10/2/23: Gaetz Promises End To McCarthy Speakership, UK Sending Troops To Ukraine, RFK Jr. To Run As Independent, 2nd Debate Ratings Bomb, Jamaal Bowman Fire Alarm Scandal, New Orleans Poison Pipes, What's "Real" Ukraine Victory

Moving forward? RFK Junior announcing that he's going to make a big announcement, and it looks like that big announcement is going to be that he is exiting the Democratic primary and running as an independent. What will the fallout from that be that be that'll be an interesting one as well. And we've got numbers from the last debate, the last Republican debate. They're historic, but perhaps not over

it Fox Business wanted them to be historically low ratings. Also, Jamal Bowman caught on camera pulling a fire alarm for certain reasons. We'll get into all of that. Before we get to any of that, I want to thank all of you guys for the support that you've been showing to us premium subscribers. And we have big announcement Sager, Yeah, big, do the big reveal.

he thinks he's too old. I think he's too old. But I want to hear it from them in their own words, what they think about the president. And these are people again who are Democratic voters, and how they think about the primary process and also about how somebody's going to face Trump.

But do they have any names in mind? Because that's the thing you see a lot of polling that's like, okay, people want other alternatives to Joe Biden, but when they're pushed on who do you actually want, they struggle to come up with answers. So that's right, there's no substitute from just hearing from voters in their own words. Are really really excited about that, And again, thank you so much. The premium subscribers for making all of that.

we will. We're really excited to bring all of it to you. It's next week literally, so you'll be seeing it very soon.

we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Finstein. The very freedom she fought for, reproductive freedom, equal protection, safety from gun violence have never been under greater assault. Lafonza has spent her her entire career fighting for women and girls and has been a fierce advocate for working people. She will make history becoming the first black lesbian to openly

serve in the United States Senate. From her time as president of Emily's List to leading the state's largest labor union, she has always stood up for what is right and has led with her heart and her values. I have no doubt she will carry the baton left by Senator of Feinstein, continue to break glass eelings and fight for all Californians in Washington. Okay, so I'm going to tell you a little bit more about Lafond's butler that a left out of that in just a moment, just to

remind you of the backstory here. So, there was already an ongoing Democratic primary to phill Diane Feinstein's seat because she was planning on retiring at the end of that term. There are three major Democratic contenders there, Adam Schiff, who is the choice of Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic establishment, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee being a solid progress so Katie Porter also being a progressive, but Barbara

Lee being a sort of historic black woman. Gavin Newsom had previously indicated that if this seat became available, he would appoint a black woman, So Barbara Lee has the backing. This is actually very unusual, the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus and the backing of all the progressives very unusual. You see those two groups united. But instead of going in that direction, which is not what Nancy Pelosi wants and not what the donors went, he instead picks Lafons

of Butler, So he is correct. She was the head of a labor union. Seiu, one of the large locals in California. Put this up on this screen. A few things that are left out. After she left that position as head of that labor union, she basically sold out to a bunch of big California corporate interests. She became a lobbyist for Airbnb and was advising Uber on their fight to basically screw over their drivers. So that's the side that she picked in those battles. She was a

Hillary Clinton supporter in twenty sixteen. She is a close Kamala Harris advisor advised her on her twenty twenty campaign, so very solidly in the establishment camp. And there is one other complicating factor here, which is she doesn't actually live in California at the moment. Really, she as head of Emily's List, which is a sort of like very establishment friendly, pro woman Democratic Party organization here in d C. She moved to the DC area. Put this up on

the screen. Newsom had to respond to this because a lot of people were like, hey, maybe you should pick someone who lives in California. She lives in Maryland right now. Newsom says she moved to DC area for Emlyy's List, but is a long time California resident and homeowner, and she will re register in California before being sworn in. So bottom line of all of this is this is a Newsome Pelosi shift play to screw over Barbarlely is basically the bottom.

So look, I mean, it's very difficult whenever you're already the sitting senator to not win said primary, especially in a state like California where it's like the top two.

legal counsel. I do remember covering some of that. So you know, it's all about fulfilling the people who came before them, and that's certainly what it is. I mean Newsom, you know, he kind of boxed himself to a corner because California was California that Democratic Party people were livid he didn't appoint a black woman to replace Kamala Harris. So this is I guess why he made that pledge. Should Feinstein step down? The biggest loser out of this

is definitely Adam Schiff and barbar Lee. But Barbara Lee, I mean really, I mean I'm not going to say she had a quote quote lock, but like she was one of the leading candidates. This woman's name was never even mentioned, Yeah, in some of the top five lists and all of that. I think it's just a clear indication of Newsom sucking up to the national Democratic Party, Harris in particular, and all that setting himself up for a potential national run in twenty twenty eight.

workers overtime pay. The bottom line for Gavin Newsom is what do the tech donors and what do the Hollywood donors want from him? And obviously Lafonse Butler was a friend to Uber, was a literal lobbyist for Airbnb, so she is very good to go with that critical donor class. He wants to run for president, he's going to need to raise a boatload of money, and so his top priority is to service their interests. And I think Lafonsa Butler, you know, it's it's also just like a classic Democratic

Party shameless identity play, of course, first black lesbian woman. Okay, like, okay, but tell me about what she stands.

officially call for a motion to vacate against him. It will come sometime this week. He elaborated it a bit over the weekend.

