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 get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday, have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have pristl Indeed, we do many things to get to this morning. So Trump will not rule out a recession. We'll tell you what the hell is going on there as just as we can figure anyway. We're going to take you inside that cabinet meeting showdown, Marco Rubio versus Elon Musk. Sean Duffy also getting in the mix, So some interesting things happening there. What does it mean for the future of doge Canada had elections.
The Liberal Party there elected their new leaders, so he will be the prime minister until they call new elections. There has been a dramatic turnaround in fortunes for the Liberal Party since Trump started threatening them with significant tariffs, So really interesting dynamics there too. Civilians are being mass slaughtered and serious or you will not hear in the mainstream press, we will take you inside what's going on there. Just really shocking images and footage that we can reveal here,
not for the faint of heart, whatsoever. The same time, in the Lease, Trump is trying to negotiate a new deal with Iran. Maybe so far Ron has rejected that outreach thing basically like why should we trust you? We had to deal with you before, how did that go? But still an interesting development and certainly want to track there. We are also following this situation with Columbia University. The Trump administration has stripped them of four hundred million dollars
in federal funding and they have arrested. DHS has arrested and essentially disappeared at this point, we don't know where This guy is, a Green card holder who was a leader of pro Power nine protest on campus, so obviously a horrific situation there, and I'm taking a look at Tim Walls spilling the tea on the Kamala campaign and what might be next for him.
That's right.
Can't wait to listen to that one, especially there's been a lot of discourse in the Democratic universe over his interview, which I've been enjoying absolutely thoroughly. Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing to the show. We really appreciate it's been a lot of fun. We've been working extra hard here. We've got five days a week now of coverage here at Breaking Points. To go ahead Breakingpoints dot com, you can become a premium subscriber and just had to say
we will overcome this time change my fellow morning. It's a difficult time out there, Crystal. I will be happy to report traffic was much better today despite Elon's return to work mandate.
My theory is that people are too lazy to get up in the dark.
So maybe I am pro daylight saving time because people don't want to commute whenever.
It's very dark.
But for the rest of us, for the rest of us who have to get up no matter what it is, we shall overcome this.
Wonder.
I wonder if some of the agencies though, because one of the things is like they just literally don't have space for all.
Yes, that's right, actually be a work.
So I wonder if it's also partly the agencies reasserting themselves and being like, you know, somebod y'all actually don't need to come in.
I'll save some of this for the cabinet.
But I spent the weekend I talked to a couple of folks who are actually victims of the return to office mandate, and it's actually unbelievable. If I were one of them, not only would I quit and take that buy out, I would I would be absolutely furious. So that is a secondary conversation that we can get to. But let's turn down to recession watch. So Donald Trump has given an interview now which is nothing short of extraordinary.
Asked to rule out a recession as a result of the tariffs and as a result of some of the other problems that we have right now in the economy, and he's basically not saying no. So let's take a listen, and I want to.
Ask you about Ukraine and to blow up the other day with Zielenski. Let me stay on the economy for a moment, because there are rising worries about a slowdown. You've got the Atlanta Federal Reserve say we're going to have a contraction in the first quarter.
Look, I know that you inherited a mess.
And you say, I've only been here.
Are you expecting a reception this year?
I hate to predict things like that.
There is a period of transition because what we're doing is very big. We're bringing wealth back to America. That's a big thing, and there are always periods of it takes a little time. It takes a little time. But I don't I think it should be great for us. I mean, I think it should be great. It's going to be great ultimately for the farmer.
You know, don't forget.
I meant, before you came into the Oval office the first time, you were a very successful businessman, very successful real estate executive. And a lot of people said, oh, this is the business president, this is it.
He's watching the stock market.
He knows all about you know, he doesn't want the.
Market to go down.
And now we've got tariffs and the market has been going down.
Well, not much.
I mean, in you said, look, we're going to have a disruption, but we're okay with that. Is that what you meant the stock market going down was the disruption?
What to be a lump where you alluding to.
What I have to do is build a strong country. You can't really watch the stock market. If you look at China, they have one hundred year perspective.
If you look at what do you think if you look at Canada they have one hundred year perspective. Well, you say China, because if you said China, that's correct.
If you said Canada, not so sure about that.
I mean, look, the truth is is that the stock market, the S and P and the last month is down by about five percent. I guess, to be fair to Trump, it's down because it went up after he was elected. The market didn't necessarily expect him to be like this. If you look at the last one year, you know the S and P still up by some twelve percent or so.
But you know, this is the problem for Trump is that.
People are not really that people are not that retrospective, especially people on Wall Street. It's all quarter by quarter and you got to look at it now and it's what have you done for me? Lately that's how Americans are, and I think the real problem with some of that talk again is I don't disagree at all. Of course, how many times we joked here about stock market is
a graph of rich people's feelings, et cetera. We're going to get to some comments by Scott Besten's Secretary of the Treasury about how the American dream should not be consumption based.
Could not agree more.
The issue is that people have got to really feel as if you're presenting a genuine alternative and doing everything
possible to actually change the circumstances of their lives. And if we don't have more policy now and in the future, like with the tax bill and others that are not combined not only with just industrialization, but with immediate relief and feeling as if you're fighting for the average common working person, then you're going to have the divergence where you both will have more difficult consumption, You'll have worse on employment data, high home prices and no change to
your fundamentals, and your overall retirement portfolio will go down. I mean, you should not forget we are swimming up against seventy five years of basically so called free trade policy and the consumption based economy. It's basically the dream that was sold to the American people, and it's not even a dream anymore.
They believe it. If anything, it's the conditions of their lives.
So you have to basically should not only take a whole of government approach, you're also trying to change the American culture. At the very same time, somebody who would ever bet against telling Americans that actually recession could be fine, and yeah, you should just go ahead and change your consumption based patterns that you've had for your entire life.
Not usually a good way to get elected. I mean, what do I know that.
It was a shocking response.
It was crazy to get asked point blank, are we going to avoid a recession? And he's like, maybe, well, I don't like to predict that. I mean, that is that is wild, and it does give credence to, you know, the idea that actually they sort of want to maybe not necessarily spark our recession, but certainly to spark a slowdown.
And the theory here is basically that the tariffs without some sort of significant slowdown, crushing of people's wages and ability to consume, and that goes along with slashing the government social safety net and all the austerity that Elon is bringing.
To bear for regular people.
Of course, rich people are getting their tax cut and they're getting their regulators gutted and all that sort of stuff, But for regular people this mass austerity. The theory is that if you do terror RIfS without doing that, then you get inflation. So they've decided that the way to crush inflation is basically to screw.
You over and make it so that you don't have money to spend. That's the sort of theory.
And I have to say, with his answer like this, that sounds kind of correct at this point. Not to mention that you have heard. I think it's you know, Scott Bessett who has said things are very similar and more sort of like technical economic jargon. I do think at this point that that is probably the plan. You know, we could talk more about this once we play best and saying like, oh, the American dream shouldn't just be
like cheap consumer goods. True, but your agenda that you've laid out and that you're implementing is to shift the economy even more in the direction of the wealthy through those tax cuts, through the social safety net cuts through you know, getting rid effectively of the CFPB, gutting the SEC, gutting enforcement through things like you know, we're going to have.
