Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. We have Crystal.
Indeed, we do many very interesting actually stories in the show today. So we're going to start off with Trump issuing quite a hawkish statement. You might say it israel first statement on true social will break down that for you. I've also got a Hamas response to that true social statement. We've got some media reactions pulled for you after the Hunter Biden pardon that I think you may enjoy.
We certainly did.
We've also got some details worry about how retailers are planning to respond to potential Trump tariffs, as well as some very troubling indicators about the state of the housing market and just how difficult it is to get your foot on that initial first home buyer ladder. So break that down for you something we always want to keep our eye on. Saga and I get and get into this debate about the UK Assisted Dying Bill. Very interesting
and fraught conversation that has been going on worldwide. AOC is being floated for president.
What do we think of that idea?
And excited to have jenk Youeger join me here in the studio this morning to talk about how to approach this Trump administration this time around. So that should be a good conversation. I always enjoy talking to Jank.
Yeah, that's going to be fun, and he will be in studio to talk with Crystal. It's always going to be exciting. So before we get to that, thank you to all of our premium subscribers who submitted questions. As we said, Crystal's going to be sitting down with John Favreau for a future conversation about the Democratic Party. You guys submitted amazing questions that were extremely helpful, and we're actually going to ask John some of those in the interviews. That's really excited.
Yeah, genuinely, guys, I read through all the questions last night, and you guys impressed the hell out of me. I was like, maybe I should just outsource this entire because genuinely, really smart, thoughtful question So I'm excited to talk to him.
Should be really.
Very interesting, and it's going to be released early for our premium subscribers. You guys are gonna have for success to that, and it'll come out a little bit later for everybody else. But yeah, we're really excited, and thank you to all of our premium sscarbs. Make sure you sign up for future stuff like that. You guys can submit questions continually as we continue Big Book, Big Book, Big Book, Big Guests.
That's a tyfficult one here for the jet lag brain.
I was going to say, Sagar is still startling jet leg. Yeah, I was open the Coffee Wonder.
One to three am. It's an interesting hour. I don't recommend being awake for Yeah, it is so brutal.
So this is probably the toughest jet leg really well, I mean it's the it's the farthest I've ever traveled.
I was going to say, is that is it the most extreme?
I think so yeah. I mean I can't even think what's another country that would be even more so? I think, what is Australia? We'll check later.
I think, yeah, we just actually looked. I think it's like sixteen. I don't know, it's something like that, but anyway, comparable. Yeah, I mean India I think was my furtherest and what is that twelve or third?
That's about eleven and a half twelve, It depends.
Yeah, And I just remember being in the middle of the day and like that feeling of there is no way I'm gonna make it to eight pm, nine pm, like it's not happening.
So anyway, but we're glad you're back.
Thank you.
Also, last thing before we jumping into the show, if you were not able to become a premium subscriber, which we totally get, if you could help us out by liking, sharing the leaving us, you know, a five star.
Review on the podcast.
All of those things really really help out the show a lot. As Soccer mentioned yesterday, you know, of we don't do any marketing promotion. It's all word of mouth, and you guys are like the essential part of that. So if you can help us out there, we really appreciate it. All right, let's go and jump into what Trump had to say on True Social about Israel and
Gaza and Hamas and the hostages. Put this up on the screen, so he says, everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanly and against the will of the entire world in the Middle least.
But it's all talk and no action. Okay. Please let this truth serve.
To represent that if the hostages are not released prior to January twentieth, twenty twenty five, the date that I probably assume office, there will be in all caps, all hell to pay in the Middle East and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against humanity, those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied history of the United States of America.
And an all cap release the hostages. Now we now have a response from Hamas from Jeremy Scahill tweeted this out and I'll just read it to you, guys. We didn't have time to make an an element for it. They say the Hamas Political Bureau Number one. Since the beginning of this genocide, Hamas has publicly announced and been active in seeking permanent ceasefire to enny Israeli aggression against our people, a deal which would have included a full prisoner's exchange.
Two.
However, Netanyahu has sabotaged all these attempts. At many times, we were extremely close to signing on a deal, but due to his savage act and decisions, these deals broke down.
Three.
Therefore, Hamas understands that Trump's message is actually directed first towards Netanyahu and his government. They need to end their evil game by using negotiations as a cover for their personal political ideological interests. For Hamas is committed to immediately implementing the Security Council Resolution two seven three five and the deals struck on July second, twenty twenty four, that's
the one that Biden talked about. We are looking forward to the daytime seeing an end of this genocide against our people, their free returned back to their homes all over the Gaza Strip, and our prisoners from both sides freed and enjoying living against amongst their families again. And number six, our people are eager to secure a better future for their children, full of hope, dignity, and prosperity.
Of course, I mean the absurdity of Trump's statement, Sager is as if violence against Hamas has.
Not yet been tried.
And you know, he really positioned himself and sent out a lot of indicators to the Muslim American, Arab American and young community in America that he would be more you know, amenable to piece, that he would be less hawkish in this region. There was always very little reason to believe that it would actually be the case. This statement certainly flies in the face of that outreach. But Jeremy made an important point as well in this Twitter thread.
Apparently ceasefire negotiations have restarted, and so he interpreted this as a way for Trump to try to claim credit. Yes, that's exactly, Oh if those ceasefire negotiations ultimately bear some sort of fruit.
I think Trump is a student of history, and one of the things that Republicans always love to hold on to is the Iranian hostage crisis. And so in nineteen eighty a lot of people forget this, but the Iranian hostages were actually the American hostages held by iran were released on the day of President Reagan's inauguration. That's another reason why he was so.
Reagan people were back channeling with the Iranians in order to sort of rig that election in that way.
All right, that's true, yes, and no, Okay, the Carter people look that this is too much of a rabbit hole to go down. The point is is that the Reagan people have always celebrated the fact that the Iranians were so afraid of President Reagan that they were willing to release the hostages there on his inauguration day, President Carter flew over on Air Force one.
To go and to pick them up during this said inauguration.
There are a lot of complicated reasons as to why all of that release and all that eventually did happen, But the point is is that it was a great pr coup for a round rig and that's something that Donald Trump wants to recreate here. Well as to what exactly, what does he say all hell will break loose or you know, there will be hell to pay? I mean, yeah, that was my immediate reaction. I'm like, what exactly has Israel not done to the Gaza strip that the United
States would be able to do. Maybe presumably he means going after Hajamas funders or you know, Iran or Hezbola or any of those, but even that, you know, of course, would be something that it would be diametrically opposed to the things he said. It is almost certain what he's trying to do is to both signal being pro Israel on this by saying all hell will be there to
pay while the ceasefire negotiations are happening. And we should forget that there was that initial backchannel from Donald Trump to net and Yahoo where he's like, look, dude, this He's like, you do what you need to do. But by the time I take office, this shit needs to be over. So it could be very much that this is a back channel as well, trying to take credit for any eventual hostage cease fire negotiation by telling the Israelis, look,
I'm going to put this out there. I mean, part of why this is all so ridiculous too, is that you know, these rallies, you know, at least the net Yahoo government, they they long since have not cared a lot about these.
They don't even pretend anymore.
I mean, that's part of what feels sort of like quaint about this Trump Well message is.
Like, because a hostage was confirmed, Dad, yesterday there was an America dual citizens.
So American Israeli hostage who was thought to be held captive was actually killed on October seventh, is the news that came out. But yeah, I mean that's what felt sort of like dissonant, like a throwback in this statement is that the nat Yahoo government they don't even pretend to care about the hostages anymore. You know, the faction you'll love Goalt, who also my opinion, is monster and has been also indicted by the International Criminal Court for
crime skits humanity. He was in the faction that said, Okay, we need to prioritize getting the hostagees home. That is a signific I don't know if it's a majority position, but that is a position that's held by a significant amount of the Israeli public. It's not that they care about Palestinians, but they were very interested in getting the hostages home. That path has been completely for it at
this point. It's undeniable that you know, I'm not saying like Hamas has been great actors here or whatever, but the primary roadblock to securing some sort of hostage deal has been NETANYAHUO.
And it really was that moment when.
Joe Biden goes out gives that big speech, says, Israel has agreed to this hostage release deal and now it's in Hamas's court for you guys to agree, and Hamas is basically like okay, and then Israel was like, wait, actually no, we don't like this deal anymore. And it's constantly throwing out poison pills and thwarting negotiations however they can, and at this point they just don't even really pretend that that's going on. So now they're back at the
seas Far negotiation table. I don't know how realistic it is that you know, there's going to be a deal struck at this point, but we're also at a point of such utter and complete devastation and Gaza it's.
Like what more are you going to do?
You know, the number of deaths, the amount of rubble, the just sheer devastation. And obviously he has parts of his coalition who are very very open and upfront about they want to completely take over Gaza, they want to resettle Gaza. This is Benkavir and Smotrich and Trumps put
into his ministration. You know, people like my Kakabee who would be very amenable to that direction, who are more aligned with that faction, the most extreme faction of an already extreme government, than certainly with the U of Gallants of the world. So that's kind of the context for all of this. And you know, speaking of ceasefires, there's also supposedly a ceasefire that was struck with you know,
the US's negotiating assistance between Israel and Hezbolah. But Israel has just continued to strike when and however and whenever they want to in the face of this purported ceasefire agreement. Even CNN is reporting on exactly this dynamic. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
I want to be very clear though, Dana, that there have been continuous violations since this ceasfire took effect. Early Wednesday morning, CNN spoke to a UN peacekeeping source who says that Israel has violated that ceasefire about one hundred times. But there are many people on both sides of this border who are desperately hoping that this doesn't escalate further and that the ceasefire prevails.