Democrats on Ukraine. So as he was baiting Republicans to vote for a Continuing Resolution without Ukraine money, saying that we were going to jam the Senate on Ukraine, he then turns around and makes a secret deal. Now, I know you and I probably have different views on US involvement in Ukraine, But however you think about that question, it should be subject to open review analysis and not some backgrouom deals.

Let's get over with it and let's start governing. If he's upset because he tried to pushes in a shutdown and I made sure government didn't shut down, then have that fight.

the continuing resolution. However, not all of these people are on record saying that they would support any motion to vacate. So it's a big question right now, Crystal as to whether this is even going to come to pass.

of a government shutdown. And you know, McCarthy does have a point, which is, if you do like social spending cuts and all that stuff, they had a bill on the floor which they defeated, which had thirty percent cuts to like the Social Security Administration food stamp program. It would have dramatically reduced discretionary spending, and it had no

money for Ukraine, and they still voted against it. And what ended up passing was actually just, frankly, a forty seven day extension of current government funding levels without any additional border funding. And the only quote unquote whin they had was on Ukraine money.

against McCarthy. They make some final back room deal, the details of which have never been made totally clear, but one of the pieces was that it would be very easy that it would only take one member to bring this quote unquote motion to vacate to the floor, which could move Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. A couple problems. Number one, they've never had an alternative. I mean, this was the problem when they were initially trying to

go up against Kevin McCarthy. They did not have an actual alternative like this is our guy or this is our gal, and this is who we're rallying behind. They put up someone different practically for every vote, So that continues to be an issue. On the other side, you know, Republicans have a very narrow margin here, three vote margin.

So are Democrats going to vote for Kevin McCarthy to keep him in the speakership if you have you know, you only need a few people to defect with Matt Gates to deny McCarthy the majority that he would need in order to remain Speaker of the House. So our Democrats going to fill that gap? And it could be the case that some do and some don't. You had AOC she was asked, you know, about whether she would vote to save Kevin McCarthy, and she was like, absolutely not. Why would I do that? Take a listen.

a cohesive and strong place. But unless Kevin McCarthy asks for a vote again, I don't think we give something away for free.

right now in terms of the House. So we'll see if they have to eventually make a deal. I think he's only got a three vote margin. Whenever it does come to the Republicans, he can rely on George Santos, Yeah, trying.

the House gabled him out. It's like a tradition that you can pretend not to notice and gabble an official. So there's a lot of different things people forget that. You can machinations behind the make sure that he doesn't get recognized. You can burnen floor time. They're only i think in session for a couple of days this week, and then I know the Senate is going out, so there's still a lot left here in Washington today.

or fails or whatever. He can just keep doing this over and over and over again, and Matt Gates can be kind of relentless on this stuff. So that's one thing to keep in mind. I think another thing to keep in mind is how will the grassroots of the Republican base react to all of this. Are they going to be more on Gates side? Are they going to

be on more on McCarthy's side. I actually think it's kind of undetermined right now, because they see the way that Gates's strategy and tactics with regards to this potential government shutdown completely back fired and absolutely failed and left McCarthy with effectively no other option than to partner with Democrats and pass a clean cr That was after Gates and co. Voted down this very conservative spending bill. I think that McCarthy was like, what am I supposed to

do here? Like, I have no other option. So we're either going to do this two weeks from now after an ugly painful government shutdown that we get blamed for, We're just going to go ahead and rip the band aid off and do it now. And it seems like a lot of you know, Republican influencers online or whatever. That's how they see it, and they are not happy

with Gates. Another thing to throw into the mix here is that there is talk of voting to expel Matt Gates altogether because he's under ethics investigation, and apparently that report is close to coming out, and so the you know the word is the reporting suggests that if that has some significant findings, then they may vote to expel

him altogether. But that's complicated too, because on the other hand, you got We've just mentioned George Santos, So you're going to vote to expel Matt Gates, but you're gonna let George Santos, who's literally under federal indictments, lied about like every aspect of his life to the American people into voters, et cetera. To secure his place in office. You're gonna

let him go. How much sense does that make? And what do they They have a three vote margin, yes, so you can't be you know, tossing your members out or you're gonna lose control of the House altogether. So a lot of different factors here at play.

that supports Ukraine. Consistent with this commitment to making sure Vladimir Putin YadA, YadA, YadA, let's move on to the next one that we're talking about here, and says moving forward that there is still work to be done. When the House returns, we will advance bill to the House floor for an up or down vote. However, when Speaker McCarthy and others were asked about this, they did not commit to bringing any sort of vote to the floor.

There is still a big question about whether that's even possible. For those who were following all of this fight, there was also some high stakes drama where Senator Michael Bennett placed a hold on the actual continuing resolution before the Senate floor and said that he would not vote for it unless leaders in the speak in the leaders in the Senate came out in a bipartision statement to demand a vote for Ukraine. This is what Senator Schumer said as a result of that hold. Let's take a listen.

increased dramatically up from seventy in July. But this was only over three hundred million. This is not about six billion. This is not about twenty four billion or one hundred billion, which is what the administration wants.

of the fight dynamics. There's a secondary element to Ukraine fight right now, something called transfer authority, where what they wanted to include in the bill was the ability for if we can't have any more money, what we can do is we can legally unlock some funds that we have sitting around in the government and we can transfer it over to just already run of the mill stuff they of course that you always do for the government. It's an amazing system that we have. Anyway, the government

can't even do that right now. So Ukraine actually right now has basically zero leeway from the US government. From a legal authority perspective, I expect to see the Transfer Authority and the AID. One of those two things is going to hit the floor. If I had to guess, I think the Transfer Authority will pass because it's no new money, it's just already existing money. It's not a content gimmick. It's a trick, but of course net effect,

it actually doesn't matter. It is basically a vote for more money to Ukraine, but it's easier to justify.