This crypto Reserve fund that we.
Can use to you know, funnel public resources into stopping the crypto bags of billionaires. Through even the foreign policy, which is all geared towards sort of creating new areas of potential exploitation for the rich.
So, yes, the economy should be a rebalanced.
Yes, the core of like American prosperity shouldn't just be how much cheap goods can we.
Get at Walmart.
But you're going in the total opposite direction of that and just tilting the economy even more in the direction of the rich. It's sort of like Reaganomics and Paul Ryan on steroids.
Well, it's very it's just very confused, and I think that's the easiest way to put and if things are confused, people are not going to read the best intentions into it. Now you also have the Commerce Secretary who has had some wild moments on television. First of all, he did say there will not be a recession, while Trump did not rule it out, but he also went off about
AI and robots. So, guys, let's go ahead and play these two stots back to back, just so people can get a full taste that our economy is in very good hands right now. Let's go ahead and play Howard Ludnek.
Anybody who bets against Donald Trump, it's like the same people who thought Donald Trump wasn't a winner a year ago. Donald Trump is a winner. He's going to win for the American people. That's just the way it's going to be. There's going to be no recession in America. What there's going to be is global tariffs are going to come down because President Trump has said, you want to charge us one hundred percent, We're going to charge you one
hundred percent. And you know what they say. They say, no, no, no, no, no, don't charge us one hundred percent. We'll bring hours down, will unleash America out to the world, grow our economy in a way we've never grown before. You are going to see over the next two years the greatest set of growth coming from America as Americans.
You saw it.
One point three trillion of new investment coming in America.
That speak of all those jobs.
And remember each trillion of investment in America is one percent of growth GDP. So Donald Trump is bringing growth to America. I would never bet on recession, no chance. Do you think by moving everything back because you describe it, that they're going to be able to be competitive globally? Aren't?
Price is ultimately going to actually have to rise.
I think if you want to buy things from other countries and you want to bring it into America, then the price is going to rise.
But if you make it here.
Then of course the price won't rise. So make it here. Make it here. How hard is that to say? You know, just keep repeating it to yourself. There's no tariff if you make it here. So TSMC, the biggest chip manufacturer, says, okay, okay, I'll make it here. You're going to watch everybody come to that realization. Apple, who builds it all in China? Why are they building it all in China and giving us our iPhone? Why don't they make it here?
You know they umused to say we don't have secretaries, that wages.
Are lower over there.
And now there are robots who can do it. You're going to see robotic production of iphe phones and the jobs that are going to be created. People who build those factories, the mechanics who work on those robots. These jobs are going to be millions and millions of those jobs. These are great, high paying jobs and you don't need a college education to do it.
So yeah, that's what we're dealing. Okay, robot, we're going to do the job.
Wait a minute, I mean you're going to build a robot.
So it's going to be great. Like he kind of let the cat out of the bag with that one. That like, oh, the way we can keep the prices low is just like AI and robots.
But that's why it drives me nuts, is that it needs if we're going to have a coherent Again, I'm very pro terror, I'm against a lot of USMCA. The truth is that natal USMC have been devastating for the American manufacturer. Fact is that we don't you know, build or have not only the defense industrial base, the industrial based period that we have here to be like a sustainable and a real country. You know, God forbid that we ever have an actual financial crisis. We're not Russia,
we're not China, we're not India. We don't have policies in place to make sure that we can function in the in the bad times as well as in the good. But you know, this type of talk just makes it so completely incoherent, and it makes it again so that the American consumer just has no idea what to do. And when they have no idea what to do, they're
going to pull back their overall consumer spending. And actually, you know, the fact is is that you know, if you do accept this thing, people have said, oh, who cares about the stock market, it's rich people. Well, I'm going to turn it over to our Treasury secretary now, because here's the problem. We live in a complete bottom up economy where or sorry, top down economy, fifty percent of all consumer spending is rich people.
It's unbelievable.
Right now, I was looking not only at some of the Wall Street Journal stats, but luxury services for high fine hotels, like first class air.
Travel, all of you know, like Remoa bags, all that's exploding right now.
But if you look at the bottom part of the economy, places where people have to penny pinsion others, it is devastating. And so you both are going to have consumer pair back at all levels, which is really bad, not only for the stock market, bad broadly Let's take a listen now to our Secretary of the Treasury Codes Again. He's pitching a vision very much like mine, but it has to be backed up with a lot of policy.
Let's go and take a listen to Scott Bessett.
Top ten percent of Americans are forty or fifty percent of consumption, and that is an unstable equilibrium. The bottom fifty percent of working Americans have gotten killed. We are trying to address that. We're trying to get rates down. And could we be seeing this economy that we inherited starting to roll a bit?
Sure?
And look, there's going to be a natural adjustment as we move away from public spending. The private spending. The market and the economy have just become hooked, and we've become addicted to this government spending, and there's going to be a detox period. The United States also provides reserve assets as a consumer of first and last resort, and it absorbs excess supply in the face of insufficient demand. In other countries' domestic models, this system is not sustainable.
Access to cheap goods is not the asset is not the essence of the American dream.
So I mean, look, you know access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.
I want that to be true.
It has, however, been true for the last seventy five years. In fact, much of the degradation of our country is a result of that mindset. But it's baked into the culture. Now we are a Black Friday America. Like, let's be honest, we're Cyber Monday America. That's who we are. We have decided that those cheap things from China and all that are worth it. And in a sense, you can't necessarily blame people because all policy has been guided towards that direction.
When you have no policy geared towards.
Anything else, that's the easiest way to function in our society. But again, whenever you have major consumable goods or not sorry, major goods that are vital parts of the American life like health insurance and or home prices become completely unaffordable. On top of education, well what do we have. We have a complete, you know, mismatch of the things that are actually important are way too expensive, and the things that are not important to your life at all are
the cheaper than ever. You can think by the way you're you know that he was speaking of the Economic Club of New York ironic because as you can.
Think, the people like that.
However, you know, again not to beat a dead horse, but if you have tax policy which is basically geared towards giving the Economic Club of New York, like a huge tax cut, and or you don't have policy that's put into place, which makes it so that you have more things like this that happened tariffs, for example, like if they took three months to do a real study of the tariffs, but then they come into place and they're strategic and they're staying and they're not part of
some wishwash chaos with the markets.
Well then at least, you know.
The American consumer, the American business, eve, Canada, Mexico, all of us can say all right, you know, we can negotiate, let's say, on these terms. Right now it all just
feelschaotic to an end. Now, their defense from the White House, the defense from the White House is this is how you actually get things done in terms of being able to just throw things, keep the Canadians and the Mexicans or you know, the entire world really on their feet, create chaos in the system, and then work to that advantage whenever there's a vacuum, and you know, if you had true faith that a good outcome would come as a.
Result of that, it's possible.
