Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give.
You, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody's day. What do we have bristle.
Indeed we do first and foremost. Sager is back and married man. Congratulations, Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Wedding ceremony number one done. Everybody was very happy with grandparents was a great success.
That's beautiful. I heard the airlines not such a great success.
But I've got there.
You have a lot of be with Pete Boota Jedge right now is actually quite literally the FAA's fault.
Oh for really, I don't aready know that.
I'm thinking about doing a little monologue on it to give everybody an update.
But thank you.
Lots of good wishes from you guys, from all the audience, so really really appreciate everybody and do stay tuned.
Though I do have a promise and something to fulfill.
I think everybody's going to want to watch my monologue after we hit one million subscribers today, Little Outfit change going to be happening.
Man of his words, so definitely stay tuned for that. Also in the show, we got a lot of big news we need to cover. So Biden is greenlighting cluster bombs that is over the objections of a lot of people, including some of our top allies. We'll get into that. We also have thoughts news potentially turning on DeSantis. We'll show you a bit of that and some interesting This was actually really fascinating. There's an analysis of the top words that all of the different GOP contenders are using.
Says a lot about that race and where things are. We've got new jobs numbers not looking all that great, and we have an upping of the anti in the whole elon versus Zuck sitch Cuation also excited to get soured a weigh in on Threads and his view of whether that is going to be the Twitter killer that has been promised, but we wanted to go ahead and start with the very latest out of Ukraine.
Yeah, there's a lot going on in Ukraine. Obviously since I left, been monitoring the news, don't you worry. The biggest one right now. President Biden is actually currently in the United Kingdom meeting with King Charles as we speak, on his way to the NATO Summit. At that NATO summit, there's going to be a lot of discussion around membership, which we'll get to. But the initial action that has been made before that summit was.
To provide Ukraine with cluster munitions.
This was a big decision by the White House asas are obviously considered a war crime or have been been criticized by the United States previously, and was an indication about what the Ukrainian military wants and is requesting at this time.
Here's what President Biden had to say.
We're in a situation where Ukraine continues to be brutally attacked across the board by munitions, by these cluster munitions that had Doug Rache, that are very very be very high, that are dangerous civilians. Number one. Number two, the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition, the ammunition that they call them. One five to five millimeters weapons. This is a this is a war relating to munitions, and they're running out of those that ammunition and we're low on it.
So there's a very key point that President Biden just made their crystal. Number one, the Ukrainians are running low on ammunition despite the one hundred billion dollars or so.
The United States provided with them.
But number two, to me is actually might be one of the most important one. We're running low on it. Aka, we have provided them now with so much critical ammunition that the United States military is now so low on its stocks that we have to provide banned munitions to the Ukrainian military, which they have already used previously. And actually we're criticized by the New York Times and by some other human rights groups for doing so previously.
In this war. This is a massive, massive.
Sea change in the way that we are considering the amount of ammunitionses that we provide to Ukraine. Previously the line was, oh, guys, it's all surplus stocks, not stuff we were going to use anyway. Then they did that fake devaluing of the equipment so they could provide even more and despite the fake accounting, gimmit which is basically illegal.
Then the one hundred billion dollars or so of all these munitions we are now running solo, and they are also running solo given their expenditures both in the counter extensive but also in Bachma that they have now been begging for cluster munitions. There's also something that President Biden said there which is a straight up lie. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. John Ismay an excellent military reporter over at the New York Times,
what does he note? The cluster munitions that the United States will provide to Ukraine is one hundred and fifty five millimeter M eight six y four projectile, which is loaded with seventy two DPICM grenades that are identical to those US from the earlier M four A three round. The dud rate on these sub munitions has been observed
at fourteen percent in real world conditions. Now, the Pentagon, in their statement justify providing these weapons to Ukraine Crystal, repeatedly said that the dud rate was some two point three to five percent or less, which is quote far better than the actual rate for common cluster munitions.
So the Pentagon is straight up lying here.
They're saying that the dud rate on these which is what makes them so deadly to civilians, is much lower than the actual dud rate observed in real world conditions. Part of why we have been so reluctant to provide these weapons to Ukraine so much in the first place. And I should also note about hypocrisy. One of the consistent lines from the Obama administration throughout the slaughter of Aleppo in the Syrian Civil War was that the Russians
were using cluster munitions on civilian areas well. Here's the issue, as we also criticize the Russians here, for all of Ukraine is a battlefield with civilians populated throughout it. So if the Ukrainians by definition are going to be using that even on their own soil, they're putting many of their civilians at risk by using a known munition banned by over one hundred countries, considered a war crime by international organizations, and often criticize even by the United States
military itself. I mean, this is something which really removes much of the quote moral high ground as moral as a cause for Ukraine is from America's stance in this war world.
Yeah, I mean Let's be really clear. This is an immoral act. It is truly an atrocity, and I want people to understand, like Layman's terms, what these things are. They're basically bombs that scatter a bunch of little grenades all around. And so when we're talking about the dud rate the problem and why these have been banned by a hundred countries that have signed on to the treaty, we are not a party to that treaty.
Neither is Russia, neither is Ukraine.
By why but why so many countries and why even so many of our allies, including the UK, who have been extremely hawkish are criticizing this move is because some percentage of those grenades do not detonate. That means that they are laying around in you know, in areas where frequently it's children that go and find them and they blow up and they kill them. There's varying numbers about what percent of civilians are killed by cluster bombs.
New York Times.
Cites a study that says it's fifty percent of the casualties.
From these bombs are civilians.
There are other estimates that civilians represent up to ninety seven percent of cluster munition casualties, again disproportionately. Children are usually the ones that find these things laying around. So it is an immoral act, and it is clearly an act of desperation.
Even the New York Times iar.
I was telling you before we started this morning, is reporting in very careful, encouched words that the Ukrainian counter offensive isn't going well. They haven't gained much ground. They've gained something like sixty square kilometers, which you know, pales in comparison to what they've been able to accomplish in the past. They really haven't been able to break through the Russian lines. You've got the Ukrainians running out of munitions,
You've got us apparently running low. And so this is a desperate, immoral act that the Biden administration's perpetrating.
Here.
UK has criticized this action, Spain has criticized this action. Many of our allies have criticized this action. And you know, there have been some words of dissent from the progressives who should be clearly unambiguously opposed to sending cluster bombs, which again considered war crime by much of the world, But so far we've heard very little. We did hear from Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a clarion voice
in many instances against endless wars. She was one of the lone voices to stand against the Iraq war vote authorization vote. Let's take a listen to a little bit of what she had to say.
Cluster bombs should never be used. That's crossing a line once you see what takes place. We know what takes place in terms of cluster bombs being very dangerous to civilians. They don't always immediately explode, children can step on them. That's a line we shouldn't cross.
So when Putin started using cluster bombs, the Biden White House said that that would potentially be a war crime.
Do you think that therefore.
The US government, the Biden administration, will potentially be engaging in war crimes if this goes forward.
What I think is that we would risk losing our moral leadership because when you look at the fact that over one hundred and twenty countries have signed the Convention on cluster Munitions saying they should never be used, they should never be used.
So she won't go so far as to call it a potential war crime, even though she should go that far.
But that's a key question from Jake Tapper.
Hey, when it was Russia using these things, y'all didn't have any qualms about calling it out for what it is.
Now.
The Biden administration, out of desperation and because Ukraine apparently always eventually gets what they want, are going down the same path. But for some reason when we do it, it's okay, yeah.
I mean, And just to reiterate your point, this is not something that you do as a sign of strength, both from America's point of view and how destroyed our defense industrial basis that we literally don't have enough munitions apparently for ourselves, not only to provide a regional war in Eastern Europe, but also for how the Ukrainians are doing. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. This is from Sky News over at the UK. Here's
what they say. Quote US cluster bombs deal is a clear signal the war is not going well for Ukraine. This is from Mark Stone. America risk losing the moral high ground by supplying Ukraine with a weapon banned by much of the world.
So why are they supplying it?
And as exactly you pointed to Crystal Even the New York Times noting this in a very very stark terms. Ukraine claims to have retaken sixty square miles. By comparison, the last great push in the Fall reclaimed five thousand square miles. Quote, they are probably weeks behind where it was hoped to be at this time. That is directly from the mouth of some of the most pro Ukraine forces that exist.
In the US media.
Even Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, says, quote, it has been very hard going. Defense has consistently been a straightforward proposition than offense in this war. Frankly on both sides, fulfilling the World War One edict around when you lack air supremacy combined to your tactics and all that, well, defense is always going to be some a much stronger position, and whenever you're attacking, you're going to lose a lot
of men. And unfortunately that's what's been happening to the Ukrainians. The cluster munitions and the bombs themselves are effectively showing you the same struggles that the World War One armies had, which is they also ran out of ammunition weeks into the war that they thought would last for forever, it ended up having massive expenditures. The United States and all those other countries that were fighting in World War One, fortunately for them, had actual industrial bases that they could
spin up. America is not a country at war. We're not going to total war footing, and neither are any of the allies. Ukraine, of course, has zero industrial base actually to speak of. They are one hundred percent reliant. So what do you do then? Whenever you're running low and you're your allies and all of them, despite their extraordinary generosity, are depleting themselves so much that they also can't, you know, spend even more money or go even more forward.
You have to start reaching for desperate actions. And the cluster munition is the reason that they are reaching for them is not only how deadly they are, but crystal We having massive supply and stock of them. So it's one of the only other things that we still remain and have not tapped on Ukraine's behalf.
So I think we can answer a couple of things.
Number One, this is not going well for Ukraine period, no matter what, given what they're asking for. It doesn't mean though that they can't still continue to do well. But number two is in terms of the question, is this weakening the United States and its defense readiness.
There's now zero question about this.
There has always been a big debate about whether, you know, this was actually cannibalizing resources that we would use. It's out of the President's mouth now. Obviously stockpiles are running low. You can't deny that now, you know, there's some high minded like, well, but you know, we're fighting Russia, so it's worth every penny of it. And I'm like, yeah, but what if something breaks out right tomorrow in the South China.
See, what are we going to be doing.
It's impossible, you know, to predict and then second or sorry third really whenever it comes to the moral you know, strategy that we've been using on this the Russians and more importantly, you know, I just returned from Indian and I was telling you there is a very different view of this conflict in the rest of the world. And now the Indians, the Brazilians, the Chinese, all these other people were like, yeah, you know, well you guys them
all over cluster munitions. And I'm like, and now, if China wants to send dead to the weapons to Russia, what are we gonna say? Yeah, you know what, what are we supposed to say. They haven't even provided them anything.
They're very willing to do. So news came out they President GI spoke with Putin and said, hey, just don't use a nuke, all right, like, don't go But you know, I mean, as long as Putin and g maintain good relations, and let's say things start to look on the up and up for the Russian military, not outside the realm of possibility. Yeah, and then when we criticize Beijing, what are they going to throw.
Right back in our face?
