenty twenty four and Ronda Santis is a potential Trump contender, we will bring you that as well. We also have some new not very good numbers for Joe Biden coming out of New Hampshire. Actually Trump, for all the media talk of his weakness in the Republican primary, by some measures, he's in a lot better position than Joe Biden is visa VI the Democratic base. So kind of interesting there. And also this

is a little bit stunning. The Biden campaign is planning on running on how great the economy is, even as their own Treasury secretary said saying we're headed into a recession. Oh that smart. Lots of political news, we'll get into all of that. We also have some big news coming out of the Pentagon here there considering sending fighter jets to Ukraine. This of course on the heels of deciding to send tanks, after saying previously that they were not

going to say tanks. We have Israel striking a Ron multiple times, drone strikes. What will the fallout of that? Be. We also have that absolutely disgusting, disturbing, gut wrenching video of police murdering Tyree Nichols in Memphis. We'll bring you a little bit of that and also talk to you about what it all means and what exactly happened there. And a new expert panel recommending some changes to gain a function research. So we're going to talk about all

of that. We also have Jeffrey Stein in the show Jeffrey and never call him Jeffrey, just Seine. Let's call him Jeffrey just Stine the wasch and Post talking about some weird tricks that could diffuse the debt sealing crisis and whether any of them are actually realistically on the table.

So let's start with the political news. Here. We had Donald Trump in New Hampshire and Donald Trump in South Carolina talking a little bit of trash about the potential competition, saying that he doesn't really think he has any Let's take a listen. Remember I used to in twenty sixteen, I talked about polls all the time. I'm in twenty twenty. I didn't have to because we didn't have a lot

of competition. We had no competition, and I don't think we have a competition this time either, to be honest, but I talked about the polls and I will say that our poles, we are absolutely we are so far ahead in the polls, both in New Hampshire. One came out this morning a very nice pole the way ahead, and one came out yesterday a nationwide pole, and we're thirty five points up, thirty nine points up. That's a lot. So Ron would have not been governor because of a name.

Then what I hear he might run? You know, I consider that very disloyal to talk to her for a little while, but I said, look, you know, go buy your heart if you want to run. She's publicly say that I would never run against my president. He was a great president. So there you go saying, you know, same thing about Ron DeSantis and how it wouldn't be very loyal, he would never be anybody if it wasn't for me. With Nikki Haley, he's like, yeah, she apparently

came to me. I said, okay, you know, follow your heart. But she said she would never run against her favorite president, which is me. Although Nikki apparently is looking at a February launch. Yes, she's like a presidential election. Good luck, That's all I have to say. I guess. Yeah, it's comments about her I thought were particularly like passive aggressive, like oh yeah, sure she called me follow your heart. But of course she said she never run against her

favorite president. So but in a way, Crystal, he is right, isn't that she is such a kiss ass? If you genuinely believe that Trump was bad a you worked for him, you didn't get fired, you quit b You kissed his ass all the way up until January sixth, then denounced him, but then kissed his ass again. Yeah, and so it is back here, like pressing the ring even before her own presidence. Make up your mind, you know. I mean, she's one of these, Yeah she is. She's kind of

a Kamala Harris of the Republican Party. Donor Glass loves this woman. They think she's the you know, next big thing. She's got all the like diversity checkbox, and there is so little there there. I mean, just in terms of like personal charisma and any sort of political talent, et cetera. I mean, listen, maybe I'm wrong, but I think she is a complete donor and media class phenomenon. So anyway, she looks like is really actually getting a team together

and may jump in February. She might be the first other I guess John Bolton announced his presidential campaign as well, but other than him, she might be the first sort of challenger to jump in this race against him. We've been talking about how the field is kind of frozen because they're all terrified of him really coming after them

in an aggressive way. Well they should be. And actually immediately after that campaign Trump put out truth last night quote the fake news media, it was good yesterday in the coverage of my stops in New Hampshire, other than the globalist Street Journal, which is rarely accurate, good they said, the day was really I mean, he is right, He's right, it was really amazing. The enthusiasm to make America great

again has never been stronger here it is. The revelations about rondasanctimonious, doing far worse than many Republican governors, including that he unapologetically shut down Florida and his speeches was interesting. Indeed, DJT leading big. So what can we get from that? So it's been leaked down for quite some time that the dysantist tactic against Trump, if such a thing were to materialize would be I'm the one who fought against the COVID regime. Trump is the one who kept fauci.

He's the one who kept a lot of the lockdown procedures in place while he was there. So I've always been skeptical of how potent that attack is because, look, it's twenty twenty three, It's January thirtieth, twenty twenty three. Why are we still litigating the pandemic, especially the lockdown phrase of it, which effectively is been over at least for over a year. And then number two, it gets to I mean, look this think this is probably what Trump would say, and I do actually think he's correct.

One of the reasons DeSantis was able to do effectively whatever he wants is because the federal government does not have the power to determine lockdown procedure in the state of California or in the city of San Francisco, like we have a federalist system. As president, you have actually very little leeway. And look, even at the time, like we really want to get into this, Trump was basically anti lockdown after what like July. I think at the beginning it was like we'll be opened by reopened by

some kinds of what turned out exactly. Absolutely, I agree it was not accurate thing. It was a dumb move not to fire Fauci. That's absolutely very valid criticism, not to go after him on that, on some of the elements that were in it. But you know, by and large, like I don't know if DeSantis has a real substantive leg to stand on as far as it lands with the base. I mean, do people really love Ron DeSantis right now because of COVID and lockdowns? Or is it

COVID anti lockdown? Economic growth, population growth under Florida and ty woke like just a major like owning the Libs energy for the last three Like how much of that is COVID and how much of that is just being hated by the media. So I'm just genuinely skeptical of

this entire case. Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, I also think this puts the Christine Noum alliance with Trump in some perspective too, because if any governor in the country could make the case for like she really didn't give a care and just kept everything open the whole time and was aggressive about it, she was the one who really was sort of at the forefront of that.

So if anyone could make the case that hey, you're kind of a fraud when it comes to what you're saying you did on COVID versus what you actually did on COVID, she would be a good figure in order to do that. But I do kind of agree with you that, listen. I mean we've looked at the polls. In the midterm polls, we continue to see, you know, what people rank as their top issue priorities, and whether it's Democrats or Republicans, for the entire country, people have

moved on. So if this is the whole thing that Ron DeSantis is going to hang his hat on, I don't know how far it gets him. I do think too, like, listen, Trump is out there. You may be waiting and abiding your time and whatever, Trump is not waiting to take

shots at you. So if you aren't out there defending yourself, counterpunching, trying to gain some ground here, because Trump is right that at this point, I mean in most polls at this point, DeSantis is significantly behind, I think you're losing the opportunity to take advance of what was a period of weakness for Trump, which is quickly receding into the past. I think that what descent if he were to prosecute a case, the Reagan campaign of like nineteen seventy six

would be the best one. Now, Reagan actually did not win in nineteen seventies. That came pretty damn close, and that's effectively what made him the nominee in nineteen eighty. He was propagating the message. He's like, we look, we need to move on from this madness of Nixon, from Ford, from all of this chaos, go towards the quote true conservative principle and fulfill the very Goldwater Revolution of nineteen

sixty four. And it was a forward thinking message that actually again became very close to actually knocking Ford off in nineteen seventy six. And a lot of Gerald Ford people would tell you that Ronald Reagan is the guy who cost Ford the election because he's the one who weakened him amongst the conservative base so that he could

then get elected in nineteen eighty. But the point is is that Reagan was able to almost successfully take down the sitting president Gerald Ford amongst the conservative base because it was a feeling of man, really stick with this guy. There's been all this madness with the Pardons, and then obviously you have the Saigon pull out, and it's like we just got to move on into a new phase,

into a more hopeful phase. I don't know exactly how that translates, but when I'm looking at it, Reagan had the sunny energy and at the same time he was barbarous whenever he wanted to be. Yeah, with a political attack. That's I think the DeSantis kind of look at Florida open for business, where booming. That's what I want to bring to the entire country. Yeah, that's that's all I would really really with Donald, I thank you for your help. You did a great job while you were president, but

it's time to move on. Yeah. I think that's actually a powerful message for a lot of people. Do you think that that would sell with the Republican base. Yeah, I mean that's the real question. Is you have to bet on the idea that the Republican base actually sees this as a period of chaos. Actually, you know, a majority of them really want to move on because and this is the other you know, it's the other proble

we're talking about Nicky Haley getting in there. John Bolton, like, this is a whole cast of Mike penns is almost definitely gonna run, Glenn young Kin almost definitely going to run. If a whole cast of character is looking to jump into this race. And so it's one thing if you've got this true one on one Ron DeSantis versus Donald Trump.

But I think it becomes so much more difficult when you have a whole slate of people who are taking up media oxygen and energy and who are trying out their own tactics and shots that they're taking at Trump, and also have their own base of donors that, even if they don't really have any public support, are going to prop them up for longer than they really deserve

to be in the race. Yeah, I think you're right. Okay, So let's talk about what Trump's strategy is this time around, at least thus far, because it is quite different from the stylistic approach that he took in both twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. Split this up on the screen from the New York Times. So, as I said before, he had these two events in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The headline here from the Times is Trump tries a new campaign tech colon small scale at two events On Saturday, he embraced more traditional campaigning as he struggles to maintain support for his third White House bid. So in New Hampshire. He spoke in a high school auditorium in Salem, New Hampshire, which you know, that's like classic sort of what you do when you're on a campaign, but it's not the gigantic rallies that he's kind of known for. In South Carolina,

this was kind of interesting. They say he's previously attracted thousands to rallies, but he introduced his state leadership team at the state capitol, an extraordinary setting for a politician known for upsetting the establishment and taking direct aim at

long standing public institutions. One thing of note in South Carolina is it all depends on how you look at this thing, because on the one hand, he didn't get like unanimous support of the Republican Congressional delegation or all the elective I mean, obviously Nikki Haley is a vacuum. Tim Scott is not backing him, who also, by the way,

both of them might run for president. But he got the governor of the state endorsed him, and I think several other statewide elected officials from South Carolina endorsed him, and you also had the senior centater, Lindsay Graham, who endorsed him, and I think three MS six of the

Republican members of the congressional delegation. So do you see that as a show of force for a former president who's now, you know, but lost reelection, is running again, or do you see that as a sign of weakness that he no longer has complete control over all of the elected officials in the state. Yeah, it kind of depends on how you look at it. I look at it as what the actual state of affairs is. He has the most people are behind him in the Republican Party.