I still think Trump has got a decent amount of runway. However, day after day after day you see market down, see consumer sentiment and all that. You're flirting with a bit of disaster the closer that we get to the first hundred days, and no real action on many of the things that he ran on, like inflation and on immigration. While you also basically just have dos to the centerpiece story of the entire country, you are very much moving away from that. We're coming up on fifty days, right,
so you've only got fifty more to go. It's really not that long of a time. And so I do think that they are really flirting with fire here. And you know, and soon enough we're going to have that tax cut. It's not that far away, and that will only make the even worse.
And Medicaid cuts very likely. Medicaid cuts, I mean, that's what they're floating as eight hundred billion dollars Medicaid cups cuts, which will be devastating to millions of people across the country. I mean one thing that Obamacare did. We'll talk more about this probably later in the week. Publicans put forward their continuing resolution as we move closer to this potential
government shutdown. But you know, the Obamacare Medicaid expansion made Medicaid much more popular because it made it you know, it's not anywhere close to universal program, but it made it so that there was much more public buy in, so it wasn't just something that felt like it's on the fringes. Half of Americans are either on Medicaid themselves or have someone who's close to them who is on Medicaid. So this program has really become an integral part of
the fabric of the healthcare system in this country. Everybody has problems with the healthcare system, but certainly they don't want to go in the direction of making it a more expensive and be less available. And that gets to your point saga about education, healthcare, and housing. So if you were going to remake the social contract in America and say, you know what, the essence of the American dream isn't cheap consumer goods.
What could that look like?
Because you know, I would like to move in that direction. I think cheap consumer goods have been like the opiate of the masses, and really has that mindset, which is this very neoliberal mindset, really has been quite detrimental to the overall well being of Americans, especially the American working class. So what could a new social contract look like. I think it would look like, Okay, things that you're buying at Walmart are going to be more expensive, but you're
going to have universal health care. You're gonna have health care. It's going to be in prescription drugs. You're gonna be able to just go to the doctor and get care. Housing is going to be much more affordable. You can actually imagine yourself like getting on that ladder of home ownership.
It's going to be much more widely available. We're going to get back to an arrow when there was such a thing as a starter home that a person with a regular salary could afford while they're in their twenties or at least early thirties. We're going to make it so that education is widely available that you don't have, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars a student loan
debt that you're taking on. And in each of those categories, the Trump administration has already made moves to make things worse. So with education, they're rolling back some of the existing student loan relief. There's, of course, you know, an assault on certain institutions which could certainly translate into higher tuition.
So you've got that on education. With regard to healthcare, we rolled back one of the executive orders that the Biden administration had put in place to try to make drugs cheaper, and you have these looming cuts to Medicaid, which you're going to be you know, devastating, especially in rural communities across the country. And with housing, if you're putting tariffs on building materials coming from Canada, you are very likely to have housing construction be even more expensive
than it is right now. So instead of offering, okay, here's a new social contract.
Here's what you are going to get out of it.
Here's how it's going to overall improve quality of your life, well, you're well being, your communities, et cetera. Instead we're getting we're taking away the cheap consumer goods, and we are pushing the economy even more in the direction of the wealthy, even more in the direction of you know, Trump and Elon and whoever are there billionaire friends to benefit from?
So you know, that's why when Scott Besson says that, why it is not going to bring true for people, and there would be a tremendous trust deficit to begin with, Like it would take an extraordinary level of proof that they're actually going to deliver for you in these other categories.
I think for people to accept that new bargain at this point, but certainly not when you know, another part of his speech was telling these bankers that, like, we're going to cut some of the post financial crash regulations with regard to your supplementary leverage ratio and make it so that there's less less regulatory landscape holding you back.
And you see what they're doing with the CFPDE, you see what they're doing with the SEC, you see what they're doing with making sure that bad bosses can bust your.
Union, etc.
And there's nothing being offered for people in exchange for giving up those cheap consumer goods.
Yeah, I mean, I was looking just now.
Americans in nineteen seventy one spent seven point six percent of their income on healthcare. The exact data today is a bit unclear, but at GDP wise in nineteen seventy one, Americans spent about seven point two percent of GDP on healthcare. Today it's eighteen percent, right, and so we've actually gotten batter, we've gotten sicker, it's gotten worse. So I mean, look, I understand, you know that's the Bernie Sanders vision, but like you don't even have to go that far.
You could just make it like relatively affordable.
Like you can make it so that it's not crazy too expensive starter homes and all of that. Or you don't need free college to make college affordable, it's actually not that difficult. You just make it so that these people can't ridiculously screw over their own students with student loans. You also don't need the government backstopping all of this as well. There are a lot of different ways, but the problem again is I don't see necessarily some major changes.
I will say there's one good news is that apparently the House did include a twenty percent tax or so on endowments for colleges.
I think it should be higher than that.
But the problem here is that then we we would need to make sure that it is pegged as well to affordability, so that you can avoid the tax very easily avoid the tax as long as percent you know, income wise or whatever it is affordable. They're never gonna spring for that, and they're lobbying as hard as they possibly can. The overall picture it's not good. Let's go to the next one. This was from the Financial Times.
I actually thought it was a very good piece, and it says, is this dot Com bust two point zero. But really what she tries to argue throughout all of this is just that these crashes that end up happening not like two thousand and eight, but more like dot Com or a few others, they don't have a single
precipitating event. It's basically just a lot of different stuff that somehow just comes together in a moment roughly, you know, either a day or maybe a month, or over the last couple of months, that make it so that you just start to ask fundamental questions and look at fundamentals, and then the like dream or the bubble can just
get popped without any real knowledge. And what they're worried about is something we've talked about here at nauseum, which is the makeup of the so called Magnificent seven stocks in the S and P five hundred and really is that they say particularly worrying for those who see parallels to two thousand. Magnificent seven that powered the broader market are now in correction territory. They're down twelve percent from the highs that collectively hid in December, and their fourth
quarter profits were not particularly bad. Investors are starting to ask more questions about the billions of dollars spent on AI data centers and power sources and how that's going to translate to overall growth. To some long term investors, that seems eerily familiar to the loss of the dot
com bubble into in nineteen ninety nine. Once funding became more expensive, loss making startups such as pet dot Com and webvan ran out of money, their telecom and technology providers started to struggle, pulling down the broader market, and you enter a recession in March of two thousand and one.
And so again, nothing is one to one.
It's just the fact that you see similar things that are happening, and if the Trump administration is not careful, they will find themselves in very similar territory.
That's the issue.
Let's go to the final part here, which you know, I'm not really sure why we're doing this. This is a post from both Charlie Kirk and from Trump on truth Social It's from Charlie Kirk saying, shut up about egg prices. Trump is saving consumers millions.
You know.
The ironic part about this is the Trump administration actually did something pretty good on eggs a couple of days ago. But like Biden, they're not doing anything about it. They have the Department of Justice actually investigating egg sellers.
Now.
The reason why I think that they're not doing it is it sounds eerly familiar to the whole price control drama that happened during the campaign. And you and I talked about this, but remember Biden's Department of Justice went after the meat packing industry, but they just never talked about it to anybody. And so Trump, you know, look,
your Department of Justice is doing something good here. That's very popular to go after people who are either price gouging and look, investigation, let's see what it bears out.
Are you, you know, making undue profits.
