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, everyone, Welcome to Breaking Points. I'm speaking extra loudly today because Sager is not here and I'm in studios, so I have to make sure Crystal hears me all the way out where she is.
Crystal, good morning.
Good morning. Nice to see you lovely.
As always, Emily, a lot of interesting stuff to get into in the show today. We've got Trump officially rejecting Iron's proposal, BB telling us informing us at the wars and over, so always have to listen to what the actual president of the United States is saying there's a new estimate that takes into account the broader impact of the war and says it is going to cost trillions of dollars.
Already, in Virginia.
Some major political news those new maps that were just passed by voters here have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So now everyone is looking to see whether Democrats are going to just lay in a chalk outline of themselves like they typically do.
Or try to fight that outline up.
It's good, that's kind of their normal, you know, that's their normal mode. But maybe it's a new day. We're gonna We're going to find out. We're also going to take a look at the hunt of virus. I know a lot of people very concerned. How much have you been following Haunted news, Emily.
I started following it closely over the last few days.
Before that, I was ignoring it. Now I'm paying attention, how about you.
So I actually followed it very closely right when the news broke, and then I convinced myself just not to worry about it because there's too many other things to worry about. So I'm rejoining the Haunted conversation. But apparently birdwatchers were vindicated it was not contracted at the landfill, even though that seemed like a very like suspect.
Yeah, huge dub for the bird watchers. We're going to get into it, but so far looking so good for them.
Yes, we've also got some interesting comments from AOC on Marjorie Taylor Green and her views there. Emptyg also firing back a lot of discourse. I regret to inform you we're gonna also have a little more Hassan Piker discourse in that luck as well. So get excited for that
and then very excited to talk to you. Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkritson, formerly the chief of staff to Cole and Pale, a very important figure anti Iraq war figure during that time period, continues to be a really prescient voice on matters of war and peace. So we're going to talk to him about the Iran war, and I'm interested to get his reaction to a Mark Levin sat that Trump had tweeted out Mark Levin telling us, you know, we just need to arm these opposition groups because it went
so great for us in the past. Emily, he specifically uses the example of arming the Moujah Hadeen, which is pretty interesting.
And not just that.
There are more examples, so you're gonna want to stick around. He goes through the tour of all of our great experience instans arming proxy forces.
So stick around for that. You can't miss the smart levinsot.
Yes, all right, let's go ahead and jump into the latest with regard to the war. As I mentioned before, Night Yahoo was on sixty minutes and was asked specifically whether he thought the war was over or not. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say.
Is the war with Iran over? And if it isn't, who will decide when it is?
I think it accomplished a great deal, but it's not over because there's still nuclear material, enriched uranium that has to be taken out of Iran. There's still enrichment sites that have to be dismantled, there are still proxies that Iran supports. There are ballistic missiles that they still want to produce. Now we've degraded a lot of it, but all of that is still there and there's work to be done.
How do you envision the highly enriched uranium will be removed from Iran?
You go in and you take it out with.
What special forces from Israel, special forces in the United States.
Well, I'm not going to talk about military means, but the present what President Trump has said to me. I want to go in there, and I think it can be done physically. That's not the problem. If you have an agreement and you go in and you take it out, why not that's the best way.
What if there isn't an agreement, can it be taken out by force?
Well, you're going to ask me these questions, I'm going to dodge them because I'm not going to talk about our military possibilities, plans, or anything of the kind.
And I'm just trying to get at how long is it going to take to achieve that aim.
I'm not going to give a timetable to it, but I'm going to say that's a terrifically important mission.
Emily.
We also understand that Trump and NATNYA, who had a call yesterday. There was some suggestion that it was rather urgent and unexpected. We didn't get a lot of details out of what exactly was said on that call, but Ntnaho They're saying that Trump told him he wants to go in and get that.
Uranium and that the war is not over. What do you make of that?
Well, he was asked by Major Garrett basically, what do you what is the timetable for this as everyone just heard, and Yaho says, well, I'm not going to give you any information. I don't want to give away our military plans. And then Garrett, I think actually pretty shrewdly asked him the next question. Well, first he asked are you going to do it? Or can you do it? And then net Yahuo said, oh, I'm not going to reveal anything.
And then the next question was what's your timetable? And Bibe was like, well, okay, we don't want to get into specific so he confirmed by the next question that hell yeah, he's planning to do it. He just didn't want to reveal any details, which is juxtaposed with President Trump somewhat amusing in a very tragic way, Crystal, because Trump is out there talking constantly about what this could
look like and what his plans are. It's such a strange contrast where you have the president and then Neta Yahoo saying I don't want to reveal too much. Well, Trump is constantly talking. It's very odd to see that juxtupposed.
Yeah.
Well, Trump was constantly talking a lot of nonsense and saying sometimes contradictory things in the same sentence. He's loved this strategy of just calling random reporters who just reprint the or you know, reiterate the garbage that he gives them.
I don't know who you are talking about, Crystal.
I don't know, actually, and I'm not just referring to one in this particular instance. There have been a lot of people who've gotten those calls apparently, And have you know, listen, if I got a call from the President, I would also indicate what he said, but I also give some context for how much stock we should put in his words. At this point, you have to look at the actions and so the latest words we're getting from Trump are
that they have rejected the Iranian proposal as unacceptable. Let's go ahead and put a three up on the screen here. This is from Trump rejecting the Iranian propose. I've just read the response from around so called representatives. I don't like it, totally unacceptable in all caps. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This came after if we
could put a two up the screen. This came after a different, lengthier truth social post saying that Iran has been playing games with the United States and the rest of the world for forty seven years. Delay delay, Delay, finally hit pay dirt when Barak Hussein Obama became president. He was not only good to them, he was great, actually going to their side, jettison ing Israel, oh my God, I wish and all of their allies, and giving Aron
a major and very powerful new lease on life. Hundreds of billions of dollars and one point seven billion dollars in green cash flown into Tehran, no mention of the fact that was actually their own money. But whatever, every bank in DC, Virginia and Maryland empty down.