From what we can tell so far, a large part of the Republican establishment afraid to go up against him. You have some people who may oppose him but are being silent about it right now. And that's effectively the state of the case. And I'm sure in South Carolina he's got the first mover's advantage. And also we know that announcing early doesn't really guarantee you anything. You know, remember who was the first guy to announce in twenty twelve,

I think was to Tim Paulenti. I mean he was the last time he heard it right, last time I checked, he was like the chairman of the American financial lobby here in Washington, DC. So congratulations worked out at him, I guess. But look, that's my point is it's all game of timing. But it's also you have to have genuine appeal. So with Nikki Hayley, I don't think anybody has a genuine appeal behind her except for billionaires who are basically neo cons And you know, I mean, good luck,

I guess in the race. I think would find out with her pretty quick. She definitely would be a Jeb Bush type character, but for a serious person, and I really think Desanta is the only person who might be able to do it. This is a tricky game. On the one hand, you know, you just won reelection by twenty you're cruising at a certain point. Either do it or don't. On the other, Trump has always destroyed everybody he's ever gone up against. Is it different this time? Look, well,

we can only find out. Yeah, action, that's the difficulty. A couple other notes about the way Trump is approaching the campaign, which is also interesting. I mean, twenty twenty, the messaging was very little in terms of policy focused. It was a lot of just like weird online grievance politics, very very hard to say, you know. He was talking about like, okay, the economy was great under me, and selling some of what he did in terms of COVID, but there wasn't a real sort of core policy argument

like he was making back in twenty sixteen. And in twenty sixteen, he was successful because both people liked his style. They liked that he pissed off the people that they hated, but they also liked the core of a lot of the actual policy that he was selling. And then he is in office and doesn't do any of those things and ends up just being another Republican who gives the store away to the rich. He seems like he's trying

to recapture some of that twenty sixteen energy. So in this article they point out that over the past six weeks on True Social Trump has been posting a bunch of videos about his policy positions, they say, including plans of protect social security and medicare. Oh again, that's like a twenty sixteen throwback. Ban Chinese citizens from owning US farmland or telecommunications, en energy tech, or medical supply companies. They say, the videos in which the former president speaks

directly to his camera aimed at resaring supporters. He's focused on topics other than his twenty twenty defeat, an issue that flopped with midterm voters. But that doesn't mean he has let go of his election conspiracies. He still is harping on that to quite a significant degree. I think

what I take and the saga. Clearly his campaign manager recognizes that just obsessing over the twenty twenty election is not going to be a winning strategy for him in the Republican primary or in a general election, and is trying to refocus him on these other issues. Does that work? Are you able to like actually corral him to talk about things when clearly his big obsession is over the election. Good luck with that. Trump will always say whatever he wants.

So our background story, I don't even remember this lady's name, but somebody had accused. She was like, some lady went on TV and said that Trump had sexually harassed her. So I'm about to interview Trump. This happens the day before. So before I walk in there, Sarah Sanders is like, Hey, don't ask about this, And I was like that's not how this works. Like, I'm going to ask about whatever I want, and guess what the first thing he wants to talk about is. He's like, did you see this

lady on the TV. It's one of those where, yeah, the staff tries to protect him, but if he wants to talk about it, he's going to talk about it, all right. He cannot. One thing have we learned at this point, it's been seven years of the Trump era. He will say whatever he wants, and so if he believes it, which he does by all accounts, I think we should take him at his word. Then we're going to hear a lot about it during the campaign. That's

baked into any support of Trump or whatever. People who are like, oh, like the policies but not the tweets, Well, I'm sorry they are not. They are completely indistinguishable whenever it comes to the man. Correct. That's just how it goes, correct, all right. So that's kind of an encapsulation where Trump

and his campaign is at this point. I guess the last thing I will note is that in contrast to the very sort of contained launch speech that he gave, that was you know, kind of boring and dull and just reading off the teleprompter. These speeches were more like the you know, Trump ad libbing stem Winders of the past, So that was more the energy of these particular speeches,

for whatever that's worth. H Okay, let's go ahead and get to this interesting exchange between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson on Ronda Santis, who of course is seen as Trump's primary rival in terms of winning the nomination. As you guys probably know and followed in the news, DeSantis has banned the ap African American history course from being taught in Florida schools. Obviously incredibly controversial move, and Peterson brought it up and took issue with it. Let's take

a listen to the argument that he makes. Once you get to the point where the government has to step in and regulate, say what education systems are doing, you're already in deep trouble. And because it can't I don't see how it can really be done, because I can't define critical race theory, you know, I mean more or less you can get some sense of the cloud of ideas that's associated with it, but trying to draw the lines,

how are you going to do that? And then of course you enable inevitably, no matter what your goal is to begin with, you're going to control a certain form let's say, of pathological communication misinformation that's just going to play into the hands of people who like the censor. And that's just as likely on the right as it is on the left. So no, it's a real dangerous game. And this is the problem, like the term critical race

theory is it's open to interpretation. Yeah, well, it's often even hard, except in retrospect, to understand a lot of what these things actually are, you know, because new clouds of ideas emerge and they kind of have an animating spirit. Then they have a set of associated what would you say, presumptions, and you can often only see what that is in retrospect. So I was actually fascinated by that. Yeah, what did you make of that soccer? I don't know, because you know,

he's also endorsed Rodd DeSantis. Actually I remember Peterson, Yeah, he did in November of twenty twenty two, Pijo Jordan Peterson. I don't know if he endorses the right word. I think he was like said something I would like about him. Yeah, I was curious just to see it because he also kind of brought it up unprompted. For those who haven't listened, it was within the first five minutes in the discussion of a Twitter Files episode. So I was like, huh,

I don't know. I mean, I'm curious, actually what you think because you did that monologue on the Crowder ben Shapiro thing, and like, by the way, some fun stuff coming out about Stephen Crowder, but how exactly you said it was relating to the GOP primary. And I was like, well, maybe he's you know, I mean he said he was

pro DeSantis. Maybe this is like a political move. I know that their strife within the Daily Wire over being pro Trump or pro Rond Deascen, but I was just fascinated to hear it was Oh wow, that was just I was totally unexpected. That's actually layer ofvid that I didn't even consider because I wasn't even thinking about the fact that Peterson is now with the Daily Wire. I mean, is his employer. Shapiro is very clearly team Ron de Santis has been for a while. I mean, he was

not an original Trump supporter. He was a Ted Cruz guy, and then you know, during the Trump era he was relatively supportive of trouble though. You know he would criticize a rough time to happen. Well, she's very pro DeSantis, so maybe this was like a you know, his attempt to carve out his own lane or put out a

little bit of descent to that move. The fundamental point that he makes here, I think is a solid one, which is just basically like, listen, you can't run around being like I'm the free speech guy and then be bannon books and banning entire courses. And the case that he makes here of like, you know, once you get into okay, this is the sort of vague, amorphous concept

that people have trouble even defining. But you're saying you're banning it, well, that can bleed over into a lot of air are I think seems like a reasonable case to make, especially to Rogan and a Rogan aligned audience. The one thing I will say is, you know, I like the idea of okay, we just want to teach the facts, and we want education to be neutral and stay true to the history whatever that history is, whether

it's good, bad, or indifferent. The reality is that's not really possible because I mean, government is always going to have an influence on what is being taught, and so there is a real battle of ideas here. Now, I would say it's not the appropriate role of like the state executive to just top down to side. This is

what's okay and this is what's not. This is why you have local control of schools, and in theory and best case scenario, you have a democratic local process where parents are involved and they're electing school board members and

that's how curriculum are being ultimately being developed. But I do want to just say that I think it's a little bit of a fantasy to imagine that schools are not going to be political whatsoever, because the way you teach things, the type of courses that are included, those are always going to be somewhat political. I actually I completely agree with you, and that's why it's very difficult

because I also believe in free speech. And you know, for example, this ap history exam, we're talking about the reparations. This is included in the curriculum, movement for Black Lives, Black queer studies, post racial racism and color blindness, intersectionality, and activism. I'm sorry, I mean, I'd be furious if that was taught to my child in a state environment and I'll give people the flip side. So I grew up in Texas. I grew up in Colinsation, Texas. I

remember this vividly. My science teacher was required to teach us evolution and somebody asked her a question and they were like, hey, I'm not going to call her out, although I still probably think I should. One of my students students was like, what do you believe? And she was like, why I believe what my church something like that church teaches me. And I was like, I'm sorry, it's like you just cast out as an authority figure

on evolution and you're a freaking science teacher. And I was sitting there as a non Christian being like am I losing my mind? And she starts talking about, you know, whatever they taught in the Bible or what. Look, that's fine, you want to do that at Sunday schoo be my guest, even though I think you're absolutely out of your mind,

but this lady's in an authority figure. And I remember thinking in that moment, I'm like, oh wow, I'm like, you know, somebody really should like have a say over this, you know, And obviously I didn't because I was in the cultural minority. But the point that you're making is correct. We are going to have to fight about this. In a state school, private school, you can teach whatever you want. If you want to be at home, you want to teach this to your kids. I mean, frankly, I think

you're crazy, but you be my guest. It's your right as an American citizen. The blanket banning of teaching black history, though from a top down executive I think strikes most people, including Jordan Peterson, who tends to be a very conservative guy, as going way too far. I mean, the things you're talking about to be taught about, Okay, what is the argument for and against reparations in a high school elected course? This isn't even something you know, you get to decide

whether you're going to take this course or not. I don't think that's inappropriate whatsoever. So in any case, I do think that you know it is. It is a difficult balance for Ronda Santis to strike, where he's again trying to pain himself as like, oh, I'm against the woke mob, and I'm against cancelation, and I'm pro free speech, and that's my whole thing. But at the same time, you're banning more books than any other state in the country. Florida and Texas are the two top states in the

country in terms of banning books. Back to your Texas example and your wholesale just saying no, we're not going to teach ap black history, not like, oh, hey, maybe we should make some tweets. No, we're just going to ban it every sing at every school statewide. I think that strikes people as going way too far and does smack of you just don't want to teach the ugly parts of American history that you know look bad for

the state. You want the warm and fuzzy version that doesn't include like the ugliness of slavery and the Jim Crow South and all of those things. So in any case, I thought it was interesting that Peterson jumped on that particular issue and clearly wanted to bring it up in the podcast right away. Yeah, I was. I see that's where Look, we don't have to litigate it. But like, I'm like, I don't think that post racial racism, color blindness, and black queer studies is a goddamn thing to do

with the American Civil War. I mean, I would love to for more people actually have an ad isn't this if we're talking about an ap black history course, shouldn't those struggles in those movements, Like why shouldn't they be covered? Well, who didn't you talk like, are we talking about Harvard Universities Color Department, you know, in terms of like how we understand color blindness and intersectionality? Are we talking about

actual black people in Florida? But I think they want I think that's a good question because you're saying it should be up to Ron DeSantis and however he feels about I don't agree with that at all. I'm saying I'm looking at the curriculum being like, yeah, I think this is a problem. That said, I have honestly no idea how to deal with it. I mean, I just

gave my example. Here's the truth. The vast majority of people in that class probably did not believe in evolution, and probably the principle who ran the school also didn't believe in evolution, but they required to teach it for a state standard, and at the same time they're casting doubt on it. I mean, is it my fault for living in the state. I don't know. You know, it's like one of those words I do want to listen.