would be willing to support additional Ukraine aid. But as Soccer was just pointing out, the number who are opposed to it continues to go up and up and up. So this really all once again comes down to Kevin McCarthy and questions of are how far he's willing to push things and how much danger puts his speakership in. There's this they call this the hast rule. It's sort

of like tradition. The idea is that I don't know why we're coping hastor with anything, but anyway, the idea is that if you're a Speaker of the House, you don't bring things to the floor if you don't have a majority of your own caucus in support. Again, there's no like law or regulation or whatever. This is just like a tradition that speakers have tended to follow. And so there's a real question mark right now over whether or not you have a majority of the Republican caucus

in favor of Ukraine Aid. Up till now you did, but it seems very likely possible somewhere in that zone that at this point you actually don't, and especially depending

on the dollar amount. So this again complicates things, and this is another lever that Matt Gates could use if McCarthy does try to push Ukraine Aid through the House, where to be clear, there is a you know, a very clear overall majority when you add Democrats and Republicans together in the House, there's a very clear overall majority in favor of Ukraine Aid. But does he bring it to the floor. Does he violate the quote unquote Haster rule, which isn't really a rule, but whatever they tend to

follow this tradition. Is there a workaround via some you know, legislative parliamentary maneuver like the discharge petition that you know, if you have a majority who signed on it can be brought to the floor without going through the speaker. So they do have some things that they can do, and I think it is very likely that it will take some time, but Ukraine will get the aid that the Biden administration wants. But in the meantime, this is going to be, you know, quite a fight and quite

revealing on the Republican side of who stands where. And like I said, Matt Gates is a little bit down and out right now because this all didn't go that well for him. But this could be a direction that is very fruitful for him where he definitely has the Republican base behind him and where he has significant part of the caucus on his say exactly.

Keeping on the Ukraine subject, there were some major developments across the Atlantic. We're going to start with the most important one from our allies over at the UK making a very very big announcement. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Originally reported in an interview with the Telegraph. They say that British troops could be sent to Ukraine as the country ramps up quote on

the ground training effort. So this was made by the US Secretary of State for Defense or sorry the UK to Secretary of Defense Grant As in an interview with the Telegraph, he said he aims to get his military quote closer and actually into the country. This is the first and would be the first like major great power to actually send troops directly on the ground inside of Ukraine. They allege it's for training. Okay, I've heard that one

before in Syria. The point though, is that this would be a big demarcation point, I think for NATO, especially for the second largest military in the Alliance, to actually send troops there on the ground. It also comes at a time of a new report from Germany, who really can't make up its mind with the Ukraine conflict. Let's go and put this up there on the screen, just so everyone's wondering. This is not Russian Pravda. This is

from Ukrainian Pravda. However, they do report it accurately. German official says that Ukraine has the right to launch missiles on Russian territory. This is the chair of the Defense Committee in the German Bundestag, and is urging the German government to continue giving these long range tarist missiles to Ukraine. That she believes that Ukraine has the right to attack targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. All of this being met with some fury inside of Moscow and

some frankly terrifying rhetoric. Regardless of whether it hasn't come true in the past, you never know when it will. Let's put this up there from dmitriy Medvedev, of course, the former president of Russia. He says, quote that the number of idiots and power and NATO countries is growing

one newly minted blah blah blah. I'm going to skip his propaganda to turn the British military instructors into our armed force legal targets, while being fully aware they will be ruthlessly eliminated, this time not as mercenaries, but as British NATO specialists. He again name checks this Bundestag chairwoman and he said she is clamoring to provide these with the Taurist missiles to enable the Kiyv regime to hit deep into Russian territory. This will be in accordance with

international law. In the case that strikes against the German plants which produce these missiles will also fully correspond to international raw quote, these halfwits are actively pushing us to World War three.

Euros have to make a choice. They're like, Okay, are we going to ramp up or are we going to just say, let's go for diplomacy, Let's try and move this in a different direction. I think this is probably the last ditch effort on the pass of the great Atlantic powers to try and at least ramp up the

conflict or show that they're able to. But from a sheer dollar perspective and even put dollars aside equipment, they have no chance of backfilling even twenty five percent of what the United States has been able to provide Ukraine,

because we are the largest and greatest military power on earth. Like, even with all of our problems of capacity, of which we have highlighted here which do harm us in terms of sending to Ukraine, even with all of that, it is still many orders of magnitude larger than what these militaries are. So I saw this as a pretty major development in the conflict, and especially because it's the nightmare scenario just like what we used to deal with in Syria, and I used to think about it all the time.