Don't remember that?
Really much money?
Yes, yes, exactly, so much money that when it arrived the Iranian thugs had no idea what to do with it. They'd never seen money like this, never will again. It was taken off the plane in suitcases and satchels. The Iranians couldn't believe their luck. They finally found the greatest sucker of them all in the form of a week and stupid American president. He was a disaster as our leader,
but not as bad as sleepy Joe Biden. For forty seven years, the Iranians have been tapping us along, keeping us waiting, killing our people with their roadside bombs, destroying protests, recently wiping out forty two thousand innocent, unarmed protesters. The number is definitely not that anyway, and laughing at are now great again country? They will not. They will be laughing no longer President Donald J.
Trump.
And of course, you know, any deal, any theoretical deal that could possibly be struck Emily, is going to result in some sanctions relief. I think their Ranians are committed to, you know, full sanctions relief. They're also committed to reparations, although that could come in the form of being able to collect this toll.
The strait of horror moves.
So in any case, you know, the money, their own money that they receive back as part of the JCPOA is going to pale in comparison to the deal that would be available to Trump at this point, given the fact that the US has flat out lost this war to them. So you know, we're not really in a condition, in a position to be making demands, and yet we continue to make demands and posture as if we did not lose this wars if Ron does not have us
checkmated in some very real and significant sense. And that's why as long as that persists, these negotiations are not going to go anywhere.
Well, or the alternative.
I mean, that's where this is somewhat chilling that Trump is going so hard in the paint right now against the handing over of cash.
These are in some of the deals.
Obviously, it was actually a point of disagreement intensely between Trump and Mark Levin, who he continues to tweet promotionally about or truth promotionally about. Just last week, Lindsay Graham and Mark Levin were really unhappy with the contours of a plan that were released that did find exactly this sanctions relief and I think unfrozen assets exag It's always hard to keep track of all of these plans, but I think that's pretty much stuck in just about I mean,
all of them that have come out so far. And that's where it gets to the point where you wonder escalation trap wise, if to avoid this type of consternation from Levin, the embarrassment of having people make this argument about him, Trump gets sucked into actually some type of ground operation, significant ground operation that escalates the war further.
To again avoid exactly what he's saying is so horrible. Now, it could obviously go the other way at the same time, and he could just not care and think that he's spinning everything as a win, which he's been doing already for the past couple of months. But it is a little bit chilling, Crystal to see him dunking so hard on that part of the JCPOA or I'm sorry, that part of the Biden administration because he is it indicating that he's moving further and further away from doing it himself.
Or is it just an outburst. You don't really know.
No, you don't And let's put the next piece up on the screen.
Here.
From Iranian sources to their state news outlets, they said they just saw the reaction of the so called president of the United States to Iran's response has no importance.
No one in Iran writes proposals to please Trump.
The negotiating teams should draft proposals only for the right of the Iranian people, and when Trump is dissatisfied with them, naturally that is better. So that is the way their pasture I will say though, based on what we know the Wall Street Journal and some other outlet of camera which one had some details of what the supposed Iranian response was, and maybe we can put Trita Parsi as
the last element in the block A nine. Maybe we could put him up on the screen because he had an analysis of what the Iranians responded to Trump with, and essentially what he's indicating is on the nuclear file that they have compromised in some regards. They have walked closer to what the Americans are looking for, but they
have not gone all the way. And Trump has put some relatively maximalist demands in there that are more in line with what the Israelis want to see than what his original original posture had been back when we were originally starting these negotiations along before the war.
So he has.
Placed his expectations in in you know, im possible position for the Iranians to accept. But that doesn't mean they're not willing to know, willing to negotiate on that piece at all. I think since they in particular, it's logical, since they've demonstrated that they have this massive deterrent capability through their control of the strait of Horn moves in a sense that gives them some more room to be able to negotiate on the nuclear file. Because what's the
purpose of a nuclear weapon. It's deterrence. So if you have this derent already established with the strait of Horn moves, then you can afford to be a little bit flexible there. But it's also a matter of their sovereignty and asserting their rights and also reflecting the reality of the situation that the US was not able to achieve its objectives on the battlefield. There's no expectation the US will be able in the future to achieve its objectives on the battlefield.
So any negotiated settlement is going to in some way have to reflect that reality. And Trump is going to then have to go out and do his best sales pitch job to convince people that this catastrophic loss was actually in some way a win.
Unless, of course, again he tries to do something even bigger and tries to escalate militarily to avoid the humiliation of obviously losing. I mean, he could end up, and this is obvious, he could end up in a situation quite clearly where the straight of Hoor moves is under Iranian control, they're getting money from the straight of hor moves,
from basically tolls. They're not bringing the United States in on it, as he suggested at one point, that we're basically being that we would potentially like split toll fees in the straight of horror moves looking less and less likely that that's what happens, and so you end up in a situation where Trump is forced to either massively escalate. We hear people in some neo conservative borders still talking about potential like tactical newts or great escalation in one way or another, and again I.
Don't think that's likely. But when you're looking at.
The options for Trump on the table right now, it's either complete capitulation in a way that he tries to save face and spend this as a big win, or
he escalates further. And so I don't think the latter is the likeliest outcome at this point, but I also don't rule it out because it is so like everything that we're seeing play out is so bad for his ability to try to spin this as a win, which he desperately wants to do, and he has people tripping in his ear about the potential historic legacy building implications of escalation.
So we're in a dangerous spot, obviously.