So CNN saying there that and by the way, this ceasefire agreement is days old. This is not like it's been in place for a month. And already they're reporting that there have been some hundred violations of the ceasefire agreement. R and Ryan Grimm, as the State Department spokespeople, what they what the response to was to this, you know, to this result. Can Israel just continued to fire with impunity in the face of this negotiated seas our deal is take a listen to that response.
A little bit more background on the side letter that the US sent to Israel regarding the ceasefire arrangement with Hesbela and Israel. What does it allow Israel to do?
Look, I don't have anything more I can speak to about the ceasefire agreement, but I will say that a lot of the reporting around the ceasefire agreement tends to treat his news that Israel can exercise what ultimately is a right that every country has. Every country has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. Israel has that right, Lebanon has that right. Every country in the world has that right.
The United States often characterizes Israeli attacks as defense France says that Israel has violated the ceasefire fifty two times at this point. But if they're just recouched as Israel defending itself, is Israel allowed to continue to attack Hesbela as long as it says that was self defense, that was self defense because.
I said, in response to questions, we have a mechanism that we have set up to look at these exact questions and to look at reports of ceasefire violations and to determine whether in fact they were violations of the ceasefire, whether in fact, if an incident was in some way justified because somebody had come under the threat of harm. And I'm not going to make those judgments from here before that group has the opportunity to work through these questions.
That's why we set it up in the first place.
Right, They've got a mechanism, sagern here we'll I'll hold our breath and waiting for that conclusion and the accountability which will come on the other side of that.
As yeah, man, not much of a surprise. This is part of what Donald Trump also will inherit. And then it's going to be a very tricky situation because on the one side, he's got a very pro Israel coalition. I mean, he's got some of the very very hawkish pro Israel members who are all part of his national security apparatus, who are very would you know, and even
the Republican celebration I saw. I mean it's online, granted, but certainly and amongst a lot of the pros for all folks, they are like, we've been waiting for somebody to say something like this, and it's like, okay, well, if an American Delta Force soldier gets killed in a hostage raid, you know, to free Israelis, like we should be asking the question here and like was it worth it? You know, how many American lives? Is it worth to
free a bunch of Israeli hostages? And especially why can they accomplish what the IDF, which we're told is such a competent and incredible military, what are they supposed to do? The Israeli Air Force? I mean, what bombs could we drop on Gaza that would compel a Hamas ceasefire or compel a Hamas release that the Israelis have not bought dropped and we've given them almost everything that we have, we don't even we barely have any ammunition left.
Ourselves, which is the irony of this entire situation.
So we'll see. And I think he is a certain he's set up for it just as difficult as a task as Biden, if anything more difficult, because he has to please the most pro Israeli factions of the people we made promises to and others, and all of that
is against his goal ultimately of peace. Again, I still think that his statement is trying to compel some sort of back channel of trying to achieve the cease fire and pressure on the Israelis to wind down the conflict, because at least we could say this for Trump, what is his always criticism of Israel. It's bad pr but he knows it's bad for him. You know, he doesn't
want to deal with this. He really doesn't want to deal with a major war in the Middle East because he understands too probably that he can get pulled into this very quickly, especially with some massive fire, you know, with Lebanon, with Syria now that's exploding. I mean, it's
a goddamn mess. It hasn't been like this since twenty fourteen. Yeah, so you know, you really this is the worst possible situation for an American president to want to walk into he should be and wanting to do everything to bring this to a close.
And my hope is that this is part of that.
Again, knowing him, he just wants to recreate the Reagan magic. That's immediately when I saw that, I was like, this is a Reagan move. Now can he pull off what Reagan did? I mean, that's a more.
Difficult The only thing that I would say in response to that that everything you said is correct. But the difference for Trump is that his entire coalition is pretty united behind hawkish pro Israel stance. And part of what was difficult for Biden to navigate politically, which he did a very poor job of, is that Democrats overwhelmingly are not in favor of this hawkish uniformly unanimously pro Israel stance, and Democratic donors are somewhat divided, most of them are
pretty pro Israel. But then the base was really on board with first the cease fire and certain and then you know, very strongly on board with embargoing weapons shipments, and so there were and obviously you had this you know, very activist movement on college campus and other places from the left which is somewhat in the Democratic Party coalition that he also.
Had to contend with.
You don't have that same push pull, you know, push and pull within the Republican coalition. So you know, for him to come out with an aggressive statement like this, like a few people Dave Smith won't be happy about it. You won't be happy like there will be a few people. But by and large, overwhelmingly his coalition and his donors and his base are good with this. And so that pushes all in one direction, which is, you know, consistent aggressive.
Whatever Israel wants, whatever Miriam wants, they're going to ultimately get. And of course you see that in the personnel here.
You're not incorrect. But and this is when there's a dog, what is the dog catches the tail element to this too. Again, like let's you want to see what the logical conclusion of this. It's Americans dying to free Israeli hostages. If maybe you think that's worth it, that's fine, you know, you can exercise You're right in your opinion. I don't think it's worth it, especially if it comes to actually
active combat. Let's say that there is some major bombing and that invites you know, further attacks on Americans and then we end up into some tit for tat with Iran again why you know, for what purpose? And that is the reality which Donald Trump would have to confront. Now.
I will have at least some faith that in the past he's been afraid of getting into those situations like pulling off or calling off the shootdown of that Iranian plane in response to shooting down an American on man spyplane, and in general has shown an aversion to getting embroiled into deep conflict. Now he also can get dragged there very easily, considering a lot of the people that he has in front, he has behind him who will be advising in the interagency process and in terms of the
options that will be presented to him. So we'll see. I mean, I do remember the very first well I think it was week one, maybe week two of the Trump administration, there was an American Navy seal who was killed in combat in Yemen, and that was a big deal,
you know, here in Washington. And actually that was a kind of a formative incident as well for Trump because the raid had been previously approved by the Obama people kind of and then Trump came in and he was like, yeah, let's be hawkish, let's do it, and then he saw what a nightmarit. You know, our operation was this guy was killed and the helicopter crash, et cetera.
I mean remember that, very hawkish swords Iran though.
Yeah, but at the end they we didn't get into a war with Ronnie killed. Cost some solamony, okay, yeah, but.
They did retaliate and they you know, struck our service members. A number of them sustained traumatic brain injury. So it's not like you're right, we didn't end up in a war. But that's the gamble that he's willing to take. So you know, this is not just bluster in the past. It's been backed up by you know, hawkish actions vis are the Iran in the region.
Yeah.
Look, he and the people behind him are united around like a confrontation and a hawkish policy towards Iran. Trump himself, though it at least says he wants a deal, so you know, I don't know whatever, you can take that to the bank. He's the one, also only one who pulled out of the Iran deal, and the status quo basically hasn't changed at all. He has said we don't want any regime change. We're all war with Iran. I think that's good. I hope that we stick to it.
But what concerns me the most really is not Donald Trump. It's the inner agency stuff. It's people like Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio and all these other people. When I mean, if you think about it, there will be one voice in the situation room who is not all that hawkish on Iran, or at least previously. His name is Jadievans. He's the only boy sitting right there, the only person who spoke out against the Solimani thing. But he was
a private citizen. He wasn't an elected official, right and didn't have to answer to the the Miriam Adelson's and all of them of the world, every single other person in the situation room, the generals and.
All these other they've been itching.
This is what they love. This the centcom commanders, et cetera. You know, Pete Hagsath and all of them. He's very pro Israel. So this is the one area where that's a major blind spot for any of their anti war positioning. And as usual, you know, with ideology, big money and all that, it is the easiest way to embroil the United States into a major conflict, so watch out. But you know, look, this was also a risk that I
got at least say this. If you voted for Trump and you're upset about this, then you just weren't paying any of it. No, I think that's right.
Let's be honest, that's absolutely correct.
I mean I knew going clear eye into this. I'm like, this is gonna be the most proseral administration in American history. Didn't love it, but you know, you had a way of checks and balances. But anybody who was telling you that it was going to be opposite, then honestly you got to take.
It for a rut.
Yeah, don't believe those people ever. Again, certainly we have some other updates we want to get to with regard to Israel and the Gaza stripe. We can put this up on the screen. So five Palestinians, including three World Central Kitchen workers, have been killed after a car belonging to the World Central Kitchen was targeted by an Israeli drone in Gaza's con Unit City. You may recall this is not the first time that Israel has targeted World
Central Kitchen. Aid workers. This is Jose Andre's outfit. You will also recall that the first time this happened, there was a large uproar here in DC and across the country, I mean really around the globe. But you know, it was the first time that people in DC were like, oh my god, someone I know is actually connected to the slaughter. And so there was a significant amount of concern and outrage. But ultimately was there accountability?
Of course not.
And so this time when this you know, these aid workers, these Palestinian aid workers, including World Central kitchen workers are struck and killed, you barely hear anything about it. And you know, it's the perfect story of the way that lack of accountability breeds impunity.
And it's the same.
Story with the you know, repeated violations of the ceasefire with Hesbola. They know they can do it, and Matt Meller will just get up there and be like, well, we have a mechanism and we'll go back to you, and they have their right to defend themselves, et cetera, et cetera. Like they know that's going to be the response, so they're going to do whatever the hell that they want. And it is not only World Central kitchen workers that have been killed. Here we can put the next piece
up on the screen. We also have Save the Children AID workers who say they are devastating and outrage of the killing of a Save the Children staff member, and Israeli are strike in Gaza. Our second colleague killed in Gaza. We con ten this attack in the strongest terms and demand an investigation. You know, the killing of aid workers, of medical professionals, of professors, of all types of people. Journalists have been some of the largest targets in terms
of the Gaza strip. This has been ongoing and it continues to be ongoing because again the US has allowed them to act with complete immunity and with zero accountability. At the same time, Al Jazeera has a deeply disturbing report about the way that Israel is using these quad copters, and this had been rumored for a long time but
not fully confirmed, that they use these quad copters. They play sounds of crying babies or mothers calling for help to lure people out of their or their shelters, and then once they are lured out, looking for this desperate baby, desperate mom to try to help, then they shoot and kill them. Let's take a listen to a little of this report from Al Jazeera.