I'm like, we've got two thousand guys on the ground in Syria. All it takes is one Russian plane to kill one of these guys, and we're in a whole other situation.

crossed with potentially really catastrophic consequences. I mean, this is a very very dangerous escalation that clearly the Russians see it as such as well. And it's not just that. Chaps also said that British defense companies like BAA Systems, they're going to move manufacturing into the company into the country, and they're floating the idea of the British Navy helping Ukraine in the Black Sea madness, So continuing to push

further and further up the chain of escalation. And listen, I mean, Medvedev has been full of shit and this you know, oh, they might push us into World War three, all right, Russia has total agency in this situation as well, So don't give me this nonsense. But there is no doubt about the fact that every step we go up this ladder becomes more and more dangerous. And now we're also you know, Germany floating these long range missiles as well,

and actively being fine with them striking Russian soil. We now, if we had jumped to this place early on in the conflict, I think that Americans and a lot of the global community would be like, whoa, this is way too far. But because they did it so slowly, step by step by step by step, there isn't nearly the coverage, nearly the freak out around these sorts of actions that there should be.

we're going to get bin Lauden. Then we're like, oh, well we last beIN Lauded, so now what Well, now we got to defeat the Taliban.

it weren't for the United States and NATO? Obviously not So if that's true, then you're not the one who's in the driver's seat. Sure it's great, you know, yes, it's brave, and it's valiant that you are the ones who are doing the fighting and the dying, but we are the ones who are doing all of the bank rolling. And I think we're all probably about to find out real soon how much they really are reliant on USA.

The rug gets pulled, we'll see you very quickly their ability to actually have any semblance of command and control without us, And I think that that is probably somewhere near zero, which points again to our driver's seat, our choices. And I think what you said was very smart about how if you keep it two years on and drag it and you know, timeline in headlines to where he's like considering it, It's like he's not considering, he's going to do it.

always been very hawkish. I don't know if there's any slippage there as well, but there's clearly a sense of Okay, I'm not sure how long our populations are going to continue to support this direction. So I guess we got to pull on all the stops and actually kind of

sort of put boots on the ground. And I guess we got to go ahead with those long range missiles because we're getting a little desperate to make some progress here so that we can continue to prove to our populations that Ukraine has any sort of a shot in this war.

it's also not Robert. It's probably like Robert or something like that. But anyway, Robert Fiso has won the Slovakian election with an anti Ukraine stance. Critically, he is the former actual prime minister of the country. Now he has to set and try and form a coalition, but he

absolutely blew out the Pro EU Pro Ukraine Party. He won twenty three percent of the vote, actually surpassing with the last exit polls in Slovakia where the Liberal party the Pro EU party was only able to gain eighteen percent. But when you look at the coalitional results, very much on the side of what he has been saying. Now, mister Fiso is far more of an anti Ukraine politician

than anybody who currently exists in Europe. So just to give people a taste of some of the things that he has said and has asked for in the past, he says no NATO membership for Ukraine. Remember Slovakia is a member of NATO. And remember also that NATO ascension requires the unanimous consent of every single member inside of the inside of the Alliance. Also, he is in the European Union. The European Union right now is trying to put Ukraine on fast track for actual entrance into the Block.

This would easily allow him in order to join with Hungary and to block that with two members. This is also what he has said in the past Crystal Is, He's like, not only do I not want to send a to Ukraine, I don't want to even allow Slovakian

territory to be allowed to transship aid to Ukraine. Of course he's being blamed as a pro Russian and all of that, but it's complicated because I was looking back at some exit polling from just a couple of months ago in Slovakia, like half of the Slovakians are like, no, it's Ukraine's fault. They're full of Nazis. And You're like, wait, hold on what, And it's like, well, this is the former country with deep ties to Russia. They consume a lot of Russian media.

there are elections happening right now in Poland. One of the reasons why Polish politicians changed their tune and started calling Zelenski out for basically calling the anti Russian for protecting their own grain markets was because the right wing party in Poland, which is against Ukraine AID, is surging in the polls there and the pro EU pro Ukraine

consensus is very much under attack. So remember this is the Eastern Bloc countries, you know, it's not necessarily the former Baltic States, and a big split in NATO will come if this man becomes the next Prime minister. I mean, if he's straight up is like you know, is able to block unanimous decisions. I question whether Sweden and Finland would have even been allowed in the NATO Alliance if

this man had been the Prime minister. So this could significantly change what a lot of the future looks like with respect to Ukraine.

this guy's he's a very interesting character. He's become sort of more radical in the time that he spent outside of office. And by the way, the reason he got outsted from office was over a lot of questions about corruption. So he's now made his comeback. In terms of his politics, I mean, he started as a communist under the old you know, Soviet regime, and then he has been on the left until he's made this sort of like transformation

into a very orbon like figure. So he's anti immigrant, he is, you know, I guess I think I think it's accurate to say he's pro Russia. But he also on economics is very much in favor of like social safety net, welfare type programs, So there's not really an American politician who kind of exactly fits the mold of

what he does. The other thing that's really interesting to keep in mind here is that sort of like the way that our industrial Midwest has been decimated under neoliberalism, and you've seen this shift to the right over cultural issues and also over dissatisfaction with the direction of the Democratic Party in the industrial Midwest. You have a lot of people in places like Slovakia that did better under communists and have not done well under this new like

you know, market based neoliberal whatever. And so there's a lot of nostalgia in a certain sense for that era, and there's a lot of like you said, cultural ties and affinity for you know, the way things were, and so it's a complicated cultural portrait, is all I'm trying to say here. And he's a very you know, a very different politician than exactly what we have a mold for here. I think internationally, or Bon is probably the

closest comparison. There's also real questions over whether or not he's going to be able to form a coalition one of the parties that was a likely candidate to be in the coalition, this sort of like far right ultra nationalist Party. They failed to garner enough of the vote in order to get a single seat, so he can't rely on them as part of a coalition. That complicates

his path to be able to form this government. So, like I said, there's still a lot of question marks here in terms of whether he will actually be prime minister and how he would govern if he is prime minister, if he will be as hardline as his rhetoric has been. But I think the one thing that is pretty clear is this is a warning sign and this plays into the picture of why there it's some desperate moves happening among other NATO allies.