I mean, listen, let's tell the other side of it, which is that it's not like things have been going well for Russia lately either their whole Progosian mutiny, whatever the hell happened there, which you know, we were just reading again and reporting this morning that apparently even after the attempted weird pathetic coup thing, then Progosion had a meeting with Putin for three hours. No one's seen him since any of this happened. He was supposed to go
to Belarus. Apparently there's reports that he's still in Russia. Last understanding was that he was in Saint Petersburg. So they got their own issues. Let's be clear about that. But Sagar, I think your point is a really important one, which is listen, they just have to hold their line, and that's a lot easier to do than it is to push forward and break through those lines and be on the offense. They also have very clearly learned a
lot from their early failures. They are better organized, they have better strategy and tactics in place, and it's being
executed more effectively. So to me, all of this just underscores why it is so imperative that this war be brought to a close as soon as possible, that the parties are able to get to the negotiating table, that the US do everything in our power, and we have a lot in order to force some sort of negotiations and ultimately negotiated settlement, because you know, the war of attrition that we've been warning about and so many military analysts have been warning about is effectively upon us. And
you know, Russia does have a large industrial base. They are on war footing.
We are not.
We are running low, and now we are resorting to the desperate tactics. You know, it's funny, because Sager, we talked so much about Russia resorting to these desperate tactics, and they have in many instances and the type of you know, dirty and horrific things that they would pull out of their bag of tricks when they're backed into a corner. And now here we are actually the ones sending cluster bombs into this fight on of our own desperation.
So it is, it is a grotesque outcome here from the Biden administration and is clearly clearly indefensible.
Well, the problem too for Ukraine is you know, the people you're killing as a result of these, not just Russian soldiers, I mean many of these well, your own civilians, you have your own citizens. You know, ostensibly who you're really craing kids.
It's Ukrainian children here you're fighting to take over.
And you know, I don't want to downplay either what the long legacy of these things.
I've been to Cambodia.
I've seen a lot of people who got the legs blown off by just wandering around in fields.
In fact, in many areas that I've visited in Cambodia.
They're like, do not step off this road, or like you literally could die. And that was you know, in the two thousands, decades after the conflict. So the long lasting legacy of these is a total disaster, and it's really one where this is going to devastate this part of Ukraine now for a long time, even more so than it already is, and really muddies the waters and makes it more complicated. Just reiterating the call to try
and end this thing as soon as humanly possible. Let's go to the next part here, a very interesting look by Newsweek and a great reporter, William Arkin into the CIA and their actions inside of Ukraine.
Let's go and put this up there on screen.
The top line is that the CIA currently has but one hundred person now inside of Ukraine. Now, that might sound like a lot, but actually the crux of the article Crystal is quote the agency is as uncertain about Vladimir Zelenski's thinking and intentions as it is about Putin's. As the Russian leader faces his biggest challenge in the aftermath of the Failled mutiny, the agency is straining to understand.
What the two sides will do.
Because President Biden has determined that the United States will not undertake any actions that might threaten Russia itself or the survival of the Russian state. And what they point to specifically is, of course it will be difficult.
For the CIA to figure out what Putin is going to do.
But despite the fact that we have already learned via the what were the Discord papers, is that we're calling them. I think from the Discord papers that we were able.
To report to at least some of you here.
You know, our intelligence agencies are spying on Zelensky literally by tapping his phone and others. And I think that Zelensky and his people are very aware of that and are taking several measures to make sure that the United
States is obfuscated from some of their plans. Lots of reports previously consternation from the Pentagon Ukrainians hiding some of their plans about the counter offensive, only briefing the military whenever they want something, with their handout being like please please give me more, give me more, give me more.
And then beside that, though hiding key details, and the US, the CIA and others are actually faced with the problem where they are trying right now to get as much information out of Ukraine as possible and are having to resort having to spy on them to a pretty historic degree for a so called ally in this conflict.
There's also a lot of indication in this report from Newsweek that you know, our intelligence agency knew pretty much right away what was going on with the nord Stream pipeline. I mean, this is honestly, it's really humiliating because number one, the fact that we don't know what the hell our supposed ally who we're sending so much material to that we don't even know what they're up to, that they
don't read us in on their plans. I frankly can't blame them because we haven't apparently brought pressure to bear to get them to be upfront about those things, and because of you know, some of the leaks that have come out. I can kind of understand their position on that, but it's humiliating for us, and we are supposed to have this kind of like agreement with them that all right, we'll give you all this stuff, but you're not going
to attack Russians on Russian soil. You're not going to engage in these sort of you know, sabotage and going you know, after going after Russian citizens on Russian soil. You're not going to do those sorts of things. And they've done it. Repeatedly, and we've just kind of accepted it. I mean, we've just taken it. So of course they've been emboldened to the point that they would send drones to strike the literal Krumlin in some sort of you know,
half hearted assassination putin assassination attempt. So I underscore something that we've seen indications of from the beginning, which is in some ways, because we have such a long history of spying on Russia, we're able to get more inside of what they're thinking and what they're planning, and you know, what their posture is than with the Ukrainians, who you know, obviously are the ones on our side. So it's a pretty wild state of affairs.
Honestly, I encourage people to go through and read this.
William Markin is a very stand up journalist, have followed him for quite a long time, and one of the important things again that actually comes through is both the level to which the Ukrainian military relies on the United States and the level to which they hide as much as possible. And then also finally, how much our government lies to us consistently about this.
I mean, with Nordstream, there.
Has not been a single indication yet from the obvious fact that they are most almost very likely certainly the people who blew up the pipeline after calling it, you know, a terrible act of sabotage. We're going to get to the bottom of it. Well, maybe we shouldn't get to the bottom.
For certainly.
What comes through really what comes through though, is that we are running ops for them to a ridiculous and historic degree, you know, from this surveillance from human intelligence against the rest, providing them with the location of Russian general so they could kill them, and all of us in flirting real close right up there to the line of direct combatant status. And at the very same time, though, we're being kept in the dark about what they actually
want to do. And so obviously this is going to be very frustrating I think for a lot of people behind the scenes inside of the Pentagon and others. But because of the ideological capture that has happened within the elite, you are unable to issue any real criticism of the Ukrainians. And that's something that I think has shined through from private conversations, things that I've heard and then also just
bubbled up through the military. You know, every time, we're like, hey, maybe you should reserve some of this AMMO in Bakwood because you're gonna lose anyway, and you got to get this counter offensive. And they're like, now he knows what he's doing. It's like, yeah, but it's our weapons. You know, maybe we're the ones you should listen a little bit to what we tell you to do with the greatest military in the world.
And they're like, now we know what we're doing. Now you run a low on AMMO.
We've got to tap our cluster munitions consistently. Also, you know, in terms of their plans and other things, they really only tell something whenever they want something from us. And you know, in some way, I don't blame them like somebody was so stupid they're willing to basically write me a blank check.
Why keep them in the dark? Way right? In any ways, it's actually more of an indictment.
I think of our leadership and our approach that's going on with this conflict.
And also, don't underestimate this.
We don't know nearly as you know, there's like an idea about the CIA and the intelligence community. They're all seeing, all knowing, and all these people they've gotten some things right. They got a lot of things wrong, you know, on this conflict, and this shows you why do they get a lot of things wrong?
Yeah, And the other piece of this is the way that they use the CIA to get around the Biden administration's commitment that there will be no boots on the ground. Meanwhile, there's you know, something like one hundred CIA personnel on the ground. Apparently that doesn't count. They don't wear boots apparently.
But yeah, I mean there's an open acknowledgment from Polish officials, which again they've been the most talkish in all of this, that the US really doesn't understand the Ukrainian state and the quote reckless factions that exist there, says one Polish
official on the anonymously. You also had a US Defense intelligence official saying, I hesitate to say the CIA has failed, but they said sabotage attacks and cross border fighting create a whole new complication and continuing Ukrainian sabotage quote could have disastrous consequences. So, you know, this is completely out
of hand. We don't know what they're plotting. We know very well that they were behind these various attacks that they you know, immediately lie about and deny, and that our own military establishment lies to the American people about and pretends that it's maybe it's Russia, it's Russia, or maybe we'll never know, or maybe it's better if we
don't get to the bottom of it. So it's pretty stark to see the way that this war is actually being carried out and just how directly involved the CIA is on the ground, and how much they have really failed in their job of understanding what the Ukrainians are planning, let alone what the Russians are planning.
Absolutely well said, Let's move on to the next part here around NATO. As I mentioned, the NATO Summit's going to be happening in Vilnius.
News just broke this morning, Crystal.
President Zelenski will actually be visiting the NATO summit, where he will ask specifically for NATO membership as soon as possible. President Biden has also talked about this request from the Ukrainians, but also from pressure from other NATO allies, around whether Ukraine should be admitted into NATO as soon as possible, including at the summit.
Here's what he had to say, should it get membership in NATO, I.
Don't think it's ready for membership in NATO.
But here's the deal.
I spent, as you know, a great deal of time trying to hold NATO together because I believe has had an overwhelming objector from the time he launched on hundred and eighty five thousand troops in.
Ukraine, and that was to break NATO.
He was confident, in my view and many the intelligence community, he was confident could break NATO. So holding NATO together is really critical. I don't think there is unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family. Now at this moment, in the middle of a war, for example, if you did that, then you know, and I mean what I say, We're determined to commit every inch of territory that is NATO territory. It's a
commitment that we've all made, no matter what. If the war is going on, then we're all in the war.
Well, I guess at least he's got enough together to compute that basic fact. Unfortunately, our so called allies over in Lithuania and the Baltic States don't seem to understand this. Let's go to put this up there on the screen. The Lithuanian leader who's hosting the NATO summon, says, quote, give Ukraine a quick path to join NATO. Poland and several other Baltic countries have been strongly pushing forward to beg NATO to offer Ukraine official membership status as soon as possible.
And of course, you know, look, we.
Are not going to sit here and validate entirely Vladimir
Putin's justification for invading Ukraine. Ridiculous obviously, why now, oh you know, we offered Ukrainian membership into NATO in two thousand and eight, never officially did it, so all miracle, all of a sudden in twenty twenty two, it became a crisis, all right, Like, let's put that aside as obviously a farce now, though it would also be a farce to say it had nothing to do with it, and that NATO expansion in the Baltic region clearly aggravated
and created at tensions in the situation such that the Russians felt on the back foot and validated longstanding Russian paranoia about NATO and Western incursion into their spheres of influence. Both of these two things can be true at the same time, and NATO membership for Ukraine obviously is a non starter for not only Russian leadership military leadership now at this point, also for many people inside of Russia who very much would feel validated at actually fighting a
war on these grounds. It's clearly something in my opinion, which should be taken off the table for all time. There's no reason to ever consider it. That doesn't also, though, mean you can't provide security guarantees to to Ukraine. Outside of that, Look at our relationship with Taiwan. You know, they don't have a ironclad guarantee, but they've got a pretty good one. Look at South Korea, look at Japan.