In mid April, we were informed that Israeli quat captors were emitting bizarre sounds, including baby sounds or women's screaming. I went personally to Nusairat and I interviewed several Palestinians separately, and the testimonies were almost identical. Blood capters were for two consecutive nights on the fourteenth and the fifteenth, I guess of April, they were emitting baby sounds, playing sounds
of screaming women. He played these sounds only to lure citizens out of their homes and to find someone to shoot. And this was confirmed by actually the reports that we followed up on at hospitals. There were cases of people getting injured by these blood capters after going out to figure out what was the sound to try to.
Help, and then they go on to speak to a young man there who one of his family members had been killed by one of these quad copters. And you know, this just very obviously flies in the face of the idea we're doing this targeted hunt for hamas they're trying to lure out whoever they can lure out with these quad copters and then indiscriminately murdering them. And that is what our taxpayer dollars are going to fund. So congratulations everyone.
Last piece Sager that wanted to get to here, which I don't even know what to say about this, put this up on the screen, so Biden over the Thanksgiving holiday. I think this was actually on Black Friday apparently. I think this was the maybe the day before he informed Hunter he was going to be pardoning him. He'll see
Hunter there in the picture. But if you look at that book that he's holding as he comes out of the bookstore, that is The hundred Years War on Palestine, a fantastic book digging into the consistent violent oppression of Palestinians, written by a renowned academic, Rashid Khalidi. And now, after more than a year of facilitating this genocide, he thought maybe he'd read about what's going on in the region.
I mean, what do you like, what do you even say to this?
I don't know, it's like struggle session ask.
Like he I guess he wants to know where he fits in the one hundred years War on Palestine, Like what role he's playing in the you know, renewed aggressive Palestinian violent oppression.
I would just put it in terms of the most Biden move of all time. Also, that was on Nantucket, just so people don't Yeah, it makes it even more perfect case you weren't aware. It is a great bookstore.
Though we'll say that it is.
There is something I'm not sure I can totally distill it. But it's so perfect about a liberal quote unquote who's been facilitating genocide for a year but is going to read this book and signal that he, like you know, feels.
Bad about what's going on.
I think that's basically on Nantucket. I mean, like all of that, Yeah, Brucket the president of the United States. It's very much like liberal guilt and like me, at least try to understand what the other side is. It's actually quite classic.
Yeah.
And it's like doing the reading after after the fact too.
Yeah, there's certainly there. I mean, look, let's also do the alternative, which he has no idea what he's doing, and I just picked it up. Oh, pel's going okay, you know, see I'm interested in that or like yeah, like I'm involved or after somebody that's probably the most likely outcome to be honest, that's somebody his granddaughter or his great granddaughter, sorry, his great granddaughter or something like that, is the person who.
I mean, he's so cooked. There's no way you can like fully, yeah, you're comprehends.
He's at the point of his life where somebody's got to read to him, like at a nursing home. Like that's kind of what we're looking at. Even a lot of these interviews and things that we're looking at, they're crazy. You know, he's an Angola right now, he's in Africa or I think he's either there right now or he's on his way. There's no plans to do a press conference. Nothing.
I mean, this is it's it never happens in a foreign trip.
For the the only time a United States president travels abroad and doesn't do a press conference is when they go to like China, where they don't have a press well, and that's at the request of the Chinese government, not because of the US government, the Angola and all that. They want to do a press conference. They want to publicize that American president is finally visiting Africa, and he's like, no, I can't do it.
Well, I think the last time he did a foreign press conference didn't you like wander into the rainforce.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Yeah, I was gone for that one. No, he was like, did work out into the Amazon rainforest? That's like, dude, you know what's gonna happen, asked Teddy. Roosevelt is the last president to drift off of the American Amazon rainfores. Didn't work out for it.
It's a good way for, you know, former presidents to end their life just to wander off into the wilderness.
It does appear that that rainforest trip, unfortunately, is what killed Roosevelt, the malaria and all that. They said he never recovered from it.
Wow, there you go.
At the same time, there's been some amazing media reactions to the Hunter Biden parton First is the view which we can always count on for cutting age analysis. Here, Whoopi Goldberg says it was never a lie from President Biden that he had completely ruled out a pardon for his son. Let's take a.
Listener perspect it as a parent.
I understand why he would do it, but I wanted to understand why lie about it for so long?
And I'd stopped one calling it a lie?
Okay, why repeatedly say you're not going to when you do. And secondarily, for the part of this country, half of it that doesn't support Biden, doesn't no one personally doesn't get to tab phone calls, and they're just looking at a system that seems like it's only benefits the people who are a resident.
Does that sound well, here's what it says. It's a president for all of us to open our eyes because we've elected someone who is in a similar situation, who didn't have a drug problem, who knew what he was doing, who clearly was stood and said I can do this, and he did it. So I think for many many reasons, this is very different than any other situation that we have ever out.
It's actually not. You know, she is correct in one way, it is very different. It is the most sweeping presidential pardon in American history, so we have that it is even more of a sweeping pardon than the part in the Gerald Ford delivered President Nixon for any and all crimes committed while he's president of the United States. This one takes the cake because it's a ten year period
of twenty fourteen to today. Ironically, also included in the pardon was the date of December first, even though it was issued on November thirtieth or something like that, and so maybe it was December second and September first, and so Hunter when it was issued, actually had several hours.
To continue committing a few more crimes.
So can you imagine the crack binge that happened in that house? I mean that that.
Would have been an awesome Hunter.
It probably was an awesome time. You know. There's also people are now saying because Hunter no longer can invoke the Fifth Amendment because of fear of prosecution, he should have no fear of going on the Joe Rogan experience or justifying for Congress. Now is actually the time to tell us Hunter what happened with Bisma and with all of this. So, in one sense, Whoopy is correct. This is a very different situation.
The part of that I most subjected to is when she was like, don't call it a live Yeah, I know, it's like, come on.
Lady, Like, you know.
My thing with this is I find it outrageous that so many liberal politicians and pundits, so many of them, have been outraged by this, and it's been the you know the worst thing that the most condemnation that they've had for Joe Biden is over this pardon of Hunter, and it's like, have you watched what this man has been up to his entire miss Have you watched the way that he has facilitated this slaughter in Gaza, And yet your undies are in a bunch over Hunter Biden, like.
You know, spare me at this point.
So that was the sort of tease us up for the next thought that we have here. And there were a couple of these on CNN where you have Ali Honik and then later on you had Manu Raju who were like, this is going.
To harnish Joe Biden's legacy.
It's like his legacy of genocide and greasing the skids back to Donald Trump and his legacy of being so arrogant and narcissistic that he was happy to allow his party to lose and was happy, apparently to stay in the race even when he was being told he was going to lose four hundred Electoral College votes to Donald Trump. Like, what legacy are we talking about here? In any case? Here is Elli Hondig making that point.
This is as broad as a pardon can possibly be. Ordinarily, a pardon will specify a certain case, and that happened here. It says, I hereby pardon Hunter Biden on the gun case in Delaware and on the tax case in California.
But what's different about this one is it also says this is a full and unconditional pardon for all conduct going back to January one of twenty fourteen, which means Hunter Biden cannot be federally prosecuted for anything going back to twenty fourteen, and really before then, because before then is going to be precluded by the Statute of limitations. And as you say said before, the only historical president the best historical precedent for this is the pardon of
Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, which has similar language. But what I think is not disputable is that this is a historic act of political nepotism. This is the granting
of a pardon by the president to his son. Joe Biden even says, if you really parse his statement, he acknowledges that a substantial part of this is because Hunter Biden is his son, and that will land Joe Biden on a historic list that he probably doesn't want to be a part of, along with Bill Clinton, who pardoned his half brother Roger Clinton, along with Donald Trump, who pardoned Charles Kushner, who is the father of his own
son in law, Jared Kushner. So I'm sure Joe Biden understands the historic implications of what he's done, and now he's earned his way onto that list.
So there you go.
And I mean, Nate Silver, he does a silver thing, silver thing, a similar thing that the Seppelin screen. I don't even have jet leg as an excuse here, guy, I'm having like sympathetic jet lag. I guess I discussed here how I vote for Harris despite feeling like Democrats indulged in a lot of bad behavior that voters were rational to publish. After the White House lying about the Hunter pardon, I'm not sure how much.
More I can tolerate.
And look, I totally get people objecting to the Hunter pardon personally, I don't really care one way or another. What I am disgusted by is Joe Biden being perfectly happy to violate the norms when it serves himself and his family, but not one say, it might deliver a fifteen dollars minimum wage to workers, or in any other way he could violate those norms in this you know, last lame duck days, but he chooses to only use it to benefit himself. That's my you know, really significant
objection here. But it's just funny from Nate because I mean number one, as others have pointed out, like Trump really aggressively abused this pardon Bowers with Kushner and Roger Stone and Steve Vann and Denesh Jesuza, like anyone who was sympathetic to him whatsoever, or even some people who apparently like paid to get their case in front of Trump. He just was happy to dule amount. So if this is your line with Joe Biden, like where was all
that concerned with Trump? But also like Joe Biden has done so much worse during his administration, and Gaza being the obvious example, but I would also put Soger Ukraine and thwarting that piece deal and allowing that slaughter to
go on. And so that's where the DC morality just makes no sense to me whatsoever that this would be the reason why you think his legacy would be tarnished, Like there are eighty five other vastly more important mortal failings of Joe Biden before you even start to talk about this one.
