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 today. What do we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
It is a very big and frankly very scary week. Today or tomorrow we're going to learn Kamo's VP pick. So there's been fevered speculation. We'll tell you what we know. Where everybody stands and who is lobbying for who. It's gotten very very interesting. We also have some new polls revealing the current state of the race that are quite interesting. The gender divide actually a little bit smaller than I expected, given us just one pole though and very close race.
I think that's the bottom line. We are in truly toss up territory. We also are taking a look at what is a terrifying situation in the Middle East. Everybody waiting to see what the Iranian response is going to be to that assassination that occurred by Israel on their soil. Doctor Tree to Parsi is going to join us to talk about what we could be facing this week. We also have stock markets crashing around the world, a huge sell off, Japan's index dropping the largest single drop in
a day. This comes on the heels of a very poor jobs report here in the US and some indications that we could be heading into a recession, so very scary signs to take a look at their Sacer and I are going to dig into this Olympic gender controversy, and soccer is very excited to talk about.
It'll be fun. We'll give everybody the details.
Yeah, of course, we'll just you know, break down the politics of it, how this whole thing took off, What we know, what we don't know, because there is a lot of fiction to sort through with regard to this boxer in the Olympics. And we also have Jordan Sheridan on He wrote a new book about the poisoning of flint, which obviously very relevant continues to be with Michigan being
a battle ground state. And also given the fact that you know, this isn't the only place that has been poisoned in America with little repercussions and little pay, little sort of compensation for the victims of said poisoning, so we'll have a look at that as well.
Yes, that's right.
Thank you to all of the people who signed up. You took advantage of our promotion for a free month trial of our pre subscription. We really appreciate all of those who did. It was a certainly thank you to our tou tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of new watchers and listeners, so we really appreciate you. If you didn't get to take advantage of that, perhaps we'll bring it back. But breakingpoints dot com, if you want to check it out, we are going to continue delivering our service.
To the premium subscription.
You get to watch everything uncut, you get the AMA and all those other benefits. So if you still want to take advantage of Breakingpoints dot com, and we will certainly bring it back sometime in the future, stay tuned for that. Let's go ahead, though, Crystal and begin with the VP speculation, which we've only got a limited amount of time before we may even learn who it is.
Yeah, we actually put this block first in the show because this could leak out.
The news could leak.
Out at any time, so we wanted to record this and get it out before it becomes outdated. Let's put this first piece up on the screen so we know that she has sort of narrowed her list to six. In particular, You've got Governor Andy was Cheer of Kentucky, JB. Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Tim Walls of Minnesota, Senator Mar Kelly of Arizona, and Transportation Secretary's Pete Budhagic
appear to be the final six. However, among those six, there appear to be three that have the edge that Kamala met with personally.
Yesterday in DC.
That would be Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, Mark Kelly, Senator of Arizona, and Governor Tim Walls of Minnesota. So, first of all, Soccer, any sort of wild speculation that you want to make here at the top about who you think the pick might be.
Going to go Shapiro, I'd probably give it like a fifty five percent shot, which shows by the way that have not all that confident. I mean, it would perhaps behoove Kamala just to pick somebody else, just to try and get as big of a media pop but the fundamentals of the race are still there. Pennsylvania is the most likely tipping point state overwhelmingly popular governor. The other two don't necessarily come from states that Kamala's is in
the same must win category. At the same time, vice president usually doesn't matter, as we said here, but you know, given his popularity in the state and perhaps in the machine and other things that he might be able to bring to bear. When we're talking about margins of just a couple of ten fifteen thousand votes that have that which is really what's happened a couple one hundred thousand votes really in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, you need
all the help that you can get. So just given the math and given the way that all the models look and how twenty sixteen and twenty twenty played out, I think Pennsylvania just seems like.
The most likely beat.
Yeah, I think it's probably Shapiro as well, although I'll give you a.
Few reasons in a moment why possibly she would be leery of picking the governor of Pennsylvania at this point. Now this has developed into a real sort of like ideological battle within the left and within the Democratic Party. You had Joe Scarborough coming out a long tweet thread defending Josh Shapiro and advocating for him and of course smearing his critics as what else anti semites. Let's put
this up on the screen from Joe Scarborough. He says, Josh Shapiro's governor of the most important state in this election. That part is true. He's the most experienced leader and gifted order of the remaining strong candidate's gifted order. If you love a knock off Obama impression, he would present voters with the most dynamic tickets since Clinton Gore in ninety two. While as dynamicus al Gore soger incredible and
we'll be ready to serve on day one. He goes on from there, he says, the whisper campaigns against Josh Shapiro have dark undertones.