We have tons of allies all across the world which we have security partnerships and such that don't still limit and constrict you to the sole language of Article five. We're in a take on one as attack on all effectively guarantees a nuclear exchange between the great power. So they are trying to get, you know, the best security guarantee they can and you know, I guess I can't
blame Ukraine. You know, if I've been invaded, clearly something I would want at the same time, but on our perspective and really for the rest.
Of the world. This should be one of those where the great power should have enough sense to say, look, we can give security guarantees when this conflict is en during some sort of negotiated piece, but NATO membership is not going to happen, and Biden refuses to rule that out Crystal, including in that interview.
I want to defend Biden though, because I know that he was under a lot of pressure to provide some sort of timeline to Krainian NATO membership, and not just from the Lithuanians and the Baltic States, but quite a number of NATO members were really putting a lot of pressure on him, and he was quite clear here that it is an absolute nonstarter while the war is going on,
which I appreciate hearing. And I also want to say, you know, there could be some sort of tactical advantage in keeping the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership on the table for future negotiations, because if you've already said no, no, they're never going to be in well, that's obviously something that Russia wants, so that's something that you could potentially give them in a future negotiation. So while I agree with you it's insane to imagine putting, you know, allowing
Ukraine into NATO. We never should have held that out ever in the first place, and it's certainly exacerbated and helped to contribute to the crisis that we face today. I don't hate the fact that they left it out there on the table, because I think it could be a point of leverage and negotiation in some theoretical in the future, negotiate itself.
I think that's fair.
Yeah, I mean they're negotiating out in the public where simply here you talking about it. However, we should take a little bit of attention to the United States Senate, where any ascension of Ukraine and to NATO would have to pass. Given the makeup of our Senate, I actually have no doubt that it would pass, which is terrifying. However, there have been some actually sane voices in that chamber we want to give credit to. Let's go and put
this up there on the screen. Senator Ran Paul responding to Lindsey Graham, who says that he's working with Republican and Democrats to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO, Rand Paul says, quote absolutely not. This is exactly wrong as usual and could very well lead to us with a war with Russia, something no one
should want. Lindsey Graham claiming Ukrainian NATO membership is the best way to prevent future wars and promote peace and create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars. I believe this is an overwhelming majority of Senators support this proposition, probably unfortunately is right about them. Senator JD Vance also weighing in yesterday, let's go ahead,
put this up there please on the screen. Quote He says, why letting Ukraine into NATO, especially now, is a massive mistake. Neo conservatives want to sign us up for a war with Russia when we don't may have we don't make enough artillery shells for someone else to use. I am so sick of the bipartisan absence of wisdom on this war, making only two senators now so far who are willing to vote against this. And yet despite all of that, Zelensky he won't drop it. Let's go and put this
up there on the screen. He says, Ukraine is not only going to prep for NATO membership and beg for it, but also EU membership.
After the war.
Remember and recall that EU membership and that being all the table is what led to a lot of consternation inside of Ukraine previously during the so called color revolutions and all of that, which initially led to some of the Civil war breakaway regions and also Russian incursion into Crimeas.
So all of this is a.
Very complicated geopolitical picture, but of which we have to pay the utmost attention to because any indication declaration text offering Ukraine NATO membership would be a sea change.
Event in this conflict.
It would almost certainly ramp up whatever it was going on then. But geos, you know, grand strategically, that would change almost everything, and you know many NATO members have already. Even Turkey, who is blocking Swedish membership, said yesterday I believe Aredowan said Ukraine deserves membership.
That right, Yeah, he's an odd one.
Just remember he doesn't actually care about, you know, apparently anything except himself, like even as Swedish objection is about like PKK Kurdish ris right, yeah, but the Hungarians also are blocking currently at least blocking Swedish membership inside of NATO. I'm not exactly sure what their beef is on the subject, so it's not like that others wouldn't be able to spelling about it. But of course, you know, the US
is the most important voice in this conflict. It also harkens back to some drama that was happening while I was off around who the next NATO leadership be. Right, they ended up extending the current member's term because the West wanted to nominate somebody who was less I guess, hawkish on the Ukraine conflict, and then the Baltics were like, no, we have to have somebody who will only support ascension of Ukraine into NATO.
So there's still a lot of fractures, I think in sadness alone.
Yeah, I mean, ultimately we're the big dog in this whole situation.
I did like this.
I had to chuckle at this from Zelenski. In an interview with Martha Radditz, he was asked about potential NATO membership. He says, by the way, as Saga was saying, like they're preparing for EU membership, all right, that's happening, he said, quote, I assume that Ukraine will be a valued NATO country's partner with actually the strongest armed forces in Europe.
Yeah, they have.
The strongest armed forces in Europe now given what we and our allies have provided them. So that's the way that he is framing things. So he is still very much pushing for this, although he wasn't aggressive about pushing it now currently. During the war, it was more sort of accepting the Biden administration framing of after the war,
we're going to push for NATO membership. I also wanted to update you, Sager on something you missed while you were away, which is that Lindsay Graham's Trump went down to South Carolina to do a status and Lindsay Graham was introducing him, and I saw the headline. You know, you see these things that are like so and so booed and you listen to and there's like two people that are going like all right.
That was underwhelming. I mean, this was bad. It went on and on. He was trying to talk.
It was you know, just continued and continued, and then Trump sort of like poked fun at him as well. So he's not the most beloved figure of the GOP right now, which I support.
I support that as well. Always put your trust.
Into people, all right, speaking of the Republican Party. We've got some updates on the Republican primary. So, as we told you before, Fox News had overtly, like clearly gone all in for Roun DeSantis. Murdoch had had lunch with him and Casey DeSantis before even the last election was over and said we're going to be behind you. Looks like they may be having a little bit of buyer's remorse. You had Will Kine really pressing DeSantis, saying, you know
what's going on here? Your poll numbers are trash effectively, and you also have Maria Barbiromo with a very tough line of questioning as well as toick.
Listen.
Here's this weekend's headline from the Politico playbook, failure to launch. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' campaign to topple Donald Trump has stalled.
We are way.
Behind, says a top DeSantis pack official, shounding the alarm.
What happened, Oh, Maria, These are narratives. The media does not want me to be the nominee. I think that's very very clear. Why because they know I'll beat Biden. You know, my reelection in Florida, we had the greatest victory that any Republican governor candidate in the history of the state had And yet a few months before the election, I had media saying that somehow my re election campaign was stalling, that we weren't doing anything, And so we're
doing what it takes to win. It's not a national primary. That's not how these things are going. It's really on the ground in those key the states. You got to have the organization, you got to have do that. So that's what we focused on.
I enjoy Sager how he says the media doesn't want him to win when he's literally on the largest cable news network that very much does want him to win.
Not only that, I mean, given his media attention is just not true. Considering if he is pulling at the same level as RFK Junior, ask yourself, which one gets more our actual media attention. He is treated way more seriously than Robert Francis Kennedy Junior.
And yet you know he can. I mean, look, no doubt the media.
Doesn't like him, but that's I think they love Trump, yeah, exactly something they love Trump. So I think it's kind a bit of a ridiculous comparison. You know, one interesting thing that you found is just a real analysis showing pretty holistically that things are not going well for Ron DeSantis. Go ahad and put this up there on the screen, the decline of DeSantis showing basically a total net drop from thirty eight percent in the GOP primary to twenty
three percent. And also whenever you look at his net favorability ratings, he was actually slightly above now it's gone negative. The most important, though, is his margin head to head versus Trump one point three points in February now minus
twenty four point one. Arguably, Crystal, that is the most important number that is there, which shows his margin of head to head number drop, showing that he is not viewed credibly as an actual alternative to Trump amongst people who he would have to split away from the former president. Just more you know, just showing you how strong Trump remains in this primary.
I think those favorability numbers are a real problem for him too. I mean, this is a key part of his pitch, is like I'm Trump without the drama, people
like me more, I'll be more electable. When you're getting significantly underwater on your favorability rings, that also makes it a lot harder to come back, and it really cuts against the core of the argument they were making just before he got into the race, which is, Okay, yeah, sure Trump is up in the polls, but once I get in people see what I'm all about, then I'm going to be able to rise.
They're going to like what they have to see. It's exactly the oppo.
Since he's gotten in the race, people have soured on him the more that they have seen him, frankly, and the more that he has come under additional attacks, not only from Trump but from the other Republicans who are too afraid to go after Trump but not too afraid to go after DeSantis. And then the other piece of this is, you know, even in the head to head matchup, so if you imagine a situation where everybody else drops down, all the money and all the everybody coalesces around him.
Sort of like a Biden situation back.
Last time in the Democratic primary, even in that situation, he has fallen off significantly in terms of his head to head chances against Trump. You know another thing that we talked about while you were away, Sager, is this weird ad that his war room tweeted out that I'm sure you saw where it was like bragging about like the most anti trans governor blah blah blah, And it's really clear that he has decided it's almost for him too.
We talked about this with the cluster bombs, but for him too, it's kind of an active desperation, like he has to go super hard right, has to really lean into what are some of the least popular in terms of a general election audience positions. And we talked early on about how he had a very different, very difficult path to walk because he needed to combine the people who are in the Republican Party who are actively anti Trump because they're more moderate with the people who like Trump,
but maybe they'd be open and considering an alternative. So he has had to really pick this kind of like hard right conservative lane, and I think it makes it difficult for him to be able to put together the coalition he needs. And I think it also undermines that pitch of I know how to win the electable guy, and it's clear that Republican voters at least just don't really buy that.
So for me, I just think that he is pursuing a Ted Crue strategy. The true conservative, yeah, person who is real and unfortunately, and a look, he is number two and that's what Ted was, but if he want to be number one, you have to be able to combine some of that with at least a crossover of what's going on. The problem for DeSantis is I think
he is actually leaning far too much into policy. I don't even disagree with him that on policy, he's obviously correct on so many of his critiques versus Trump, especially in terms of implementation. But let's all be real, how many people actually vote on policy right?
Almost nobody really.
I mean people say they do, but when you look at what they say they like about Trump though he's a fighter, he stands up for us. You know, he drives people I like crazy, that's actually or I hate crazy. That's probably the number one reason. The issue I really believe for DeSantis is that he is both fighting this like online campaign, which I really read that ad is
because there's a lot of better online. There's a lot of energy around the ad that he put out right in terms of you were to spend some time kind of on right wing Twitter, especially younger people who some many of them aren't voting or working on the DeSantis campaign. But if you were to go and you were to ask, you know, the aggregate GOP primary voter, you know, the typical one. This is a non college educated white man who probably hasn't gone to college, and you ask him, like,
what are you most concerned about? He'd be like, I hate the media, I hate Joe Biden, the economy sucks, and you know, maybe one or two things about the border, right, Yeah, like that's going to be your top four. Well you got to be focusing directly in on that, and that's really what Trump excels.
At more than anyone.
Yeah.
Even also, I think Trump has taken a smart lane while I was gone. I know, he called out DeSantis again for being like what does woke even mean? Right, because he's he's calling them out for over using the term and kind of trying to undercut their core critique really of US society, of Biden and others by saying I'm the guy who fights, I think on all fronts.