Or you're using bird flu as an excuse to jack things up, or is whole foods you know, like, what's the real profit margin on all this stuff? You could call that communist if you want, I would say that's living in a society whenever you have one of the most subsized industries literally on Earth. But that's the issue is at the same time, it's like, shut up about egg price. It's like, no, egg prices are way too high. Here's what I'm doing about it. Yeah, let me talk
about it all the time. Yeah, and instead we get doge nonsense. So look, it's a messaging problem as much of this, as much as it is a policy problem. We will find out, you know, we'll find out how how much people are willing to put up with it.
I really have no idea.
Because overlying all of this is that Trump is the strongest cult of personality in modern American history.
People love him.
They you know, if you look at Republican confidence in the economy, it's sky high right now, Like their overall approval are they really like much like a lot of Democrats were under Joe Biden. So it's really a question of both independence and of democratic activism to see if that will be able to be overcome at a partisan, you know level, even beyond the midterms and all that, Like how they're going to Walesce for whatever the argument comes in the future. So, but that's my only coveyat
If anybody can survive this, it is Trump. He's more runway than anybody other politician I've ever seen.
Yeah, well, I mean certainly with his base, like they'll follow him into the gates.
Bell, I think it's really true at this point.
Listen, how do we feel about the like Zelenski Trump White House, JD Van situation. Have you seen the chart of the way that Republican opinion changed after that meeting? It just it went from like actually liking Zelensky pretty well to it falling off a cliff over just that one, like Trump signaling I don't like this guy, and so yeah, they'll go I mean they will buy Okay, a recession is good for us somehow, the stock market crashing is good for us Somewhile it really is that like closely
tied to him and whatever he says. But you know that's like thirty percent of the country. And then you have obviously Democrats hate the guy and are going to continue to hate the guy and are going to continue to make a lot of noise about the cuts of the social safety net, the giveaways to the rich, et cetera. He's only likely to than their hand with the policy
moves anticipated from here. And then you've got, you know, the Independence who really swung towards Trump in this election, and the sort of new swing coalitions which are more up for grabs, and so, you know, are they able to really buy into the story of the tariffs are to reindustrialize America, even though Trump is not even really
telling that story consistently at this point? Are they able to look at the sort of glossy top line of we're making the government quote unquote more efficient and ignore the specifics of the cuts that are happening, The way they're damaging, incredibly damaging, the way they've been done with the hatchet, the way they've had to scramble and rehire people that they realized were really critical for the government. I mean, that's you know, that's the question. You guys
won't be surprised, which diruction. I think things are going to go and especially with the economy turning increasingly sour, but you know, similar to the point that you've been making. Sorobamaris tweeted this and I thought this was really well said. He's like, listen, Trump came in with a mandate and a trifecta, and he's going to waste it on letting banks pie up the overdraft fees on low income customers and firing vets and nuclear weapons safety specialists then scrambling
to hire them back. What even is a legislative agenda here? And you know, I think that's well said. Like the first one hundred day priority has been this, just like Doge, ramming through all sorts of like gutting the regulatory system and pushing to fire air traffic controllers as we're about to discuss in the next block, et cetera. And none
of it is coherent whatsoever. I mean, it does feel sometimes like you've got Trump's you know, national populism somehow with this, like Frankenstinian mashup with Elon Musk's anarcho capitalism, and the whole thing is just like a dog's breakfast that somehow still you know, is very clearly going to benefit the rich.
I think about it all the time. I'm just like, how did we get here?
And at first, you know, it's interesting too, because I was really thinking about the backlash in the beginning. I was like, look, in a certain sense, the chaos is actually what a lot of people voted for.
They love it.
There's nothing they love more than seeing like liberals cry. But I think the reason it is starting to turn is not only the consumer sentiment and the tariffs per se, but you do have a lot of federal government employees, as I keep saying, across the country.
Yeah, it's the largest employer in the entire nation. And everybody kind of knows somebody who works for the government.
Not even here in DC that's a given, but I'm saying all across the country, be a National Park Service, whatever, Pentagon contractor, and not only that, you know, I heard a story. These are all just in my own life of somebody I know works at a private firm. It's like a marketing company. One of their major one of their major clients was like a major US government agency. So the US government agency freezes all future contracts, which means what they have layoffs at this agency.
And I was like, oh, that's kind of interesting, that's one of them.
Just I mean, obviously feel bad for those people, but I meant more on a sociological level, of those people probably never in their lives thought about the government or doze whatever, you know, beyond beyond like the way an normal person would. But that's when there's something gets touched, and when something touches you.
We saw this during COVID.
What's the most radicalizing event for a lot of people, COVID why vax mandates lockdowns whatever? That was, school closures exactly because that's an actual concrete policy that was enough to turn people Republican, at least in my circles. For what it's been several years now since that happened, and
the hangover effect from that has been years of political ramifications. Well, I could see the similar, you know, change if there is a slash and funding, or if somebody gets laid off or somebody finds themselves like genuinely materially harmed by one of these policies. Let's say there's a crash, you know,
I talk about that one a lot hurricane season. We'll see that one soon, in the effects of whether Noah, you know, has something a major international crisis which is not handled properly and troops get killed like, those are the types of things that really make and force people to change. So we will see, as I said, but I do think I can just see risk and part of the problem is I think what a great leader
should always do is to anticipate those issues. I'm just a moron, you know, Like I don't you know, at the end of the day, it's not that difficult to come up with these scenarios in your head. These are elected officials and many of them working in professional politics, and they often wait to pounce for a great moment. You should always apply that thinking, and you should do everything in your power to make sure that you're not susceptible to those types of you know, macro change events,
whatever that could change your political fortunes. And so that's just generally how I've been thinking about where the organic change and the pushback may be. The Democrats were always going to be upset, but it really it's about independence and also about how people will materially feel about this at the end.
And yeah, I just checked.
It's been forty nine days since January twenty, so tomorrow's the fiftieth day of Donald Trump's presidency. You really don't have that much longer left for your the good will of the American people, And if the latter fifty days look more like the first, I think it'll be a problem for him.
Let's get to the cabinet, shall we.
All right, this is an extraordinary show down in the cabinet meeting. We're getting some details here. Let's go and put it up there on the screen. Apparently, in this cabinet meeting, which was convened by Donald Trump over tensions inside of DOGE, Marco Rubio had a complete standoff with Elon Musk, and you'd be surprised, which is not just over DOGE and the State Department, but it was also over usaid and more broadly about cabinet level authority. So let me just read from some of this.
Here.
He was in the cabinet room with the Oval Office, the White House Secretary of State seated beside the President, listening to a litany attacks from the richest man in the world. Seated diagonally opposite across the elliptical mahogany table, Elon Musk was letting Rubio have it, accusing him of failing to.
Slash his staff.
You have fired nobody, mister Musk told Rubio, then scornfully added that perhaps he was the only person he had fired was a staff member from Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
Rubio has been privately furious with Musk for weeks ever since his team effectively shuddered an entire agency that was under Rubio's CONTROLSAI, but an extraordinary cabinet meeting in front of President Trump and twenty others, details of which have not been reported, mister Rubio got his grievances off his chest.