Breaking news He's Jewish.
But just as Thatcher was identified as a game changing force in politics instead of a woman, Josh Shapiro's strengths and talents would easily transcend bigotry and identity politics, and then he continued on, don't understand the recent attacks on the strongest VP contender. Well, it's a toxic mix of anti Semitism, extremist views on Gaza, and jealous colleagues who don't want to be blocked out of the presidential.
Sweepstakes for the next decade.
That last part is almost certainly about John Fetterman, who interestingly has come out against Josh Shapiro.
They have a sort of like in state rivalry. I'll show you that in a moment.
You know, Shapiro has become a bit of a lightning rod in terms of this VP pick, because ideologically he has been the most vocal and the most extreme in terms of his rhetoric with regard to Israel and specifically with regard to campus protesters. We showed you last week him comparing pro Palestine protesters to the KKK. Since then, his college writings about Palestinians and how they're too I think it was battle minded for peace have come out now.
I don't think anyone should be judged by whatever the hell they were saying in college.
I don't think that's fair whatsoever.
The problem is there's not a lot of indication that he has actually changed his views with regard to this, and so, you know, the charge of anti Semitism here, first of all, ignores the fact that JB. Pritzker, also in the list also Jewish. In addition, the same people who are arguing against Josh Shapiro are the people who
literally lionize Bernie Sanders, who is also Jewish. So it's a convenient, you know, scapegoating of the left, attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism which isn't only centered around Gaza, but also has to do with his support of charter schools. That's why the labor movement is not a fan of him. He's called for corporate taxes to be cut. And the reason I think the two reasons why I think she
could could potentially pass on Shapiro at number one. You know, this has opened up one of the fishers within the Democratic Party that Kamala Harris had a chance to somewhat
move past right. A lot of people on the left who were not going to vote for genocide Joe are a little bit open to Kamala Harris because she doesn't seem like so much of an id law on Israel, and that's the best you're going to get in the Democratic Party is someone who is not an ideological Zionist who's willing to pay a political price in service of that ideological position. The best you can hope for is someone who is malleable. And that's why there's a little
bit more openness to Kamala Harris. Josh Shapiro seems to fit much more in the Biden model, where he is actually ideologically committed to the cause. And so you know, she could just from a risk aversion standpoint, not want to open up those rifts in the Democratic Party when so much of her bump in the polls actually comes from reconsolidating a Democratic base among young people and others that had drifted away.
That's number one.
Number two, there are a couple of things that could come up in the VET that are potentially problematic.
One of them has.
To do with this old case where a woman's death was ruled a suicide even though she had ten to fifteen stab wounds, and Shapiro's accused of having so sat on this case, and he had a campaign contribution from the individual who could be a murder suspect in that case. You know, it's the type of thing that you could see, you know, an ad maker really picking up and running wild with So there's that, and there's also the allegations of cover up of sexual harassment within his office, so
it's possible. And then the last thing, I guess there is one other thing, which is he does read is very ambitious, right, and his people around him have really tried to create this aura of inevitability to his pick as the VP, And it's possible that she doesn't like the vibe of that, feels that he's going to you know, overshadow her, feels that he's not going to be a team player, really be interested, you know, primarily in his
own advancement. Like I said, I still think it's most likely that Shapiro is chosen, But if he's not, I think it would be more likely one of those reasons than like, you know, that she actually has an ideological issue with him or wants to please the left because nobody at the top of the Democratic Party wants to do that.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well.
And look, let's be honest, you know, other contenders also have significant basis. So we've been covering here Organized Labor UAW president Sean Fain, who endorsed Kamala Harris, has come out in favor of other candidates, So why don't we take a listen to what he had to say.
We've really broken down these candidates, really looked at him, and I'll tell you my favorite, Andy but Sheer from Kentucky. I mean, the man stood with us, you know, on the picket line. You know, he's been there for workers throughout every bit of our walk. And you know he's won in a state where Mitch McConnell's from. I mean, it's been a red state traditionally. He's won twice there and I just believe he brings a huge dynamic and I believe the Harris the Sheer ticket would be unbeatable.
I believe both of them would just be such dynamic candidates. But we really like Tim Wallas from Minnesota also, thank he's an awesome guy for labor, one hundred percent behind labor, And those would be our top two if we had to pick any.
So I think that's significant, you know.