an independent. According to a text reviewed by Mediaite, quote Bobby feel So that the DNC is changing the rules to exclude his candidacy, so an independent run is the only way to go. So looks like that's happening. That was from a Kennedy campaign insider, according to media, i'd so there's been a lot of takes, yes on questions, questions if he does run as an independent, which I think looks fairly likely, and he's been sort of, you know, moving in that direction for a little while now. Who

is he likely to take more votes from? Is it going to be Joe Biden the Democrats? He is, after all, running in the Democratic primary right now, Allen has this famous Kennedy last name that is closely associated with the Democratic Party, Or is it going to be from Trump?

Given that the vast majority of his sort of like online support and energy around his campaign has come from the writing, He's had supporters like, you know, people like Steve Bannon who have been speaking favorably of him, et cetera. So one piece of data that we can throw into the mix here is his favorability ratings among Democrats versus among Republicans. Got and put this up on the screen

so we can see. As his campaign has gone on, his net image rating has grown more favorable among Republicans, now stands at a positive thirty percent among Republicans. And as his campaign has gone on and people have heard more about his anti vax views and his anti Ukraine views and the sort of like, you know, I guess affiliations that he makes with people like Elon Mustke, et cetera, his negative approval rating has fallen down to minus forty

three percent among Democrats. So it certainly seems at this point it is Republicans who have a more favorable view of RFK Junior, and so I think the logical assumption would be that he's more likely to take votes from Trump. But I have to say it's not one hundred percent clear to me at this point. I think it depends a little bit on how he positions himself.

she's probably more like liberal libertarian aligned. However, at the time in twenty twenty, there were still a decent amount of voters who were libertarian aligned, even not even necessarily with Jorgenson, but with the brand of the party that did come out and to support her. I actually checked the margins. I didn't realize, you know, you could make a case. I will not make this case, but if you were like one of those vote read No matter what people you it, what is the pejorative at the end,

it doesn't matter. My point is is that she took about one point two one point five percent in Georgia and in the state of Arizona.

given the favorability. Also in terms of if he's announcing this campaign anti DNC, well it's unfortunate, but it is true that the vast majority of Democrats, they're institutional voters, they like the DNC, they like the media, they have high approval ratings for the Democratic Party Capital d People who don't and who are Democrats are much more in the independent line camp, and some people who are on the Trump side.

a poll far more aligned with the Republican Party. The vaccine skepticism. I mean, there's no question that is far more prevalent right now amongst Republicans. Right dreams of polling data to tell us that. And so if those are the three things which you know, he gets coveraged for fairly or not, depending on what he's running, but you know, if that's what he chooses to lean into, quote unquote, then I do think absolutely I guess the case if he were to draw votes from Biden, I'm curious, like,

what do you think he would have to do? It would obviously and he said this boy, he's like, look, I don't lead with the vaccine.

was not landing. I actually think probably the best case for him taking more votes for Biden is he just doesn't get a lot of attention and Democratic voters see Kennedy on the ballot or are not happy with Joe Biden and they just vote for a Kennedy. And I think that's you know, that accounts for our significant bit of his support within the Democratic primary, because you have to I mean, people are busy in their lives, right,

they're not paying attention. It's all the ins and outs of this, and you know, you hear like even the way he framed his announcement there, it's just like, hey, these parties aren't serving as let's do some lists come together, et cetera, et cetera. That's a very broadly appealing message that resonates with a lot of people, including a lot of Democrats. So you put that together with the Kennedy name.

If he doesn't get a lot of attention or scrutiny for his other positions, then I think you could theoretically end up with a situation where he takes more from Biden or where it's roughly fifty five. That would be my case.

So if he's going to go Libertarian that's already generally aligned ish with the Republican Party or has been in the past, and then you have the issue set at the same time.

a problem that they created. I hate when I see bananas Foster on the menu that I take more votes from President Trump than I do from President Biden, Right, so why would that help them? Yeah, it's not helping him.

in Georgia, in Arizona, maybe even in Florida. I mean, remember Trumpling. I think it won Florida by three point something percent. So if we're talking about you know, up there with the most amount of independent votes since Ross Perrot, it could significantly change the dynamics of the whole election. I do think it would Hurtrump though.

If you don't like Trump, you're on our team. And so if you're pulling even a trunk of that away by you know, attacking Trump as RFK Junior running as an independent, then I could theoretically imagine Again, I think it is more likely, given his approval writing with Republicans versus Democrats, that he takes more from the Republican side of the ticket. But again, I don't think it's like locked in stone. It could be kind of fifty to fifty.

It could be a little bit muddled. It depends, in my opinion, somewhat on how he positions himself moving forward. So anyway, very interesting development.

absolutely loving these number. Put the next piece up on the screen so we can show you specifically. According to Nielsen's rating service, about nine point three million people tuned into the debate. They say, that's a steep drop from the first debate, which also was held without Trump and attracted about twelve point eight million viewers. Got and put

the next piece up on the screen. Also represents by a significant margin a low STV audience for the Republican presidential debate since the start of the twenty sixteen cycle, when Trump first became a candidate. This is kind of interesting too. So, Okay, not a lot of people watched. But for the people that watched, did it change their minds? Was impactful? Did it shift the primary race whatsoever? You're not gonna be surprised to learn the answer to that

is absolutely not. Put this up on the screen. From the Washington Post, how Republican preference has changed after watching the debate. So you can see pre debate how many people were considering voting for these various candidates, and then after they watched the debate, and this was only among people who did watch the debate, how did things shift? And the reality is they didn't shift all that much. I mean, there's just not a lot of change here.