Musk was not being truthful.
Rubio said, what about the more than fifteen hundred State Department officials who took the buyouts?
Did they not count his layoff?
He asked, sarcastically, whether Musk wanted to rehire them so that he could make a show of firing them again. Then he laid out his detailed plans reorganizing the State Department.
Musk was unimpressed. He told Rubio he was on good TV.
Good on TV, with a clear sub sext that he was not good for much else. Throughout all of this, the President sat back in his chair as if he were watching a tennis match. After the argument dragged on for an uncomfortable amount of time, Trump finally intervened to defend Rubio as quote doing a great job.
So Rubio has a lot to deal with. He's very busy.
He's always traveling, so everyone just needs to work together. That was only one of two clashes apparently that happened inside that meeting.
The second was actually between.
Sean Duffy and Elon Musk, Shawn Duffy's the Secretary of Transportation. Duffy said, the young staff of mister Mus's team, we're trying to lay off air traffic controllers.
Quote what am I supposed to do?
Mister Duffy said, I have multiple plane crashes to deal with now, and your people want me to fire a traffic controllers. Must hold Duffy's assertion was a lie. Duffy insisted it was not, and he had heard from them directly. Musk said, who has been fired? Give me their names, Tell me their names. Duffy said, there are no names, because I stopped them from being fired. At another point, Musk insisted people were hired under DEI programs were working
control towers. Duffy pushedback and must did not add any details, but said in the longer back and forth that Duffy had his phone number and should call him if they had any issues to raise. The exchange added with Trump telling Duffy he had to hire people from MIT and that the people and the controllers need to be geniuses. I guess we could agree with that one. And you know, just a little bit of we're just taking a look at what exactly.
We had no use for these high falutant right, you know, universities.
No, no, we want the best of the best. MIT, by the way, has got no affirmative action, so shout out to MIT. Let's go to the next one here, just to show you some of the fallout. Elon is no longer following Secretary Duffy on his personal account, so he's very petty man. The point being that there's been some there's been some flare ups here in the background.
Now how it all works, I don't actually know, because at the same time, if you read the article, Trump did back up, you know Elon saying at the end of the day, like, oh, if they're not firing enough people, Elon you you know you you get it done, or Elon will. But he also was trying to telegraph at the same time that the cabinet officials themselves are the ones with the ultimate authority to hire and fire. And this, you know, this is a Washington tail as old as time.
Who has jurisdiction who are the people who are actually you know, in charge of the government, And usually it's the Cabinet secretary. But when the White House and in this case DOGE under Elon is trying to take control over this not only take casing of political problems, but also like extra judicial problems in terms of like who has the authority to do this and whether the Elon's
technically in charge of DOGE or not. This was the overall end result in some sense, this is what Trump loves, you know, he loves the drama, and he loves all of you.
He likes some of these factions fights.
Ah we they talk in here about how you're sitting back and watching this like he was watching a tennis match.
There's nothing he loves more than that.
But you know, it's funny if it's something stupid like oh Morosa versus John Kelly.
But it's not funny.
Whenever it's about hatred government programs like air traffic controllers. So that's where I think there's a little bit of an issue right now.
So there's an update this morning. I don't know if you saw this. Marco Rubio has a new pinned tweet okay, which says after a six week review, we're officially canceling eighty three percent of the programs at USAID. The fifty two hundred contracts that are now canceled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve and in some cases even harm the core national interests of
the US. In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining eighteen percent of programs or keeping a proxibility thousand to be administered under more effectively under the State Department. Thank you to DOJE and our hard working staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue in historic reform, and Elon replied, tough but necessary. Good working with you. The important parts of usai D should always have been
with Department of State. So, I you know, Rubio there trying to signal to the DOGE fans that no, he's he's on board, he's a good you know DOGE ally, and it seems like they sort of kissed and made up in terms of the Twitter back and forth. But you know, I mean, some of the backstory with Rubio I think has to come down to as well. When PETFAR funding was cut and there was a backlash, Rubio signed a waiver saying no, no, these funds still need to go out. But the funds still did not go out.
So it was like he had actually no control over the agency that he was running. And I'm sure that and things that we have no idea about contributed to this tension. But the fact USAID was such a direct target and Elon really took the helm and sidelined Rubio there, you know, that is part of what led to this blow.
Up between them.
Now, the other thing that you have to keep in mind with this cabinet meeting and the way it's been sold to the price and the way Trump is positioning things, et cetera, is that part of the legal problems for Elon and DOGE is that, you know, it does have to be the agencies who decide who to hire and fire.
So by putting this.
Out to the media and positioning its like no, no, no, Marco Rubio, Sean Duffy, they really are ultimately in charge, that could also help them with their legal case because the courts have already signaled like you can't just you know, DOGE can't just blanket fire people. Office of Personnel Management, which is like government HR can't just blanket fire people outside of their own agencies. That has to come from
the departments themselves. So that's the other piece. Is that repositioning this narrative where it's oh, no, the cabinet secretaries are actually in charge, could be an attempt as well to help them with their legal trouble.
Yeah, I actually read that as well. I mean, no one should confuse it to say Marco Rubio is not a conservative who probably doesn't agree with cutting the you know USAI. Yeah, right, First, that's always been the case. The question for them is about authority and about the ability to actually, you know, put these cuts in and see as if it. Basically the question is is Doshan Duffy himself get to decide who gets cut and what's not.
And in general, this is one where look, I'm not a big expertise worshiper or any of that, but at the very least, if we think about norms, you know, for people who've been sentate confirmed to these positions, who have the authority and the reporting of their underleans to like actually go and find out who should get cut or not, then sure, but that's a different story about who gets cut, and especially at a media level as opposed to just coming in and deciding what gets cut
and what's not. And that's really where again, you know, you can have all the so called like ability like Elon supposedly has to be able to come in and just be like a domain expert, you know, almost immediately. But you know, with the government, it's just fundamentally different than a private company. That was actually the fascinating part of when you were reading in the Times article is he just kept coming back.
He's like, look, my market cap of.
My companies is hundreds of billions, Like you know, I've been able to run them this, this and this, and I mean I've just said from day one. It's like, look, it is just not the government. Like efficiency, while it should be a goal, is not the ultimate goal. Like it's not about increasing the profitability of the government. There are a lot of government programs which are super inefficient, but they're very popular and or necessary for a lot
of people. They could be more efficient, but it would look, what's more efficient social security or letting people starve. Obviously letting people starve is more efficient. It's not a sociological you know, it's not like a benefit to society though, so we say, Okay, we're going to pay it. You know, that's one of those where the business mindset has just never made a lot of sense and part of the reason why I don't think business people have ever been particularly good politicians.
Yeah.
No, I think that's exactly right. And I mean Elon's arrogance and his lack of ability to work with people, his total unwillingness to try to like smooth things over. I mean, that's part of his character that he's actually proud of. I mean, he tweeted that thing about like what the downfall of Western civilization is like empathy, Like that's he thinks that. I mean, there's stuff he makes similar type of comments in that direction in the biography, the Walter Isaacson biography.