Nonetheless, with the auto workers specifically, if we think about Michigan and the industrial Midwest, that could certainly come down at the same time, he did endorse Kamala Harris already, so it's already on board with the ticket. Nonetheless, you know, certainly something that we should look to, especially with some of the war between who she is going to pick.
I still think though, my foremost point stands whenever we just look at Pennsylvania, the tipping point status and just what he potentially could bring to that ticket, and just all you have to do is drive out you know, zero point five percent more of the vote, and in Pennsylvania you so much more have an outsized influence. That's why I just think the fundamentals are really strong there.
Yeah, it makes sense that Sean Fain would be a big fan of Annie Basher because the state of Kentucky there's quite a bit of auto manufacturing. They have a large Ford truck assembly plant there that they've got a lot of UAW members. They were involved in that stand up strike that was so successful. There's also been part of why Andysheer is so popular in the state of Kentucky is he's brought a lot of manufacturing jobs into the state, including union battery EV.
Battery jobs of the state.
So that's why he's got a close partnership and comfort with Andy Basheer, and but Sheer also came in in the wake of the teacher strike wave, and that was very important to his election. So, you know, in the state of Kentucky, even though it's a red state, quote unquote, very pro union, very pro labor, and Andy Bisheer has
been very consistently pro union and pro labor. The other candidate that he says he likes is Tim Wall's former high school teacher, who has also been really consistently pro labor and has become a real favorite of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party because of how strong his record has been in the state. And also I think he's really won people over with how effective he is in terms of his communication. Let's go ahead and skip ahead to a five, because this was something that gave
the Walls heads out there a lot of hope. Apparently Nancy Pelosi is leaning in Tim Walls's favor. He's a former in addition being the governor of Minnesota, actually served in the House for quite a while. And this was an article from The Hill that quoted hers, quoted those around her as saying she's always especially fond of former House colleagues, when asked about Harris's running, made a nod to Walls, and other members of the House who had served with him also were sort of like, you know,
pushing him and in favor of him as well. Apparently Joe Biden really likes him because he just thought he was fun to be around and for whatever that's worth. So everyone's hoping that Nancy's gonna pull off another coup here and get Walls on the ticket. If anyone could do it, I guess it would be her. The other thing, Sager go back to a four guys. This is the Fetterman thing that I was talking about, which is kind of, you know, this interra state party rivalry situation. Betterman has
concerns about Shapiro for VP. The bottom line here is he is privately relayed that he Shapiro is sort of overly ambitious, and there was a civic rub between the two of them about the commutations board. There were two prisoners being held in the state who were convicted always maintained their innocence. There was a dispute over whether they should be released or not. Fetterman thought that Shapir resisted releasing them initially because of his own political personal ambition.
Later they did, you know, make it through that commutation board and were released. So in any case, his bottom line is sort of like, I guess they've never liked each other. There's a sort of in state rivalry, and he's telling the Harris team that he thinks this guy is overly ambitious and more interested in his own political prospects than anything else.
Hey.
Yeah, reading it, I was like, well, the fact that they got commuted anyway tells me a little bit that I don't think you really care. And that's just some you know, like leak the best that you could possibly get. It does sound more like he doesn't want to be overshadowed in his own home state, just given what we know a little bit about John Fetterman. Also, you know, in the wake of the last you know, year or so, in the way that he has comported himself, so he
wants to be the star. He really enjoys the national profile, and it's not good whenever somebody else in your state is going to do upstate. You you know, he probably was the foremost national Pennsylvania politician and now Josh Shapiro certainly would overtake. So I always describe the cynicism whenever it comes to those people's That's what I make of the Fetterman situation at least.
Yeah fair.
I mean, even though Fetterman in this instance happened to come out on the same side of this issue as I do, I agree with you wholeheartedly about what his motivations are here. So moving on, let's put a seven up on the screen here. This is about Andy Basheer.
He's apparently cleared his Tuesday calendar. Now, the reason that this is significant is because we know Tuesday, Kamala is going to do a rally in Philadelphia, which again made people think, oh, which Shapiro is definitely Shapiro, but it's going to be.
With whoever her VP pick is.
And so Andy Basheer is apparently cleared his Tuesday calendar, which made people think, oh, maybe there's something going on here.
Who knows.
Everybody's just trying to read that he leaves at this point. Who knows if that means anything at all. The case for Andy, I think is sort of like a moderate pick that won't piss off.
Anyone in the party, right. You know, he's obviously.