Absolutely the case, and especially because the Iranians are unlikely to mend any further here in terms of negotiations, because number one, again they are looking at this like y'all lost and we can bear a lot more pain than you can. And the global economy is going to continue to, you know, to totter on the brink here, and we've got some elements will bring in the next block about
exactly what that looks like. But I know oil is up back again this morning because of the rejection of this deal, and they're seemingly being no end in sight here. But you know, what else do you do if you're Trump and you're not willing to accept the humiliation that would be required for you to accept in whatever deal you could strike right now, You've got all kinds of people, like you said, who are going to be pushing him. Oh, let's arm this faction, let's bomb this, let's bomb that,
let's try for the uranium. Whatever thinks he's being told. And he would rather take a gamble, I think, I mean, just thinking of his own psychology, he would rather take a gamble than have to accept the reality that has been revealed by this war. You know, there is one positive thing I would say here from the Iranian side, This from the Iranian president of a six up on the screen, just defending the idea of dialogue and negotiation.
So Poteshkin says, we will never bow our heads before the enemy, and if talk of dialogue or negotiation arises, it does not mean surrender or retreat. Rather, the goal is to uphold the rights of the Iranian nation to defend national interests with resolute strength. So a defense there of diplomacy and negotiation and talks and dialogue. That's positive to see that from obviously an important and influential figure
with it in Iran. But again, the reality of where their position is and how far they're willing to go, it's still vastly different from what the American side, what Trump and the American side are willing to offer. And I continue to think Emily, that is also a very
dire sign. That added to the negotiating team, not that there are in face, in person negotiations happening right now, but that officially added to the negotiating team is this hawk from the Foundation for the defensive Democracy is very very hawkish outlet, outfit that's been providing lots of the
worst misinformation apparently to this administration. So the fact that guy got added to the negotiating team, and seemingly Janie Vance, who's seen as a more reasonable figure, more desirous of an end to this war, was apparently taken off the team.
Yeah, great point. Senator Senator Secretary Rubio did.
The briefing last week, I think notably as well, which was you can read into it what you want, but to have him do that rather than VP Vance, who has been spearheading negotiations, I think there's probably something indeed to be read into that. And I just wanted to also make the point Crystal that on Trita Parsi's substack him saying he has a line in the reces, I don't think Americans fully appreciate what it means that Iran is coming to the table on enrichment moratoriums, and that
Ryan and I covered last week. Some of the Democrats, by the way, not just left wing Democrats, but some people who are probably considered more moderate Democrats pushing for the Israelis to be transparent about their own nuclear capability that is more important right now than it ever has been.
To use that cliche that I think actually is fitting here, because if you want to make a deal with that actually achieves no nuclear enrichment in an Iran, or with an Iran that has just heard the President of the United States make threats about wiping out an entire civilization, and ensure that they're actually is no enrichment as part of the deal that will satisfy American presidents, you're going to have to be able to be honest.
In order to enforce that. You have to be honest about Israel.
There has to be transparency about Israel from our government and from their government. Otherwise, how on earth do you expect that to stick and hold without finding us back in this situation a year from now, two years from now,
or whatever, the deal is cut. Because the Iranians don't trust Israel and the United States in their nuclear capacity in Israel at the Israeli is nuclear capacity, and they have just been pushed into a situation where many people politically, as Jeremy Scahole was explaining to us on the Friday Show, are more more interested than ever before in obtaining quickly.
Their own nuclear capacity. So that's right.
It's an important push I think actually from some Democrats right now.
Yeah, absolutely, very very noteworthy, and not that it's going anywhere right now in this House, but the very act that such a proposal was offered and co sponsored by a lot of Democrats, mainstream Democrats, is a total total sea change. Last thing I wanted to put up in this block is a seven, just to show you how precarious this moment continues to be. There was a ship that was struck off of Qatar's coast cargo ship.
That has caught fire.
You know, I've seen some indications that there are more ongoing skirmishes in and around this region than what is being reported in the media. So this is extremely volatile, and you've got Trump in a very desperate situation. You have the landscape for the US so dire that even Bob Kagan, who is the husband of Victoria Neuland who is the co founder of an extraordinarily hawkish thing tanks or died in the whole. Niokhan is out in Atlantic magazine saying, hey, we're in checkmate here.
Like Aron's Goddess.
This is a massive strategic defeat We're going to be seeing the repercussions of this for years and decades to come. So the landscape is that dire on the American side, but the willingness to accept that reality from Trump sublimate his aego, accept this humiliating defeat and the reality that would set in once you've actually inked a solidified deal here. I just it's hard for me to see him going in that direction, which is why it continues to be
so dangerous. And when you see out they're retweeting Mark Levin thoughts calling for all sorts of insanity, and you see the sorts of people he's surrounding himself with and who he's putting on the negotiating team. It's no surprise that the Iranians fully expect that they're going to face renewed attacks from the US and Israel and the UAE and Saudi and the other allies in the region.
Yeah, none of this has to mean that things are going swimmingly for Iran. It's a question of whether the cost benefit analysis for Trump for the United States is such that it's worth either escalating or to your point, Crystal sublement, sublimating his ego and saving face and cutting bait at a certain point.
So yeah, he continues to say they have no cards.
Well, they do have a card, which is obviously the straight of horror moves, and he doesn't want to make that one of his key concessions in a peace negotiation because it was obviously open before the war began, and that sticking point is not budging one bit. Despite the Iranians obviously taking some real hits, but in asymmetric warfare they continue to have several cards, despite what the President says.
So in the massive geographic advantage, very low cost their weaponry, they have a much more effective, frankly industrial base than we do.
You know, we are still learning.
Actually, there was a briefing, apparently classified briefing on Capitol Hill about how many of our munitions had been depleted. Senator Mark Kelly, of course served in the military, came out was horrified by the way that our stockpile has been diminished, and that can't be dealt with in a matter of days or week or even months. This is we're talking about years long effort to rebuild what we expended during what forty days of warfare. I was pretty
wild to see. So in any case. That's where things are this morning. Extremely volatile, very precarious. The Iranian proposal dismissed outright by Trump, and a lot of signs that we could be headed in a very dangerous direction. The economy certainly had it in a very dangerous direction as well.