Oh that book sucks's.
I mean, but it's still like, you know, you get a sense of his character and empathy is something that he looks down on. So the idea of like, oh, people are going to die in Africa because of HIV because we don't have that funding, Like he doesn't care. The idea that he you know, he's pushing the social securities of Ponzi scheme and.
He like the elderly people were lifted.
Out of poverty by this program has been importantly, incredibly important. He doesn't care like the fact that Marco Rubio was pissed off at him.
He certainly doesn't care.
And the fact that it was also Sean Duffy was one of the other people who was most pissed off at Elon also makes a lot of sense because Sean Duffy Department of Transportation FAA is under him. That is one of the departments that Elon has taken the most interest in.
Why well, I.
Mean, FAA has been investigated SpaceX because of now, we just had another SpaceX rocket that blew up and caused mass diversion of commercial flights and airports had to be closed, et cetera. So he's been pissed off at them for a while. There's also reporting about the way his SpaceX people have come in and are trying to take contracts away from other countries and other companies and redirect them
to Starlink in particular just under SpaceX. So it's not surprising that Sean Duffy would be one of the others that had the most sort of grievance and you know, rubbed up against Musk the most here. But you know, in terms of how this plays out and whether Elon will actually be rained in or not, color me a little bit skeptical because, as Zager was saying, after this whole thing, Trump gets asked like, okay, well what went
down in the Oval office? And he does make this comment that's like, well, you know, it's up to the agency heads to cut, but if they don't, Elon will do it.
Take a listen, you.
Spoke today with your cabinet members and Elon Musk.
What did you tell them in regards to Elon Musk and his authorities to carry out actions.
We had a great meeting.
We had Elon and we had some of the representatives that for you know, the business reps. We also had most of the cabinet members, not all of them, it doesn't really pertain to all of them, but many of them.
And I thought it was a really good meeting.
It was about cutting because we have everybody knows the country's way out of control in terms of the number of people. We have many people that don't work, We have many people probably that aren't even living, that are getting checks, and we're finding all of that out and it's being reported we're going to save hundreds of billions
of dollars. We've already saved a lot, and parts of it are contracts that are expired that we're paying on, many crazy things that you know, you can see it happening.
It shouldn't happen, but you can see it happening. You see a lot of it being put out.
But the other thing I think most important for today, I want the cabinet members to keep good people. I don't want to see a big cut where a lot of good people are cut. I want the cabinet members to keep the good people. And the people that aren't doing a good job, that are unreliable, don't show up to work, et cetera, those people can be cut.
So I had a meeting and.
I said, I want the cabinet members go first, keep all the people you want, everybody that you need. And it would be better if they were there for two years instead of two weeks, because in two years they'll know the people better. But I want them to do the best job they can. Where we have good people, that's precious, it's very important, and we want them to keep the good people.
And so we're going to be watching.
Them and Elon and the group are going to be watching them, and if they can cut, it's better, and if they don't cut, then Elon will do the cutting.
So if they can cut, it's better, but if they don't cut, then Elon will. So still ultimately the final decision rusting with Elon there. So we'll see, we'll see me and I just it's been the level of subservius from Trump, the level of the amount of the direction of the government that he has just handed over to
Elon has been truly extraordinary. And so maybe we'll look back at this as like a turning point where I think from Trump's language and the fact that he said this thing about we want to cut with a scalpel, not a hatchet, like, I do think he realizes some of the political peril here, and I think he's felt blowback from and there are a lot of Republicans who were like, this thing that was important in my district
got cut. And by the way, you know, Elon went and gave them his number so that they can petition him directly. They can petition the king directly to have their particular cuts reversed. But you know, I do think he has a bit of a sense that he's on politically perilous ground. Does that make him change course? I think that's a real open question.
Yeah, I don't know's that's the point is that we really cannot tell because for all of that, Elon, you know, yes, he's been put in.
His place a little bit.
Will he does wear a suit now, thank you, We finally showed up win a suit to a cabinet meeting. Even Trump, I guess, could no longer countenance that anymore. After he he just threw a comment at him, unlike Zelenski. Apparently Elon listens. But you know, even then, the audacity to like lecture the US Secretary of State in the American Cabinet room when you're unelected, it's just unbelievable. It's like oo, and Trump just puts up with it, right.
And it's not even like he's a senior member of the White House staff, like a Stephen Miller or somebody like that, who has been on board the campaign since twenty fifteen, symbiotic with Donald Trump, who genuinely has the
authority and the political standing to do so. It's like this person didn't really support Trump until like July of twenty twenty four right, and then just ended up you know, bandwagoning and paying for the campaign to basically leap frog all of these other people who've been with him for such a long time. Not even Steve Bannon would ever dare to sit there in the US Cabinet room and to lecture the United States Secretary of State, right, And he's got ten times more authority in my opinion, to
be able to do so. So, look, is it a turning point and all that? Maybe my only political caution is it's still just so early that Trump could reverse course and he'd probably be fine. A lot of this may be you know, energizing all that to democratic basis. Still have seventeen months till the midterms and all that start to really kick into gear. So that's where I'm the most curious is what direction they decide to go in.
But I still think the tax bill is like a looming political detriment to them politically, where that's one where being a normy Republican alone like even sands Elon is going to be very politically difficult.
Yeah, for the White House. That's where I just can't look away.
I'm like, this is a blinking red light of political problems that you're just waiting, you know, to pass, and they're frothing at the mouth for it. But I don't think America is going to take it down lightly.
Yeah, I don't think so either. If democrosts were smart, they would talk relentlessly about medicaid and tax guts for the rich. I mean that that would be you would be on just like endlessly solved.
We would be smarter. It's not cut Medicaid. I mean, I still that's the other thing. Look Medicaid.
We'll see they say, you know the budget and all that has quote unquote cuts. Trump says you won't sign a Medicaid or a Medicare cut if they do work requirements. I still think that's very different. I mean, you know, liberals, can you argue about it till they're blue and the face work requirements are very posuble.
I was looking at the I was looking at the numbers this morning. And let's say that even if you put in work requirements. So they have slated in the Republican budget that passed the House eight hundred billion dollars in cuts that would likely be from Medicaid. The way that the process works, it's not like specified but it would almost have to come from either Medicaid or Medicare, and Medicare is even more politically difficult to cut it all.
So if you put in work requirements, that's about one hundred billion dollars, right, So you still have seven hundred billion dollars more that you are going to cut. So it's you will be cutting into the bone. And I mean, you know, I oppose work. I think everyone should have healthcare. But even if you do that for people who don't aren't disabled, it is it's a drop in the bucket of.
How much they ultimately want to cut.
But the last thing that I'll say about the Elon situation is Elon has his own agenda, right, And Elon, as much as he may, you know, put on the suit and make nice with Trump and get oh, mister Trump, thank you so much, and you're so amazing, and he may butter him up, but Elon has his own ideological agenda, and Elon believes himself to be ready player one, the
primary actor, not Trump. It will take more than a little you know, leaked to the press slap on the wrist to get Elon to stop pushing ahead with whatever the hell he wants to do.
It's the way he operates, and in this way.