Chris Christy got a five point bump from fourteen percent we're considering him to nineteen percent. Doug Berghum, I guess the other big winner here, six point vump from nine percent we're considering him to now fifteen percent are considering him. No one else saw really a significant shift four points, three points, et cetera of people not that are going to vote for them, but are even considering voting for them. So not a lot of change here. And this part

is different. We covered after the first Republican debate. There were some big shifts here. Nikki Haley got a big bump in the number of Republican voters who was considering voting for her. I think Vivik ramaswamming. My recollection is that, you know, he had a bump as well, So that's different. We also had some interesting numbers from the same Washington Post piece about what people were doing other than watching the debate, and notably not many of them were watching

Trump's speech. You have only four percent who said that instead of watching the debate, they were watching Trump's speech in Michigan at that non union plant. But you had, you know, watching someone else, something else on TV. Thirty five percent good choice. Friends spent time with a family member another good choice. Twenty two percent slept, twenty one percent worked, ten percent cleaned, et cetera, et cetera.

the first one. They're like, I'm good. I don't really need any of these people. There's a very few number of undecideds. In terms of the people who are undecided, I don't think they're making their choice based on the debate, I will say. I mean, I think it's sad because if Trump did attend, it would be a ratings bonanza. That's why it's the lowest since Trump came on the scene. Politics is boring without him. That's why I won in

the first place. But it would have gotten people to watch and we could have actually had some real democratic choice. So I won't move past that, even though on a substantive level he definitely did the right thing from a politics point of view. He's like I'm the king, you know, there's no reason for me to put myself in the line of fire or even the ten percent risk that

I wouldn't come out of this looking good. So I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and I'm just going to keep winning, and all these people can keep running for second chance. I think it's sad that it has devolved into this, but it is also just a sign of his strength. The reason there to ratings are lower since before he came on the stage is

because people like he's funny, interesting, he's unpredictable. And that second debate, it was the most cookie cutter debate that we've seen in a long time, just nonsense.

first debate. There were Nicki Haley had her moments, Bag had his moments. People felt like Ron DeSantis did fine enough, and you look at the polls and Nicky got a few point bump, but nothing that was going to change the state of play. So Trump still umber one by this huge margin. Ron de Santis still number two, you know, even though he came down a little bit, Nikki Ahee

coming up a little bit, nothing changed. So then the drama and the anticipation of like, hey, maybe you never know, cold something crazy could happen, could really shake up the race, that was all gone. And then it's just like, why am I going to watch this tier of also rans who you know the best that they could hope for.

I don't even think any of them is really in the running to be the vice presidential pick at this point, you know, which I think Trump himself said no one was able to take advantage of that moment in the spotlight to really assert for Republican voters what a Republican party post Trump would look like, why they should want to choose a Republican party post Trump, why they should move on from this man that they've been enamored with for some time now. No one was able to grab

the spotlight and do that. And so even though you know, with the first debate, it's not like people were really like Trump's Tucker interview got a whole lot of play. It in spite of whatever the Twitter allegend numbers were, it's certainly that his speech in Michigan also didn't get a lot of play, didn't get a lot of clips circulated. Fox was certainly not covering it because they didn't want

to undercut their own debates that they were hosting. So even though it's not like people were going over to watch Trump instead of these debates, it just it didn't really shift things. And now there's no drama left in

terms of what's going to happen moving forward. And you're right, it is sad I said this before, you know, this is the first presidential election cycle I can remember where these debates are just like on the Democratic side, there aren't debates, so there's no drama anticipation there, even though you have an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who were like, we want choices, we want a democratic process, but that's not happening. And on the Republican side, you know, they're

effectively meaningless. They don't mean anything. There's no consequences, there's no anticipation, there's no stakes here whatsoever. And it is a sad sign of the current decrupit state of our pseudo democracy that we're living in now.

back to. So if we destroy the current institution and bring back like a new free willing system, it's possible that we could get to a better one. But it still would require an obligation on behalf of those candidates. So they all had at that time that we do have to do some sort of debate, which I will always support because it's good for democracy.

Cannon is one of the House office buildings that connect our adjacent to and by underground tunnels are connected to the Capitol. Okay, so this is one of those office buildings, and people immediately noticed this man looks a lot like

Congressman Jamal Bowman. Sure enough, it was Congressman Jamal Bowman pulling the fire alarm at a moment when I believe it was McCarthy had just brought this deal the floor and Democrats were trying to scramble to delay the vote on this because they wanted to read what was in it. King Jeffries, I think, gave some long floor speech to try to delay so that people had a chance to go through what was in this thing figure out whether

they wanted to vote for. So Jamal Bowman puts on a statement copying to the fact that this is in fact him, go ahead and put this up on the screen, and he gives this explanation. He says, I want to personally clear up confusion surrounding today's events. Today, as I was rushing to make a vote, I came to a door that is usually open for votes, but today would not open. I'm embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm mistakenly thinking it would open the door. I

regret to this. I regret this and sincerely apologize for any confusion this cause want to be very clear. This was not me in any way trying to delay any vote. It was the exact opposite. I was trying urgently to get to a vote, which I ultimately did, and join my colleagues and bipotters and effort to keep our government open. I also meant after the vote, with the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police, at their request, explain what had happened. My hope is that no one will make

more of this than it was. I'm working hard every day, including today, to do my job, to do it well and deliver for my constituents. Needless to say, you know, Trump is now demanding he'd be thrown in jail for triggering the fire alarm. There's a whole freak out he's being compared to go ahead and put the Trump thing up on the steering and them we'll get.

his trial begin? Of course, all of this is ridiculous nonsense, because even in the worst interpretation of events, it's not like he was like trying to steal an election.