No question about it.
Republicans right now saying bombing might have to begin once more. But the American people are obviously not on board with the war, have not been on board with the war from the beginning. And the question as to whether the American people are making up their mind on the war with accurate information is now front and center because of a new well some new reporting. There's been some significant new reporting actually on this front. Do we know how
much the war is actually costing? Let's put this New York Times tear sheet up on the screen, has a headline and Hegseth says this war has cost twenty five billion dollars. I tallied up the true amount. This is from Justin Wolfer's obviously professor public policy at the University of Michigan, and Wolfers wrote in the Times quote. The Defense Department says the conflict with Iran has cost twenty five billion so far. He says, this tally significantly understates
the true cost. By my calculations, the bill for a typical American household likely runs two thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. He says, Yes, that's a wide range. Blame the economic fog of war. But man, crystal these numbers right now, as they become more and more pronounced and obvious in the media and the American people are paying more at the pump and then looking at exactly how much more debt we're going into to fund the
war per person. So it's not even just I think first and foremost for most people, it's about prices increasing and what you're seeing every day on the table, But then just the long term ramifications for your own budget as an American and American family because of this, As that becomes more and more obvious, I mean, let's put B two up on the screen and becomes more obvious
in people's everyday lives. This is the craft. Heind CEO, who said in an interview this last week quote, they're literally running out of money at the end of the month. We're seeing negative cash flows in the lower income brackets where they're dipping into savings. So just about what you're already seeing in consumer patterns. We're what two months into this thing, two and a half months into this thing.
And even if it were to hypothetically someone waves a magic wand and today the economy is not just going to get better, it's turning the Titanic around at this point, Crystal. So, heading into the midterms, Trump is poised to lose what little support for the war he has left.
The more we see of this, we haven't.
Really even seen the beginning here in the United States, I should say, we've probably just seen the beginning, just the tip of the iceberg.
This is about to get much much worse.
Yeah, that's absolutely the case.
And Americans famously, you know, already don't have a lot of savings, don't have a lot of margin for error. So when you have the specter of gas prices going up and up and up day after day, week after week after week, with no end in sight, you know, people in elites, in DC policymakers, they may not be feeling the pinch yet, but I can promise you, I can promise you ordinary Americans. For them, it's already crisis. And that's what you see reflected there in the comments
from the Kraft Hid CEO. I always pay very close attention to those things. You know, we've covered before, McDonald's CEO saying, hey, you know, people are just skipping breakfast now, and not that we're celebrating people getting breakfast from McDonald's, although I am personally a big mcgriddell fan, but we put that aside. When people are just saying, I'm just not doing this at all, that's a very dire sign.
I wanted to go back just briefly to that that estimate from Justin Wolfer's because I think it's so significant.
He says, not only does the cost directly to each American family total in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, but when you look at the total cost of this war and you factor in, as you said, the increase in the cost of service, our debt, which has already gone up significantly, When you factor in new disability benefits and mental health problems for veterans who are serving, God forbid, if we do go in some sort of ground invasion, those sorts of costs are going to escalate.
When you think about repairing all the damages.
Of those bases that have been obliterated, destroyed, if we even decide we're going to go back in there and fix them and take up those positions in the region again, which I think is a big question, But those are huge, huge costs. Then you think about the economic cost day to day of the oil markets. The gas price is going up the way that fuels inflation, and he says, twenty five billion is an insane low ball.
This is his quotes.
The best any economist can do right now is get the order of magnitude right. And my mass suggests the Iran war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and very possibly trillions, trillions of dollars for this folly, For this so far forty day accounting folly, He says, wars hell, and hell comes with a hefty price tag. So that is what this president has signed us up for.
Yeah, and I also wanted to go back to Wolfer's just on another point about what's happening in the market. So before we go back to Wolfers, let's put up this next tear sheet.
This is before This is a quote from.
A Financial Times article Crazy, Yeah, where you have a banker speaking anonymously to Ft, saying quote, does anyone really care if the strait of hor moves is open?
Now?
Oh?
My god?
And the Wolfer's article, he writes, quote wall Street is worried despite the market touching new highs every time the president takes a more belligerent stance, Stocks tank, suggesting that investors think this conflict will undermine the value of leading
US companies. My estimate, based on movement of oil prices along with the S and P five hundred, is that stocks are about five percent lower than they otherwise would be, suggesting that the war has wiped out about three trillion off three tollond dollars off the value of these companies
and Crystal. The contrast between Wolfer's I think reading what's happened in Wall Street pretty accurately and one banker just talking about how Wall Street is riding this AI boom for now, for now, it is pretty interesting because it kind of depends on your vantage point. If you're like, if you're worried about the market as a whole, or what it means for average Americans or what it means for your returns, I guess you're probably thinking of this
war differently depending on that vantage point. Because if you're cool to just coast off of the AI boom, as opposed to being like an average American who really does have to worry about what's happening in the s and p.
Five hundred, that is a pretty different vantage point.
Just extraordinary. Yeah, and it wasn't just that one person. Apparently there was a a sort of rough poll show of hands about, hey, do you think the stock market is going to end up even further on the year. Do you think it's going to end down from where we are right now? And the overwhelming consensus was that
the line was going to continue to go up. The headline describes it as blissful ignorance, and look, I think this is proof positive that the stock market is not only divorced from the reality of what ordinary Americans lives are, it is a negative indicator.
The more the stock market goes up.
Oftentimes in recent years it's been because oh, we did a bunch of layoffs because we can use AI or place a bunch of workers like that is what they're betting on. When we talk about this big bet on AI, it's not just how the technology is going to help us cure cancer, whatever. No, what they are betting on is that AI is going to be able to replace a large number of human beings.
That is the bet.