On an objective basis politically massive failure. Again, judge him by his own rhetoric. He ran to defeat Donald Trump forever the dark branded means he was not successful in that he was a narcissist all the way through the world is on fire. Arguably the destruction of the quote unquote rule based international order really was struck under Joe
far Biden, no doubt about it. Well, it's easy. I mean, I read a lot of history, so I'm used to thinking about things at like one hundred thousand foot level strategy wise, when you write the historical period of the Joe Biden presidency, what will they point to? The invasion of Ukraine, the fall withdrawal of Afghanistan, even though I supported it. I mean, it's very clear that it was executed in such a way that it turned the American
public away. The Israeli War and the conflagration and explosion continuation of American interventionism in the Middle East, and then you have that with the political failure of this president. On top of the economic trends are arguably worse in this country at any time since two thousand and eight, which sounds crazy to say. If you talk to an economist. But we're going to talk about a little bit in
our show about home prices and about inflation. I mean, the level of domestic consternation has really no precedent since the two thousand and eight period and really more analogous to the early nineteen hundred. So Biden will go down in history like people who you barely think about, you know, from the early nineteen hundreds. Yeah, like Calvin Coolidge, you know, silent cow. People don't really think libertarians like him, that's
about it. You know, he's mostly a footnote. He'll be one of those folks.
I think he'll be.
I mean, not even as positive as Jimmy Carter, because at least with Carter, people feel like, well he's.
A good guy right himself in his post.
Service and they're all suching.
I mean, you know, can't David Acord like there are things you can point to during the Carter administration. I think Biden has a much worse legacy ultimately than Jimmy Carter does. And in a sense it's a shame because there are things he did that were a break with the neoliberal order, that were important, you know, the continuation of the China tariff policy important, The implementation of industrial policy in a way that we haven't seen in decades
in this country. Important, The aggressive you know, the antitrust, the sort of repositioning and reinvigoration of anti trust policy very important, most pro labor present on my life. No one's going to remember any of that because of how overwhelming the foreign policy devastating failures were.
You're right Zager about.
He has done more destruction to the quote unquote rules based order than anyone. I mean that Donald Trump could have ever dreamed, because he's someone who claimed to believe in them exactly and to uphold it, and so he was in, you know, a vastly more significant position to be able to completely undermine it.
And that's exactly what he does well on institutions and rule of law as well. It will find, you know, people will always write about the Trump law fair and about what happened to him. But now as part of that will be you know that Joe Biden, in his pardon of his son, used this same rhetoric and justification that Donald Trump will to escape his own charges and problems. So you know, look, you can't blame Americans for saying you all are full of shit and for just pressing
the red button. Ultimately that was the vote for Donald Trump. And honestly, they America was more red even than I thought that they were in terms of They're like, I don't want to hear this democracy shit. I don't want to hear any of this anymore. I can't deal with this, you know. And there's something just so nauseating about Biden and the preening and the entire Kamala Harris campaign that
they just said, I'm done. You know, I'm willing to take I'm willing to take a chance, you know, roll the dice United ninety three, whatever metaphor that you want to have here. And so that is one that will be the ultimate legacy of Joseph ar Biden. I honestly think he's a much worse president Obama. I think, you know, I mean, second only to me.
And before before Gaza on economics, I was one of the people out there making the case Joe Biden is better than Barack Obama on economics. But you cannot look at the totality of this administration and say that he is, you know, better in any significant respect. At this point, we have gotten far afield. But I have to get to this next piece because I demanded that would be in the show so that I could gloat a little bit about it. Let's put this up on the screen. Ton's Desusa, who was himself.
He was pardoned pardons for straw.
Donation by Donald Trump. He put out his two thousand Mules documentary to great fanfare within MAGA world. He was hosted at mar Lago for a film screening. It might have even been the premiere sort of down there. He is now himself admitting that the central part of this film, which I watched, and you guys might remember, I did a monologue about it, saying how this was all total
and complete bullshit. The central part of this film, he is now admitting completely false, completely wrong, apologizing to one of the people that he smeared as being one of these purported quote unquote mules. So let me read you this from Rolling Stone, they say. Magafilmmaker Dinesh Jususa issued a statement on Sunday admitting his most notorious project, the twenty twenty election conspiracy film two Thousand Mules, was produced quote on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me
and my team. Includes in a potlogy to a man named Mark Andrews, a Georgia man who sued Denish DEESUSA and Sale, a media group who were responsible for putting out the film, which by the way, they ceased distribution of in the wake of these lawsuits and the revelations that the film was told him complete bullshit. Profit this film certainly did, though politically and financially they say it
grossed over ten million dollars in revenue. As I mentioned, they had a private screening for it at mar A Lago. Helped make DENESHJESUSI more influential, He writes in part I apologize to mister Andrews. I make this apology not under the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but because it is the right thing to do given what.
We have now learned.
While I do not believe mister Andrews was ever identified by the film or book, I am sorry for any harm he believes he and his family have suffered as a result of two thousand mules. Desusa claims he had no idea the data provided by True the Vote was
faulty at the time the film was released. Quote True the Vote provided my team with ballot dropbox surveillance footage that had been obtained through open records requests sured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who'd make at least ten visits to dropboxes. To SUSA writes, we recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not
have actually been correlated with the geolocation data. And listen, as someone who did a monologue right at the time, it was at the time.
That this was all total bunk and bullshit.
This particular man, Mark Andrews, who he's apologizing to, who had been portrayed as one of these mules. He just was dropping off the ballots for himself and his family,
which is a perfectly reasonable and legal activity. So you know, it's preposterous to imagine that he could not have known at the time that this was all completely phony bullshit, because if I was able to discern this from the outside, surely the person putting the film together and sifting through all the data could have discerned that this was all uttering, complete nonsense.
Yeah. If anything, there's been a healing effect on Stop the Steel since Trump's victory where we can just admit all of these things now out loud and just be like okay. And the Republican base has been satiated enough from Trump's victory in twenty twenty four that they no longer have to claim.
Some of the elections are free and fair now that Donald Trump's won.
Well, you know that's how it goes for them. Let's put this on the screen and love Anne.
When Anne's right, She's right.
Ann is the goat. You can at least say this. She is a consistent woman, and she says, please think back to all the people who told you to watch Dinesh's two thousand Mules and never trust them again.
That would include the incoming president of the United States.
I believe well, well, Anne and Trump are beefing.
Don't forget. Ann has always called him, She's called him out. They've had a fraught relationship for a long time. So she accused him of abandoning what he ran on in twenty sixteen. So that's why I think Anne.
Is the goat so many Charlotte's seagriftors. And the really sad thing is that he will pay zero price in terms of his like.
Who Dudesh I mean, this is pretty bad. I will say that like that's uh.
People go right and whatever his next little project is, they'll eat it right up.
So I think you're right. But I also think that there was this mean I mean I encounter this, you know with the normal Republicans, you know, every once in a while, if you're in an uber or something, and they'll just be like, so, do you really think the election wasn't stolen? And they'll ask about two thousand mules or anything like that. If you calmly discuss, you know, with them, I think they'll usually they'll come around to it and be like, okay, yeah, that actually sound reasonable.
But I think outside of the hardcore, you know, this stuff will not have as much I think, at least as a result of things like this, it will not have as much currency in the future. Trump is also extraordinarily unique. It's an ability to you know, claim things that are stolen to inspire his following. And look at that. Who's that guy who ran in Wisconsin? Hovedy? Is that his name? Eric Hovdy? He tried to play footseet would
stop the steal, and he just gave up. It was like it's not working, you know, in terms of it was I think it was his election against Tammy Baldwin, and he was claiming something or whatever.
It didn't land at.
All, same with all all of the other Republicans who lost in the swing states.
I just think we're in a place where people's trust and institutions has been understandably obliterate.
Yeah, it's zero.
And I think this is happening now on the liberal side as well, which is why I'm not like, even though the NBC is sort of being destroyed, why I'm not that hopeful that what grows in the rubble is going to be better, Because when people's trust and institutions has been destroyed, it makes it very easy for Charlatan's like DESNT just SUSA to come in and say, well, I'm telling you the truth that no one else wants you to hear, and if it's adversarial to the mainstream media,
or if the mainstream media is like attacking you over it, you use that as proof of your valor and your positioning as a truth teller. And there's I mean, there's so many people who have profited in exactly this way, Like the more shameless you're willing to be, the more successful, you're going to be and you know, I it's Dinessha's next thing is not going to be about the last conspiracy. It's going to be about whatever the conspiracy is. And I think, again, I don't think that this will damage
this credibility at all. And I think most of the people who watched two thousand Mules and believed it and took it seriously are not even going to see this apology and realize that they've been taken for a ride. So you know that's it creates a real vulnerability. And this is not to defend the quote unquote institutions, like they deserve the low level of trust that they have,
They've earned it, like that's their own fault. But then you know, there are so many Charlatans who come in and fill the void and to say that the claim that they're telling you some secret truth that's being hidden from you, it's just it's becomes very easy to manipulate people and get this sort of like herd mentality going.
Yeah, well, I still think the apology is a good first time.
So no, it's better than no apology. I guess now that it doesn't really matter. But whatever, let's get.