I in my opinion on this particular issue, abandoning an entire like black history course from entire state, I think that is clear cut over the line, way too far. But I do think that overall, the conversation of like what gets included an education curriculum, it's actually very complex because on the one hand, as I just said before, you have this principle of local control electing school board members and ideal situation parents having a lot of input.

On the other hand, right, you can think if you think back into too, like the Jim Crow South, and you have a majority of the white citizens who think black people are inferior, is that should that be No, of course that shouldn't be taught to students. It shouldn't just be we have basic rights that should be included in the curriculum. So it's just like with all of our laws and institutions, it's not enough to just say

majority rule. You also have to make sure that there is you know, a quality and basic rights that we recognize in the constitution that are reflected in that curriculm as well. So it's also not just as simple as saying, like, whatever the local community decides like if the local community is like, we don't like evolution, I would personally say I'd be like, I'm not down. No, I would personally say, like, this is the facts, this is science. Kids need to

be taught this in a public institution. Well that kind of happened already, right, yeah, so that's already. Here's another fun one kids in the South. If you start hearing the War between the States, you need to start reading for yourself. Listen, that's a little bit of a flag for all that. Having grown up in a rural paw of Virginia, there were a lot of highly questionable parts of the curriculum, field trips that I went on, etc. That you know, we'll we'll just leave it there, all right.

Let's get to the current president, Joe Biden. So this is a new report from our old colleagues over at the Hill. Is going to put this up on the screen. I just can't help but laugh. Biden gets set to lean into the economy in twenty twenty four. One of the one of the journalists on this piece is Amy Parnes, very well respected, well sourced, and Sylvan Lane is the

other one on the byline here. So let me read you a little bit of this with the State of the Union address on February seventh, which, by the way, guys, we are going to do livestream coverage of that. Biden is likely to give an upbeat tone on the economy that's going to roll into a campaign message that Democrats expect will highlight strong job numbers and rising wages. A senior vice president for the Third Way, like corporate centrist think tank, said the economy can and will be a

winning issue for Biden. When you look at the top line stats, they're incredibly impressive. These are massive accomplishments. Guys. Reality check. We still have seventy plus percent of the country saying we are on the wrong track. You literally have the Joe Biden's Treasury secretary warning that we are headed into a recession. We have covered the way that banks are stockpiling cash because they are so fearful of what is happening in the future. You still have the

Fed hiking interest rates. You have all kinds of weirdness and craziness in terms of the housing market, in terms of even the alan market. So for them to pretend like, oh, the economy's going to be great and this is something we can lean into for the election. I think that is totally delusional. Yeah, I obviously agree. You know, look, actually, what I'm taking away from this with Biden is he

should run on social security and Trump madness. I mean, that's what all the exit pollings that we have about Democratic overperformance or Republican underperformance has to do with Trump madness. And then Boomer's coming out because they thought that Republicans were going to cut their Social Security. I mean it's actually you literally have a whole debt ceiling fight going on right now. Yeah, they're on their back foot. That's what all all I would do is bash them over

the head. I wish that the politics didn't work this way, but unfortunately we really do seem to be in the age of the defensive. When you vote Republican, you're voting against the Liberals. When you're voting Democrat, you're voting against the Republicans in a lot of ways. You know, the stop to Steal Madness was enough to keep people down or at the very least switch ticket up at the very top. For Biden, you just want to make a choice between stop Trump madness and me and also all

protect your socials. Yeah, I mean simple Trump is very aggressively trying to inoculate himself against the social surity off whenever because it's a vibe. Right, So Biden can say I'm anti put deef on the police. What does it matter if the institutional left is for it? People are like, well, I don't believe you. You know, it's one of those things where Trump, by being in the Republican Party, if the Republican Party's going to be coded as anti entitlements,

then you're going to have ultimately get the pushback. That's a fair that's a fair point. And also, you know, they're moving forward with this insane plan of like, you know, thirty percent national sales tax that they have to vote on in the House because this is one of the things that McCarthy gave to the holdout caucus. And you know, how's it going to sell to the American people? Like, Hey, you know how high your grocery bill is right now? You know how much you're paying for eggs and milk

right now? How about we up that by thirty percent? How do you feel about that? Buddy? Good luck with that messaging too. I mean Democrats are going to have a Field Day with the vote that they're going to take on that ultimately. So anyway, that's the Democratic plan to try to pretend like the economy is all hunky dory. This is something the Obama administration tried as well, and it did not work out well for them either. I

think this is an incredibly, incredibly foolish plan. And at the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Biden, even though the media narrative was after the midterms, solidified his position. He's looking stronger than ever and he's good to go in terms of, you know, being the nominee and probably winning the general election. The numbers in some of the early states really tell a different tale. So let's kind of put this New Hampshire pull up

on the screen. So you've got the Republican primary results up top. You've got Trump with a lead over Ron DeSantis thirty seven twenty six. They also then threw Chris Nunu and there I don't know why. I don't know if he's planning on running or not. Anyway, he gets thirteen percent in the state of New Hampshire, the named Nicki Haley four, Mike Penn's three, and basically Glenn Young

gin Zyro good luck with that, buddy. And then on the Democratic side, though, this is what's interesting is even though DeSantis is, you know, he's within eleven points, kind of nipping at Trump's heels there, Biden is actually in a position in the Democratic primary, then Trump is in

the Republican primary. You've got Biden at only twenty five percent of New Hampshire Democrats saying they want to vote for this guy, Pete at sixteen, cell obamat can why do you include her fifteen percent, Kamala Harris five, Gavin Newsom three undecided thirty six percent. So in any case,

there's a lot of weakness here. This was the second New Hampshire poll to come out that found basically a majority of large majority of New Hampshire Democratic base voters wanting a different candidate than Joe Biden, and I just think it's absolutely remarkable if you dig into this poll. Another thing that I found really interesting is they say that Biden's best numbers are among low intensity Democrats, those who have just voted in one of the past four elections.

He gets forty percent of those, versus among the four for fours they call him regular primary voters. Biden is at only twenty seven percent. So they say Biden's advantage over Bootage comes almost entirely from older, self identified conservative Democrats without college degrees, a fading part of the party's coalition, and also apparently with people who don't vote that often, which is you know, if you know anything about politics, those are not necessarily the people that you want to

be the courier base. Oh, of course, I mean the Democratic Party primary base overwhelmingly at least increasingly now becoming a lot more college educated, and increasingly the overall vote share as a whole. So that's a terrible place to be. At the same time, that's exactly what you would want in a general election at at some point, I don't think it matters just because Bootajet is not going to it's not running, right, He's not going to run, So

you know, it doesn't matter. That said, whenever it shows up, what can that tell us, which is high turnout? Save Joe Biden's ass. In the twenty twenty election, remember this, guys, we had one of the highest turnout elections in modern history. Like I think Trump, you know, that's one of the reasons Trump is always like, oh, one to ten million more votes. It's like, yeah, well you also got fifteen million people on the other side. But anyway, that's aside.

The point is is that millions more people voted in twenty then year prior. I actually see no reason why that would go down. We just had a midterm with the highest record midterm turnout in decades. I think it was like two thousand and two or something like that. It came similar to in terms of the strife that we're feeling. I don't think anybody can doubt that twenty twenty four won't be, you know, at least a very emotive rematch between the two or whomever does ultimately become

the GOP nominee. So I just see a scenario where your ability to motivate people to come out for you is so vitally important and for Biden. You know, if I'm Biden, you better bring it on your hands, knees and pray for Trump. That's the only thing that's going to save you. Otherwise, remember this, Republicans won the national popular vote by six points in the midterm elections. Your

toast without that. Let me tell you, guys, don't under estimate trum Yeah, you know, and listen, I felt for it to Okay, listen, do it is gonna get indicted, Like the document thing seems like an open and shut case. You might get indicted also, and this might still happen for the some of the January sixth stuff, like, surely this is not gonna wear well to American public. You just had this massive repudiation of him in the midterms as clear as day. But again in this poll, according

to this poll, and the polls can be wrong. We all know that Biden and Trump in a statistical tie for a general election head to head, and obviously New Hampshire's state that you know, Biden won previously democratic quite well in terms of the interm elections. And you're tied with this dude right now at this point when he's kind of at his like low ebb of popularity in terms of you know, Donald Trump anyway, So he's got an electability issue, he's got a lot of weakness with

his own base. He's got a lot of people who are understandably like, bro, you're going to be eighty six by the time you finish this term. Are you really up for this? You really think you can handle this job for another four years, so they got some big problems on their hands bottom line in eighty six. Wow. Okay, let's move on to Ukraine. This is an important discussion. Let's put this up there on the screen. The Pentagon a push to send F sixteen's to Ukraine is picking

up steam. So, for those of you are familiar with fight Club, I've taken to a new phrase. On a long enough timeline, Ukraine is going to get anything that happens. First Patriot missiles were out, then they're in. Then tanks were out. Now tanks are in F sixteen's. And the no fly zone that was something that was out. Maybe

it's back in. This is only the first step to a no fly zone, right, So, currently there is a major contingent of military officials pushing the Pentagon to approve F sixteen fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks. Wouldn't you look at that? Ukraine has kept American made F sixteens at the very top of its wish list from the

very beginning. However, Washington and Kiev have viewed artillery, armor, and ground based air defense as more urgent needs as Ukraine protects a civilian infrastructure, and as they are about to launch their new offensive, they view their ability to at least battle for air supremacy as a vital part of not only the Spring offensive, but possibly in the future. Now, the reason why these fighter jets were not really under consideration at all is, well, everybody, what's the range on

an F sixteen more than Ukraine. I can tell you that, what are they going to use it for? Well, we don't really know. They may tell us one thing, and sure, they're probably very useful in their initial Spring offensive to take back to territory in the initially invaded part of Ukraine. But what about Crimea and what about Russia. Let's say that one of the things that you do when you're at war is you destroyer an enemy's ability to try

and wage war upon you. So would then we not open up the ability to have F sixteens strike inside of Russian territory if they're provided by the United States. Look at the one hand, and this is what the Ukraine people always tell me, Well, it's not unprecedented in the history of the Cold War not to provide F sixteens to our allies in the fight. On the other