Now will that bet pay off or not, It's not entirely clear. I think that in some ways it will. You could also have a major bubble pop when one company succeeds and the rest of them fail, et cetera. There are a lot of dire outcomes that could come from this, But I think it's very important to understand that largely largely at this point, when the stock market goes up, given the large bet on AI, that is
a negative indicator for the wellbeing of Americans. And so, yeah, if you're in the top point zero one percent, as these individuals, you know, hang down at this milk and gathering as they would as they would likely be the little more gas prices at the pump, Yeah, you don't care about that.
Who cares if it's straight up formosis. So that's not really affecting my life. I haven't changed my consumption habits.
So they are blissfully oblivious to what the reality is and they don't care. I mean, they genuinely don't care about the way that this will cause ordinary people to struggle and suffer. Now, I think they're somewhat delusional that, look, at the end of the day, do you need some kind of consumer at the end of the day, do you need to avoid some sort of revolutionary fervor which is very much increasingly on the table, especially the more
they push things in this direction. But for today, apparently they're feeling pretty good.
Yeah, but we have another indicator from Costco. Let's put this up on the screen. This is uh, the Costco CFO who is saying that members are basically switching from beef to chicken. Actually, I'm just gonna read this whole quote cause it's very interesting, by the way, not just in this current quote. Recession or concern for recession. He said, Historically,
we've always seen some like within fresh protein. We've always seen when there's a recession, whether it was ninety nine, two thousand and nine, eight, nine, ten, we would see some sales penetration shift from beef to poultry and pork. We have seen some of that now, I think anecdotally. I heard a few months ago from our head of food and Sundrys buyer that we saw some switch even from some to some canned products like canned chicken and
can tuna and things like that. So again just to emphasize, this is really the tip of the iceberg in terms of price inflation that we're likely to see if the war were to end today hypothetically that a lot of these prices would still be spiking for the months ahead.
And there's already what feels like. I mean, we had a right hitchopra on last week, formerhead of the CFPB Crystal to talk about the circular funding in a lot of AI companies, actually just in AI in general, the entire structure, which is now like thirty percent of the S and P five hundred is the mag seven companies, which is actually really horrifying because if you have investments from Nvidia to Microsoft and the Microsoft in Nvidia and
that sort of thing, and they're not anticipating a particular shift in the market, or they just haven't they don't have it as a high likelihood, they haven't priced it in exactly as they probably should be doing, and everything starts dissolving in front of us. What could happen economically, what could happen culturally? We are not prepared for what we could be seeing in the next six months, year, two years, just right on the cusp of something potentially catastrope.
I think at least, I mean, I hope that's not the case. But also all of this is going to amount to more and more spending from the US government, which I think a lot of people on the right were correct to point to. I mean, yes, you have gre inflation that's absolutely already taking place, there's no question about it. You see it sometimes in the earnings calls showing up. But also the government spending is going to cause average people who now are losing jobs because of the AI boom.
To spend more.
Think prices are going to go up like that's how this works. And so it's just a complete mess, a complete mess from the administration that was elected on a pledge to stop inflation, to bring inflation or to halt the growth at least of inflation, and is now back up to about the inflation level month about the monthly inflation level as when Prompt took office. It's around three percent in January of twenty twenty five.
So any improvement that was made has been effectively.
Tax cuts too.
We've said, have you seen the calculations that what average people are coming are getting from their tax cuts has been erased by gas pricing increases.
Yeah, well, and I learned from you that they were really betting hard on everything's going to turn around for us. Once people see their tax bill and getting their tax breaks, then that's going to save us.
And guess what urdis.
May people know what they're getting in terms of their refund and they're not feeling the love here, They're not feeling like this is going great and whatsoever.
Yeah, zooming out. It's just a very volatile mix.
You've got this AI backlash both of the ground level in terms of data centers. You've got deep concerns about the way they want to replace labor if this technology is anything like what they say, even if in the long term the most hopeful optimistic projections, which I don't believe, but let's give it to them that over the long term it's going to cause more job creation than it is job loss in the immediate to medium term.
Like go look at the destrial Revolution.
How long it took for in the developed world, right in the places that really ended up being beneficiaries of the industrial Revolution. It took over one hundred years for all of that to ripple through the economy. It's not like you just flip a switch. It's going to be extremely disruptive and extremely painful if anything approaching what they promised comes true. And if it doesn't come true, then you've got the biggest bubble probably in human history that's
been inflated here. I mean, the amount of money that's being spent on these data centers is utterly, utterly insane. So you've got that. You have in addition to the labor displacement. Obviously, that is going to lead to a further spiraling of vast inequality, again of the worst that
we've probably ever seen in human history. You have an extraordinarily volatile political climate and an empire here that is coming unglued, and that part of why it's coming unglued at this point is because of this disastrous war that the population did not want, does not want, that has now been decisively lost from a strategic perspective, and it's imposing massive daily costs on the American people. I mean, it's a pressure cooker, Emily, that's the only way you
could put it. It is an absolute pressure cooker. And obviously we talked to Professor Pape every week here because we've found his insights on the escalation trap very valuable. He's also writing a book on.
The likelihood of political violence, and we need to have a conversation with him about that as well, because he's deeply concerned about the confluence of some of these events and the way that they contribute to a rising trend of political violence.
I think I mentioned this last week, but my final thought here is Rod Dreer has he's an orthodox Christian conservative, has been working on a book about Wymar America, sort of drawing out parallels between Wymar Germany and what we're seeing in America right now, just any cultural indicators, looking at some of that, and economic indicators and looking at
that stuff. And he finished it a couple of weeks ago and said in his newsletter on Substack basically that he believes the one thing that would really be the tipping point from America as we know it today to something much much darker, including more political violence, would be
an economic crisis. And Chris, I feel like people's sense that I don't think it's you have to write a manuscript on this, and I'm not saying, of course, you're not making the cliched apples to apples parallel between war more Germany itself and what came after in America and what might come after. But obviously, when you have economies, as you just laid out, with this level of instability and pricarity, you could go to some dark places really, really, really quickly.