So in general, Trump is running a very savvy campaign right now against Desantas.
In that analysis that we put up a moment ago, they cite a an April poll from Fox that found only one percent of voters list wokeness or transgender issues as the most important issue facing the country, and you know it, I think there were a lot of part of DeSantis's success in Florida was maybe a bit misread.
I think it had a lot to do with this COVID policies.
I think it had a lot to do with, you know, going against schoolob and same with Glenn Youngkin in Virginia, where you know, that was the core of his appeal, that he was opposed to these school closures which were really, you know, really problem for a lot of parents, a lot of families, and the results of which have clearly been devastating. That was misread as an enthusiastic backing of some of his other cultural positions which he has since
really leaned into. As that COVID policy and like the COVID era has receded, and we saw in the twenty twenty two midterms that didn't really work out for Republicans, and I think we see even within a Republican primary, it is not top of mind not to mention, as you were pointing out Socer, it is sort of adorable to imagine that voters are really going down like a checklist, issue by issue to see where they align with each candidate.
That's not how it works. So anyway, some challenges therefore, mister DeSantis, as even Fox News is like, dude, what's going on with your campaign?
We put ourselves out there for you, and what is going on?
It's undeniable. You can't read a poll.
You look at it and look, I don't want to take away. He still could do well. Remember Ted Cruz did win Iowa. He win Iowa, so it's possible he could win Iowa. But he's got to pull off the double whim. He's got to win Iowa, and he's got to win New Hampshire. Iowould be huge in the feather. But if he can beat Trump in the OG state or Trump first one, that would be everything. But you know, for him right now, I'm not seeing a path towards that at all.
So Washington Post did a really interesting analysis of the language that the Republican candidates are using on the trail, like the top words that they use, that we wanted to go through because.
I think it's really fascinating.
I think it's also kind of revealing about the way that these different candidates are approaching the race. So let's go and put the first one up on the screen. You've got Donald Trump here, number one. They point out great, and they highlight some of the ones that are like different from the other countries. So it's not necessarily the number one word that they use, but it's the ones that are kind of unique to him. So great, Biden, radical and border Sagary, you were pointing out how border
is very animating among the Republican base. Let's go and put Dasantis up. DeSantis leans hard into his time as Florida governor. The other things that you have here are COVID, kids, parents, FAUCI, woke an ESG, and what I take away there is, I mean, first of all, like really leaning hard into what he's doing policy wise in Florida, which we just discuss may not land.
All that much.
Still talking about COVID and FAUCI, something that has really fallen off even among Republicans as a key issue. And then the rest are on the cultural agenda ESG, which I guarantee if you pull a majority of the Republican base probably has no idea what you're talking about, which Trump is going after as well. And then kids, which fits into that piece. Let's put Mike Pence up on the screen. Pence running hard for that evangelical right base.
His words include God, life. He's been probably the candidate who is most staked down a hard right abortion anti abortion position. Trump actually surprisingly he is probably the most vocal in terms of talking about the former president, kind of because he can't avoid doing it. And Constitution. So you know, some throwback language there. Nikki Hayley, let's put her up on the screen. She's got some that I think really reflect how she leans into her bio.
You've got the.
Word proud, strong, love and together and kind of similar to Tim Scott. Put this up on the screen again, some of the words leaning into his bio talks about his mom a lot, apparently, God and faith. So also making a play for that evangelical right base. What did you think of some of this language, saga? Would you take it for?
I thought that the most important ones for DeSantis were terms that many Americans don't know. Who what is ESG? I mean, look, I hate ESG. I will critique it here all day long. I know there's a lot of discussion online about it, but I'm not an idiot, and I know if I was running for president, I would never talk about a Esg never because I know that the vast majority of what we talked about previously, Like voters don't have checklists. They're like, right, is the gas
price low? Do I like the guy? Is my wife gonna give me some crap if I vote for this guy? You know, Like what am I talking about with my neighbors? Man?
This stuff drives me crazy. Like that's basically that's mostly amount of the.
Thought that most people put into actually all this. Uh And you know, look, he's running the same strategy for the nation that he ran in Florida. Not a terrible play, but he's not focusing on the right elements. He has to focus more on the economic message about population inflows and about the booming economy that is what turning America into Florida. He's talking too much right now about parents, fauci Esg. It's like the ultimate validator is you left
your state to come live here. Let's make America just like that.
You're positive.
That's kind of a almost like a Reaganesque type message from nineteen eighty And unfortunately, I think he's learned many of the worst lessons from validation on the inter you know, Trump's are so basic. And that's also was one of those genius things as a politician. Everything he says is like at a second grade reading level. He's got radical border great and Biden easy? Yeah, what do you identify with Trump? He always exaggerates everything is gonna be great
whenever it's the border. Okay, He's against Biden's position on the border, radically talks about the radical left his opponent Joe Biden.
That's exactly the right play, you.
Know, with Mike Pence, it's almost like a meme out of a Mark Levin, you know, type show Constitution, Life and God, Nikki Haley, you know, the fake Reagan esque vibes that I was talking about, like together and strong and love and I'm a fighter and I'm always kept surprised kicking didn't make the list.
Tim Scott, you.
Know, he can't help it being deared to the man that he says, Mom and God and faith.
I mean great. That said, you know that there's a lot of people, I.
Think in the GOP primary who love their mom and who love God and who love faith. So it's not like it's a very unique position that you're taking.
Overall.
I just thought that the sheer simplest of Trump, and what he's saying is exactly why I think he's leading so well on this primary.
I mean, it's really simple. Trump is just a really good politician, you know.
I mean, you listen to him on the stump and even like, I can't stand the guy, and I can't help but be chuckling at some of what he's saying.
He does all of these like comedic bits, and he's just.
A really good politician, and the Republican base really likes him.
And so it's you.
Know, it's a tough thing to figure out how to crack that. And thatt, I did want to put The last one I wanted to put up here is Chris Christy. Guys, it was the next one in the list after Tim Scott.
There we go.
This is kind of interesting to me.
So he talks a lot, apparently about how leaders of both major parties are making Americans smaller with divisive messages, and some of his top words were smaller, small, and big. So I mean, he says, at every pivotal moment in history, there was a choice between small and big, and America has succeeded because we always picked big. I would say, out of all these candidates, Chris CHRISTI, just in terms of political talent, is probably the second most talented, just
like raw political scale is Trump. I do think in some of this just simple straightforward language, you see why he is a very effective communicator. And Chris Christy is not going to be the Republican nominee. You know, he's really takes a stake down a position as like the anti Trump candidate and wants to go in there and not Trump Dad a peg. But I do think you see why he was able to get elected in New Jersey, why he was such a darling of the right for
so long, and why he is that. You know, he is a very effective communicator, and he actually has jumped up in the polls a bit more than I e.
I mean, he's still in single digits.
I don't want to like overplay it here, but he has leapfrogged a number of these other candidates who also get a lot of attention.
I think it's a testament to the way that he speaks.
Chris Christy is always a great communicator, but I think he was elected in a blue state for a reason. He's not a hard right politician, and the GOP primary is a hard right game.
He missed his moment in.
Twenty twelve whenever people were looking for that alternative, you know, with Obama. And then more broadly, I think that what you see in this is that as if you're prosecuting a case against the most popular Republican since Ronald Reagan.
Sorry, you're not going to be the Republican nominee. You're going to be great on television. I wish you the best of luck.
Yeah, we would really like to interview Actually, we'd like to interview any of these people here, so all of.
You out you know, we're working on it, and get him here on the show. But I mean, the point though, you know, with Christy is it's like you're going to You're just not going to be the GOP primary or win a GOP primary.
Yeah, you are going to win television.
And I think actually I would like to see him just be more honest, you know, on TV and kind of his unvarnished thoughts. I really would like that from many of these people, But unfortunately for a lot of them, they always think that they can have it both ways, and it's just like, guys, this just not how it works, just not how you win an actual life.
Do you think that he This is one where I'm like, do you think he deludes himself to thinking he can win?
Yes? I do you think he's got that level of ego?
Many you can't listen, you know. I always think about this. For these people, they give up everything, their anonymity, their families, They miss some of the most important things and events in their parents and children's lives so they can attend some fundraiser for like women against whatever. You know. Yeah, it's like to succeed in the business, you have to have it a hard wired that this is everything, and you have to have in many respects for all success,
you have to have a delusional faith in oneself. So it's paid off many times before. He genuinely thought he could win last time. I know that for a fact. I attended actually an event where he really was you going for it? And even when he was very low in the polls back in twenty sixteen. So yeah, I think he believes it. I think all of these guys believe it, at least in some way. Otherwise, why would you sacrifice so much of what you have?
I don't know.
I think some of these guys know that they've got next to no chance.
But it's just like a savvy.
Media career play at this point, like there's not that much to lose, there's a lot to gain.
You know.
Just being in the conversation and keeping irrelevance is worth a lot.
So listen.
I don't know which bucket Chris Christy falls in particular, but he also could be one that just feels like, all right, even if I don't win, like I'm going to say things that other people aren't going to say. So people need to hear that message and that could be that could be part of what he's doing. Let's talk about you know what we can parse in terms of where the economy is. We got a big jobs report on Friday. Numbers were a bit disappointing. Let's put
this up on the screen. The payrolls rose by two hundred nine thousand in June.
That was less than expected.
The headline from CNBC says, as job growth wobbles.
The total, while still solid.
They say from a historical perspective, marked a considerable drop from May's downwardly.
Revised total of three hundred and six thousand. So May had been.
Initially calculated as higher. They revised it down to three oh six and it was the slowest month for job creation since payrolls fell by two hundred and sixty eight thousand back in December twenty twenty. The unemployment rate, though, did decline by point one percentage point. They also took a look at wage numbers. They said they were a little bit stronger than expected. Average hourly earnings increased by point four percent for the month and four point four percent from.
A year ago.
The average work week also increased a little bit. Another thing they take a look at here is the labor force participation rate, So what percent of you know, people who could be in the workforce actually are in the workforce. That apparently held steady still below its pre COVID pandemic level. But the for workers who were in what is considered their prime to use some dun lemon language here, between twenty five and fifty four years of age, that actually
rose some more workers participating in their prime years. And you have some indications here that you know, it's a little tepid, it's a little bit wild, and it also indicates that you probably don't probably wasn't poor enough of a report though to change what the FED is planning, which is to continue hiking rates.
Right, and you found this really interesting piece which it's really unfortunate. We've been predicting here for a long time. Let's go with this up there on the screen gives the great resignation is over.
Can worker power endure?
And the furious pace of job switching has led to big gains for workers initially, but that pendulum right now
is swinging back towards employers. This is really what we've warned about, you know, for the entire time, Crystal, which is that the more that the Federal Reserve puts downward pressure on the economy and increases the unemployment rate, that's going to give employers even more leverage in this economy where previously workers were able to leverage their labor and the labor shortage that ensued post COVID insanity in order
to bargain for a higher wage. And the equilibrium that we ended up with is actually really bad because while we did get some of these people raises, and I think that's fantastic, inflation so far outpaced the modest game, the overall cost of living remains worse even with their higher wage than where they are right now and now we have actually kept our inflation from supply side problems even though it's gone down quote modestly, and we've increased
you overall unemployment rate, putting even more downward pressure on wages for the overall economy.