Let's think back to Afghanistan, right. One of the reasons that we could only give the Mujahadin missiles that were in storage or ammunition, or sometimes you couldn't even give them a rifle with the scope on it was because we had very strict regulations at that time around what exactly surplus equipment and not not necessarily US provided equipment was allowable in the conflict, even if the Soviets knew

that we were doing it. Lines were very well considered in the Reagan even one of the most hawkish administrations at that time. Now this is blowing just way and way past that White House right now says quote, they are considering it very carefully well with Kiev and its allies. What does that even mean. Also, don't forget this, it's not just US as F sixteen's. We could allow another country who we sold them to to sell it to you, or even just give it to Ukraine, But if they're

a NATO we bear the brunt of it regardless. I don't think that's going to happen. Why because with Germany they won't even give them tanks without insisting that we give them tanks because they want US and our nuclear security umbrella to underwrite this entire thing. Yeah, they don't want to have their US, don't They want us to be taking the brunt of the blame here right. Listen, I've tried to be really, like very understanding to the

case that Pentagon Biden administration are making here. This is insane and the logic always go no matter what happens on the ground, no matter what the actual conditions are, whether Ukraine is winning or losing, or Russia is falling apart or doing better whatever, it always seems to justify more escalation. And so this is the key point. There's a couple key points to take away here. Number one, we are continue to court World War three. I mean, don't forget that we are in a proxy war with

another nuclear armed superpower. And this idea of like, well, they haven't blown up the world yet, so I guess we can do it whatever we want is pure insanity. We're creating a situation where not only are there no off ramps for Ukraine and Russia to bring this war to an end, but there are no off ramps for us to get out of this situation. So it really is looking more and war like in Afghanistan type situation

where you know, remember the original idea of going into Afghanistan. Okay, we're going to get the bad guys and then we'll be out what ended up happening. I mean, we are creating that same sort of logic and inability to back out on the ground in Ukraine as we did there as well. Talking to our friend Bronco marcatic and about all of this, and he brought up a good point. I'm just going to read you what he said to me. He said, listen, there's two paradoxes of Western discourse on

this war. Number one, if Putin and Moscow threaten escalation but don't act on the threats, the US should get more aggressive because they're bluffing and we'll never do so. If Russia does escalate, then they're dangerous madmen in the US should get even more aggressive because they can't be at peace, so all rosary lead to escalation. And then the second one is when Ukraine is on the back foot, the US must escalate and hold off onto diplomacy until

Ukraine is in a strong negotiating position. When it gets to that position, the US must escalate and hold off on diplomacy because now Ukraine can win until it can't, then we go back to the start of the loops. So if Ukraine is not doing well, it's okay, we got to send them the tanks. We've got to do this and that so we can give them a stronger negotiating position, and then if they do better, then it's oh, if they can win, we're going to make them win.

Can negotiate now, So again, all roads lead to escalation, and you are one hundred percent right, Saga. Over long enough time horizon, they have gotten everything they want. And the logic here of okay, we just agreed to the tanks.

It's not okay, good, We're good, like thank you. It just justifies now we're going to push the envelope even more in terms of what we're going to ask for, because if you can justify tanks, then hey, why are you drawing the line now at F sixteen's there's no logic that would allow you to draw the line between those two offensive capabilities. And let's put this up there

on the screen. Former Admiral James Travitis. He was also the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff putting it out a tweet saying this is the right thing to do. Tanks will be helpful, better aircraft will be decisive. Well, you know, it certainly could be. It could be decisive, certainly in a lot of directions. I always try and look back to the history. So when you think about World War One, what's one of the one things that

we all think about gas? Right? Well, the war lasted over nine months before the first gas attack ever happened. So think about the longevity of the amount of people and suffering in the war that was happening before that. Even we're not even barely one year into this conflict. The first year of the First World War, I could have made a very good case for why the Central Powers were going to win and why the United States would never enter and the things would never end up

the way that we thought they would. Think about World War Two. If it's one year into the great film right now Narvik on Netflix, Fantastic Film, we're talking about the Nazi invasion Norway in the very first Hitler defeat. I one year into World War Two, appeasements looking pretty good. You're like, hey, these people rolled over France, they took over Norway, it's time to Negotia. There were people in the British cabinet making the point that I am making

right now. They said, no, we're going to stand up against the Nazi colossus and hope that the United States eventually gets into this war. And by nineteen forty three, OK, that ends up becoming very clear. But there was a very good case to making forty two that it wasn't going to happen the point, and we had no idea where this thing is going to go, and it could end up as a freaking disaster. Yeah, right, Russia, right now.

Peter Zihon made a great point all the Joe Rogan experience where he said, look, the history of all Russian conflict, you can go all the way back to Napoleon, even further if you want to, the first year it's a shit show. I'm quoting Peter directly. And then what do they do. They throw bodies at the problem and sacrifice proportionally far more of GDP and life than they ever actually needed to, but they end up winning. Am I

saying that's going to happen here? No, I have no idea, but we could look back at that this call for the current conscription that might happen. Clearly nobody in the Kremlin is doing a damn thing to putin or there's no coup or anything. Well, we can at least understand from that that they're not going to stop. And if they're not going to stop, then what is the limiting principle? And so on a long enough timeline in that ten year period, can you confidently say that a call for

a no fly zone won't happen? I cannot say that here given the current administration. And that's the point that I think we should always try to hammer home. Yeah, I completely agree with you. Let's go to the second part here, which is I said the current administration and that timeline. However, one of the people who is running for president right now, possibly the next president of the United States, is Donald Trump. And Trump is making very

sustained calls for a negotiated peace in Ukraine. Let's put this up there on the screen quote. If I were president, the rush Ukraine would war would never have happened. But even now, if President I would be able to negotiate an end to this horrible and rapidly escalating war within twenty four hours. Such a tragic waste of human life interesting and could be a very politically popular message. Let's say two years later, let's say another one hundred billion later,

maybe a couple f sixteen's later. And Trump was speaking to this on his campaign stop in South Carolina. And I think this is a very potent message. Right now. Let's take a listen. Joe Biden has brought us to the brink of World War three, the brink of World War three, just because anybody doesn't know it. As president, I will bring back peace through strength. Peace through strength would have never happened if I was president. There would not have been a war with Russia in Ukraine, zero

Chain said, Lindsay would be happy with that. That's better than any alternative, wouldn't It happened. And I will say this even now, despite tremendous loss of lives and destruction of much of that country, I would have a peace deal negotiated within twenty four hours. Peace deal within twenty

four hours. That is something which I really believe. Crystol could have a significant potency also in the general election, or sorry, also in the primary, but really in the general election, where a lot of polling and you've been taking a lot of look at this is what people are very split right now on support for Ukraine. The numbers have moved significantly in terms of how the public feels about continuing Ukraine support. There's an NBC News poll

that just came out. It's kind of funny because they bury this at the very end of the write up and did not highlight it at all. Fifty to fifty split on whether we should send any more aid to Ukraine within the Republican base, that is, it is not fifty to fifty. Republican voters are very much on the side of not sending any more Ukraine aid, and those numbers keep shifting in that direction. So again this listen. Trump is full of shit on any number of things.

He's been all over the map on Ukraine. He can't remember what was he like saying you should them with you Chinese right and put Chinese. So he's alternated between taking like insanely hawkish, psychopathic views and then now he clearly sees this as a political lane to exploit, and I think he is absolutely correct about it. He also put this down on True Social last week when they announced that they were going to send these Abrams tanks. He says, first come the tanks, then come the nukes.

Get this crazy war ended? Now? So easy to do? I mean classic Trump, like, oh it's no problem. No one is saying this would be easy to end. But of course, in his mind, he's always always there to make the deal. So I do think this will be very potent in the Republican primary. I think it's a big sleeper issue that could end up being what gets

him back in the White House. But with regards to the primary, he has already they've already telegraphed one of the cases they want to make against Ron DeSantis is that he was sort of a like classically hawkish John McCain style Republican when he was in the House of Representatives, which I think there is some, you know, some sort of record there in voting history that would indicate that is an accurate portrayal of how he was positioning himself

at that time. So this could end up being incredibly potent in terms of the Republican primary. And DeSantis has said more sort of traditional like just we should be supporting Ukraine and very much position himself on the side of more Ah Ukraine. Within the Republican divide, on that issue, So it could be potent in the primary. And I think you're right, Zager, this could be this could end up being an extremely potent sleeper issue for the general

election right now. You know, yes, the public is divided fifty to fifty on writers saying a to Ukraine. It's also not anybody's very few people's top priority. Yeah, in terms of how the thing is their issue. You know, they're worried about the economy and classic things that people

concern about with regard to their pocketbook. But you never know when these sorts of things can really become The situation could become to stabilized, we could get pulled more directly into this thing, or you could just have continued public erosion of support for the endless direction that we're

going in with right now with regards to Ukraine. So keep a close eye on this one, because I do think this is some Trump twenty sixteen instinctive, finding a political fissure to exploit saying the thing that no one else is really saying. But a lot of the American public are actually thinking, Oh absolutely, I think it will be very very powerful. Let's move on to Iran now, and let's talk about what happened over there. So there

appears to have been a strike. I'll let you decide, and maybe we'll tell you about who exactly that strike was after we show you the video that happened on an AMMO depot and on facilities that were manufacturing Kama Kazi drones inside of Iran. Many of these drones currently have been shipped over to Russia who have been using them on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. So let's play some of the video here. I'm going to talk a little bit over it. You can see somebody who is filming and

then a massive boom and a flash that happened. We don't have any information right now in terms of the exact munition that hit that facility, but there were several strikes that happened all across Iran on these facilities. And let's put this up there on the screen. They Iran is saying that this is a drone attack that targeted its defense facility, and that bomb carrying drones targeted the Iranian defense factory in the Central City overnight, causing some

damage at the plant. Amid heightened regional international tensions. Much of this, again is coming after the provision of these drones and of military equipment to Russia, which has spawned a lot of discussion here in washing about how we have to get much tougher on Iran because now they're in the fight against Ukraine. Well, it turns out probably

not a surprise. Let's put this up there on the screen, that the Israeli government appears to be the one that conducted the strike, likely at the behest of the United States, Israeli an American officials discussing new ways to combat Iranian operations. Wall Street Journal has no qualms here, even though Israel is not taking credit for the strike, there directly attributing it to them, saying Israel strikes Aroan amid international push

to contain Tehran. This was a drone strike targeting the defense compound, as quote, the US and Israel look for new ways to contain Tehran's nuclear and military ambitions. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Bib just happens to be back in the government and something like this happens. And also he's got coal where Bib is the centrisk guy right now in Israel in terms of who is ruling Israel. So just so everybody knows about that and

who exactly he's calling for more posturing on Iran. It is probably the most hawkish far right government in Israeli history. I mean he is in terms of who he brought into his cabinet and positions of power. I mean, these are some really fringe characters with views that were outside of the mainstream until very very recently. He formed a coalition with these extraordinarily hardline far right parties. So yeah, there's no surprise, not an accident that Phoebe's back in charge.