So, as you guys likely know, there was a ballot referendum here in Virginia to where voters went to the polls and voted on whether or not they wanted the maps here to be redrawn. This was a response to Trump's push to do these mid decade redistricting so that Republicans could gain a partisan advantage. You at Texas really kicked this off.
They redrew their map.
Their map has basically been validated at this point. You've had other Republican states that have followed suit. You also just had the Supreme Court striking down aspects of the Voting Rights Act that are going to enable Southern states, in particular, to eliminate those majority black districts and wipe out many of the Democrats that represent the Deep South. So that's the landscape in the context in which Virginia voters go to the polls and they say, yes, we
are going to two can play this game. We are going to also redraw our maps so that Virginia would become I think it was eleven to one, where you'd likely have one Republican representative and eleven Democratic representatives. So this was working its way through the court system, and
you just had the Virginia Supreme Court again. After all these millions of people voted and said yes, we want to do this, the Virginia Supreme Court come in and say no, we believe that this ballot referendum violated some procedures that were required in the original passage of a constitutional amendment that required this whole process. There's a reason why Virginians had to go to the ballot versus in other states where the legislature could just go in and
redraw the maps. There was a procedure laid down in Virginia based on a constitutional amendment. In the Supreme Court here said that you violated the process. Not to get too much in the weeds here, but basically the deal was you had to have voted on this before the next election starts. And they're saying that since early voting has started that you were too late, that you couldn't
do this, that this wasn't proper. So obviously, Emily Democrats are furious, absolutely furious, and really quite beside themselves because they're looking around the country at all these other states that are redrawing their maps to gain a partisan advantage for Republicans. California has been able to do a version of this, although actually not the most maximis version. They may still go back to the drawing board and make it even more maximals, but California has been able to
it appears like redraw their maps. But when Virginia Democrats come and say, okay, we're going to do this too, then the courts step in, Oh no, no, no, you can't, you can't, and again coming right on the heels of this Voting Rights Act decision as well. I think it was particularly enraging. So the question now is whether Democrats are going to just accept this and say, all right, well, I guess the Republicans get to redraw their maps, but we don't, or if they're going to try to take
some more extreme measures. And The New York Times has a report that in the case, there is some brainstorming about what could be done here the headline, and this is this is significant reporting. Is the headline from the New York Times. The private call reveals Democrats desperation over tossing of maps, and so what they are considering is a couple step process where effectively they would lower the retire hirement age for Supreme Court justices I think down
to the mid fifties. That would kick the entire seven justice court out, like everybody would be tossed out because they're all older than that. And then you would put in justices that you believe will be supportive of your
view of the world. And then they would go back in with a case challenging the original Constitution amendment that required this whole process to begin with, so that then the legislature, which is dominated by Democrats at this point, could just redraw the mass without having to go to
the voters. So that is what they're contemplating. Obviously, this would be, especially for Democrats, a relatively radical move to change the retirement age and toss out all of Supreme Court justices so that you could put your people on the bench. But they point to something very similar that just happened in Utah, where their Supreme Court also tossed out a pro Republican Jerrymann in that state, and they decided to move forward with packing the court in Utah
so that they could get ultimately what they want. And there were some other examples of Republican states in the past you have done similar things. So these are the lines, Emily that Democrats are thinking along. I'm curious for your thoughts.
Well, the Indiana results last week are really relevant here because what happened in that case is Republican voters, I mean, some people were very irked by the fact that you had around ten million dollars I've seen eight million dollars estimate, twelve million dollars estimate come into these state races in Indiana from national magat groups and try to oust as many people as possible who wouldn't go along with the
Trump redistricting plan. And Indiana voters, Republican voters look around and they say, we don't want to unilaterally disarm now that this has become like an arms race to see who can out Jerrymann er the other side, which is exactly what Democrats in Virginia are saying now too, which is don't just what did you say at the beginning of this show in.
A chalk outline. Uh, lay in your talk, Yeah, lay in the chalk outline of yourself. Don't do that.
And it's the pressure cooker is getting to a wild point. I don't know that anybody, I mean, you could have seen this coming as soon as Texas and California happened, but I don't know if anybody was like fully prepared for what it was going to look like, Like, what is the joke?
Did you think it? What did you think jerry mandering was just Vibes essays, No, it's it's this, And Indiana Republicans said, uh, listen, it's not that you know, we're we need you to like bow to.
Donald Trump, but we're pissed because we know what's going to happen in other states now that Democrats have said.
We're going for it too.
Obviously, jerry mandering goes back many, many years, and you know there are dem states that have been jerrymannered, Republican states that have been jerry mandered. This current wave obviously really started with Texas, and so as soon as Gavin Newsom took that bait, it was spreading nationwide, and Indiana Republicans said, well, you know, you can't just you can't just say, in principle, we're not doing this anymore, because
the principle has already been tossed out the window. You have to live in the here and now, and Crystal, it's interesting because that sounds like it's exactly how Virginia Democrats are reacting too.
And you said you didn't want to get too much in the weeds. But I am curious.
I've heard some analyses that say Virginia Democrats were like, maybe probably should have been prepared for this potential outcome. And I have no idea whether or not that's true, but that it was rushed and sloppy.
Is there anything to that? Is that part of this?
I to be honest with you. I mean, obviously they should have foreseen it. Since this did happen there, it was very the attitude was very dismissive towards the idea that the Supreme Court would overturn this.
And you know, it was a four to three decision. It was closely decided.
Obviously the three dissenting justices felt very strongly in the opposite direction, but there was a sense of we've got to go for this. This is what the base wants. But I think it also there was a bit of a ha measure here because you didn't deal with the partisan makeup of the court before you went in and tried to redraw the maps. So in that sense, I think you could say perhaps there was a lack of planning.