You can't read it there where very clearly, And what people have pointed to is that there is another sign elsewhere on Capitol Hill which talks about if you press the door handle, it's an emergency exit and the alarm will sound after three seconds. So Bowman revisionism is that he had seen that sign and had then decided to pull the fire alarm because he thought that it would

then trigger the door. Now that is stupid on its face, but as you can see very clearly in this photo, there is no I repeat, no sign anything about a long arms alarm sounding after three seconds. That is another door in the Capitol. There is simply no conceivable world in which pulling a fire alarm could be construed as being allowed to open the door. Now do I believe he was doing it in order to delay the vote?

I actually have a contrary view. I think that he was terrified of missing the vote, and so instead of delaying the vote for democratic processes, I think he pulled the fire alarm so that he could delay the vote, so that he could get to the floor, so that he could then participate in the vote. So it wasn't some grand evil plan in terms of like stopping the vote so that he could vote against it or hold it up.

most likely explanation is human failure and inconscience. That is usually what's going on versus a nefarious plot.

with potentially dire implications. This drought may make for a less dramatic video, but it is imminently threatening the city of New Orleans and surrounding areas with a mass poisoning compromise, drinking water and desiccated crops. So pure exactly is what's

going on. President Biden's declared state of emergency for for Louisiana parishes near New Orleans as a wedge of saltwater travels from the Gulf of Mexico up the Mississippi River, threatening the drinking water supplies for that historic city and for the surrounding areas. Southeastern Louisiana depends on the Mississippi River for its drinking water and does not have expensive reverse osmosis plants in place remove salt from that supply now.

Typically the flow of the Mississippi River is strong enough to keep that salt water from the Gulf at Bay, but drought throughout the region has left the river several feet below normal and running with a lot less power than it usually does. According to the Army Corps of Engineers.

The river needs to flow at roughly three hundred thousand cubic feet per second in order to overcome the weight of the salt water, which is actually heavier than fresh water, and the most recent reading had to speed at around one hundred and fifty six thousand cfs, or roughly half of what is actually required. What's more, there's really no end in sight. Rainfall projections are low for the next several months, and what rain does fall is being sucked up by parched soil before it can run off into

the mississ Zippy River. Experts are preparing for that saltwater wedge to continue its way upstream all the way through January. The New Orleans Times PKAUN has been providing extensive coverage of this threat. Here is their map of where the saltwater wedge is now and where it is projected to be based on US Army Corps of Engineers analysis. So far, the wedge has traveled roughly seventy miles upstream from the

gulf An underwater levee, signified by the yellow triangle. You can see they're on the map that was overtopped on September twentieth. The saltwater extent is expected to reach New

Orleans in near weeks. Plaque of Mine's Parish has been distributing bottled water to their residence for months and is working feverishly to install reverse osmosis systems at their water plants that our government is barging in fresh water to mix into the water supplies to decrease the overall salinity, but they're already warning that these efforts are likely to be insufficient to deal with this threat to the drinking water,

and that threat is really quite severe. Obviously, humans cannot drink salt water, but even if that immediate threat to life is mitigated by bottled water, the broader impacts here could be devastating. Farmers depend on water for irrigation, threatening crops and livelihoods, and New Orleans is chalk full of lead pipes. They'll be corroded by saltwater, potentially leaching lead

into drinking water for years to come. This is partly what happened in Flint, Michigan, when they switch water supplies from the Great Lengths to the Flint River. The river had a high degree of salt due to runoff from road treatments that Flint river water then corroded the lead pipes and poisoned an entire American city as the government engaged in a massive cover up. And like Flint, New Orleans is struggling with an epidemic of poverty that leaves

residents with few resources and no margin for error. Reports several years back reveal that a full half of New Orleans residents are struggling to get by, living either an outright poverty or severely cash strapped thanks to an economy dominated by low paying service sector jobs. Put it all together, and it is a perfect storm for calamity and human misery, something the residents of New Orleans are sadly already all

too familiar with. This is what the latest disaster, triggered by the climate crisis and what now seems to be a near weekly refrain. Wildfires in Maui, flooding in New York City, extreme drought all along the Mississippi River, each of these events causing untold suffering, trauva, and expense, each

exposing the cracks and the neglect within our society. Disaster capitalism, greeting neglectful utilities, centuries old infrastructure, government and confidence or sheer indifference already we're being trained to grow numb to all of these crises. This year alone, we've had twenty three different billion dollar weather events. That's already war than the previous record, and we've still got three more months

left to go in this year. So Kyle and I spent part of our honeymoon actually in New Orleans and has got to be one of the most unique cities in all of America. The history, the character is extraordinary, and like nowhere else in the country or even the world. The culture and people of New Orleans have also been central to the story of American America. Its large population of educated blacks. We're pivot in the Civil War reconstruction

and in the fight against Jim Crow. Half of the city is also below sea level, and so Crescent City is now locked in an existential struggle for its very existence. The battle against the saltwater is really just the beginning of the problems in this era of climate chaos, and as usual, it will be the poor with no other options who suffer the most. It's sager, this is one that's kind of gone un.

or you're to run of the mill Russians are. If that's the case, the policy implications and the historical analogies become a lot more interesting. I would posit Ukraine is not England, and then actually a better World War two example could be Finland. Let me explain, most Americans don't really know all that much about World War two. That doesn't have anything to do with us or with the West.