And this is the kind of thing you get. Also, just so everybody knows, maybe this has something to do with it or not. The CIA director William Burms actually made an unnounced tripped Israel just last week to discuss Iran and other regional issues. A week later, I'm sure, drones strike by Israel again not even being questioned really

about what's happening here. And just last week actually, the US and Israel carried out their largest ever joint military exercise from both countries for air defense systems, refueling jetplanes, and others in the potential for a military conflict with Iran. Now, hopefully this does not escalate into anything but I think it is very clear that this is also Bibi is in a tough spot. Israel wants good relations with Russia.

I should just know it is the only Western nation in the entire world which has not undergone significant criticism for saying no to ninety eight percent of requests to Ukraine, including refusing to provide iron dome, including refusing ammunition missiles. So I think bib probably, first of all, is never a bad thing for Israeli politics to strike Iran, all right, unless you get into a broader thing, but that's not

where at right now. So probably helps him, helps his coalition, helps his government, something he personally believes in Number two, this is how you get the West off your back. You're like, hey, I'll do you a favor. I'll strike the drone facility and I'll go after Russia. It's like a two birds with one stone. While he's refusing to actually provide a lot of military aid to Ukraine. People don't know this, but you know a lot of Russians actually live in Israel, people who left during the Soviet.

I think he's like one to eighth or something of the population. How they feel towards Russia is much more complicated than basically any other nation. And BB he's had very friendly relations with Putin and you know, it was like there were like posters up of him and Trump and Putin together, and so, I mean this is part of his sort of political identity, and he has even since the last government, he has struck a war sort

of hands off approach towards the Russia Ukraine war. So yeah, this is a good way for him to both signal for his domestic base and posture in the hawkish way that he wants to with an increasingly hawkish Israeli domestic populace, but also pretend like with the US, like he's on our side in terms of the Russia Ukraine conflict. It was put well by one expert here quoted it at

a Washington based think tank critical of Iran. They said, this is a smart trifactor where Israel can hurt Iran, help Ukraine, not risk its strategic interest in Syria, or run the risk of the diversion of its sensitive military technology of Russia and into Iran. I just have to point out the hypocrisy here when and you know, we're risking World War three to back Ukraine over the principle

of territorial sovereignty. That's the principle that's at stake in Ukraine that we are willing to risk World War three over. And then our you know, buddies in Israel, probably at our behest, are striking Iranian territory and for some reason that's that's not a violation of territory. That's all fine and good. So, I mean, there is just a blatant hypocrisy here in terms of the way we approached these

supposedly ironclad international rules and norms. Yeah, the last thing that this country needs is a war in another war in Italy and controversial statement. And the final piece to put on this is, of course the Obama administration. They struck the nuclear deal with Iran, which seemed to be

working pretty well. Trump back sound of it. Biden could have gotten back in as treat to Parsi many times came on the show and talked about the window of opportunity was right at the beginning of the Biden administration. They could have just gotten back in. They didn't do that, and now that deal is basically off the table, and instead we have actions with our close allies in Israel. You know, once again putting war on the table and

risking war with yet another country around the world. So it really is a dramatic failure and failing of the Biden administration here ultimately and how they've handled the situation absolutely. All right, guys, let's get to what is I don't even know what to say about this story and this happening in American life. So guys probably followed a bit of this. On Friday, the Memphis Police Department released horrifying video of a twenty nine year old black man, Tyree Nichols,

being savagely beaten by five police officers. We are going to show you a little bit of the footage. I just want to give you some of the backstory first. So Tyree was this is what we know. Tyree was on his way home from actually a local park. He was a FedEx worker there in Memphis. He worked with his stepdad at that facility. He lived with his mom and a stepdad. On his way home from a park where he was probably indulging his interest in photography, and

he gets pulled over. Now, the officers initially said this was for reckless driving, no sign from any camera, and no indication that there was actually any reckless driving going on. And this was a band of five black officers who are part of this Scorpion Unit so called, which was sort of aggressively supposed to be tackling the street crime in one of the more tough neighborhoods in Memphis. So they pull him over, they pull him out of the car,

they start beating him. He tries to run. He's very close to home, he's like one hundred yards from home, and they catch him. And the savage beating that they inflict on this man that ultimately three days later ends up costing his life, it's just beyond words and beyond description. I mean, they propped this man up so that they could take more shots at him, five men on one

after he is shown in the video collapsed, he's mumbling. Eventually, you know, sixteen minutes later, an ambulance paramedics arrive on the scene. They don't take any action for a number of additional minutes, even as this man is clearly in a devastating state. And as I said previously, you know, there's no indication he did anything wrong here, and these five men literally end up beating him to death. Now, the officers were ultimately there was an immediate investigation. The

officers were arrested. They've been charged with kidnapping. They've also been charged with second degree murder and is a part of an attempt at accountability, attempt at showing the public exactly what happened here so that there wasn't sort of like rumors and misinformation flying around. They released an hour of this horrifying, gut wrenching video. So I want to show you a little piece of this before I put it up on the screen. Guys, if you you know,

just it's it's horrible. It's horrible to watch. So make a decision whether you want to see this or not. But I do want to show you a piece, so control them. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. You know, this is after they you know, they have him here. They're holding him up and taking shots at him repeatedly again, five men punching him in the head, holding him up so that they can brutalize

him further. If you listen to the audio, they're giving him all of these contradictory commands, you know, put your hands up, well, you're they're holding his hands behind his back, all of these things, and they just continue to kick him, beat him, punch him, et cetera. And you know again this this video is an hour long, so watch the footage if if you feel like that's the right thing for you to do. The other piece of there's a

lot actually to say about this. Let me put this Washington Post piece up on the screen so you can see the distance between how the cops originally described this brutal completely uncalled, I mean, no justification for this attack and savage beating. Here's how they first described it in their reports. They said that a confrontation occurred following a traffic stop. They said he fled on foot and then

quote another confrontation occurred of his fatal injuries. They said that he complained of having shortness of breath, and then the sub suspect was transported to Saint Francis Hospital in critical condition. Of course, the video footage paints a very different story of them pepper spraying him, punching and kicking him, and rather than simply complaining of shortness of breath he could barely sit up after the beating, they actually propped him up up against a police car, where he repeatedly

slumped over. He can be heard groaning, it is not heard forming any words. He twists and rides against the police car, at times falling over on his side as he waits twenty two minutes for an ambulance, and at times is calling for his mother. So Blaytant lies in the report of the police chief to her credit and immediately thought that this report was strange and launched an investigation. But you know, Sager, the part of this that I think is really difficult is so many of the reforms

that advocates have called for were actually instituted. I mean, you have body cameras, they didn't care. You had a female black police chief. You have a police I mean all five of these men black. You have a police force that actually the percentage of black officers on the force roughly matches the percentage of black citizens in the city of Memphis. And you know, none of these reforms which have been called for in the past by more incrementalists,

none of them seem to make a difference. I mean, with the body camera, there's even some evidence that police were sort of using the body camera. They were narrating things on the body camera footage, knowing that they were almost like playing for an audience, like they said, oh, we grab reached for my gun, even though that's not on the video, to again try to use the body camera footage to sort of shape their narrative of what ultimately happened. So it's just devastating and there's just no

other words for it. U's horrific, tach. I mean, even watching it's like gut wrenching over the video. Had watched this and the Paul Pelosi thing, and both of them just make you feel like completely sick. I almost wonder maybe this will come out. There's some seems something almost personal about this, right, I mean, I didn't know. I'm like, what would ever compel like five grown men to like literally beat someone within an inch of their life for

literally no reason. I mean one thing, you could say, let's go and put this next piece up on the screen, because I think this is relevant. New York Times Memphis police disband that unit, so called Scorpion Unit, whose officers were charged in Tyree Nichols's death. Mister Nichols family and activists had demanded the scuttling of that group, the Scorpion Unit, which patrolled high crime areas of the city, and you know, there had been a lot of complaints about this unit before,

and I don't think it's personal. I think it has to do with when I mean, they basically turned into a roving band of terrorizing thugs with a lot of power and no accountability. And you know, so they felt this is this is the mentality that was created within this force. They said that, you know, this was a pattern in practice, There was a this was not the first time that there were incidents similar to this reported. The reality is, if Tyree Nichols had not died, we

never would have heard about this incident. So God knows what was going on with this Scorpion unit before Tyree Nichols was ultimately killed. So even though obviously like these five individuals are wholly responsible, they're accountable, but then you had two other guys show up that didn't really do anything. You have the paramedics come, they don't administer AID, Like, what the hell is going on? How is there not one person who says who doesn't participate or who says, hey,

that's enough, let's stop. It shows you this was a The structure of power they created here wholly corrupted the people that were ultimately evolved. I mean, that's that's the only thing that I can really come away with here. And then in terms of like where you go from here and what you advocate for, I don't even know, because, like I said, some of the basic things they seem

to have completely failed. There is no evidence that having a police force that is demographically representative of the community that it makes for good police and there's no evidence that it actually changes the way and the level of brutality involved in policing. I have no idea what the answer is, Like you said, I've thought about it a lot too. Last couple of years have changed a lot

of my thinking, honestly a lot. And I know this might not satisfy a lot of people, but like I take a lot of this as like a personal thing. Also in terms of at this point, like these the politics around this are toxic. Clearly the culture around here is toxic. Yeah, I don't really know what to tell people, unless like, if you're in an interaction with the law enforcement, infistile, use the hell out of this thing and just film the entire thing, because you know, I mean, they don't care.