And look, I find it really outrageous, quite frankly, that we had tens of millions of dollars spent on this thing, and everybody going out going into the post, millions of people voting, and then after the fact, after everybody's voted, and by the way, after the court sees what the results of that vote are, that they come in and well know where you're not allowed to do that. And that is the sort of thing that will absolutely enrage and radicalize people. And I feel that, I mean it,
it is outrageous. You have all these other states, just thinking of from a fairness perspective, all these other states. Texas can just go in and rewrite their maps, no problem. You've got Florida just came and they're going to rewrite their maps. But Virginia and no input from the voters. But Virginia, you actually get input from voters in a pretty large turnout election for like this weird special election and that gets thrown out as unacceptable. You could see
how that is extremely extremely frustrating for people. Let me put C five up on the screen. There was a sense when the Virginia maps passed, in this brief moment in time, when the Virginia maps had passed and you had not yet had the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act, where people are feeling like, Okay, Democrats, they may not come out on top in the redistricting battles, but they're going to maybe at least be able to
get it to a draw. You can see in this map that that is just nowhere near the case at this point. All of the red states and red here are ones where Republicans are going to be able to add one to you know, to like three or four seats to their you know, based on their gerrymanders. Virginia's in yellow because it's been tossed down, so obviously no seats are going to change there outside of being able to win some seats, which I think is possible just with the maps as they exist.
California and one.
Seat in Utah are the only places where Democrats have made up ground, and I'm not sure if that Utah one is going to hold because of the court packing that they're engaged in there. I'm not sure what the timeline is in terms of whether they'll be able to reverse that map that was drawn there. But in any case, you know, Republicans now are just romping in the mid district,
mid mid decade redistricting wars. It's not even close. And so you know, when you look at Donald Trump, extremely unpopular Republicans in every single special election taking on water, losing seats that you never thought that they would lose, and then you see the way that these rules are being changed in a mostly one sided direction to block the will of the people. Yeah, I think it's a very radicalizing thing. And we can put Hassan's tweet up here.
He's sort of channeling that energy. Quoting JFK. I think in a way that maybe, especially because of who Hassan is, this is C two guys, was perhaps intentionally provocative, especially because he didn't put the quote in quotes, so people who don't know any history thought maybe he said this himself. Anyway, Hassan says the Virginia Supreme Court deny the results of the redistricting referendum, Scotus gutted the Voting Rights Act, and Tennessee carved up the last m districts black voter power
in the state. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable, which again is a JFK quote, and as an analysis of where we are of reality, I don't think you can deny that, Eily. Again, I think
we already see the stirrings of that. I think when you see Luigimanngioni being treated like a hero, at least a lot of very normal people going, well, I don't like it, but I kind of get it when you see, you know, the level of fury and the backlash against Trump with very little outlet to be able to have
the will of the people actually express. Yeah, you're going to have people begin to do crazy things because they don't have a peaceful means to be able to change reality in their supposedly democratic country.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a totally anodyne, accurate, eloquent quote. Actually, so it's perfectly applicable in the situation. It's probably You're probably right, coming from Hassan and the capitalist blood in the streets quote in the past, people like connect the dots and like, oh, this guy must be calling for violent revolution, which is obviously not all is happening in that case whatsoever, And Crystal, it's the disconnect between I
think this is this is real. One of the things that you referenced how Professor Robert Pape, who we've had on many times to.
Talk about Iran.
One of the points he made was in The Daily last week, right, he had that interview in the Daily about his work. He's currently working on a book he's been researching for a long time what he describes as quote populist violence, and we could get into that as a descriptor, but basically he's saying that you have a situation right now where people feel like they are the
political political class is not listening to them. And if you look at polling over time, people do feel like they lack agency, They feel more powerless in the political process, and that is really dangerous because if you have an unpopular war waged by president who said he was elected not to get into quote new wars, put all of his hawkishness ran aside. That's what a lot of average normal Americans heard when he said he didn't want to start new wars, that he wouldn't start new wars.
War is very unpopular. That is unlike George W.
Bush campaigning cynically shamefully on not nation building and then going to nation build because obviously nine to eleven happened between point A and point B and that situation which changed public support for the war, at least at first. So you have that happening, and people from the right, I would just say, think about what you felt like when President Biden's immigration policy was out of step with where public opinion was.
That those things do matter.
We don't have a direct election for a reason, and I think it's for a good reason. I believe in the Republican system, we don't have rule by referendum for a reason. And you and I could debate how that's gone in California, but the point is, you know, yes, it's true that you have the cooling saucer of the Senate and you have the lowercase our republican process playing out in the United States, but you have wild mismatches. I mean, we're not just talking about one tough decision
that the president is making. We're talking about wild mismatches across the board between what people say they want and what's actually happened happening not only in Washington, but now in their state houses too, which is a really really bad sign, especially because of the proximity.
So there's some of this debate been playing out on CNN. Kind of a fun exchange here between Scott Jennings and a Democratic strategist.
Let's go ahead and take a list of the seat four. Let's listen to a little of this.
The political map. Like, y'all are cheating, Okay, just accept it. Yeah, let me just finish on. You're cheating because you politically are not favorable right now, and so this is the only way you would actually win the House is by drawing maps.
Partisan redistricting is a fact of life. On the campaign, on the campaign.
Politically, are taking Memphis, which is a city that was black voters, and you split it in three stretching three thousand miles.
Who's the current Democrat congressman there?
What?
What?
What is it?
A black congressman?
Just because black people are allow the white people that don't look like those exactly.
And that is the point I wanted you to make, because just because you're not going to have a black congressman. Why is it that a Republican can't do just as well representing black voters as a Democrat.
Why is electing why.