To there's been a real change in consumer behavior as a result of Black Friday and a potential preview of what's to come with some of the Tariffs's put this on the screen for example, just wanted to talk about this. It's called shoppers fight back as the retailers cracked down
on returns. So as retailers are trying to basically increase prices and increase their margins, they have been putting a lot of stuff in the fine print about charging for returns and about making it more difficult to actually achieve the return policy which most people are used to. And what we have seen is the rise of the informed consumer.
And I actually think inflation has prompted a lot of people to read fine print, actually look at some of the stuff that they're buying, their ability to return, and also about the way that they're really getting screwed by a lot of these retailers. So what they point to inside of this article is basically about a lot of people who are really going down inside the fine print for returns and others and are stopping buying from those who are trying to crack down. Now, in some sense,
I am sympathetic. You know, there are people out there who will buy like ten items with the tension to return nine. But you know, what we have seen as well is that this is largely a result, not necessarily of the not of the retailers, but it's largely a result of consumers who continually feel like they're getting ripped off because of increasing prices, and that those increasing prices
that informed consumer has changed dramatically. Like in terms of the grocery store, there's been a reported massive increase in the number of people who do couponing. Like, you know, people make fun of extreme couponing, but like most people in the lower inflation times, they weren't really paying attention. But there's been a lot of increase in that, in bargain hunting, in the rise of a discount, you know,
grocery store and all. That is a bad thing, by the way, because it means that people are spending too much money. But I thought it was an interesting development, and since it pairs well before we were about to get to a terrorist.
Yeah, I'm almost such an aggressive coupon.
Or what not. Really, that's a good that's all like binder when we go into the grocery store. But with regard to this story, there's kind of an arms race going on between the retailers and the shoppers effectively, and you know this is also just online shopping is fully mature now, and shoppers are fully mature and fully schooled
in the best ways of going about online shopping. So especially if you're shopping for clothes and you're not sure what size you are, Like, one thing people do is called bracketing, is they'll buy like size up the size they think they are, and size down, and then they'll just return so that they can you know, try them on at home and then just return whichever pieces don't fit, which seems to be entirely reasonable behavior, honestly, because if you're not going to be in the store, then that's
a good way to figure out what size you actually want. And as long as you're doing it kind of good faith, I don't see that as like, you know, abusive or nefarious behavior. But the next part of this arms race is apparently they're now developing AI to give you a sort of like social trust score when it comes to
your return behavior. So if you're a frequent returner, they're going to start charging you more for shipping and you more for returns, where someone else who has a different social trust return score doesn't get charged in that way. And so you know, I mean this is the way that AI rather than what we would like to see, which is when new technology comes online which has the potential to like profoundly transform the way humanity behaves, and that it would be used in service of humanity.
But instead, frequently.
What we see, because it's used solely for profit is companies almost like weaponizing it against We see this with the spot pricing as well, similar thing where it's like, oh, you can afford this, so I'm going to gouge you specifically, I'm going to use a deal with you to lure you in because I know your vulnerabilities. Once you're in the store, then you're going to buy other stuff and you know, so this is somewhat dystopian use of AI.
Think that's being deployed here, and we know one more way that everything we do, all of our behavior is just being like tracked and weaponized against us. But the other piece I think that's really important is that retailers are already signaling that they are going, whether they have increased costs or not, they're going to use the excuse of any teriffs that Trump puts into place to jack up prices, and they know they can get away with
it because they did the same thing during COVID. Those of us like you and I who were saying, hey, you know, one part of this inflation we're seeing is not just the cost It is a greedflation where retailer, where any sort of company sees they can get away with hiking prices, and so they're just doing it aggressively, way beyond their costs, and they're bragging about it on earnings calls. By the way, so this is not theoretical. They're already saying basically, we're going to do the same
thing this time around. Has put this up on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. You also have a lot of retailers who are basically like using the threat of teriffs to get people to buy stuff now. There's this company called Finally Home Furnishings. They put on their Facebook they say pre teariff sale. This is not a drill urging customers to order now before prices double. That's an online furniture retailer.
They say.
It's one of many businesses urging customers to buy now before President like Trump's proposed tariffs potentially.
Raise costs and prices.
Others banging the tariff drum include companies selling outdoor gear, stickers, beauty.
Products, and more.
Companies are pouncing in a moment when fe're an uncertainty, you're on the rise, and consumer spending and showing signs of weakness. Best Buy warned of software demand, Coals and Target report lower apparel sales in the latest quarter. Another example here, beauty brand Joe Lee's Skin urged customers by email to quote to lock in our current prices before potential tariffs push them higher. And apparently this is also kind of taken off online. There's a lot of like TikTok discourse.
We're about to get to that, but just listen to this dishonesty the very saying this is finally home furnishings, the very same items you are seeing now will double the price once the carrots kick in. Tariff's kick in double the price. Interesting, I thought it was a twenty five percent tariff. So even if you do assume that all of the costs gets passed on the consumer, where the extra seventy five percent go. So everyone should just get ready that there will be a lot of Chikanery
that is happening here. But also this is a perfect preview into why we need tariffs in the first place. What exactly is final final home furnishings or a wayfare or any of these other places they buy. It's cheap cardboard shit from China. If you will continue, you can see in sporting goods and they talk about fishing rods, pieces of metal, all these other things which we don't make here, not even here, we don't even make it in the northern hemisphere or in an Allied nation like Vietnam,
target coals. Where do you think all that shit's coming from? Not America, not Mexico, same thing. It's all from China. At best, it's from Vietnam. And so what you can see inside of this is exactly the problem with cheap consumer goods. It's all crap. It just breeds more consumption. A lot of it is cheap that just is recycled, and you just keep going back and buying new stuff every one or two years. I mean, look, I understand
like it is a bedrock of the American experience. This is a little bit prechy, so you know, sorry, but this is the fundamental problem with our economy. So look inside of this, you can see clearly that they are prepped and they are ready to make sure that they will use the tariffs as an excuse. I think I said yesterday that the funniest possible outcome will be major
tariffs and then price controls from Donald Trump. But honestly, though, anybody who is you know, artificially increasing prices because of tariffs which are imposed for national security purposes, I would personally say that is an active treason. But you know, we'll see how the government decides to treat them, because I don't think it's right, especially if we're talking about I mean like best Buy. Best Buy says, oh, the
demand for consumer electronics is going to go down. It's like, okay, well, let's think about what this race for consumer electronics has happened. We've had a one thousand percent decrease in the price of a television. Is your life better off? Are you good for that?
You know?
Has that been a great outcome for America? I don't think so. You know, it's like we got to we actually, at the very least, I hope it prompts like a real honest conversation about what all this stuff is about why do we need all this new stuff on Black Friday? Anyways? Like what is exactly all of it doing? And at the very least, like I think it should show people as well the same greedflation problems that we had during COVID that this is all fake. I mean, why, what's
a Chipotle bowl cost these days? Fifteen bucks? You know, you really want me to believe one hundred percent increases happened when I was in college.
I think it was eight dollars for I think, so one.
Hundred percent increase over the last ten years. Yeah, I'm not buying it, you know, and most.
People understand that they know you're speaking to something that is really important and quite deep, which.
Is we have had a.
Social contract that has been built around consumption. That is the America And basically, and I mean this goes back even to the conception of like what a monopoly is, which you know, work sort of famously changed to just like, you know, if prices aren't going up for consumers, it's not a monopoly. And the entire benefit of a company was effectively assessed by how cheap can the prices possibly be?
And you know, as labor protections were away, and the minimum wage hasn't even come close to keeping up with inflation, and the core elements of a stable middle class lifestyle, namely house, education and healthcare, have skyrocketed and skyrocketed.
But yeah, it's easier to get a lot of cheap consumer goods.
And I mean that really is the sort of foundation of the neoliberal era social contract. Now, you know, I think across the board tariffs is crazy. I think certain things that doesn't make any sense to make here, and you are just driving up prices for really no good reason.
But too, if you are actually thinking about shifting the American public away from seeing themselves not as citizens, not as family members, but first and foremost as consumers, which is what people have been trained to do, that is actually like a sort of revolutionary shift in the American mindset. Now do I think that people are prepared for that. I think that this is going to be backed by any sort of like other policy that can help us
realize some other national or personal identity. No, I think it's mostly just gonna amount to people being pissed off that prices are a lot higher than they used to be. Oh and by the way, you haven't done anything to deal with my housing costs. You haven't done anything to deal with my healthcare costs, you haven't done anything to deal with my education costs. So it's just like pain with nothing to balance it out on the other side.
But if you had that broader program, that would be something that I would be interested.
It'd be amazing. Look, I just I know I've been talking a lot about how great Japan is, but you know what they lose in Japan. They buy quality goods. They are also you know, when you buy clothing, there's an entire neighborhood called Shimo Tikozawa which is just vintage clothing. I mean, get I know thrifting is becoming popular and all that stuff here, but it is amazing just be in a country where things are made well and they are built to last. Their bullet trains are from the nineties.
You don't need to you know, when people are respectful and they don't trash the train, and there's not much a crime, and the stuff is actually well made and good turns out. You can use that shit for thirty years and it doesn't break. It was a shocking transformative experience for me to be in a first world country which is not built on the bedrock of like cheap bullshit and consumption.
It's amazing, you know, to see it for what it happens.
And the Chinese have been very concerned, is like saying, we don't want to be just like consumption.
Yeah, that's what they do the US. They're fashion influencers. They're like, no, we don't allow this. You know, a lot of the you know, the oligarchs and all these other people, they have to leave the country to practice their conspicuous consumption. They can't do it back in China, and they can't brag about it on weed chat, you know, or whatever. But anyways, this look as you said, Do I think America is ready to sacrifice its obsession with credit card debt and with target Black Friday sales?
Absolutely not.