Yeah.
So something actually kind of extraordinary and unique in our lifetimes happened over the past little while, which is because post pandemic, you had you know, a lot of people who didn't want to be on the front lines of a pandemic and wanted to get out of the service sector.
They exited and tried to find different careers, and so you had this huge demand for service workers, and you actually had wages increasing quite a bit at the lowest end of the spectrum, and so for the lowest wage workers, they actually did get wage increases that more than kept up with inflation. And you had a significant chunk of the you know, inequality that has been mounting over the the past number of decades, you actually had it declined.
Because you also had rich people as markets were going down, taking a big haircut post pandemic. Of course, they got a huge massive wealth transfer during the pandemic, So no one's going to cry for them, but that was a really extraordinary situation, and it held some promise of Okay, if the labor market can stay tight, maybe there are some real gains that can be made here among low
wage workers. And the warning signs here both in terms of now we've got you know, tepid jobs report, lower than expected, they downly revised last month, and you now have workers that are no longer behaving the way that they did previously when jobs really felt like they were plentiful and they really felt like they could shop around.
It's a real warning sign that, you know, some of those gains that were made for low wage workers, some of the power they were able to accrue in terms of increase activity and the labor movement more strikes all of those sorts of things, like some of that may be dying down, which you know, would would be really disappointing and dire because there is so much rebalancing that needs to be done after you know, like fifty years of everything going to the corporations, everything getting funnel to
the top.
Yeah, I think we're in a very stagnant period. So the big problem is is that the biggest growing sector of our economy is facing effective recession.
Technology.
The rest of the economy isn't really Some manufacturing is coming back, certain sectors.
Things are actually going well.
We're actually investing a historic amount of manufacturing dollars as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act.
But I think is great.
At the same time, we got low wages, we got high unemployment. We feel a lot of stagnation. People have a deep unsatisfied, deep like unsatisfaction.
With the state of the economy.
All of that, we have housing mortgage prices at so high and yet zero drop in the overall housing market, and it's one of those where the cost of living feels more unattainable than ever before for the American dream.
I think that's really the only way I can describe it.
That's it.
It's very odd and odd in the worst I think for the average consumer and more and more, I just think, you know, I always think something has to break, but it really never does. You know, you put the mortgage rate at like seven percent, sometimes it does sometimes, at least with this, I was like, man, there's no way, I mean, housing markets got a cool right, Nope, turns out we have so little supply of housing people are still willing to eat one hundred percent higher mortgage payments.
Just live in the house. Yeah, same with rent. I mean rent is crazy high right now.
People are still moving.
Yeah, it's one of those where and the credit card debt is in an all time hinds.
That's right.
Foreclosures have gone up, you know, people getting kicked out of their apartments, evictions have gone up. So you know, I've been I'm sure you've probably been watching Jeff Stein on Twitter has been fighting with people about all of these, like economists Beltweg type economists or like lecturing the American people about how they just don't really understand how great
the economy actually it is is. And this is the this is also the pitch that the Biden team is making they're trying to sell Bidenomics, is like, look at what great things we've done for your life. And meanwhile, you ask the American people how things are going, and they're like, it's really shitty, and we're really pessimistic, and actually our financial position has eroded and we are not remotely hopeful about the future, and we think the country's
on the wrong track. Good luck trying to sell an economy to the American people that they do not feel is going well for them. Huge disconnect between the language that's coming out of you know, official Washington, especially on the Democratic side, and from mainstream economists and the way
people actually experience the economy in their lives. And if I had to say, I think it's exactly what you're pointing to, Sager, which is like the ability to have a stable, middle class, non precarious life where you've got healthcare and you can send your kids to college, and you can, you know, afford a house and afford a mortgage and have nothing fancy, just like a normal middle class life. It feels like you have to be it feels like you have to be a multimillionaire in order
to pull it off. People just feel like this is wildly unattainable and I'm never going to get there in my entire life.
Basic And look, nobody is a right to European vacation. I'm not saying you have.
A right too, but it's nice, you know, it's nice to go guess what flights sky high. I got friends who literally are doing very well in life. We're looking at the bills that it would have made to go to Europe this summer, and they're like, oh, it's not going to happen.
Now, Yeah, you know, they're not going to cry for these people.
But that said, it's like, if they can't afford a vacation to make it two hundred grand a year, it's like, what is the what even Disney World?
What are you supposed to do? And also, you know, as Disney as we've talked about this, but.
From what I've heard too, the price is a Disney World or sky high, the experience has effectively been ruined if you're not really rich. It's like, is there anything left in this country other than the national parks actually do something relatively low cost and for free.
I will I will definitely come out in favor of vacations for all.
I do think.
I do think everyone has a right to if they you know, work hard and you know, working full time, playing by the rules to be able to take a little time off and go on a modest beach vacation or take their kids to Disney World or whatever. But we are we're far from that dream.
All right.
We want to give you an update on this whole Elon Musk versus Mark Zuckerberg situation, which is sort of degrading by the day. As you guys know, Zuck launched a Twitter competitor, being billed as a potential Twitter killer called Threads, sort of attached to Instagram. If you've got an Instagram and account, very easy to pourt it over, very seamless. Tech seems to be relatively good.
There are some problems, so let's get to that in a moment.
Well, Elon and Twitter are actually threatening to sue Meta Mark Zuckerberg over Threads. Let's put this up on the screen. A lawyer for Twitter, Alex Buro, sent a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, accusing the company of engaging in quote systematic, wilful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter's trade secrets.
And other intellectual property.
Twitter intends to strictly enforce its IP rights and demands that Meta take immediate steps to stop using any Twitter or trade secrets or other highly confidential information. And apparently what they what they allege happened here actually is that Zuck hired a bunch of the people that Elon had fired and then used them to develop Metash the Threads technology. Now, Mark Zuckerberg denies that, says that nobody who came from Twitter was used in the development of the product whatever.
I actually think it would be kind of funny if they were. I can't really there would be a small.
Why what's wrong with that? I mean, am I crazy? Like if you fire somebody and then another person hired. Look, maybe I don't understand the exact you know, intricacies of IP theft law, non disclosure right sands of which I'm sure these people are Party two. That said, if you literally sever somebody from your company and then you hire somebody for their expertise running said platform, I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Like good old fashioned competition.
I mean, here's the other thing is, like I they're threatening this, they haven't actually filed anything yet, which tells me maybe they don't feel like their legal position is that strong.
I don't know.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I do know that Mark Zuckerberg and his company have like ripped off other tech platforms technology previously, not in that they like actively stole trade secrets or whatever, but you know, they saw what Snapchat was doing they incorporated into stories. They see what TikTok is doing, and they try to incorporate that as well. This is just like what happens in the tech world. There's not that much innovation. It's
just everybody like copying whatever is the latest thing. So I have a feeling they are well versed in what the limits of that are. I suspect that this probably doesn't have a lot of leg to stand on, but you know, I'm not an expert here, so who knows.
I don't know.
On the legal front there, we also have some developments on the fight between the two. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Zuckerberg copying Elon's one word's concerning answers, replying trollishly to a thread on his new platform about whether threads itself was being throttled on the Twitter trending platform. Elon meanwhile saying, quote, zuck is a cuck in response to a tweet there about Zuckerberg
alleged censorship and all of that. I'm not exactly sure what he's going for there At Crystal he's saying basically that Zuckerberg is like the king of censorship. So listen overall, you know, the childish antics aside of which it's very possible what that we could see at actual cage match here happening don't.
I think the cage match is off, but there was an update. Elon then replied to the zuck as a cuck thing and said, I suggest a literal dick measuring contest. So that's the latest, the latest that's been floated that.
I can update you on me and I guess you know what, They're just like us, you know, childish people, even whenever you have over one hundred billion.
But let's actually be serious here.
I took some time, played a little bit with threads, and I have some complicated feelings.
Just's go and put this up there on the screen.
First, in terms of the success, Meta's Threads has over seventy million sign ups, which actually even surprised Mark Zuckerberg, or at least that's what he said. You know, undeniably having seventy million signups in just a couple of days is really good.
I mean, you know, in.
Contrast, you know, right now, Elon's Twitter has two hundred and thirty eight three hundred and thirty seven eight million users as of July of twenty twenty two, the last time that they had to go ahead and describe their overall numbers. So if you're able to get a significant portion of that in just the first couple of days. That's a big deal in terms of the functionality and all of that I took.
I've sent two threads so far. Some thoughts.
I'm not quite sure how much this will apply to everybody else. First of all, Crystal, I rarely tweet, and even when I do, it's usually so I can just post it on Instagram. So the ability for to have a quote unquote thread and just easily repost it onto my story or my feed love that. Yeah, it might probably very specific to people with larger audiences like us, something we're talking about with Griffin, our producer this morning.
I am skeptical and curious to see whether people actually do want to use is a Twitter alternative to follow just their friends. The reality is most people use their Twitter to follow bigger accounts, right like celebrities and others. But at the same time, people's Instagram consumption has changed. It's not just your friends, it's also you follow bigger accounts, influencers.
All those other people.
But you do follow them on Instagram for a reason, you don't necessarily follow them on Twitter. Also, for a reason, Twitter is a great place for aggregation of news for discussion for you know, obviously what it's well known for, it's not really been Instagram's thing. Can they replicate their ability to have a breaking news environment, to have high content, high content that's valuable to a certain select group of users and get them addicted to their platform? Right, I'm
not yet sure that that's possible. But the overall functionality I like it a lot. I actually do like, like I said, that cross posting ability. But in terms of the complication for me, does Facebook really need more vertically integrated products? You know, I was I was thinking, you know, I was just in India. Everyone's using WhatsApp and the entire time I'm just like, man, I'm using Facebook product here, you know, like I don't know if this stuff is
actually encrypted, is actually going to do well? You know, you know, it's just a basic communication.
You know.
They even have WhatsApp payment in some places. Oh interesting, All India is obsessed with mobile payment, WhatsApp, Google Pay, all of us and again same thing. All I can think is man, the domination here, These big tech companies have over so much of the daily lives, your communication, your payments, all this this is a Chinese style system.
Effectively in a private company, and that makes me that's uncomfortable. So, you know, I don't really know who to root for here because I do not want the Twitter killer to come from an already established social media platform. Yeah, we do have to give Zuck credit. It's a good product.
It's done well. Clearly, there's an appetite. Vertical integration works for a reason whenever you're a monopoly, and I do think that he's got I think he's got a good product here on his hand that actually could work.
Yeah.
I mean, we have more choices of oligarchic like Babyman to these platforms we can pick from. So I don't I don't ever think that there's anyone to really cheer for here. Put this last piece up on the screen. E for so this guy that you see his tweet over on the side of the screen, he I think is ahead of Instagram or high up in Instagram.