We vaguely understand that the war was bad in the East between Germany and Russia, but we do not have the same encyclopedic knowledge or cultural knowledge about like d Day, A lot of people, including many Russian historians, tend to brush over that period of World War II, where Hitler and Stalin were not only allies but fellow belligeran powers. Following the shock signing of the Non Aggression Treaty between Stalin and Hitler in the August of nineteen thirty nine,

the Soviet Union went on a shopping spree. No longer having to worry about Nazi Colossus, they decided to take advantage of the chaos of Hitler's invasion of Poland and annex some territory of their own. Stalin and Premier Molotov approached the Baltic nations like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia with ultimatums they would either bis basically had to consent to annexation and occupation by the Soviet Union, or they would face invasion.

And much like the ultimatums that Putin delivered before his invasion of Ukraine, the three Baltic nations quickly conceded to Soviet demands, emboldening Stalin and Molotov to their next scheme, Finland. With all the chaos again and the successful Baltic negotiations, they were flying high. So they invited the Finns to Moscow,

and they gave them a similar ultimatum. Finland had to agree to immediately seed a large portion of their territory and destroy their defensive fortifications, or they would face war. The Finns stood tall and said to the Soviets, kick rocks that immediately and bold into their populace to fight with everything they had and a struggle for their national identity, very much like what's happening in Ukraine, and just like Ukraine, nobody on Earth expected the Finns to actually be able to do.

humiliating military setbacks being a key part of the story. Quickly, the Soviets found themselves the butt of the joke in all of Europe and non Allied nations like France and England. Even considered coming in on the Finnish side to stand up against Stalin, who they would later ally with. Hitler too, saw the disastrous invasion of Finland as evidence that he could then invade the Soviet Union and prevail, considering how

badly they had fought. To this day, the Winter War, as it is known, is considered up there with Afghanistan as one of the most humiliating incidents in Russian military history, and that is how they usually tell the story, but they never focus on how the actual conflict came to an end. After a series of embarrassing Soviet defeats on

the battlefield, Stalin had enough. He previewed Red Army tactics in the forthcoming war with Hitler, and he was willing to take massive casualties as long as they were gaining territory. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers were sent to the front, and slowly but surely they were stopping the Finnish advances and even had some breakthroughs of their own. The war was settling into a stalemate with the frozen frontline and

forthcoming Russian offensive. The Finnish government then did what appears unthinkable today with respect to the Ukraine. Throughout all of the hostilities, even when they were winning, they kept appealing to Moscow for peace. Moscow refused to respond because they thought they could win on the battlefield. Only after the Finns humiliated them and the Soviet Union began to see the costs of the war did they come back to the table. And when they did, they came to a deal.

Finland agreed to give up nine percent of its territory occupied at that time by Moscow. Now it's time to ask was that a victory or was it a defeat. Let's consider something. The initial Soviet demand of finished territorial loss was a smoke screen. They had no intention of stopping there. They wanted to take over all of Finland, just as they had the Baltic States eventually and played ball with them. Finland was a long looked at prize

for Russia. Instead, what happened is the Winter War in vigorated finished national identity and showed the Soviets that they had bitten off far more that they could chew. Yes, they had to give up nine percent of their territory, and they did it after affirming though their will to fight and to live as an independent people. Just like Ukraine has already done today. Most importantly, their fight is

what guaranteed their sovereignty in the long run. They remain neutral throughout the entire Cold War, and today they owe their independence and survival to those who fought the Russians on the battlefield in nineteen thirty nine. I've been Telsinki myself, I've seen some of these monuments. They are genuinely touching. So we bring it full circle. What can we learn

from this? Ukraine is very much like Finland structurally, it faces the Russian colossus bravely and at a massive structural disadvantage. In the long run, it cannot sustain a horrific war of attrition because it doesn't have the manpower or the materiel to do so. Furthermore, it's an insane ask for the West to simply supply them with hundreds of billions of dollars per year to keep up their operations, especially considering how little territory they have been able to win

back in their latest counter offensive. Their victory could be just like Finland's, a bitter deal to swallow, yes, where they have to give up some territory in the immediate term, but with a major win. In the long run, they get to keep their independence, they get to keep their sovereignty, they get to live and survive as an independent state with the vast majority of their territory intact. That's the victory,

just like Finish victory in nineteen thirty nine. But instead Ukraine and the West have poisoned the rhetoric such that only absolute maximal victory is politically acceptable in this there is no way that this will happen because absolute victory for Ukraine would likely mean a full blown World War three. This is obviously not worth it for us. It is why I am against all further aid to Ukraine. It is misshaping their strategic calculus, stopping them from getting to

where we are going to end up. Anyways, they can face reality now or years from now with hundreds of thousands more dead on both sides.