Got a great track record running and winning in a very difficult state twice and having a very high popularity, highest popularity of any Democratic governor in the entire country. He's proven himself to be an able communicator in his little cable news audition that all of these guys did as part of this VP process, which has been kind of funny to behold. But I sort of feel like he's like the low risk option. You know, she doesn't want to ruffle feathers by picking Shapiro and opening up
that rift. But she doesn't want to, you know, throw the left a bone here with Tim Walls and all of his progressive bona fides in terms of his record in Minnesota. Perhaps Andy Basheer ends up being kind of the safe, don't walk the boat, do no harm pick. And like I said, he does bring assets to the table in terms of being able to effectively communicate. Has got a great Southern accent, you know, Democrats or suckers for people who kind of play against type, and he's
got that going for him. So that would be kind of the case for Annie Basher getting the nod here.
I could see.
Look, I mean, I can make a jiu jitsu case. I think for all of these he's not terrible. He's very popular Democratic governor. But I just don't see the electoral calculus at the end of the day. I mean, this is somebody who is from a R plus three state and he's a very unique person. That's part of the reason why these types of candidates very rarely do well in the National Democratic Party because their uniqueness doesn't
necessarily suit to the overall ticket. Now, their argument could be made he could help with Appalachian voters, but I don't see that same case happening here because a lot of those people are already just pro Trump. You know, at the end of the day, they're not swing state in the way they used to be. Really, the people the vote that it's all going to come down to is white, working class but older voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin. And that's not necessarily the same graphic that might have been up for grabs, let's say in twenty and sixteen. So anyway, the way that I kind of have been looking at each individual characteristic electorally just again seems to come back to Shapiro. But and I think this is one thing that you can't underestimate, and you've been highlighting you also need to get along with the person. Perhaps if you're a Kamala, she had a terrible time
as vice president. That is not abnormal historically. Usually vice presidents are marginalized. They're very very rarely brought into the inner circle. They're usually very ambitious, and that always sets up like a loggerheads type of strategy. But you also know that you're kind of picking your anointed successor in a certain case. You know, if Shapiro remains to be seen whether he knows how to be the number two and basically just ate it for potentially four to eight
years before he could run. At the same time, you know, he's a young man, so perhaps he could make that calculus.
Yeah, and I do think that the VP pick here is very consequential.
Oh goodness, the dog has showed up.
I think it's consequential Number one, because Kamala is even though she's been on the national stage for a while and now she's been untested. Number two, because this is very likely if Kamala and this person whoever they are, lose this time around, is very likely your democratic nominee next time. And if it's not next time, if they do win, and then it'll you know, very likely the
time after that. So that's why the stakes in terms of the direction of the Democratic Party are very high with this pick, and so I think that's why the battles of in fierce. It's also been funny to watch it play out, just because it's such a condensed timeline, like everyone dispensed with the sort of niceties of pretending and just were like out there making the case for
themselves and different coalitions. There were a bunch of progressives who put on a like a memo about the case for Walls, and you got union leaders like Sean Fain going out and making the case and Joe Scarborough making the case.
Et cetera.
So it's been the most direct jockeying for this position that I've ever seen, which I actually kind of appreciate, Like why beat around the bush. You want the position, like, go out there and make your case for it. And you know, the last thing I'll say in regard to Andy Wassheer, they could really like the way that he was very effective in his campaign running on abortion right.
That's true in.
The state of Kentucky. And with regards to Tim Walls, they could really like the fact that I mean, his like weird characterization of the Republican Party really became instantly central to the Kamlayeras campaign. So he definitely proved himself in terms of his communication abilities. We'll see what the personal fit is like.
And who she ends up going with. At the end of the day.
I think it's still very much, very much open it. Listen, it could be one of the ones we talked about a little bit less to like a Pete boota judge, et cetera. So a lot of things, a lot of possibilities still on the table here.
Well, remain stay tuned and we of course bringing the breaking news here at breaking points, so for all of our Pream subscribers and others, you can keep your eyes glued to the channel.
Let's move on to the polls.
There has been significant movement in the polls, just dramatically shifting the race.
We all just have to sit and meditate.
It's only been like fifteen days since Commwa actually became the Democratic nominee, and yet in that time we have seen a complete reversal of many of the games that Donald Trump had made against Joe Biden. Let's start with the first one, perhaps the most significant let's put this up there on the screen. Nate Silver's now election model shows Kamala Harris with a fifty point five percent chance of winning the presidential election, with Donald Trump dropping to
forty eight point eight. What's especially amazing is you can watch the narrowing of the gap there from July twenty ninth, the day then that Joe Biden drops out of the race on July thirtieth, and now we see exactly what has happened since or sorry, since the day that Nate's silverturn on his model, and since then July thirtieth, you've seen the streams the so called blue line and the
red line actually cross. Now, nobody should delude themselves because fifty point five is still quite literally a toss up, and there is still some you know, ninety some days to go till election day. But a lot of the movement in that direction should have the Trump campaign really question their strategy. Now, so far, let's put this up here, please on the screen.