And so he.
Basically is indicating like we don't really want politics all that much. On threads he says politics and hard news are important. I don't want to imply otherwise, but my take is from platforms perspective, any incremental engagement or revenue they might drive is not at all worth the scrutiny negativity, let's be honest, or integrity risks that come along with them.
There are more than enough amazing community, sports, music, fashion, beauty, entertainment, et cetera to make a vibrant platform without needing to get into politics or hard news. So I mean this is kind of telling as well, like they don't even really want politics on their platform because and we've seen
this before. I mean, we see this on YouTube where it's divisive, it's edgy, it's controversial, all of these questions about misinformation and extremism and people being radicalized and whatever that almost exclusively falls into the domain of politics and hard news. So also, Threads is one hundred percent algorithmically driven, so like you follow who you follow, but then it's not like you can just get the stream of consciousness timeline that you can get on Twitter. It's all formulated
by an algorithm. So this would suggest that they're going to sort of discourage and suppress political and hard news content. So I mean, listen, this is the problem with leaving these platforms that are supposedly like the te virtual.
Town Square and critical der democracy and whatever.
This is the problem with leaving them to the whims of the market and profit making decisions because from a business perspective, I can't blame them. That is what would make sense. From a business perspective, it saves you a lot of headaches. So I can see a world where Threads is successful. I think Threads will be successful. I mean, seventy million sign ups incorporated in with Instagram. You already have you know, a big fan based on Instagram of
you know, a lot of people you it there. They've been successful at bringing over a bunch of like big celebrities and public figures who are already on the platform and posting their threads whatever.
I think it's very possible you.
Have thread succeed and you also have Twitter still out there as the locusts for politics and hard news, and that they are successful as well. I also think it's possible that you could continue to have a fragmenting of the user base where it does segregate more into ideological spaces, which you know, on the one hand, I am not a fan of monopolies. On the other hand, the part of Twitter that has always been interesting is having that give and take an engagement across the ideological spectrum.
Some of that may be breaking down at the yeah point.
Look, business wise, smart decision. Politics is a disaster.
You know. I was I think I told you about this.
I was talking with some YouTube guys and they were asking us what our average revenue is, and I told them. They were like, what they're like for a channel your size, the amount of views that you drive. We are currently getting ad revenue probably like thirty to forty percent of what a channel are side as non political.
Would be making.
And guess what we know that we know the politics sucks. That's why I have a direct subscription product. But these are platforms that all drive on advertising. And so they made the I think correct move where they're like, we don't want to deal with this, So like, let Elon deal with it, because he already is trying to float all this advertising and having all these problems. Let him have deal with all the controversy over who to sensor and all that.
We'll be sitting over.
Here talking about make up, talking about makeup or basketball, you know, science and whatever other health.
Some days it really seems like a good life.
Yeahs broak life, oh man, I phrased, you were like, you know, big in all these other.
Industries and I'm like, I envy you, man, like you don't have to deal with it.
The biggest controversy in health and fitness is whether to eat a carb or not, and like at the end, and they can get nasty, but it's not even close to his nasty.
I was going to say, actually think basis the health and fitness zone might be one of the more fraud.
But I'm saying that's as fraud as it gets. And you know there's a life or death consequences here, whereas you know, ind Ukraine be a NATO like. You already know how many haters that we're going to be getting and we deal with that on a daily basis. I've talked with them previously. They're like, man, I can't believe how much crap you deal with.
But listen, we like it. That's what we do, right, And so I just.
Think that whenever you're trying to float this on advertising, it is always a smart decision to.
Say I don't want to deal with the political side of it.
That said, you will always get drawn in because you know science so well. Science has nothing to do with it except we had censor RFK Junior's Instagram account but then he's running for president.
Now I guess we have to reinstate it.
So you can't also delude yourself into thinking that you're not going to have to deal with it, because you one hundred percent are going to have to. Yeah, so that's my overall true quession.
I like the product.
I'm going to continue to use it. I probably won't use it for politics, but I do really like the way the images load on it. Not a surprise since it's so built into it.
Wait, I've just taken a big step back from all of social media and my brain feels better.
So I don't really plan to change that. But we'll see.
You know something, I always get pulled back in. It's one point or another. I've gone through these phases before far. I'm on threads, but I'm just lurking. Maybe I'll engage.
You're lurking.
I'm lurking.
I've currently got some jet lag tweets about cats, my own personal thing.
So that's all I got going cat and dog. Twitter is like, actually that's the best.
Exactly, and you know, why not have even more images?
All Right, So this is the part of the show where normally I say, Sager, what are you looking at But I actually think, Sagar, you have something for us to take a look at today.
Whatever could it mean? What are you talking about? Is it this get up that i'm is that?
It?
Is it these sneakers? As I said, I was a man of my word. I thought you'd have to go to the uptich.
The top, the sneaker part of the from up top here?
Can I see it from up here?
Yeah?
Look at these pains me to wear Indian dress garb, but it looks very thank you.
Yeah, So this is what I wore during my actual Indian wedding ceremony. For those who are wondering, there is a more formal Indian guard which I did also wear, but it was way too big to fit into a suitcase.
It wouldn't have done. It's called a sure wan.
And actually, so as you know, you know, I have to do all my research. So I'm like, all right, what is the origin of this dress? The shirwani? Okay, the shirwani itself comes from Persian court dress wear. It's filtered down via the Muggle Empire, which then became adopted by the Maharajas as their like bejeweled encrusted thing and so actually interesting enough, in India there is no one
agreement on what formal dress wear is. There's the shrewani, there's something called Indo dress wear, and then there is the actual courtA that I am wearing right now. So this is what I as you can actually see, got turmeric and all.
This stuff the leftover.
From the actual ceremony. It was, well, this is actually so nowadays they do. Let's see if we can zoom in.
Here, you see a little bit less.
I thought it was only for women, but actually they said men do it now in India too, So I do.
Know that the impartery on that is amazing.
Oh this one is very nice. I think this one is uh, it's silk.
So anyway, look, wow, I said I would do it if we had a million subscribers. I honestly didn't think it was going to happen, and so here I am wearing it for my monologue.
I always believed in our audience that they would come through and force you to do that.
I should I should have the other way. I should have promised something that was more feasible. So now I think we're going to do my monologue and everybody's going to watch this and be like, what the hell, what are you going on?
So I guess watched this part first.
If you're interested, sager, what are you looking at?
Well, of all the major events to miss, the one that I was most bummed about was affirmative action. Christal and Emily held a fantastic panel discussion on the subject that I recommend everybody go and listen to. And since that decision, a lot about our society has been revealed. So called fake civil rights groups said that we would
be set back by the decision. Many past injustices were righted by the policy, the racial obsessed media parroted their claims, and the colleges themselves credited their past diversity statistics with the policy. But so much has now been written about the past, and what I want to do is focus on the future. What is higher education going to look like without affirmative action? Fortunately, if you've been watching our
show for some time, you already know the answer. Higher education in the US and their racial obsessed bureaucrats are willing to nuke the standards for literally everyone and burn hundreds of years of academic credibility, all in the name of preserving so called racial diversity.
The plan is simple.
Any objective criteria that can be easily used to prove racial discrimination against Whites and Asians will be sacrificed. Any criteria which will allow for preference against these groups will be emphasized, made to be the most important. People called me a conspiracy theorist when I play laid this out, this plan long before the decision. Now that has happened, it's out in the open. The New York Times immediately published the plan titled quote. With Supreme Court decision, college
admissions could become more subjective. It was all laid out third paragraph in quote, officials at selective institutions predicted there will be less emphasis on standardized metrics like test scores, class ranked GPA, and more emphasis on personal qualities told through recommendations and the application essay. Now again, why would this be the case, Because the case against Harvard relied almost entirely on objective metrics like SAT scores and others,
which could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Asian students in particular, were straight up discriminated against inadmissions. If you remove test scores as important and you lean more on personal essay, where students of desired background can just write I am black or I am Hispanic, over and over and over again for five hundred words.
It's easy.
Once again, I am not simply positing this already, the admissions department write in her locally University of Maryland saying, quote, right now students write about their soccer practice, they write about their grandmother dying. But then she says, they need to shift to talk quote about how race affected their lives. One neat trick that the admissions departments are already going for is simple. Make the college prompt about how diversity, equity,
and inclusion is important to the applicant. The incoming president of Mount Holyoke University, for example, she imagines a future question will look like this. One of the core values of Mount Holyo College is diversity of all kinds. Please tell us why you value it, What will make you think to bring to the Hamunt Holyo community in terms of diversity, your belief in the creative diversity is all
that will matter in the future. Whether you are good at math or science or English and can actually excel academically will cease to matter at all. So for the future, what do we do? Why should we even care. Let's start with the latter part of that question. About a decade ago, there was actually a big debate about the great awokening on college campuses, obsessions by students and professors, especially at elite institutions, with race and gender.
The debate was, does this matter at all?
Who cares if Yale or Harvard or any of these school kids are acting nuts?
How does it impact any of us?
The problem is, well, they grew up, and when they did, they populated the elite institutions across the country. Those kids who led race and gender cultural revolutions in college a decade ago, now they write for the New York Times, or they work in Netflix, or their junior staffers at the Biden Whitehouse, or the marketing department.
At bud Light or Target.
They are the enforcers of the ideological regime, and they will remain in power for decades. As you can already see now from the freak out over affirmative action, they will not go quietly into the good night.
It will be a total war.
For control of institutions and for the future. And the war really will be a fight between masses and elites. The polling on affirmative action shows that the vast majority of people are against it. Fifty percent of people outright disapproved, only thirty percent approved, most people are the rest are unsure.
And I actually think that's very underweighted, because even in California, the most liberal state in the whole country, when affirmative action was put up for an actual vote, it was rejected at a full fifty seven percent of the vote, and that happened in the exact same election where Biden beat Trump by twenty nine points. The people, and especially working class people, are very against affirmative action. For the elites, though it is their religion, at least with the government
that we have. Some democratics say, though, but on the problem for those on the side of the masses is that many of the institutions that we're talking about, they are not small d democratic. Harvard obviously has to comply with the law, which still takes decades to wrangle with, but they don't get voted for. Even public universities somewhat more accountable, don't face any close to the same level
of pressure as actual government. And then what about private institutions, which are both elite by definition but still important for the masses. Take this for example I've given before, like the American Bar Association. It controls the entire legal profession. It's literally private, though you cannot vote for it. It's not accountable to any representative that we can vote for.
Yet it controls the entire professional law. So when the Bar Association decides to nuke the LSAT as part of admission to law school to make the illegal profession more equitable.
What are we supposed to do? What do we do when you need a lawyer medical school?
I've talked about that before, reducing MSS on MCAT scores GPAs in favor of racial admissions and essays we have no say. But when we get sick and you need a doctor, what do you do? Those are two small ex samples, But there are a myriad of elite institutions which govern all of our lives like this, which are equally racially obsessed and will be fundamentally altered in the future. And what does that future look like? I mean, I
don't really have good news on that front. We will have at a minimum a generation and more likely probably nearly a century of total chaos. Because if you think that dying institutions just fade and go away easily and lose their power even when they suck.