But the more important and we can skip the TikTok influence the We're going to show you a video just of this lady who's like it got a stock up before the Trump terir just to show you.
This as like paraded the culture.
But the problem is you can't just raise prices and then not deal with the you know, core issues of like housing, wages, healthcare, education. And let's go and transition to this next part. Because while certain prices like consumer electronics, perfect example, the prices continue to go down and down and down. And this is sort of like the deal that's been offered to people is you can have a bunch of stuff like that, but you cannot own a home.
And let's put this up on the screen. This is Washington Post has new really extraordinary numbers about what's going on in the housing market. So first of all, the share of homes that are bought with all cash now a third, yep, a third of the market. And if you look they had a map in here too. If you look at them, there are certain places where it's like a majority of the home purchases.
Are all cash.
Like if you're a young person with you know, a decent career, college educator, whatever, a professional, white collar and you are trying to buy a home, like, who's going to have six hundred thousand dollars just sitting in.
Oh, in the bank.
I just looked at my neighborhood. Forty five percent all cash, and that is that this is a place where you know, you can't even buy anything for less than like eight hundred thousand dollars. Who has one point two million sitting around? I mean, look, in reality, the way this stuff usually works is they don't have one point two million, but they have a huge amount of stock assets and they borrow against that or whatever and use margin loan. This is all like stuff that very very rich people do
all the time. But the point is is that they have an extraordinarily extraordinary net worth to draw upon. And what's actually crazier about the cash is not the is not that, it's the effect that it has had on the average home buyer in the United States. So we have this graph that's included here, which is very important. So in two thousand and seven, the average home buyer in the United States was thirty nine years old. So by twenty eleven, after the new housing REGs kick in,
the average home price takes up to forty five. Things start to stabilize around then and they start to climb twenty right before the pandemic, it hits a record of forty seven. But then by twenty twenty two, after the massive increase in home prices, it jumps from forty five to fifty three, and in twenty twenty four, the average home buyer in the United States is now fifty six years old. What's even more shocking about that, and this
is a primary residence by the way, primary residence. Is that the average home buyer who is a first time buyer has now risen to thirty eight years old. That's from thirty five just last year, so aggurate increase of three years. That is three years of delayed life in just three Now consider that this is again primary residences. So you have boomers here amassing huge amounts of cash, using that cash to be able to put average you know, to be able to put all cash offers on houses,
meaning anybody he's got a mortgage. Why would anybody even look at you? Right, somebody can just send me a wire transfer, easy, Right, I'm buying the house. But then the other problem with this is we see already is that millennial wealth has actually increased over the last few years, and it's from people who are able to buy homes. Now, what we see though, inside of that is that while some of those people were able to buy it of their own accord, many of them were helped by their parents.
That's great, I think there's nothing wrong with that, But what it does mean is that if you're not lucky enough to have and to come from some generational wealth, you're screwed. And so when we're in an age of an average age of fifty six years old, that is late stage republic shit. Fifty six years old. If you're fifty six, you're three years away from being able to withdraw from your freaking rat IRA. That's like, you know,
when you're thirty eight. I mean, the average thirty eight year old in the United States has like two children, and you know, it is married, like that's well into life, maybe like a ten year old or a twelve year old or something like that. You're renting that entire time and amassing zero equity and then now with a mortgage rate around seven percent. I mean, this is the most stark stat that I've seen in a long time. When
I read it, I honestly couldn't believe it. I go, fifty six years old, your life is mostly over at fifty six years old. Yeah, when you're in the average home buyer stat should be reversed. It should be thirty years old something like that for the average first time buyer. And then you know, we look, there's so many different policies in different areas. But this, by the way, will be a major test for the Trump administration because if this does increase, you are going to see some crazy
shit happen in four years. I just do not think that this is sustainable. We've had an exponential increase in the average age for the home buyer, in the average age for the first time and if you keep things this successible, if you think about that thirty five year old and you know now it's currently the thirty eight, they're going to be like in their mid forties at the end of the Trump administration and they're like, Okay, I'm still not being able to afford a house. What
are we doing here? You know, I'm ten years away from retirement. Yeah, or at least retirement age allegedly. That's crazy.
Yeah.
This is where the abundance agenda people have a point. Is like you, because you need a variety of solutions. You need you do need a massive surge in building and you know of housing into the market. You need the government to be involved in that because oftentimes, you know, the housing units that are built are not geared towards
affordability or even you know, first time home buyers. So you need government involved in that potentially also something like what Kamlo is proposing assistance with that down payment for first time home buyers, because that also is a real sumbling block for a lot of people. And you got to get you got to get permanent capital out of these markets, like it needs to go to human beings first.
And that's not the only thing that's going on here, but the dramatic introduction of permanent capital into these markets where they're buying up entire trailer parks, they're buying up entire neighborhoods and pushing out regular homeowners and then renting them back to them. That also has to be dealt with. And then you've got the rental side of this too, with the collusion that has significantly raised rental prices that you know, continues to basically rob people. That's got to
be dealt with as well. So there's a lot that needs to be done. But you know, just so I think we have one more graphic we can show you guys, to show the increase over time of homes bought all cash. And you can see in every single market that they list here, over time, more and more and more.
Of the sales are all cash.
So Number one, Naples, Florida, now sixty percent, sixty percent of that market is all cash if you don't have the money sitting in your bank account or able to obtain with a loan against your stock market holdings or whatever for mom and dad. For yet about it just crazy. Look at Augusta, Georgia. There went from twenty three percent all cash just in twenty eighteen. We're not talking about decades ago.
Twenty eighteen.
That feels like a blink of an eye ago to forty two percent now, you know, heading up towards a majority of the market. It's that's wild to see the way that trend has unfolded.
The whole thing is crazy. And if you look at all these places, unfortunately, these are a lot of places where a lot of Americans want to move too, right, So new people who are coming in are having a lot of difficulty. I just checked Naples, Florida. You can have a house anywhere from what four million into four hundred thousand, But that's that's a lot of money, no matter what. In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, they have Winston, North Carolina, they're on the list. New Orleans they have
there on the list, Miami, Jacksonville, Augusta. All of these are places with huge net in migration from across the country. It makes me also feel for.
That property insurance situation down in Florida. Maybe changing the game there, certainly true Miami in particular.
But you know, I mean, even looking around this, you know, here in Washington, d C. In the Georgetown neighborhood, one of the richest neighborhoods here in Washington, sixty seven percent of houses are being bought with all cash. You can't even buy a house there for less than two million dollars. I mean, that's just that's outrageous to me. I honestly
can't believe it. You know, even looking at it. Some of the places that I've lived in the past here in Washington are looking around forty six, forty seven, fifty sixty percent. You know, it's like, what what are people supposed to You might as well be you better be a damn good defense contractor.
To be you better be selling your soul for really.
I mean, And that's the other thing is the reality has major implications in terms of this has major implications too for choices that people make. So everyone's always talking about like, why don't the elite members of society pursue public service? It's like, well, debt is a huge part of it. I mean, I went to school with a lot of people who wanted to work in public service, and by and large almost all of them are now
corporate lawyers. And they it's not because they want to, but you know, you get to rock up two hundred grand in debt two fifty three hundred, you don't have a lot of choice. They don't even want to do it, but they have to, and that story goes on forever. This is the same case with a lot of people who attend Harvard or Yale. You know, if you do so, you're looking at roughly one hundred thousand dollars probably or so in student debt with no financial assistance. I think
that's on the lower end. But again, like it makes sense why you go to McKinsey. Same with doctors. This is a major conversation in medicine. Everyone's decrying the fall of the family practice of the people with a small practice and less patients. The reason why they go work at hospital will guarantee you cut paycheck four hundred grand a year. Boom. I've got three hundred grand in debt. I'm not taking a risk. I'm doing a small business.
Maybe when I'm fifty. You know, it's one of those where all of these things have cascading effects throughout the US economy, and it's it's genuinely devastating for a lot of people out there. So if you were the thirty eight year old and you still can't buy I feel free,
Man's that's devastating. I don't know how it feels. Because you're the first generation to know with absolute certainty as an American citizen that you are worse off than your parents and even your grandparents who grew up in the boomerage. It's just crazy.
Yeah, so true, Yeah, sad.
All right, let's get to the assisted dying conversation. This is very interesting actually, and so there has been a major consternation, I guess you could say, debate, debate, debate over the quote unquote assistant dying bill in the UK. This is kind of becoming a trend in Western Anglo nations or not the United States, and I'm sure it will come here soon at a federal level after our
own experiments in Oregon and a few other places. So here we have an interview of the lawmaker who's explaining the bill, which did eventually pass through the UK Parliament. Let's take a listen.
I think for me as a parliamentarian, we have a duty to fix things that aren't right. And if I look at the status quo in terms of the law around end of life choices for people, it's not.
Fit for purpose.
We've got people who are having harrowing, horrible deaths because even with in some cases the very best palliative care, their.
Needs cannot be met.
We've also got people who are taking their own lives in really tragic circumstances. And we've got people who do have the choice ofness is to death, but only in a different country. So if they can afford to spend thousands of pounds traveling and also doing so often prematurely, while they're still well enough to do so. So if we look at that situation, of which there is no real legal framework around it, that can't be right. And I think we have got a duty as legislators to
fix that situation. And we have consult widely on the bill, whether that's legal professionals, whether that's medical people, paliative care experts, disability activists, but speaking to the British Medical Association and speaking to doctors with experience at the end of life, it's easier to define that period the closest someone is
to death. So there are people who would want the bill to go further and look at conditions without an actual diagnosis, and I understand their frustration that the bill doesn't do that, but actually that six month period is much easier for medical practitioners to know when someone is approaching those final few months.