What we have here.
You know, Kamala Harris has now taken the slight lead in the RCP five way average. This might actually be even more significant to me, Crystal, because it shows Kamala Harris with one point two percent edge in the recent average of poles. Now, the reason why I say it's more significant is that OURCP does not do waiting in their polling average, while five point thirty eight and Nate
Silver's model does. Nate Silver's model takes past performance of polls and incorporates them, whereas the RCP is the raw average perhaps of even junkie polls that are not particularly good.
And so when we even have ras musen.
For example, let's say a polster generally been favorable to Trump in the past and perhaps even accurate, you know, in twenty sixteen, if they're only Trump plus one, and then you take the average of the others and you
take it together at point two. This is again just shows up in a toss up territory where previously Donald Trump just had such a significant advantage in the polls, where you know, Republicans already have some two percent edge in the popular vote whenever it comes to a national election because of the way that the electoral college works. But when you take the point too, it erases some of that previous benefit that you had and lets things
move to the complete margin. Literally day of turnout territory for deciding the presidential election.
I mean, clearly, where we are today is as toss up a toss up race could possibly be I saw.
I think Nate Silver tweeted about this result that if you take a performance that's a little better than Hillary in twenty sixteen, a little worse than Joe Biden in twenty twenty, you end up with a true electoral college toss up, which is what you're looking at in his model, And I think that probably fits where we are right now.
Now.
The question is does the trend continue? Is this a honeymoon phase for Kamala Harris and she comes back down to earth. Her skyrocketing favorability has been wild to behold. I don't know if you've seen some of the numbers among young people in particular, just in terms of how they feel abou Kamala Harris herself. The swing has been, like I'm talking a thirty point swing in terms of favorability ratings of Kamala Harris among young voters.
So is she able to maintain that?
Does the trend continue where she just continues to gain ground as Republicans continue to sort of spin their wheels and failed to make an effective argument, you know, is she able to with her VP pick and then you head into the DNC continue to pick up momentum. I think those are the real questions for the future in terms of where this race is headed. But as you said, Zagernau and should delude themselves. You know, it's because the polls have moved so quickly. It's easy to feel like
Kamala Harris has a huge edge. Now she does not. You know, if you look at the battleground pulling, it's still really really close. In plenty of battleground states. You still have Trump coming in with a bit of an edge. I think this race is just about as razor thin margin as it could possibly be right at the moment. And the big question is just what's the trajectory from here?
Yeah, two months from now, we could say this was the top. This was as good as it got. She does a couple interviews is a disaster. On the other hand, she just continue this. She's getting a free pass. She's going to get probably a ton of media coverage whenever it comes to the VP pick. It's been fifteen days, she hasn't done any interviews. Maybe she can go a month with no interview, so I could really see it
either way. Let's put this up there on the screen, CBS News with a very very good poll likely voter polled nationally from yugov Nationally, you see.
Exactly what we're talking about here.
You have fifty percent national, fifty percent Kamala forty nine percent Donald Trump. This is a plus or minus two percent in the margin of error in the battleground states. They quite literally have it tied at fifty fifty. Let's go to the next part, please, because this also breaks down the gender gap choice for president amongst men forty five percent Kamala Harris fifty four percent Donald Trump. Basically exactly even fifty four percent there for women, and then
forty five percent for Donald Trump. Not as big of a gap as previously we have seen in American politics. If we go to the next part, we again start to see where the breakdown happens.
Would their policies help women?
And this is perhaps where I think Kamala has got the bigest edge, because Harris's policies amongst female registered voters, they say seventy percent yes, forty three percent yes for Donald Trump, but with no on Harris's policies only thirty percent fifty seven percent there So the enthusiasm amongst women voters, I think is one that we will have to grapple with if a Kamala does end up winning just because abortion. Again comes back to Salient's next part. Please and continue
with the demographics. This isn't amongst black registered voters. Would their policies help black people? Harris's policies is eighty yes, Trump's policies twenty no no for Harris twenty and eighty for Donald Trump. So you could see there's a high level of polarization. Although you know, historically Democrats do win ninety percent of the Black vote, so if twenty percent actually does vote for Donald Trump or says favorable things about Donald Trump, that actually still would be quite a
historic result if that were to materialize. That's kind of how I'm looking at those two things. Nonetheless, the comparison to Joe Biden is the one that really matters, and the comparison to Joe and Crystal is where she clearly shines with these suburban women voters on abortion and amongst black voters, which means a higher edgent turnout. And of course it all comes down to turnout, as the meme literally.