The fact that he is this businessman who you know, sees violating the law and as like a cost of doing business and just something that he does as part of his daily practice and charging forward no matter what, no matter who would object or what the norms are, what the procedures are, or whatever, it does give him
a tremendous advantage in this battle. And we've already seen the way that his doge apparatics have rolled through all of these departments and gotten access to all these data, and you know, sent out his five bullet point email without getting anyone's permission to the whole of government and forced everybody to react to him like that is the
way that he operates. And so it's going to take much more from Trump than just saying like, oh, the agency heads are in charge, but ultimately Elon gets his aside too to cut It's going to take a lot more actual effort in actually checking Elon and perhaps even just removing Elon from the post before he would ever stop pushing in the direction that he is pushing. So that's why I'm skeptical that this will represent a true
turning point. But perhaps if Trump realizes like how politically paralysis is, or if Elon pisss him off or offends his ego in some certain kind of way, maybe things change.
But I just don't see any sign.
Of that yet. Well yeah, I'm excited to see.
Certainly if they listen, if they get what, if they get what's coming to them, nobody can say.
You weren't worn. It's even in the White House.
What you think Steve Bann and all those other people aren't telling them what's coming.
But listen. I mean, if that's what they want to do, I guess that's what they want to do.
That was one of the things he apparently told Steve Bannon to back off the Elon curtize.
And of course, so.
We got some updates from our neighbors of the North and our president's relationship with them.
Let's go and put this up on the screen.
The New York Times, reporting on a conversation between Canada Trudeau of Canada and himself, he told Justin Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary. Trump offered no further explanation. And this is obviously in the context of the trade war which terrorists were put on. Some of them have been rolled back, but there's still a significant number that
are in place. All of them are supposed to go back into effect on April second, So still very much up in the air what's going on there. And Sager know, Trudeau has really become convinced that Trump is quite serious about the whole fifty first state conversation, or at least about moving the borders and the US just annexing part
of Canada that Trump wants to annex. And you know, as we look at these tariffs in the context of the Canadian and economy and the context of our economy, Trudeau at least really believes that the purpose of these it's certainly not about fentanyl, but that it's not even really about the you know, reindustrialize of the American economy. It's about waging economic war to try to get Canada to capitulate to these territorial ambitions of Donald Trump, of his new manifest destiny of acquisition.
I don't know how serious it is beyond just literally like a feeling that America has been getting ripped off by Canada and just wanting to have some punishment. There's also there's also an element here of political management, of which I've been trying to get my head around. Clearly, Trump respects Claudia Shinbound in Mexico much more than Trudeau. I don't really know why. I mean Claudia Shanbaum. I mean, if we're talking border disputes, we got way more border
disputes with Mexico than we do with Canada. So you know, if we really want to talk real revisionism or Baja California or any of that stuff, I'm game. We can talk about that all day long. So with Canada, I actually think it's a lot more ideological because justin Trudeau not only being a liberal per se, but just you know, more neilib and critical. I think of the Trump administration over the four years after for them as well. I mean, Trump has got fixations that go back decades. Canada and
Japan are the two. If you go when you look at his comments from the nineteen seventies onwards, it's all Japan and Canada. The Japanese it drives them crazy because he's still living in the world of like nineteen eighty where Japan is filthy, rich and growing, you know, a decade over like eight and.
Yeah, they were the China of their time.
I'm not saying we still don't have trade problems with Japan, that's just different now. The point I think with all of this is that Trump just had as a theory of tariffs, which he's always wanted to be able to do, and being both unrestrained and having that ability, this so called like Madman theory and all that he wants to see how far that he can push it while running up against the realities of the market and of overall
US consumer sentiment. I think what he did not necessarily grapple with is the reaction from Canada that we've seen domestically in their politics and with their rise now of the Liberal Party basically saving them reigniting like this Canadian nationalism, which I didn't even know existed. I thought they all hated each other anyway, and they're divided over language, but
they really have come together. You got to give it to them, you know, in a way, you do need like an external threat force to really make yourself your
country come together for your national identity. But the problem that I actually think is whenever we're igniting that Canadian identity and bringing them together, their capacity to suffer as opposse to the American consumer, it's probably much higher because they feel like they're sticking it to the man, whereas Americans are like, I don't know about this, like right, and we're we're way more consumer in society too.
Well, not only that, but as we were discussing before, like for the Canadians, they would know exactly what they're fighting for, like to keep their country. For us be like what why are we even doing this? Like what is going on? They don't even like there's a tiny minuscule amount of fenchanel coming across the border, which is the line that we've been sold about why we have.
To do all of this.
Well, it's a legal pretext.
Yeah, yeah, that's the legal pretend. But I mean they talk about it. That's that's what they're trying to sell, is like, oh, this is why we need to do it. You had what Peter Navarro talking about how the Mexican cartels had taken over Canada. So there's not any clear reason why Americans would want to wage this war, economic or otherwise but for Canadians, like, the stakes are very clear and they're very high. So listen, I don't know
what the hell is going on in Trump's head. I do think that part of it is, like you said, Sager, like Trudeau is this very sort of like the Obama of Canada, you know, and can literally right and King Abbason in during the Obama era and all of that, and position himself in a very similar way in terms of this sort of like you know, high IQ liberal internationalists approach, and I think Trump just like he just hates.
All those people. He just hates them.
And it's partly this chip on his shoulder that Trump has about how they look down on him and all of this sort of stuff.
I do think that plays into it.
But I also think partly, maybe as a result of that, you can't just dismiss the things that he has himself said about wanting to use an economic war to annex Canada as the fifty first state. And maybe that's like the opening negotiating position. But I thought it was very revealing here that you know, he has recognized like, oh, all these treaties and stuff that set the border, I'm just not going to agree with those and I just
don't accept them. And I'm gonna, you know, I'm going to see about annexing this area just north of the Great Lakes. I'm going to see what I can get away with. I think we have to take him seriously at that. And you know, you talk about things that are politically unpopular, like the US expanding into Canada is not something that anyone voted for, and it's wildly politically unpopular,
as is acquiring Greenland. Probably the most popular of his, like you know, territorial conquest things, is the Panama Canal, which has already like sold off to Black Rocks.
So you know, he didn't sell it off to Black Rock.
The Chinese sold it to Black Okay, and they probably shouldn't have owned it in the first place. We're all being.
Honest, but we know why that transaction ultimately.
Okay, But why is that so bad? This is this is where I get annoyed.
It's like, by the way, he tweeted today that Greenland will have the right of self determination. So Greenlanders, there's only fifty thousand of you. I have a modest proposal, will give you a million bucks each. All you have to do is come over here, the Danes have treated you like shit. You will be embraced greatly by the American Empire and we protect you anyway, so you might as well sign up on Canada.
I don't know.
Again, I have mixed feelings these Canadians. They drive me crazy. The way that they just their their chauvinism when clearly we are the only reason that they get to exist and breathe is a little bit annoying considering how how much of our defense posture goes to their benefit. However, I can sympathize with being a power that is up there. That is like, hey, hold on a second, I thought we were great neighbors and all that, and you're trying
to change that contract. So broadly, I think that their ignition of nationalism is more interesting, especially because it hasn't really existed for a long time, like they haven't had a reason to be together. Like I said, I mean, they all hate each other anyway, whether they speak French and English one of the dumbest countries in the planet, whatever.