So that's what's in the bill. According to her, let's put this on the screen from the BBC in terms of what is actually again, here's the requirements. To be able to take part in the Terminally Ill End of Life Bill. It be the resident of England registered with the GP for twelve months. They must have the mental capacity to make the choice and deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish free from coercion or pressure.
They must be expected to die within six months. They must take two separate declarations witnessed and signed by them or a proxy on their behalf, but their wish to die. Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person as eligible. There must be at least seven days between the doctor's assessments, and a High Court judge must hear from any at least one doctor and question the dying person or anyone else they consider appropriate. Further fourteen days after the judges
made the ruling. All this can be shortened two forty eight hours. In some circumstances. Under the bill, the doctor can prepare the quote unquote approved substance, but the person themselves must take the dose, and you commit suicide. It has to be self administered. So what's interesting about it is that it has there's that kind of a horseshoe theory about people who opposed it. One of them was Jeremy Corbin, the former leader of the Labor Party. Let's
put this on the screen. For example, He says, thank you to all of those who have written to me about the terminally ill end of life bill. I want to take the time to explain why I'm voting against the legislation. I understand why people feel so passionately, et cetera. But choice at the end of life can only be meaningful in a system where everybody has access to the best palliaty of care possible. But chronic underfunding has left many of those suffering from eternal illness without the support
they need. Without addressing these deficiencies, the legislation puts the poorest, the elderly, and the disabled people at risk of serious neglect and discrimination. He says, we urgently need to address the appalling state of palliative care by reversing years of austerity and privatization. This could be part of a broader imperative to build a national care service freely available to all of those who need it. So that was from
the left. From the right. We also had somebody like Nigel Faraj from the Reform Party speak out against it. He says, I voted against the assisted Dying Bill not out of lack of compassion, but because I fear the law will widen in scope. If that happens, the right to die may become the obligation to die. And so that is of course the you know, like a slippery
slope argument. I'll tell you this. I think I agree with Nigel, and it's because of the results out of Canada, which we'll get to in a little bit, you know. On its face and by the way, keep in mind, I'm not Christian. I know there's a whole that's a whole other level of discourse around suicide et cetera. So if you're looking for that, go to Rostouthat or somebody else about civilization, Christianity, and the spiritual arguments against this.
On a basic level, I think most people can understand and empathize with the idea of wanting to end your
life about quote unquote six months. But the results out of Canada do show that there are cases, and I think the case should it's not a lot, probably five percent, but it's still there are some five percent of cases that in an expanded law and regime of assisted suicide do take place where they're poor or they're depressed, and I just think that any legal regime which allows for that is just deeply grotesque, especially in a system of what we have right now, So outside of the realm
of quote unquot assistant suicide, et cetera, even in a spiritual level, I do think opening this up as Canada has done is a very cautionary tale about and this is kind of what Corbin gets to as well, is you know, if you think about even even in a system like the UK, being poor in the UK, it's still worse than being rich, as people see people who are rich in the UK, it's still live long even when you have universal health care. Why they have access
to better healthcare. It's like, well, when you have access to worse health care and then you have worse health outcomes, then you're more likely to take place and to get into a place where you need to quote unquote to commit assisted suicide. So I think it really does show the starkest and the most grotesque parts the underbelly of what the reality of the system looks like, even in a place with universal health care. And if something like this would ever come to the United States, you can
just imagine what the uptook, what it would be. It would be people on Medicaid, it'd be you know, the uninsured, it would be predominantly the people the worst health outcomes in the US are all the poorest, you know, all rates of cancer, obesity, et cetera. So I just think it's a very very cautionary tale. But I understand it's very frog conversation.
Yeah, I hear all those arguments. I mean, the two major ones are the ones that Nigel Farrage and Jeremy Corbyn offered. So Farage is basically like it's a slippery slope, so he doesn't even object to the bill as it is, which just to reiterate, this b bill in which will apply to England and Wales to start with, is just for terminally ill patients, and it's patients who have had a you have six months or less to live diagnosis.
There is a significantly onerous process that you have to get to in order to you know, get this determination and allow you to avail yourself of the rights in
this bill. To me, that strikes the right balance. You know, I guess I'm sort of like a centrist on this issue because what has made the Canada example fraud is they have opened it up to people who also have mental illness, and that to me is a bridge too far because within the UK, what you're talking about is people who are they're already going to die, So it's not like they're choosing death. Death has already nature has already chosen death for them. They're choosing how to do
it on their own terms. And you know, I have personally known people who have struggled with this at the end of their life and do not want to suffer and for months on and in excruciating pain and in miserable circumstances and want to have the right to die with dignity.
I fully support that.
So you know, I don't really buy the slippery slope argument because look, we're voting, they're voting on this particular law at this particular time. The debate down the road. If someone tries to push it to the next level, then you can oppose that at that time. So I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. And then I even though you know, I respect Jeremy Corbyn and his analysis here, I also think it's one of these situations where with all policy, you kind of have to deal
with the system as it exists currently. You're not going to get to some time or you have the socialist utopia and all of the social ills are solved. You
have to deal with the reality as it exists. So while of course they should continue to fight for better palliative care, I guarantee they have better palliative care there than we do here, in better healthcare system in general than we do here, etc. So while you continue that fight, you also have to give people the right to have that dignity and choice at their end of their life, and I'll give you another you know, an example here that maybe Sager you'll respond to is there are a
lot of lefties who argue, like, you cannot crack down on crime because we have all of these social ills, and so it's like, okay, so we have to be able to achieve the grand socialist utopia before we're able to penalize people who are genuinely harming others and creating victims. And I don't, you know, I don't really buy that. We have to live in the system as it exists.
And yes, we continue to fight for anti poverty programs and continue to fight for you know, all of those like labor rights and all of those things, but you also have to make sure that people are able to exist and there's some level of order in the system that we have right now. Same thing with abortion. You know, this would be an argument you can make against abortion rights of like, well, some women are poor, and maybe if they weren't poor, maybe they wouldn't choose this for themselves.
Right now, that's absolutely the case. But again, we can't wait for some potentially never coming day when we have some glorious utopia where all social ills are dealt with. You have to deal with society as it exists and try to improve people's lives in the best way that you possibly can't think.
So that's that's where I come from.
I think it's all very well taken and it's one of those though I want us all to just acknowledge the reality sometimes of what this stuff means, because unfortunately, you know, we cherry pick examples. But I remember once you know this, people were talking about the topic of abortion and they were like, in Iceland or I think it was Denmark, I forget which nation it is, They're like, we have eradicated Down syndrome and I was like, well,
what does that mean. It means you have a one hundred percent abortion rate for people who have Down syndrome in the womb. I mean, let's all be honest, you know about what that is. It's sick, right, it's sick, and like that's that's eugenics. Like, let's be honest. A lot of people make that choice. It's a free country.
You don't understand it. But it's one of those where we should acknowledge what that means, the reality of you know, we try to paper over this stuff, you know, Ross actually put it really well in his he was talking about Canada. He says, it is barbaric to establish a bureaucratic system that offers death as a reliable treatment for suffering and enlists the healing profession in delivering this cure. And while there may be worse evils ahead, this is
in a slippery slope argument. When ten thousand people are availing themselves of your euthanasia system every year, you have already entered the dystopia. And so that gets to the Canadian figures.
What I disagree with there in the narrow confines of what we're talking about in the UK, which is significantly different than the Canadian context. What has just passed into law here is that people aren't choosing death. They are going to die well, but they're given this allows them to go out on their own terms. And that is the narrow confines within which I am okay with it,
not only okay with where I actively support it. I think it is the right and more moral position to give people that opportunity to go out with dignity and with vastly less pain at the end of their lives. So to me, that distinction is really important and that's why you know again, And I guess I'm sort of
like a centrist on this issue. Why I don't think expanding it to people who are mentally ill, who may be in I'm not diminishing their pain and suffering like they may be an extraordinary psychological and sometimes also physical pain. But psychologists have a very difficult time determining, even in cases of so called treatment resistant depression, yes, exactly whether people are going to be permanently afflicted with this or if there may be some life change or just as
you get older, or some new treatment. But psychologists are very bad at predicting whether this is going to be a permanent state of psychological distress for any given individual.
And so in that.
Case, I do feel that the moral calculus is quite different, and to offer people rather than we're going to keep trying, we're going to keep fighting, we're going to get you through this, like we want you here with us and among us, and we value you, instead of that being the message, having even the possibility that the message would be, like you know, we could help you off yourself. I think that's horrible. I genuinely think that's horrible. But that's
not what's being contemplated in the UK. And so that's why I feel like they have drawn the boundaries in a way that is, you know, basically correct and with a lot of thought towards like the morals and ethics of the situation.
I think, well, look, America is becoming much more secular. We're the most secular country that we've ever been, you know, in our modern history. This is gonna come just I can guarantee you. You know, even outside of the Oregon context, that was a big what was in the nineties, maybe the two thousands, it was a big culture war. But I can see it in a federal level for somebody at least at somebody's going to propose this legislation or something.
So that's why I wanted to talk about this because across the anglosphere this is happening now, this is going to be policy, and actually thinking about the reality of what it looks like in practice, etc. What the rules and the confines and all that stuff should be. It's really important because otherwise, you know, look like the candid thing I just keep coming back to because it started off exactly like what we're talking about here, and then a couple of years later, four percent of all debts
in Canada are assistant suicide. And you're like, whoa, what, Yeah, like I said, ninety six percent are terminally ill. Great, you know, I guess within the context of that.
But if you could feel comfortable it would stay with terminally ill people, would you support them?