Says, yeah, that's right, and who prioritizes what Yeah, you know, we saw an election in twenty twenty two that people are very upset about the economy. We're going to talk later in the show. Economic numbers looking really bad right now, taking a turn for the worst. That could be really a huge drag in Kamala Harris is that becomes more salient, and Donald Trump continues to have an edge in terms of his economic policies, so that could be incredibly salient.
You could see abortion rights being incredibly salient. You could see just you know, vibes like I don't like Donald Trump. I don't really want to go back to the time when he was president. I think in twenty twenty two, not only abortion but the sense of sort of fringe extremism were incredibly important to the result. But of course, Tolan Trump wasn't actually on the ballot in twenty twenty two, And I think one thing that we've seen is no
one really pulls off trump Ism except Trump. So it is a very different deal when he's on the ballot. But it's difficult to predict which issue typically say, oh, it'll be the economics that'll control, but I think it's going to be more complicated calculus given how much people have reacted to this sense of their rights being taken away. And Donald Trump was the guy who put those people
on the Supreme Court. And it's very clear in the numbers about women voters how they feel about how he would be for women versus how Kamala Harris would be here. I think her gender is a tremendous asset and the fact that she has more credibility on the issue not only just because of her gender, but also because of her ideological positioning over the years Versus Joe Biden. She is a much better messenger on that issue than he was.
And I fully expect that whether it's Shapiro or Walls or Kelly or Sheer or whoever it is, they're also.
Are going to be very effective messengers on this issue too.
Yeah, no question.
I mean all Democrats have basically learned how to speak the language of that. And you know, I think I said this before. If you go to Jos Shapiro's TikTok account, basically every single post is just about abortions.
So these people know where their bread is buttered. Politically.
Let's put this last part up here on the screen. This shows personal finances, and this highlights what you were saying. If Harris wins, people registered voters say that they would only twenty five percent think they would be financially better off forty five percent.
If Donald Trump wins financially worse off.
You actually have forty four percent you say yes for Harris, thirty eight percent for Donald Trump, and stay about the same is thirty one percent for Kamala, seventeen percent for Donald Trump. So clearly there is at least a slight, you know, plurality of people who believe they're going to be financially better off if Donald Trump wins. I will remind everyone that in twenty twenty, the trust on the economy percentage ended up being far more predictive than any
of the national polling. Donald Trump still continues to show a major edge whenever it comes to handling of the economy and this question of financially better off. Now, let's remember, though the economy was not a predictor of the twenty twenty two outcome, all economic predictions weighted to poles would have said that there would have been a large Republican gain. So this can be overcome when social issues become very
very hot button. But the question is exactly as you said, what are people going to be feeling on election day? So we have some signs of a slowing down economy, of reducing stock market people's retirement, people are going to start getting jumpy. Now that's a very very different situation than where we've been previously, where yes, inflation is horrible and bad, but it's been more of a slow decline
rather than a rapid one. So if we do have a rapid downturn in the US economy, I actually do think the race could significantly shift and perhaps in Donald Trump's favor. And then finally, if we put this up here, what we see is the Trump campaign polling analysis though, is they are now trying to play the quote unskew the polls game. And basically anytime somebody puts out a statement like this where the Trump campaign is calling the CBS poll, you know, a manipulated result and saying that
they're over sampling people. I've seen this game before from Democrats. I've seen this game before from Republicans. Almost always, whenever you are trying to point to individual problems in.
Polls, you're just you know, you're playing you're playing the wrong game.
This is one where it generally reflects you being on the back foot, and when you're on the back foot, that's just not a good place to be with respect to the national media and generally in terms of your campaign messaging. So clearly, as we showed in the economy and even the brief, we didn't have time necessarily to go through the border numbers. But on both of those two issues, immigration in the economy, that's what you should be putting out press releases.
That's all you should really be talking about.
And if you can't win on that, I don't really know what to tell you because clearly it's such a huge edge with that, right Crystal.