I don't know. I mean, I think you're right. I think something was going on here. I really want to know what the actual investment. If it was cultural, that is insane, and if that's what was happening, like on a broader level, and I think clearly obviously the unit of disbanded and now the eyes of the world are

on this. It also should be a lesson to everybody out there, like, hey, if you do this, you know, at least in the age of HD video like you're going to jail the Saint nineteen ninety one where some guy happens to have a camquarder and films the Rodney King thing, it's like you are constantly I don't think that's true though, because again, if Tyrene Nichols didn't die, never would have known about. It would have been just another instance swept on the like nobody would have ever known.

And so actually, when I looked at this, the idea that this is just like a few bad apples, I don't I don't see how you can have five people there and then the other people who respond and then the paramatics as well. To me, while of course these men deserve what they get in terms of their punishment, you know, charged with murder, charge with kidnapping, all of these like they deserve to have the book thrown at them and go to prison for the rest of their lives.

In my opinion, I don't see how you can look at that and say a few bad apples, because it was everybody involved in the interaction, and again there were significant reports of consistent abuses from this particular unit. So you can't have these, you know, like roving bands, empowered to however they set this thing up, this Scorpion unit.

This needs to be a lesson of you can't this, This does not work, because this is just creating more pain, more crime ultimately, because obviously this was a crime they committed here and is not doing anything to solve the issues that you're claiming to try and solve. Yeah, we own the city. The sequel to the Wire, I highly recommend people. We had our friend John Blernhal on the

show a little bit to talk about it. He's also got a podcast where he talks a little bit about this as well, both with cops and with people on the street who have been abused by police and have had interactions in conversation. Again, I wish I had that conversation or the answer to this one. It's a twisted a twisted one because right at the same time, it's I can't have you know, people will get pissed when

there's a lot of high crime. They should be. You know, somebody was shot or robbed at gunpoint, like two blocks away from my house the other day. People around me are kind of freaking out. They're like, wow, well deserve they live in a safe neighbor Yeah, and exactly. And you know, here in Washington watching the city just really frankly descend over the last three years, it's been a tragedy. It's been killed a lot of businesses, So it's both

community problem. Like I have no idea exactly what the balance is. I think it's probably way above pay grade. All it comes down to is like, I don't know, have compassion for each other. I don't really know why anybody would ever want to do that to another person for literally no reason, at least seemingly from what I

could see from the video. It was truly horrific. And there are a lot of deranged and crazy people out there too, and you know, I guess some of them are on It's kind of like what we talked about with Santos, where those people like gravitate to the top. It's like, you know, people says like maybe if you want to be a cop, like maybe you shouldn't. It's one of those where if you get off on power over people and physical violence and all this stuff's like, well,

maybe you shouldn't be in that position. I watched this video that was going around at the time a couple months ago. This guy Mike Glover. He's like a former Green He was actually just on the Rogan podcast, but he did like this whole takedown about Uvalde and he had a line which really stuck with me where he was talking about operator because he's a former Green brain.

He's like, everybody wants to be an operator until it's trying to do times, until it's time to do operator shit where you're either like you get carried away with your emotions, you're training, you're just completely leading with like no leadership or any of that. And I don't know, I couldn't help but think about that when I was watching this, I'm like, this is just a total lack not even professionalism, this is just savagery for almost the

sake of it. Well, the Uvaldi point is a really important one because when it actually counted, when you needed the good guys with guns, and you had a real bad guy nothing, this defenseless man who was trying to drive home from a park and is one hundred yards from his mom's house and apparently weighed like one hundred and forty six pounds. Oh you're real tough guy. Five of you beating this man to death. Real tough guys. Congratulations. There is a power structure here, and I do think

that you're right. There is maybe some sort of self selection the type of person who would want to have that like power over another human being. I don't know. I mean to zoom out from this. I will say that in the broader conversation, we have a lot of societal ills. We got a lot of social problems in this country, and there's no way you're ever going to have a police force that can handle all of those things.

Like if we had a healthier, more equal in society, we would have less crime to deal with, and then we would have less inclination of tough on crime politicians to send, you know, roving scorpion bands out on the streets. So I think it's always important. A lot of data actually bears that out. You know, a lot of them too. A lot of these guys have insane PTSD. Actually, there's a lot of studies about the amount of PTSD that

a lot of these cops have. So you know, also even on that front where it's like, you see, we send these people in the situations which they like, Listen, what do you do Whenever you see somebody get the face blown off by their husband? You literally want to beat the crap out of the guy. And the guys sitting there saying I didn't do anything, she shot herself or someone. I can't even imagine what I would want to lose it in that situation, and then you've got

to deal with that for twenty five years. I don't know, maybe you don't look. I mean, these are extraordinary circumstances of which we're always trying to like judge and look at from a point of normal view. And part of the problem is this is not a normal life in any way. So and I have no idea again how

you get out of that. I think your point is probably the most correct, which is that you know, if you inhibit the amount of even conditions in which this stuff is going to happen, then we don't ever have to find out in the first place, and that's probably as difficult as it is as probably the correct answer. All right, let's move on here to gain a function. I know that there was a lot of discussion online.

There was a video released by Project Veritas. So the video has actually been banned on YouTube, and since we're on YouTube, I'm going to do my best to describe it. So let me get the actual circumstances of this all in front of me. So there was a Project Veritas video in which James O'Keeffe and others confronted a scientist at Pfiser who was in the vaccine division. Supposedly, Well, yeah, so that's the other one on Pfizer, right, this is

always the difficulty. Look, Project Veritas does themselves no favors in the credibility department with the amount of editing and the things that they've been caught just completely like inventing on a whole clause. I've said this before. Please stop with the editing and the music. It is genuinely it's like maddening because it actually and casts doubt on what

Just play the raw video. That's all you gotta do. Anyway, So we have the Pfizer Allegedly, according to Project Veritas, we have a Phfiser director where he was on the cameras I guess supposedly on a date with an individual. I went ahead and watched the full again to what they have put out in terms of the music and all that stuff that I could find on Rumble, And in the course of that video, what he says is he was quote and they were working on mutating the

COVID nineteen virus. So there has been a lot of discussion around that point. What does that mean? Are they practicing gain of function research within the Pfeiser division of the vaccine on the coronavirus specifically, also with bi valain boosters and working on future boosters. Is it mutation with regards to trying to come up with vaccines against new strains? Is it a commonplace within the realm of vaccine production.

I'm trying to choose my words care from the research that I've done around this, even though I do kind of have an opinion. So from what I can tell, what the guy was describing around the mutating the COVID nineteen virus and others was the lingo. Allegedly, this is what I've read from vaccinologists and others who work on this was the lingo at which they use, and maybe this is a broader structural conversation around vaccine development. Now I don't know actually a whole lot about the process

I would like to learn. However, a lot of people were shocked by that, and it's sparking a conversation around gain of function research. So the reason I wanted to address this video around what allegedly might have been taking a place at Fiser. We don't know. They deny it, and we'll get to that around with this is with the conversation around gain of function broadly, that is a legitimate one. Whether Pfizer was doing that, I have no idea from the video or not. We don't actually have

any proof. They deny it. We'll see not exactly a lot of trustworthy characters all around here. Here's what we do know. The United States government was fund and gain of function research, which is effect of lead mutating viruses and then trying to come up with cures for those viruses. Except for the problem is sometimes those mutt viruses, I don't know, they escape from a lab and maybe cause

a global pandemic. Well, this conversation has been fring and its been basically on YouTube, the Joe Rogan Experience now for almost two years, so it has been cast as kind of a fringe one. However, actual scientific experts working behind the scenes have caught with a lot of what we're all talking about, a lot of what we're concerned about, and are now voting to actually put in place much stricter rules for the United States around funding gain of

function research. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. This is what broke just two days ago, actually, right around the same time as a Veritas video, an expert panel has voted for stricter rules on risky virus research. Now the hands are in the White House, so this was on Friday. It's a set of proposed changes to the federal government's program for regular experiments that involve tinkering with risky viruses and other pathogens.

Now the Biden administration has to either decide or approve draft recommendations which quote ask health officials to extend oversight to less dangerous pathogens, including one similar to the coronavirus. Will remember that their removal on gain of function around back coronaviruses specifically was taken away by doctor Anthony Fauci

in twenty seventeen. They also recommended an end to exemptions, and this is why this is directly related to the Pfizer video, an end to the exemptions for research related to vaccine development and the surveillance of emerging viruses. So right now we have an exemption in place actually for Pfizer, Maderna, and for any other vaccine makers that they are effectively allowed to do a type of gain of function in the lab as long as it's under the guise of

creating a vaccine and maybe a future vaccine. That's why with the Verapas video really be some truth to it. This is a very roundabout way of saying it. Okay, I'm just going to completely dispatch with the Project Veritas video because they have zero credibility and you can't even find like this guy that they say is like senior advisor. What you can't even find this guy. He took his sad in off and anyway, so anyway, I'm just gonna say I don't trust the Project Veritas video. I will

put that aside. In terms of the expert panel here, I mean, these recommendations seem to me, as a non scientist, to be a step in the right direction and something a lot of us have been asking for a lot more thought to be put into for a while, because even if you don't think that coronavirus came about because of a lab leak, we know that lab leaks are

not uncommon. So it seems like a good time to look at and gain a function has been recognized to be dangerous and something that should be regulated and watched carefully and done owner strictly controlled environment. So this seems like a good time in the interest of preventing a future pandemic to tighten those controls based on expert recommendations.

The piece of this I found interesting is, of course there's a big backlash of course among you know, people who basically make their careers off of doing this type of research, and they pen the letter and they are continuing to insist that in reality, there's no evidence that COVID leaked from the lab, even though the best you can say is that, you know, we don't know the truth of the matter, and they're there's continuing to use that idea that there's no chance that it leaked from

the lab to justify like Oh, we don't need to make any changes. It's all good, and this is going to shut down needed research, et cetera, et cetera. So that the backlash to what these experts are suggesting in terms of tightening up the regulations was to me the kind of most interesting part. Yeah, look, to me, a lot of this is basically not about science. It's about

money laundering. Because what are you going to take a take one view at all the quotes of the people who are pushing back against this, the duties of the director of the National Institute of Health, the virologist Vanderbi University, Johns Hopkins Center for Global Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. What do all these people have in common. It's called getting funded by NIH and doctor Anthony Fauci.

The National Institute of Health is the number one distributor of scientific grants across the United States for virology research. If you piss off the head, then you're dead. My parents both work in academic environment. If you're a tenured professor, you got to cover your own salary. You got to get grants to not just cover you, but especially if you're in the stem field, you got to cover yourself and your whole lab. You got to get funding for that.