You're wrong.
Take a look at cable news for example, or for a longer timeline, look at the Ottoman Empire. You can be useless, corrupt, lacking any legitimacy that you once had as long as your system, though, works well enough. For those in power, it can hang on for a long long time, and they will fight even harder to maintain
their grip on power. Now, for those of you who want to work meritorious and equal America, though, don't entirely despair because of the demise of affirmative action has heightened the contradictions it has made explicit which was once implicit for all of us to see in a relatively free society that is actually powerful now for an Now you can still see the agenda, and you can choose for yourself do you want to participate in it or not,
and whether or not you choose to fight. I actually think it's important to choose to fight, and you can see this clearly, and I hope that all of you do too, So Christal, my ridiculous garb beside.
I know that you, guys, and if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot Com. In a disappointing but not a surprise, the supposed vanguard of the national elected left, Alexandria Casio Cartez, joined the podsave Bros.
In order to throw her backing behind Joe Biden.
So president's only primary opponents are Mary and Williamson Robert F. Kennedy Junior. Haven't been any rumors about anyone else even thinking about jumping in. Will you be supporting Joe Biden for reelection?
I believe given that feel yes, I think he's done quite well, given the limitations that we have. I do think that there are ads of blows, as there are in any presence, any presidency. You know, there are areas that I think were quite strong when he came right out of the gate with the American Rescue Plan, and of course the Inflation Reduction Act was a massive step in terms of our climate agenda. But you know, there are also areas that I think could have gone better.
We have major structural issues in this country, and start I think it starts with the United States Senate, and I think that until we have senators that are willing to stand up and stare in the filibuster in the eye and stare a lot of structural issues about the Senate in the United States, Senate will be what holds back this country from an enormous amount of progress.
So there's a lot to unpack in that short clip. First, AOC says, given that field of Marion Williamson and Bobby Kennedy, she will back Biden. Apparently AOC has bought into DC's relentless spin that only candidates officially certified as quote unquote
serious by the powers that be are worthy of any consideration. Now, I don't have to point out to you the irony of this stance, given that AOC was once a bartender and organizer thoroughly outside the circle of officially sanctioned candidates who ousted a powerful long time incumbent to the shock and horror of the official buttway crowd. How quickly she has gone from renegade outsider protesting in the Speaker's office
to cowed insider. Not long ago, she said in different countries she and Joe Biden would not be even be in the same party. On the other hand, she and Maryann are probably theoretically align on like ninety percent of issues, but elite acceptability now Trump's issues for AOC and the
rest of the elected left. Second, she says, Joe Biden has done quote quite well, and then offers up the also officially sanctioned villain of the moment, the Senate and the filibuster to justify the many failings of the Biden administration.
Apparently quite well in AOC's estimation, includes accepting a loathsome debt deal, siding with capital over workers in a rail strike, abandoning efforts to lift the minimum wage, strengthen union's widen healthcare access, and a long list of other campaign promises. She also accepts at face value the notion that Biden simply must accept the intransigence of senators like Cinema and Mansion and doesn't have tools of pressure and rewards that he could use at least to try to compel compliance.
But really, to look at the personal failings of AOC, it's kind of too easy.
It's too obvious.
At this point, the writing of her fall from renegade to player in the game has been on the wall for quite some time now, and the truth of the matter is she's really non special. The whole of the elected left has more or less fully fallen in line, scarcely raising a word of dissent, not even demanding on principle that Biden subjected himself to debates. But it's not just the elected left. The whole project of leftism focused on a national level seems to have receded.
Post Bernie. The left, which had organized.
Found community and created its own media in online spaces, really fractured. There's no clear big goal to keep everyone aligned. People were depressed, they were angry by the way the Bernie campaign ended. I understandably so. And once Bernie's campaign was over, the movement he started no longer. HA had a real world incarnation and a pandemic locked all of
us inside in front of our screens. That made what was left of that movement way too online, and that's extremely vulnerable to the shaping of the amorphous algorithms crafted by our tech oligarchs. Those algorithms, of course, reward drama, they reward conflict.
They reward call outs and destruction.
So no one should be surprised that that is exactly what came to dominate the space. Now, you might hope that people with principles would resist the dopamine fuel of clicks and fay out rage. But we are talking about fallible human beings here. From what I can tell, the whole era is pretty reminiscent of the retrenchment of the left in the nineteen seventies, only this time supercharged.
With big tech poison.
Founder of Jacobin magazine Boscarson car recently made this observation on Twitter, which speaks to the national left recession. Quote, Medicare for all has been seemingly erased as a core immediate demand of the socialist left. Obviously it's not viable as legislation today, but it's barely brought up as a cause really night and day to three to four years ago when it was at the core of Bernie's campaign.
He goes on to a pine that not only has medicare for all gone largely dormant as a core demand, but there really is no core demand. Quote, I'm not sure there is a unifying national demand that compares to what it was. Lots of local activism around climate and tenets rights and electoral activity, plus energy around labor solidarity, and you want that second part is actually really important because.
It's an anecdote to.
The depression the lefties may naturally feel upon watching a clip of AOC with the Podsave Bros Going all in for Joe fricking Biden. Because actually, the desire for change and support for ideas like universal health care, housing, and unions, it's.
Higher than ever.
Its expression has just shifted in a way that may ultimately be more.
Durable and more powerful.
Bernie bet that his political revolution would bring new voters out in droves, mobilizing electorate that typically stays home. And while yes, he was screwed and twenty sixteen especially was rigged, it is also true that theory just didn't really pan out.
And I think the reason it didn't pan out was at least in part because of lack of local organizations and in particular a robust labor movement that stitches communities organized around common political interest together out of atomized individuals. And that's exactly the area where there are actually some hopeful things happening today in cities across the country. You do have tenets rights movements springing up to protect renters,
and social housing has made a surprising legislative comeback. Unions are seeing record levels of public support as grassroots organizing pushes forward, and large established unions are also being remade with more militant and more responsive leadership.
Even some regular.
Old Democratic governors are actually doing some impressively base things. Wisconsin's Tony Evers just increase public school funding indefinitely for four hundred years. Minnesota Democrats of grod control of the governor's mansion and the state legislature, and they are using it to do everything from making all school lunches free,
hiking taxes on corporations, and aggressively bolstering union rights. If New York Congressional Representative AOC isn't going to fight for Medicare for all, you could look to New York State Senator Jabari Brisport, who's doing the work to bring universal healthcare to his own state as a model for the nation. There's a hell of a lot more interesting things going on than what AOC has to say about Joe Biden to some Obama bros. And uh Sager not surprising, but I mean, it's just pathetic.
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a Premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaking of people doing real things in the real world. A longtime great friend of the show, Will Juwando is actually running for Senate in Maryland and he's going to join us.
In studio to tell us what he's up to.
Excited to be joined now by a great, longtime front of the show at large city council member in Montgomery County, the one and only Will Juando.
Great to see you, good morning.
Thank you for having good diseaser.
I's so full disclosure. You are a friend of the show, personal friend and all.
That good stuff, but we still got some tough political questions for you, of course. So you've announced you're running for Senate. Congratulations versus foremost thank you, And we did just get some news in this race.
This was pretty big. Put this up on the screen.
So on Jamie Roskin, who was seen, as you know, a pretty strong contender if he jumped into this Senate primary, he has said he is not going to run for this open Senate seat. So we'll just talk us through your campaign. How are things going, who are your opponents? What's your plan to win?
Sure?
Well, first to Congressman rasking my congressman, good friend He's an important role in the House, and we've been talking about this. We need to take back the House so we can share oversight and push back against a lot of the misinformation and craziness that's going on. I'm excited to run for the Senate because people need a champion.
They need a progressive champion in the Senate. When I go around Maryland and around the country, people are struggling, and my core message is you don't have to choose between you doing well and your neighbor doing well. I think that's what I really call the big lie. You know, not that Trump didn't win the election, or that he won the election, that obviously is alive, but this kind of I think prevalent idea that it's zero sum, like if you help the immigrant, you can't help us, someone
who's been here for two hundred years. So I think that is a real core part of our message at a time when people are really struggling, right, you know, education, costs, housing, they're concerned about safety, go down the list, the environment, and I think we're going to need bold progressive solutions, especially in the Senate, to get it done.
And that's what I've done.
That's why I think it's an interesting question.
So Maryland's obviously democratic state, Larry Hogan, I guess, notwithstanding you're going to face a crowded primary, what is your plan? What distinguishes you from you know, not even current opponents, potential opponents like why do you think that you are willing to take up this mantle for this long standing state and it's specifically a vanguard of the Democrats in the United States Senate?
Absolutely?
Well, Look, I'm homegrown look born and raised in Maryland. I saw firsthand the good, the bad, the ugly, dealt with disparities, growing up lost, a friend of gun violence, got scholarships to college and law school. Now, serving in my second term in our largest county one point one million of the six and then the state, I already represent our diverse, most and largest county with for of the most diverse cities in the country in it. I've also worked in the Senate eight years. I worked for
Shared Brown, I worked for Barack Obama. I was counsel on the Help Committee. I worked for Nancy Pelosi. Of course in the White House with President Obama. So I bring it. I think a really needed mix of both federal experience but also a local experience. And you know, I'm forty years old. Yeah, I'm a millennial. I'm a geriatric millennium.
Yeah, you know.
Yeah, you know, John Ossif and I would be the only two at a time when we're twenty almost twenty three percent of the population, the average age of the Senate of seventy six. We're dealing with aging parents, young kids, student loan debt, go to go down the list. I think you need some people that actually are dealing with as we confront AI and technology changes, it'd be nice to have someone in there who knows what is dealing with those in real time.
That's a fair point.
So on the one hand, it's you know, it's a benefit that you've worked in DC, that you know some of these players, you know how the game works. There's also a potential challenge there being able to criticize, you know, that leadership when it is needed. So tell me a little bit about your view of the Biden administration. What do you see as sort of the high water marks of achievement and what do you see as potentially you know, failures or things that they've missed, steps that they've done.
Look, you know, I kind of remember one when I used to come on years ago when President Biden was running, I was even though when I took the you know, the test of all all the issues, I lined up with the progressive candidates. I always said I would support Biden, and I think he's done a good job. Has he been perfect? Absolutely not. But America isn't perfect, right, you know, that's our story. We get some things right, we get
some things wrong. We go forward, we go backwards. I think the Chips Act, the Inflation Reduction Act on the environment, the stimulus as a local elected official, the almost three hundredllion dollars we got to put out, and to help with rental assistance, we launched a guaranteed income program in our state that I led. That's helping three hundred families with eight hundred dollars a month right now. We stabilized rents during the pandemic. We gave money to after school programs, etc.
That money we set up vaccine and food distribution. That so, I think he put us on a good path. Do I agree with everything, Absolutely not, But I think he has started us in a good direction, and the other options on the other side are going to take us way back.