Yeah, Well, here's here's what I would say about the unskew the polls thing. It brings back Mitt Romney in twenty twelve. That was that was sort of the original unskew. There was actually an unskew the Poles website, and that guy was on box News all over the place, and people really bought it. And you know, the right was the Republicans were absolutely shocked to the point of your the famous moment on with Megan Kelly on Fox News where she was having to talk them down from the you.
Know, Ohio was not lost. It's not lost. You's like, I think it's lost.
You know, these are fake numbers that you're trying to pull together. And then Joe Biden just recently total denial, you know, kept in this little coseted bubble, told by his advisor Donalin that oh, no, your numbers are great, sir, and not letting any contrary information in. And oh if there are polls that show you down, those poles are wrong, they're lying. That's not true. It's you know, of course you're a wonderful, great leader who could vote against you,
et cetera, et cetera. No, these were not winning campaigns. Joe Biden was headed to a massive, massive defeat. And so it's not a good sign for the Trump people that they're out there doing the unskewed the polls thing.
The last thing I'll say with regard to the entire electoral picture, though Sager, is one thing we haven't talked about, which we are about to talk about with doctor Trija Parsi, is the threat of a massive or in the Middle East that we would be deeply entangled in and so while you know, foreign policy rarely is the number one deciding factor at a time when we could be you know, facing direct threats to our troops and insane chaos and continued horror in the Middle East, but on a much
broader scale that could end up being incredibly salient in a way that you know is difficult to anticipate. So given that you have an economy that's clearly on the brink and some really dire signs there that you have in the entire region of the world with nuclear armed powers that is on the brink, there's a lot of
potential terrifying dangers. And in terms specifically of the political horse race, which of course the least important point here, but in terms of the political horse race, a lot of fraught danger for Kamala Harris ahead.
So I know they're feeling good right now. They should be feeling good about where the Poles are.
Versus they were just sort of like locked into to defeat in November when it was the Biden ticket. Now they've got a shot, but there are a lot a lot of risk.
For them on that, and they're also in a very bad position on that because they're not in charge. Joe Biden is in charge. But not only is he literally ailing, you know, and fading before all of our eyes, he's also ideologically committed to us, to the defense of Israel and to a potentially massive war in the Middle East, while also being incredibly weak and not being able to bring any of the powers to bear both the Israelis,
the Iranians, the Jordanians, and others. So we have a power vacuum in the Middle East, which is the worst possible place you could be in.
So in some sense, you're totally right.
I mean, if you have hundreds of US troops that are killed months before the election, that's a totally different situation, not to mention tens of thousands in the Middle East, rockets going all over the place, and who even knows
what the hell would be going on. Donald Trump showing us some old twenty twenty ways and how he certainly is being as normal for him as possible, returning to the state of Georgia and deciding to attack Brian Kemp, the popular GOP governor who he tried to defeat unsuccessfully in the primary in twenty twenty two. Let's take a listen to what he had to say about the state's popular governor.
Kemp doesn't want to end it because he's a bad guy. He's a disloyal guy, and he's a very average governor. Little Brian, Little Brian camp bad guy. But think of it.
I got this guy.
Just think and then that's it.
I got this guy nominated.
I then got him elected. Without me, he doesn't get nominated and he doesn't get elected. He had no chance of winning either one and all he had to do is sign something where the Senate would like to look at election integrity. This is an honest man. That's an honest man. They were all honest. They were looking at something very legitimate, and this bad guy said, I'm sorry.
Sir, I can't do it.
I called him and I said, Brian, they're looking at election integrity.
Is there anything you could do.
I'm sorry, sir, I can't get involved in that. I said, but Brian, you don't understand. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. I'm sure, sir, I can't get involved. I've had you up to here, Brian, I've had you up to here. He's a bad guy and he's not doing this country a good service.
Hoof All right, well, Donald Trump certainly back right back to his old ways.
It certainly hasn't been changed by anything.
And just sticking with the sheer electoral consequences of this, imagine, in October twenty twenty, I tell you there will be two Democrats who will represent state of Georgia in the United States Senate. There will be a primary challenge backed by Donald Trump against two GOP officials, and all of those not only will the Democrats win, but then those Republicans who stood up to Trump will actually have an electoral advantage at the ballot box in Georgia, which we
previously thought of all as a red state. Oh and Joe Biden actually won that state in twenty twenty. So it's very clear that this is an electoral massive loser in the state of Georgia, regardless of whether Trump believes
it or not. And as we all learned at the ballot box with Brian Kemp and Brad Raffinsberger, the Secretary of State, Republican voters, yes, Republican voters did not even care as much about these issues because Kemp defeated what was his name, David Perdue, the former Senator by the way with huge name recognition by some seventy percent margin. He went down massively and Brad Raffinsberger won as well,
which people were even shocked by. So at this point, Donald Trump clearly is consumed by his own petty grievances about personal loyalty and is very willing to risk a margin in a state where maybe under Joe Biden he could get away with this, but under Kamala Harris and with the tolls where they are right now only two percent plus advantage in the state of Georgia, shouldn't be messing around. This is Trump really at his worst.