The university is not just going to be the one doing it. You're almost like a PR salesman whenever you go out and do this stuff. So when the number one dollar of the dollars is the guy who loves gain of function research, and it's not just about him, it's a cultural problem within the National Institute of Health, you're not going to speak out against it, even if you privately disagree with what's that. That's why with Lab leak, with nobody's willing to come out. Everything is in the shadow,

in secret. I've spoken with some people were very high up in this field. None of them want to talk on the record because their careers are in danger. This is a cartel that is controlled by the scientific establishment, specifically with Fauci at the top. And so that's why I think that it took a lot of courage for these people to adopt even this. Meally mouthed like, yeah, maybe we should end it in this way. And if you look at the language around the vaccine, here's what

I've got around gain of function with vaccine exemptions. Remove blanket exclusions for research activities associated with surveillance and vaccine development or production. However, include an implement processes and procedures for urgent federal departmental review and evaluation of research critical for public health or national security. How can you possibly be against that? That's at least somebody in the FEDS, if you're going to get an exemption, should say, all right,

what do you want it for? Which vaccine? Do you have to report this to us? Now it's subject to fouya up, subject to Congress. We can all talk about it. Why should fiz Maderna and all these other companies have a blanket exclusion on gain and function research as long as it's under vaccine development. That is nuts to me, I mean, and that's here, by the way, they had

labs all across Europe and the United States. Who knows what's going on in our own shores and who knows how much of this subcontracted out to China, just like the Wuhan Institute of Virology, So I know that this is convoluted. It's difficult without being able to show the video. If you want to watch it, it's on Rumble. You can go ahead and watch the full thing. And I'm not saying you'll necessarily take anything away, but it'll put some of what exactly we're talking about into context. Zoom

out from Veritas. Clearly something is going on here. We have a chance to actually fix it. Now it's up to Biden. That's the key. The bottom line is, I think it has long been recognized in the scientific community that gain and function research search can be dangerous. We had a vivid example of that with the possibility that

coronavirus escaped from a lab. The idea that there should be tightened regulations and restrictions on this type of research should be something that everyone can get behind an embrace. And it is no accident that the people who are disputing this idea and trying to keep the regulations as loose as they are right now are people who have potential career and financial interests in being able to continue this type of research. So that's what I take away absolutely,

all right, Sager, what are you looking at? Well? A while back, I did a monologue on one of the most cynical and disgusting acts I've seen take place in the higher education space to date, certainly saying something considering these people may qualify behind only the pharmaceutical industry as the largest legalized criminals in the United States. But considering the trillion dollar scam that they've pulled on people, I think they deserve it. The sum of the scheme involved

law schools. In this particular example especially, it goes like this, The top law schools in the country are all pulling out of the US News and World Report rankings. Normally, I celebrate this, I think the rankings are deeply flawed, but the timing of it was terrible. It's being done specifically because law schools know this Supreme Court is about to strike down affirmative action in college admissions across the board. Law schools know this, but they are also deeply wetted

to a racialized view of college admissions. So what do you do if you want to keep affirmative action even if it's against the law, Well, you make it impossible to prove. How do you do that? You down rank, or you remove objective criteria like LSAT, test scores, GPA, and you move toward essays. Then, when you discriminate against Asians, you can't compare people's essays quantitatively. The racial numbers just happen to look the same there's only one problem in

doing all of this. Whenever you downrank GPA and remove objective measures like the GPA or the LSAT, then you're going to drop in the rankings. So to prepare for your scheme, you pull out of the rankings and you claim it's a benevolent act. To be clear, this is not a conspiracy. It's out in the open. Already. Affirmative action activists have campaigned to kill the LSAT for law school admissions because of vote equity concerns. Starting in two years, the LSAT is no longer required by some of the

nation's top law schools or the American Bar Association. Any merit in the admissions process, to the extent there was any at all is dead. But today I have an even more troubling news. It's not just the profession of law now, it's medicine, which arguably is one of the most important in a country where one fifth of all spending is healthcare related and we are fatter and more

sicker than ever. Well, they took their cues from law schools Harvard University, Stanford School of Medicine, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, many of already pulled out of the medical school rankings. This too is a benevolent act. They say they don't agree with the rankings, but in almost every single case, the medical school dean site quote philosophical concerns in pulling out. Conveniently, at this moment, I want people

to really internalize how evil this is. These schools are trying to paint themselves as benevolent, keep their legacy Ivy League brands intact, all while removing the very idea of merit from their systems, specifically so they can admit targeted racial groups for the field of medicine. This is the same tactic Harvard a few generations ago was using to discriminate against Jews and against Catholics, and in modern times

now Asians who cares about their test scores. They're not well rounded, that's what they used to say, or my personal favorite, test scores are bad because they're racists. Already, what happened to the LSAT is going to happen to the MCAT. The seeds for nuking it are already planted. Look here the American Association of Medical Colleges printing on front page op eds about eliminating bias from medical school

admissions not biased against Asians. They say, you need a quote more holistic view of the whole student to do what you need to to rely less on the MCAT and GPA. By doing it would increase the amount of black medical students. He says. What I find disgusting about these arguments is actually the implicit racism that black students are scoring less on the MCAT or GPA because they can't figure them out, or maybe people who come from poorer backgrounds writ large, regardless of race, do badly on

standardized tests. Why should we not care about merit? According to this doctor, to remove the MCAT and cannot consider GPA. Here's what he says, Quote diversity matters. It starts by educating a class of medical students who can provide culturally responsive care for an increasingly diverse patient population. I promise you this. If I am in a car accident and I'm at the hospital and someone is about to cut me open, all I want, and I think everybody wants,

is somebody who knows what they're doing. Or let's say in that accident it's someone else's fault, you want to sue them, and you need a lawyer. Same thing. Do you know what you're doing or not? Because I don't, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people who engage with both professions they don't care about the race or the gender of your doctor or your lawyer.

You just want the job done. I say all this as someone who believes in equal opportunity for all, but that is the key opportunity to succeed, not rigging the outcome to be quote equitable according to whatever arbitrary social ideology that is in vogue at the time. In fact, if you actually care about having an equitable society, merit is one of the only things that guarantees it. Merit is what gives foreign applicants actually a fighting chance when

they're applying to US schools. It is the only metric genuinely comparable across the world. Merit is what guarantees as someone from a low circumstance can emphatically stand out against their peers from a wealthier place, and ironically, by nuking merit, these idiotic schools have instead kept a system easier to preserve legacy admissions and let in any brain dead sun of a multimillionaire or billionaire without having to even pretend they were ever good at school. The rich will be

completely fine under this system. It is the middle class, smart ones who have no chance in hell. Unfortunately, we are going in an opposite direction as a society. Woke bureaucrats like those of these medical schools have decided they would rather engineer the number of minorities that are doctors by lowering their standards, rather than help minorities reach something that would have that should have an objectively high standard.

The ongoing war on merit will do nothing but lower confidence in these jobs, which are genuinely important to all of us as a society. And that's why you know, I tried to leave this and if you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com, Cristal, what are you taking a look at? Well, Guys. Since taking back a house, some Republicans have been floating using the debt ceiling as

a cudgel to force through cuts to Social Security. The popular and effective program has been under attack from conservatives literally since its inception, and who have at every turn sought to undermine, cut, or privatize our nation's single most

successful social welfare program. Well, those who are considering pushing for such a move this time around might want to take a look at what is happening right now in France, where market fundamentalist president Emmanuel Macron has been on a multi year quest to lift the retirement age in that nation from sixty two to sixty four. So just over a week ago, millions took to the streets of France in a general strike to protest Macron's proposed changes. Here.

These marches occurred in over two hundred French cities. They brought together all sorts of unlikely allies. That movement has united labor unions across the political spectrum, has even put leftist leader Jean Luke Melinchamp on the same side as far right leader Marine la Penn. While there were some classes in Paris between strikers and police, the protests were largely peaceful. That doesn't mean they didn't pack a punch, though far from the American style toothless march with placards

that politicians feel free to ignore. This general strike cut energy production, shuttered public transit, and generally ground business as usual to a halt across the country. Our wonderful partner. Max Alvarez from the Real News interviewed one of the strikers there. Here is what they had to say about their fight and their strategy. We fight for our dirispict to our grandfather who vote for this system, against Nazi fascists. We fight for us, and we fight for the for

the next generation, even for the working class down the bone. No, we fight for them. We fight for principle. That's very important. So three days ago we was on general strike. There is seventy percent of the schools was closed in the entire country. The train, the buses, the metro, the airport was paralyzed, the factory was closed, the refinery was the

pipes was turned off, et cetera, et cetera. And we was about two million people in the street in the entire country, including half million people in Paris, and we claim not one years more, not one euro less. So that was Matthew Boufada. He is a train conductor and

general secretary of a CGT union local in Versailles. And as if that energy wasn't already incredible, Matthew and his brothers and sisters, they are going even further here as France twenty four Quote robin Hood energy strikers are giving free power to French schools, hospitals and low income homes. Amid national strikes and energy sector some workers in France

have found a novel way to protest. The article says, on Thursday, quote Robinhood operations unauthorized by the government provided free gas and electricity to schools, universities and low income households throughout the country. Among the facilities provided free energy were public sports facilities, daycare centers, public libraries, some small businesses and homes that had been cut off from power. So these trade unionists are literally giving power to the people.

French citizens, like many others, have been struggling with high inflation and especially with soaring energy prices due to Russia's war in Ukraine and the NATO response to it. Already in twenty twenty one, a quarter of French citizens struggled with energy costs. Gas and electricity prices there they are expected to spike another fifteen percent this year alone. So needless to say, there's a lot of French citizens who are in need of help from any corner they can

get it right now. The voice of capital, though, is quite panicked about this tactic. In a new article, The Wall Street Journal cried about threats from radical trade unionists to not only give power to the poor, but to cut it to the billionaires and political elites who are attempting to force through this wildly unpopular retirement age change.