I don't know. I mean, the problem is just that with all government policy, it's just you know, in terms of the rules and like you just said about the definition. And then here's the crazy part too, it's like, what about you know, advances in medical science. I mean, already there are certain types of cancers which have effectively been eradicated or are completely you know, able to treat just in the last five ten years, or if you're going.
To die in six months. It's not very vanishing.
People say that, but there are a lot of there are cases of people who beat the odds, you know, And so you're like, well, what if you make a dec is their misdiagnosis you know that happens. What if somebody does kill themselves based on upon a misdiagnosis? There are enough cases on the edges and all that that I don't know. I just think this is a this
is a really a gray area quote unquote. There's also you know the question of Alzheimer's right, you know, and the informed consent, your ability to even make a decision, like are you lucid when you make that decision? Are you not? You know, especially if you look at the death numbers for cancers and a lot of they're afflicting people well into their eighties. Who determines whether they're of a sound mind. Maybe when they're in a lucid state, they don't want to die, when they're in a lot
of pain, they do, you know. So, I mean the edge cases in that moral quality.
I mean, that's why they built into this a lot of like time and constraints and checks to make sure that you don't have, you know, a flippant decision made and next thing, you know, someone who may not have really wanted to die has died. And I mean, just you know, it's kind of similar to how I feel about the issue of choice. I do think these issues are extremely fraud. I think they're morally fraud. I think they're you know, personally fraud.
I think they're very.
Difficult, and that's why I feel like the person themselves and their families at the you know, in these narrow circumstances where you have received a clear cut terminally ill you're going to be dead within six months diagnosis, leaving it up to the individual and their families rather than like government legislation. In my opinion, that is the best way to deal with situations that are inherently morally and ethically and personally fraud.
Yeah, makes sense. All right, let's get to AOC.
So there has been a lot of chatter about potential AOC twenty twenty eight. Bid I have to say, a lot of the chatter so I like to put this tear sheet up on the screen seem to assert that AOC herself had floated this idea that she would run in twenty twenty eight. But that doesn't I mean, at least publicly, we don't have any reporting to confirm that. But anyway, here's an article from the Hill basically saying that people are talking about not underestimating her, et cetera, et cetera.
So it does spark an interesting discussion about.
Whether she would be an effective messenger and national standard bearer for the Democratic Party. We do have a little way too premature pulling up a potential twenty twenty eight Democratic primary field. Let's put this up on the screen, and you got Kamala Harris coming in at forty one percent. I mean, it's kind of gross to see that they're given that she just failed. But it's also just like me mighty, you know, like people are like, oh, I don't know the last lady.
I guess her eight percent.
You got Gavin seven percent, Josh Shapiro six percent, Pee bootageje Tim Walls, and AOC coming in at four percent. I also want to put in a note here that John Fetterman does not even achieve one percent, So I was kind of happy to see that. But in any case, four percent, you know, it's not nothing, but it's also not exactly where you'd want to start on. I mean, look, I don't have AOC arrangements the like I think AOC
on a lot of issues is aligned with me. I think, you know, I think it's better she's in the house versus Joseph Crowley. I don't think she would be an effective national messenger because she just she has done too much of this. She's too much associated with this like identitarian, woke academic language, and I think it would be very hard for her to shake that off at this point because it has been such a central part of the brain.
I mean, she when Bernie went on Rogan, she was one of those I have said about it, so hear from you know again, I appreciated her, and I do think she has done a better job messaging recently and has sort of adjusted her approach. And that's great. And obviously she did very well in her district. She actually there were a lot of people we interviewed who were
AOC Trump voters. Will get to that in a moment, but for me, I would like to see someone who was more clearly grounded in a left populist economic message, like a Sean Fain who's the president of the UAW, who I think is kind of like the ideal messenger, who has so much credibility about working people of all stripes and universal programs and being able to speak to people in rural and urban and suburban areas.
To me, that's really the model.
Yeah, And I mean my take, which is consistent now across is I don't think that the Democratic nominee will be any of these people. So even looking at Kamala Gavin, Josh Shapiro, beat Boodo, Judge Tim Walls, aoc Wretchen, Whitmer, jab Pritzker.
You have more hope for the Democratic Party than I do.
So I just think that at a basic level, what will, what has to happen, is that out of chaos love you know, chaos loves a vacuum. And if we look at all precedents, twenty twelve, the Republican Party has no idea what to do. Mitt Romney loses and the base loses it over immigration. In twenty fourteen, no establishment Republican is capable of filling that void. Donald Trump comes down
the escalator blows it out. Nineteen ninety two. Again, if you look at the polling going into ninety one, of all of the people that they thought were going to win, it was Jerry Brown. I don't even remember the guy from Massachusetts, whoever the senator was at that time. After the devastating loss of Ducaucus, Bill Clinton is like number ten on the list. You can go and look at the debates on the debate stage, it's hilarious. He's like off to the side somewhere, and he wins in ninety two.
The point is is that coming out of those it's always somebody who you don't expect, and it's somebody who can fill in a vacuum which the current establishment is not able to do. The Democratic Party is back to that level where their leadership has no credibility. And I've said this too. Who is the base of the Democratic Party today? It's rich white people. The one thing you can give rich white people, they want to win, So whoever they think is going to win, they will vote for them.
I think these people can win those us. That's my thing is.
Like, oh, you think Gavin Newsom is gonna win? I don't think no.
I think.
I mean, yeah, I kind of do. I mean, I hope you're right.
I want to be wrong, trust me, And I think there's a possibility for it because I do think that the kind of liberal establishment approach the Trump era has been thoroughly slayed. And I think next time that you have a left populace who runs, I think they can relentlessly say that the neoliberals like Gavin Newsom and Pete Boudaget Gratcha, like the standard issue people, these are the people.
Who are not electable.
Yes, right, That was wielded so effectively against Bernie in twenty sixteen, and especially in twenty twenty, it was wielded so effectively. Now I think the tables have turned where you do have a chance to make that argument that like no, no, no, the left popular, We're not the unelected you people, you're the unelectable one. And I do
think it will carry more weight. And the institutions like MSNBC that carried the narrative of no, only establishment democrats who we personally like those are the only people who can get elected. So there's a chance. There's a chance. However, I do think that there are a lot of affluent liberals who do largely make.
Up the base of the party, who feel.
Like they love Pete Bootage going on Fox News and giving them the business and these other like very highly educated, technocratic vibe people who are you know, more much more verbally sort of capable than Kamala Harris, but by and large are basically the same politician as she is. Like, I think that they think those sorts of people can be an answer, and so anyway, there's a chance. But I'm not as convinced as you are that it won't be one of the people.
Honestly, you certainly could be. I mean Look, the case for why it would be one of these people is if Trump does an effective repeat of last time around, where you drop to a thirty percent approval rating and you get blown out in the midterms, and now you're George W. Bush type figure, and you know, you've got JD who basically doesn't have a chance in hell of trying to run on anything that's positive previously right, and you just have a consensus anti Trump can.
Yeah, and democraps easy, you know, do great in the midterms, so they feel like we've solved their problems, we have no problems.
That's a very keep going with the standard program easy way for these So for NEWSIM and all of them need to pray. What happens is that Trump repeats the mistakes of the first term just basically, you know, chaos, tax bill and all of that, something unpopular like the ACA repeal again and then they can just run on that and that's the simplest campaign in the world. I
don't think it will happen again. I genuinely don't. I think that the Trump people have at least learned some lessons and they're going to try and govern in a different direction. And I would say there's a fifty percent chance wherea last time it was one hundred percent chance of what happened. Let's say things do turn out a little bit differently. Let's say Trump is sitting around forty five maybe forty six approval, right around where Obama is. He loses a little bit in the midterms, one a lot.
Now you have a real chaotic situation. I mean, the craziest situation would be one that happened to Joe Biden, where what if the Republicans win in the midterm election. That would be devastating, I think to the current party because that would mean jakeem and all these people and Schumer, I mean, they are done. I think that's probably honestly, if you if you want the chaos situation, you should hope for that because that would mean a total reassessment at the top to the bottom of the DNC for
who you are. And I think that's you know, I would get it a ten percent chance, but I mean, you know what there was I think polymarket had a five percent chance of Donald Trump winning with the popular vote margin that he eventually did win, So crazy things can happen.
I think it would be interesting if AOC ran for governor of New York.
I think she would get blown out if she had.
I think she'd have more of a chance there. You know, she has so much name recognition. So much of our politics, so much of our politics is just I mean that really comes through with the AOC Trump voters. So much of it was just like these two are both sort of like celebrities and controversial and people are talking about them, so there must be something there, And you know, she does have that factor, and I think it would be really interesting to see if someone with her politics could
govern at an executive level and state level. We don't really have any model of that. So to me, that would be more interesting for AOC than jumping from the House to the presidency, which even I mean that is also very difficult to accomplish.
Who has that? Has anyone ever accomplished.
Our House to presidency? Gerald Ford? I want to Ford was the leader, but he was I guess he was vice president. Yeah.
I don't know if it's one. I don't know if anyway, if it's happened, it's been rare.
There's only rare that.
Even our history buff over years.
I'm going over it in my head I can't think of a single person who from the House of Representatives to President of the United States. They're either total outsider, a general, senator, secretary of State. I honestly think Ford might be the last person, but again, he technically was the vice president, that's what eventually, but he was never really elected either.
Garfield elected when an incumbent congressman.
Wow.
Only person according to core.
Garfield been a while, that's anyway. I don't know a lot about Garfield.
I do have an autobiography or a biography of them.
On my shelf, though, which is interesting. All Right, we got chank to Yuger standing by. Chrystal and him are going to have a long discussion. I'll be stepping out, but we'll see you all later