But my point is just that for them, they have been able, both the Conservative and the Liberal Party, to have extraordinary political benefit of standing up to Trump, which I just generally think is worse, especially if we're trying to get a better and more favorable deal on economic terms. But I mean, the truth of the matter is our trade deficit with Canada is unbelievable, and they have been
a huge beneficiary both of NAFTA. Their own quality of life as rate not only stable, was actually broadly increase to the extent that it's had a problem since NAFTA. It's their own fault because of mass immigration, of which they're having their own fights over in their own country right now. So even justin Trudeau admitted and part of the reason he's so unpopular.
So him getting kicked out is an interesting moment.
And actually, if we see the rise of kind of the leaders in Canada, both left and right, they're having to fuse this new Canadian nationalism fight with kind of like who and what they stand for, which is broadly better for them. I kind of wish we had the same thing over here. I'm almost jealous, to be honest, of their awakening.
Yeah, so let's get to the Canadian politics here. Trudeau stepped down as Liberal Party leader because he was profoundly unpopular, and so the Liberal Party had their leadership elections, who can put this up on the screen. They chose a guy named Mark Carney. He is the former governor of both the Bank of England actually during Brexit and also the.
Bank of Canada.
I mean, my sense of him, for wow, I've known about this guy for like two days, is that he's sort of like a liberal technocrat kind of a guy in terms of the Liberal Party, tends towards the more sort of fiscal conservative, as did his primary rival, Christian Freeland. So in any case, they've chosen this just sort of like steady hand who has a deep understanding obviously of the global financial system given his previous positions, banker who will now face the Conservative leader, a guy by the
name of Pierre. That's how that's the French pronunciation I think he says.
V I think is the way that I'm going to call him. Mister Pierre is.
The French version.
But in any case, he was looking I mean, this dude, Pierre, he looked like he was a shoe in And if you put up put up see the chart that we have, what is that C four B that shows the polling and the way that Trump's tariff war has just like completely completely rescued the Liberal from what was previously certain defeat. And you can see the red line there like they were in the toilet.
I mean, we.
Covered this when Trudeau resigned. You can see the line there. It was at an absolute low. But the combination, I'm sure having a new leader helps, but really it's the Trump economic warfare that has rescued the liberal parties hopes. Here now there's still not a locket a shoe in. If you put the one before this up on the screen, you can see C. Four that the Conservatives still have an edge in terms of the what the polling shows. But before Liberals were absolutely toasted, it says they're still
up in the polls. The Conservatives are, with the latest averages suggesting forty percent of voters back then. The liberals fortunes, meanwhile, have been revived. Their support has climbed to slightly over thirty percent, up ten points from January. The new dude, Mark Carney can call elections kind of I guess whenever he really wants. It has to be in the relative near term, but he can call elections whenever he should call them. For like April six, when the new terrorists
are being put into place to maximize his chances of success. Here, let's just get a taste of see three guys, let's just go ahead and get a taste of Mark Carney in the way that he is talking about the political situation. Obviously, he puts Trump here at front and center.
There's someone who's trying to do the opposite.
There's someone who's trying to weaken our economy. Yeah, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, and Donald Trump, as we know, has put as a prime minister, just said unjustified tariffs on what we build, on what we sell, on how we make a living. He's attacking Canadian families, workers and businesses, and we cannot let him succeed. And we won't.
We won't.
The Canadian government has rightly retaliated and is rightly retaliating with our own tariffs that will have maximum impact in the United States and minimum impact here in Canada. And my government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.
And he ran on taking aggressive posture towards Trump. He wants to put into place dollar dollar retaliatory terrorsts that would hit the US hard and you know, sort of minimize the impact for Canada. I know there's been a lot of talk targeting red states, in particular going after Donald Trump's support base, and so you know, the fact that that's what people were looking for is also really noteworthy.
Apparently Pierre Poliev, who previously had really position sort of compared himself to Trump and had gone viral in the American right, et cetera. Now he is really trying to distance himself from Trump and said he is quote not Maga. So you can see the way the fault lines have drawn, in the way that what was previously a neutral or benefit for the Conservatives has now turned into being totally toxic.
Canada was right for Maga style takeover.
They had the same problem that Trudeau had to resign for a reason, he was massively unpopular, and they have huge problems of mass immigration that Pierre that Trudeau even admitted. They have same economic stagnation, they have very similar trends. You know, we are cousins, you know, in a way, and so our problem is definitely rhyme. But now with this reignition of Canadian nationalism, you have even the Conservative Party really coming out hard on behalf of Canada.
We have here a.
Great clip from Ontario from Doug Ford the brother of Rob Ford. The Ford family, the most American family, even though they are Canadian, of coming out against Donald Trump. And here's Doug Ford is at the Premier of Ontario. I guess they call him over there. He says, I supported Trump getting elected, but man, was I wrong.
Let's take a listen.
In response to what started earlier this week, you threatened to cut off electricity to big chunk of the United States.
Well, you know something, I have a great relationship with the governors in New York and Michigan. In Minnesota, I just got off the phone yesterday with Governor Walls and what a gentleman he is. And I'm going to put it twenty five percent tariff on the electricity the one point five million homes and businesses as of Monday until President Trump drops East tariffs. That's the last thing I
want to do. It's the last thing. But he has to understand that he can't attack our country economically and expect us to roll over.
So starts Monday. Starts Monday unless this war ends before then, that's right, yes, which means American electric bills are going to be the Upper and Midwest and the Northeast, the middle landa are going up.
That's right. And what we're seeing already with gas prices in the northeast, gas prices are going to go up again. People. Eventually, the assembly lines if he continues April second, we'll shut down within five days. Auto parts go back and forth across the border up to eight times before it gets assembled in Ontario or Michigan or other states. And for what he's created, an absolute mess.
Last I checked, you're a conservative, Yes, Sam, you celebrated President Trump's victory in November.
I thought, you know, I thought he'd do a great job. Man, was I wrong? And I am first to admit I was wrong.
It just shows you that even the political leaders there who are conservative are going to have to come against America, which you know is going to have big ramifications for them, and give them a mandate because of the new election to be able to negotiate with a much harder line against the United States, which could have.
A lot of problems.
Yeah, that's right. And he's a very like Trumpian.
Oh, I love politician, Like I said, I love it a lot.
He's got a lot of swagger, you know. And so look, this is the guy who's historically been able to read
the mood of the public. I don't think that's a particularly hard thing to do in Canada right at this moment, like it's pretty clear where the battle lines are drawn, and so yeah, well, you know, we'll see where this all goes, because it asks at this point, I mean I I I'm forgetting the numbers, but it still is a significant amount of tariffs that are in place, even now after they rolled back the you know, whatever goods fall under the U. S. M c A, and with
the threat that we're going to do all of this again in less than a month's time.
So yeah, we'll
See, we'll see where it goes for their politics and ours.