It does, it doesn't, It doesn't know, just be you're making my point. Actually, the assumption is a black people no, no, no. The assumption is black people will only elect black people. No, black people are smart enough to let me finish black people. Black people will elect people who will actually represent them, who have their best interest in heart. And what Republicans have done in Tennessee is dismantled the power for black
people to have their voice. They did the same thing in Texas because they said they thought Latinos were going to swing for Republicans. There are black people that are represented. I'm black, and I got a Republican president right now. Black people don't elect black people based on race. They elect people that are aligned with their moral their beliefs injustice, and just took that away from them in Tennessee and in other states.
I just disagree that the only person, the only kind of a politician who can elect black people in Congress must be a Democrat.
This is just an artificial That's.
Not what I'm saying.
Democratic, That's not what I'm saying.
Black voters are still fully franchised and go vote for who are they want.
So they're talking there, Emily about Steve Cohen, who is the white representative for a majority black district in Tennessee. That map has already been redrawn going through the legislature in Tennessee of or you know, much protesting and so actually, Ryan,
I didn't realize this. Ryan told the story on the show before that Steve Collen actually tried to try to join the Congressional Black Caucus because he's like, yeah, I'm not black, but my constituents are, and isn't that what this should be about, which I'm with him on I agree with him. They should have led him in the
Congressional Black Caucus. But in any case, I thought that was pretty funny for Scott Jennings to be taking that side, and in my opinion, it did prove the point of the democratic strategy there of like, no, this is not about just like electing black people.
This is about black people having a voice to vote who they want to vote for, and they do not want to vote for your Republican friends.
Well, this is where Republicans can get I mean, I've seen some speculation about dummy mandering happening, and I don't think those entirely out of the question. Republicans are now really really excited that their chances to hold onto the House have just gotten stronger.
And I mean, I don't know.
I went and looked at the generic Congressional vote on RCP, so the RCP average where it was in twenty eighteen versus where it is now Dems have. It's at plus five point six right now. It was at plus five point eight for Democrats at the same point in the twenty eighteen cycle. So it's very very close to where it was then. And as we've been talking about, we're sort of at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we're going to see with price increases in all likelihood between now and November.
So they can do this all they want.
I actually don't know that it's always going to be splendid for them, that it's going to salvage I certainly don't think it's going to salvage the House of Representatives.
They may staunch some of the bleeding.
They may be able to prevent a total blue tsunami like what happened in twenty eighteen and thrust Nancy Pelosi back into the speakership. But I don't know that it's
actually going to be like a huge, huge wave. And the cook political analysis of this is doesn't suggest that it's going to be like a big wave for Republicans right now either, Crystal, because they still have to win support from voters, and you still have to get people to vote for you, and when you are even struggling with your own party, higher numbers, voter motivation, excitement for turnout.
Someone else made a really good point too, that this could I think it was in playbook this morning, that this could energize black voters, in particular, if you need in a midterm cycle, low propensity voters, people who might otherwise just not turn out because they're not super excited about candidates so they have other stuff to do. That's a lot of Trump voters, So you already have that problem, and then you could potentially be invigorating black voters to
like get out and actually go vote. That's going to be a real problem for Republicans in November two. This is I don't think any of this has necessarily been a guarantee of higher success for Republicans.
Maybe a bit, I mean, maybe a few seats, but nothing.
I mean dramatic.
I think overall, based on the landscape, now, it's definitely going to help Republicans. I don't think it will save Republicans. But just to give everybody's sense of the magnitude here, these are all rough estimates based on what we know of what the maps are and where the maps are growing, blah blah blah. But one analyst I saw projected that this would mean that Democrats have to win the popular vote by four points four points in order to take
the majority in the House. And look in past eras, maybe four points wouldn't be a lot.
But now, in a time when you have.
Very strong partisan polarization and these things usually hang hang on a knife's edge, four points is a landslide. You know, Trump obviously won by less than four points, and he certainly considers that to be a landslide in terms of the popular vote. So that is the level of a tilted playing field that we're talking about. And then you also do think about specific instance. It's like I think in Mississippi, I think the state population is like it's
like forty percent black something like that. They have one right now, majority minority district, and very likely that's going to be right. So then you have forty percent of your state that is and I'm being a little bit broad because obviously there are black people who've loved for Republicans, but it's also pretty over as like ninety percent vote for time Democrats, right, and so that part of the population is just not going to be represented, you know.
And this isn't about an identity thing. This is about their political views and having any sort of voice for them in d C. That's going to be erased. And when we talk about a crisis of democracy, I think that's a problem.
You know.
I think this whole thing is a disastrous race to the bottom. Like it would be great, in my opinion, if we pass national anti jerrymandering laws. But certainly this outcome that we're having now, where the redistricting battles are being won so out out, you know, so lopsidedly for Republicans, is going to create you know, a significant, significant strain. But you know, I think I think you're right. I
think Democrats probably still favored to win the House. You know, when I look at the odds the poly market and the Calshi and whatever. There's still very much favored to win the House. But when you have this tilted of a system, it does make it very difficult. And you know, it's another it's another blow to the idea that we have even representative democracy.
Well, some good news for Democrats. The twenty eighteen popular vote margin in the House was seven percent, seven point one percent, And again, I think the conditions are only going to get more favorable for Democrats down the line, so it's as possible they still get a decent sized blue wave. I actually think the Senate is very very much in play. I'm sure you do too, Crystal, but Nebraska.
May They can't jerry manders states.
No, and yeah, given the rural power in the Senate, there's already a Republican advantage there.
But yeah, well but Democrats in like rural states have fielded much better candidates this time around, which is very interesting, like really learning from the mistakes. I would argue, of twenty eighteen, you have a Platner instead of a Gideon type candidate in Maine, you have Dan Osburn in Nebraska. Sure, Brown, I think it's very very competitive. In Ohio, I think Texas is probably out of the question. But North Carolina looking really good for Democrats and that's the ballgame right there.
And Peltola in Alaska.
It was a very good candidate there and pulling has her up as well, So so yeah, I think I think that's very possible.
So we will see how that all goes.
H