So far, the union CGT has claimed responsibility for cutting power for three hours to the office of one of Macron's political allies, and they have also name checked a billionaire media mogul as a potential target as well. Though the boss class might cry palling suggests the public is

firmly on the side of the protesters. Some seventy to eighty percent of the public opposes Macron's plan to lift the retirement age plan, which mccrown was already forced to abandon after a mass public resistance just a few years prior, in spite of winning re election by a comfortable margin. It's not like Macron is a popular political figure. He won even though a lot of the public really actually

detested him. It's just that they detested far right leader Marine la Penn Even more, this inspiring model is one Biden chief of staff Ron Klaine, name checked as a potential blueprint for our president's own reelect. Now, mccron has been malleable on a whole range of issues, shifting with his view of the political wins, but on this particular issue he seems rigidly ideological, despite damn near unanimous opposition to his plan. Now, the French, of course famously protective

of their social safety net and social contract. I understand why, but I would suggest Americans might be moving towards more French relationship, towards work careers and the elite class. In fact, Matthew had a message for Americans who are watching all of this unfold. To the American people, I would tend to you, we are workers, and we are proud to be workers because we create all the beautiful things in

the world. The trader they create nothing, The CEO, they create nothing that we the workers, the walking class, we have gold in our ends from nothing from the Natuu. We create building train with a bread, especially in friends, because I know you have not bread good likly in France. I'm sorry about that. And we create all the wealthy thing, all the beautiful things in the world. And we prove that when we are on strike, because we prove when

we stop the works the friends collapse. So we prove that we are the only the only class, the working class. We have the only class. We create something, so they have to respect us, and they have to share with us all the profits we create for them, for the companies. So we want, as a nagatache, say give me my money back. I create, you know, I create the profits. I want my share and I want it to know.

More and more Americans are waking up to exactly this realization, after being deemed essential and yet treated as disposable, after realizing that without their work literally everything stops, or for white collar workers, after realizing that perhaps there was more life than their credentials and their career. Those who are thinking of messing with our social contract would do well to take a look at what is happening right now overseas, and those who plan to fight back might take some

notes as well. And sager it seems to me there are sort of like two potential and if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. As you guys know, the Republican House Caucus is threatening to use the debt sealing that we have already actually technically hit in order

to extract some kind of spending cuts. Our friend jeffs Dinine over the Washington Post has been looking at ways that the Biden administration might deal with this particular situation that would not require them negotiating with the Republican House. CAUs, let's go ahead and put Jeff's tweet up on the screen before we bring him in. So he wrote a piece about the seven different quote unquote gimmicks for dodging

the debt limit listed here. They are number one, mint the coin, number two, declare laws unconstitutional, Number three self federal assets, number four by discounted bonds, Number five Fourteenth Amendment Ver six console bonds with no maturity date, and number seven fed remittances. And Jeff joins us now to break all of these various things down for It's great to see sarth dese man. Thanks so much for having

me back on guys. Yeah, always our pleasure. So I guess let's just go through these first of all, top line it, do you think it is realistic to expect that Joe Biden would use any of these tricks, And maybe start with the one that you think is the most sort of plausible among them. I think there's basically no chance he does any of these Ahead of a crisis.

I think the White House sees political upside as really, you know, to continue to just sort of they feel like they sort of have the Republicans in a hold and they can just keep hitting them over and over again with this message, you guys are trying to destroy the economy to cut social Security and Medicare, which is true for many of the Republicans. It's an accurate line in many respects. So they feel and I think for O there's more substance of reasons. They feel like they

can't really go down any of these routes now. But if we hit a situation where the debt limit not you know, as you mentioned, we've hit the debt limit, but we're in this weird limbo purgatory period where the Treasury's extraordinary measures are keeping US afloat by shuffling money around with thorough government. Once we get beyond that and markets start to freak out, and if there's still no chance of a deal, then I think these options are going to come back, especially because some of them are

we can get into this. Some of them are more or less dramatic. Obviously, the mint the coin being the most fun one to discuss and to think about. I'm actually doing so, Jeff. All of this presumes they're actually not to negotiate and we are going to default. What that just seems extraordinary unlikely. I know that Speaker McCarthy is actually meeting with President Biden, I believe, on Wednesday to begin hashing this out. Everybody says they're not going

to negotiate. Clearly, somebody's going to negotiate. What do you think of the odds of even getting to a UNIL or to an actual default actually are It's one of these hard things as a reporter where you're like, I want to convey to people that there is a real danger here, you know, like that there I think the I don't even I don't see how a deal gets done.

And that's why we're covering the story. You know, it really seems hard for envision because if I saw the path of this, it would be kind of a non story. At the same time, to your point, like McCarthy and most of the Republicans and the President and the Democrats in the Senate, everyone understands that they cannot have a a

fault on the debt. And so it's this like awkward position as a reporter where you're at risk of crying wolf and feeling like you're like running around screaming, hey, like this is a huge thing that we all need to be worried about. And I feel like I've seen this already, which I totally sympathized with, where some readers are saying, every time this comes up, you guys are running around shrieking like this is a big deal, and

then nothing ever happens. But the fact that it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean that it won't, right of course, of course, And the reason that I'm more nervous now than I have been in any of other previous stead fights than we can discuss this, you know at length. But if you look at all the pieces on the chess board, none of them seem to point towards a resolution here. I just don't see how any of the major actors here has an incentive to do what would

be required to reach an agreement. I don't think the White House could, or maybe he should offer substantive concessions. I'm cutting major domestic programs after winning, you know, expanding their Senate majority. Republicans have this incredibly thin margin in the House that they barely squeak by, and the idea that Biden should give in to Republican threats to blow up the economy, to cut you know, you know, major

programs that people rely on. You know, the White House sees that as rewarding hostage taking, and it's hard to sort of discount that opinion. Similarly, I just don't see McCarthy. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't see him giving up his speakership for the sake of getting

this done and protecting the nation's credit worthiness. And then similarly, I just don't see House conservatives telling McCarthy, yeah, reached some sort of proform a deal that doesn't have any meaningful of cuts or teeth, and we'll go along with it. I mean, do you guys see Gates or Lauren Bobert going through something that is like kind of obviously a fake win for the right. So and Trump obviously is in the background, like yelling at the Republicans to be

tough and stand strong. So I just don't I don't really know where this goes, which is why I think we're looking at the unilateral options again, but these options are really not that good. I mean, the coin would be really really fun to cover and really exciting to watch happen, and we could debate who would be on it and everything, but I just don't see it happening

for reasons that we can discuss. The primary one is that if we did one of these so called gimmicks, Republicans would immediately denounce the subsequent Treasury auction of debt as illegal, and then investors would demand a substantial risk premium on purchasing US government debt, and we could drive up our barmbing costs by hundreds of billions of dollars, which is a real dramatic downside to going down any

of these routes. And even if you believe in their legality, you have to contend with Supreme Court and Republicans mucking it out after the administration tries it exactly well. I mean, this is what was sort of revealed in the exchange with that you had with two of the individuals who

have really been sort of thought leaders. I guess behind the mint the coin idea, which is basically like, okay, so what happens if you know, the scenario you just discussed unfolds where basically the markets are demanding a risk premium on this debt, or potentially the chargery doesn't accept it, or it goes to the Supreme Court. In Supreme courts

like no, we're we don't, We're not buying this. What you do, and they're basically like, ignore the Supreme Court, send the military to the FED and force them to, you know, to accept the coin. And when you look at that, you're like, there's no way Joe Biden is going to ultimately do that, and that, you know, sounds like that's a lot for the American people to take too, Like you're going to ignore the Supreme Court and you're sending troops fed. That's just a lot going on there.

So do all of these ideas basically suffer from that same flaw because you know, another one that I had seen floated, I guess most commonly is the idea that you effectively have two laws that are in conflict. Congress has already appropriated this money and said we are spending it. Here are the things that we're doing, and at the same time they're saying, but you can't you know, borrow what it takes to spend the money that we already said spent to spend. So you have two things that

are just in direct conflict. So in that situation, you could have the present just say, listen, these I'm getting conflicting instructions from the Congress. Or the way the government is going to execute this is we're going to decide to follow what they said in terms of the appropriations process. Does that still then ultimately suffer from some of the

same flaws as the other ideas here? Yeah, I mean to your point, my sooss in the administration think that that second route, the one that you identified about just saying these laws are in conflict, we have to pick one. Let's do the one that doesn't destroy the global economy. That one seems much more palatable to them. I think, you know, these are early discussions happening at the White House. But if we get to a point where we're you know,

this is still months away. Unfortunately, I guess fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you want to think about it. But from a reporter's perspective's unfortunately we're gonna do covering this for months and months. I think that path seems much

more politically feasible. I think the coin strikes people in the White House as kind of ostentatiously out of the box, you know, sort of so beyond people's expectations, is kind of easy to make fun of and grab hold of, and sort of doesn't have that sort of technical legal veneer. I mean, the coin advocates that you reference to would say, I think, not unreasonably that at the core these different

ideas are not that dissimilar. You're trying to say that the spending powers, you know, that the debt limit that Congress has approved is in some way not a valid law, and we need to find a work around. The coin

is obviously more colorful one. But they would say, you know, even if you were to go down the route of ignoring the Supreme Court, that that that is a usurpation of executive the usurpation of judicial authority and conressional authority, where the executive is stepping in and asserting is its unilateral power the troops going to the Fed is obviously a very colorful illustration of what that looks like. But that's really when you're deciding to overturn barbary Us and

get rid of the process of judicial review. You are kind of asserting that you will use the military force of the White House and the executive over the other branches of government. I just think it's really hard to see the White House ignoring the Supreme Court. I mean, putting aside the substance of question. This is not the kind of White House that wants to be seen as wildly out of step with American political norms. And even if you think that is totally justified by the law

and circumstances, it's just impossible to see them. You know, Biden, the guy who's in the center for forty years, going for something yep. I think you are absolutely spot on with that. And to be clear, I think you're doing the right thing. I think the odds of default ween the odds of default in twenty eleven, we're high. The odds of default today are high. Whether we actually get

out of it or not, who knows. And you should continue going, don't listen to people saying that you're playing it up or not just because the consequences of it are so high, and continue to do your job. Thank you so much, Jeff, That's what we have you on. We appreciate you always great to see you, Jeff. It's gonna be bucked up on here. Thanks guys, appreciate it any time much. Thank you guys so much for watching. Really appreciate it. We've got great shows for everybody this week.

A little programming note Thursday the show we're going to be coming in remotely or we're going to be in Austin, Texas. We're gonna have fun times while we're down there. You can go ahead and guess what we're doing. It's called the Live Show, that's what it is. It's on Friday. We're gonna have a great show for everybody who is in attendance. Just programming note there. We will still have

Tuesday show. Counterpoints will still premiere on Wednesday. We still have a show for everybody on Thursday, so don't worry about it. We're always working very hard for all of you. Thanks so much for our premium subscribers. We really appreciate you, especially with all this stuff going on with our business right now with expansion, you're gonna hear much more about it. We will see you all tomorrow. Love you guys, see you tomorrow.