So there's two theories of the case and Democratic party. There's one that people from democratic states and who are like within the coalition should be able to push the president. The other is that they should go along with the president. Where would you fall into that, you know, drive down more into the specifics where you disagree with sure?
Sure, So I think that the answers both like you know, like it's like when LBJ told, you know, Martin Luther King, go make me do it. You have to be a friend and push I mean all my best friends push me. I don't want anyone in my group that's not gonna tell me to be better. But you can also be supportive and how and be constructive and how you do it? For example, I think, you know, we should be supporting Ukraine, right,
and it's the devastation and loss. My father came to this country from Nigeria fleeing a war torn country, the by Affin civil War, the first one of two televised wars in the Vietnam War in that, so I know what it is to deal with that. But I don't think we should be using cluster bombs, for example, And I think I don't think that's a safe policy for you know, civilians and the like. So that's an example where I support the general policy of we should provide
Ukraine with support. Russia is a bad actor, but how we do it matters, and I think that's an example. You know, I think on criminal justice reform, right, you know, I was really heartened to hear the President talk in the State of the Union for almost five minutes about the talk and the need to pass the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, but also he talked about how we have to support law enforcement and what does that support mean. I've done a lot of work on those
issues I want. I think that's an engagement. I think we've got to get them away from dealing with mental health and homelessness, focus police on violent crime, pay them more, have higher accountability. So I think there's examples of how you can support the President but also push him on certain things.
Interesting something else that we talked about in the show today was the President has actually said, all right, Ukraine, you were not going to be in NATO while this war is going on, but he is held open the possibility of Ukraine ultimately entering NATO. Russia has said that was one of the provocations that led to their certainly illegal, unjustified invasion of Ukraine. You know, in the Senate, you'd
be on the front lines a foreign policy. This would be something that you would potentially have to vote on. Where do you stand on potential NATO membership for Ukraine.
Well, first, let's get Sweden in. You know, obviously they're going to they're dealing with some drama on that this week with Turkey and Hungary kind of objecting to that. Obviously, you got Finland in. I think that was a good addition. I am for a pathway for Ukraine into NATO. I don't think today is the day, but I think in generals expanding NATO, the idea of like democratic pro democracy states for the most part coming together to say we're going to protect each other is a good thing.
They're not.
I don't think they're in a state right now where they're ready for it. But I do think a pathway, which I think is consistent what the President.
Has said, so that just to be clear, that means we would have you know, they would have Article five protection. That means if there was another dispute, another war with Russia, we'd be obligating our sons and daughters to go and fight in that war.
Is that something that you're comfortable with?
Well, as I said, I mean pathway that's not today.
I think we have to. I am in support of supporting them now as we are. I think Russia is a bad actor. They are trying to, as they have in other places, destabilize the region. They're trying to harm people, They're using misinformation in our elections. Go down the list of things that they're doing. I think we need to stand up against that. I think that's a democratic American principle that it harms other parts of the world and us if we don't.
I take very seriously, and would take very seriously.
In the Senate sending our young men and women overseas to fight for other countries. But that is the agreement of NATO, so if they are a member, we would have to do that if attacked. But I think that's why we need to really discuss what is there as this war goes on. Hopefully it comes to a conclusion. How are they going to proceed, what steps are they going to take, what is the stability in the region. Those are all factors into whether when and how they would come into NATO.
You just talked about cluster communitions. We're talking a little bit more about Ukraine. What is your view on more aid to Ukraine? So if you were voted into the United States Senate, would you vote for more military aid to Ukraine?
Or do you desire a diplomatic solution?
Again?
I think I desire both. I mean, I think there is you know, again, make me do it. The aid in a lot of ways humanitarian is helping put them in position for hopefully eventually a diplomatic solution. We cannot have endless war, but you have to. But you best negotiate from a position of strength. And I think people rightly question how are we spending money, What are we
spending on what type of ways? A recent thing I said, I'm not for the clustering munitions because of the civilian loss and just the long term effect of those those kinds of weapons that just sit for years, and we've seen that in Vietnam and other places. But I do think it's important to support them because they are at a key moment in time against a power that is in Russia, that is trying to take us backwards and trying to be against democratic principles.
When is enough?
So if they fail in this counter offensive, you get fifty billion more. And if you fail, how many times have it failed for that's to say it's time to end's time to come to the table.
Unfortunately that there's no I can't tell you today what that moment is. I think we have to evaluate the circumstances that moment could come where, you know, like we did in Afghanistan other places, way too late, that this isn't working. We've got to do something different. I don't think we're there today, but I do think that the best negotiations in our history have come when they've come from a position of strength where people are saying it's
in our mutual interests to have a negotiation. I think our aid is helping that to happen. But it cannot be an endless war. I also will say, back to my core message with my campaign, we can do that and we can invest here at home.
It's not an either or right. There's other things we can do.
It's not we take our eye off the ball here for Americans that need help here. It's that this is connected to global democratic principles and freedom, and we need to do that too well.
One thing we've always appreciated about speaking with you is a lot of domestic policy issues are not theoretical to you. As a Montgomery County at Large council member, you are dealing with some of the trickiest issues from crime to housing and education there on the front lines. One thing that we've covered a lot here that I wanted to hear your thoughts on is the challenge of affordable housing. And this came across my radar. Will go ahead and
put this up on the screen. I saw Governor Moore just announced millions of dollars six point three millions of dollars to support construction of more than two hundred affordable housing units in the county that you represent. Can you tell us a little bit about what you think might make sense at a federal level to scale in terms of affordable housing based on what you've seen in your county.
This is a massive problem. Number one thing I hear about.
Number one or two thing I hear about, you know, the cost of housing, healthcare, taking away freedoms like bodily autonomy, the right to marry who you want, etc. But housing is always up there. In Montgomery County. We have one point one million residents. Forty percent of them rent, So that's over four hundred thousand people that are renting.
Those are their homes. As you know, I've been.
A big proponent of rent stabilization as part of the mix. We passed it temporarily through bills that I offered during the pandemic. Now we have a permanent bill that passed out a committee two weeks ago. We're going to vote on it next week. That would cap rents at six percent three percent plus inflation. Capped at six it would be the lowest for the largest jurisdiction of our size in the country. I think that's part of the mix. We need a massive federal investment in affordable housing to
get these voucher eading lists down. Look, my dad lived in affordable housing with a HUD vouchure. We have a thirty seven thousand person waiting list in Montgomery County. Wow, on this list waiting for a vouchure. It's because there's been a dramatic under investment we need to incentive. So we have to double or triple the amount of those vouchures. We need to incentivize, have more tax credit deals like I'm for, I want developers and housing providers to make
a profit. I just want them to make a reasonable profit and build good public use housing that's mixed income. And so we need to get more tax credit deals on the table. We need to incentivize states. The federal government has a good power of like saying here's some money if you do X to do stabilization, because you can't have rampant you know, raise If you have four hundred thousand people renting in any year, their mortgage can go up one hundred two, three hundred four dollars.
That's just not sustainable.
Yeah, And we need a renter's tax credit, just like we have a homeowner's textor there's some of these ideas that are floating around, but I think it starts with a serious commitment. And then on homeless you know, one of the things I'm so proud of Montgomery County. We eliminated veterans homelessness. We're on our way to eliminate it
for children and families. That core requires a housing first strategy, no matter why you're homeless or experiencing homelessness, that we put you in housing first and then figure out all the other things.
I think that's something we need to do across the country too.
Let me ask you a specific one on housing. Something else that we've been tracking here is permanent capital coming in buying up a lot of single family housing. Of course they you know, especially right now with mortgage rates being so high, they can come in with all cash and it really makes it difficult for first time home buyers.
Is that something you would take a look at. Is that something you would ban or some people have floated the idea of you have to have you have to give first preference to the individual before you allow permanent capital to come in.
We do it all the time at the local level.
Is called a rite of first refusal or rowfer, and I think that idea is a good one. If you look in some of these housing markets and metropolitan areas ours included, there is so little available because of people that have bought things up, either as investments to flip or these corporate entities, private equity entities coming in. So we need to one know what the universe is. We
have to have transparency and sunlight on it too. I think we do need to look at opportunities and that would loop in like first time home buyer credits down payment assistant programs. Some of those things have phased out over time at the federal and local level. I think that we do need to make sure home ownership.
Is on the rise.
You know, we saw with appraisals, these studies that's come out with appraisals. You know, for example, there's still a lot of inequity and fair housing where appraisals for African American families and redline communities for the same house or forty fifty thousand dollars less. So that's something we need to do as well. But yes, I do think looking at these corporate entities is a part of the solution for sure.
Gotcha, Can I do a little couple of lightning round progressive priorities with you? Sure?
I'll be quick.
Not a care for all? Yes or no?
We need to be on a path towards it.
What does that mean post sponsored the bill if you're re elected to the Senate.
Yeah, I think that's where we need to head. The price of cost of healthcare is insane. I talk to doctors all the time like they're getting out of the OBGYN who delivered three of our four children is dropping the ob because of liability and because of the reimbursement rate. It's insane these and that's a black woman. Maternal health for black women is a huge priority the down cascading.
It's crazy.
I talk to an orthopedist who's having to fight with insurance companies every day to get the same amount that he got last year for the same surgery.
It's the for profit system is broken.
So you need either dramatic regulation or a public option to make them honest. But ultimately, I do think a system where we cover everybody. It showed it the work when we expanded Medicaid.
It works. You know, you need to get people covered.
Free college, community college.
We've done that in Maryland. I think that's the way we start. It's five thousand dollars. It's effective. The smartest students cheerity the Education Committee are these young people. All of our students are smart, but these these young people who do dual enrollment, they graduate. I just did a couple of their graduations from high school with their associates and with their high school degree. But even for those who don't do that, you get a great bang for
your buck. Again, it's less than five thousand.
Dollars a year.
We can afford to get people a good start. Not everyone needs a for your liberal arts, especially with what's going on with our economy and the job changing job market. But some sort of post secondary training up to two years should be free. Various entities could be community college, could be career in tech, could be other things.
We should absolutely do that.
A Green New Deal, well.
There's a lot in there.
Yeah, that's fair. It means a lot of things.
A lot of Yeah, and so I would say I'm for a lot of the things in the Green New Deal.
I wouldn't want to just.
Right now say fair enough and last one, last one on this. Should President Joe Biden, who does have primary challengers, should he debate?
Yeah?
Absolutely, Yeah.
I mean I think at some point you're gonna have to get to a point of viability. You know, we get a little further down the line, but it's like.
You know, I mean, they're pulling higher than a lot of the Republicans.
Yeah, which is my point, But that could change. I think one debate might change that. Okay, But yeah, I don't I don't think I support President Biden, but I think democracy is about debate. If we can't have a free exchange of ideas, if we're mad at people burning books and descantists and all that, we shouldn't be scared to have him stand up there and talk to people.
All right, that's entirely fair. Tell people where they can find.
You, well, will Jorwando dot com.
There you go.
Great,