Brian Kemp, I just looked it up, has a sixty three percent approval rating in the state of Georgia.
That's crazy.
He's very popular.
He's way more popular than Donald Trump is in the same of Georgia. Is just like not even close. And you know, part of this is something said Jelani's been tweeting about who I believe it lives. He's from Georgia. I think he lives in Georgia again, right, Yeah, he's been tweeting about the fact. I mean Kemp has governed very conservatively. You know, he's very much in line with like, you know, the Trump direction of the party in terms
of his ideology. But because he's seen as being oppositional to Trump, that has actually given him a lot of credibility with moderate voters in spite of his pretty hard right ideological leaning, which just is a long way of saying, so much of our politics is just about like vibes and how you feel about the singular figure of Donald Trump, and that is certainly the case here. But I also felt like watching this all unfold, you know, sometimes you give trump weigh too much credit.
We always think he's doing some forty chess move.
There is no universe in which this makes any sense electorally, where is anything other than shooting yourself in the foot electorally. This last time in Georgia, Sager, we talked about this so much because he casts so much doubt on mail in ballots. He lost out on Republican votes in the state of Georgia because they weren't able to bank those mail in ballots ahead of time, and that alone was probably responsible for that thin margin that he lost by
in the state of Georgia. So it wouldn't be the first time that he shot himself in the foot and undermined his own electoral chances in a critical now swing state. So it's just like it reminds you how foolish this man can be, and how sometimes he's just preternaturally gifted in terms of sensing a political moment and political opportunity, and sometimes he is the dumbest person politically on the face of the planet.
I think Donald Trump is like the most high variant person's ever assistant. When he's good, he's great, and when he's bad, he's so horrible, and you just never know
what you're going to get. This is also testament to the fact that sometimes you want a more middle of the road person whenever you have this slight advantage, because you want to make things a little bit less more predictable, and you want to run on the fundamentals, which a lot of the American people actually do say that they want out of politics now that they're generally exhausted in this political moment. Nonetheless, you do still have the maga base,
who very much is with him. But the real lesson of twenty twenty two is that the base can only get you so far, even in Republican primaries, and that the base and its own predilections can be so repellent to the general public whenever it's backed up by something like stop the Steal, that many people will put their own economic concerns aside and they will come out specifically
to vote against you. You see this in the problems with Kerry Lake in Arizona, where she continues to trail a lot of the MAGA candidates that lost in twenty twenty two. And it is a significant electoral problem in a race where you have it very very tight, and in a state like Georgia where you have massive influx of the suburban voters from all across the country. I mean, Atlanta is booming open for business. Part of the reason Brian Kemp is so popular. You have a major population influx.
All the fundamentals are there for a huge change and takeover in the state's economy. But you know, and they would be very willing to vote for a normal Republican like Brian Kemp, as we have seen, you know, in his electoral tally. The problem for Trump is that he actually single handedly makes it a toss up. And let's put this up there on the screen too. You just don't want this going into the election. You have Brian
Kemp here responding to Trump's truth. Keep this up because I'm gonna read Trump put out a true social post. He says. Brad Raflisberger has to do his job make sure this election is not stolen. Brian Kemp should focus his efforts on fighting crime, not fighting unity in the Republican Party. His crime rate is terrible as crime right
Atlanta is the worst, his economy is average. He's just making unity, not retribution, especially against the man that got him the nomination through endorsement and without whom he never would have beaten Stacy Abrams.
He and his wife don't even think he could win. I said, I'm telling you you're going.
He goes on to a story about Brian Kemp's wife how she won't endorse him. He says, well, I don't want her endorsement. I don't want this. They're the ones who got Fanny Willis and her boyfriend all jazzed up and ready to go. So he could have ended that travesty with a phone call, but he doesn't want to end it because he's a bad guy. So that's both
about Brad Raffensberger and Brian Kemp. Kemp response my focus is on winning this November and saving our country from Kamala Harris and the Democrats, not engaging in pettyant personal insults, attacking fellow Republicans or dwelling on the pass. You should do the same, mister President, and leave my family out of it. And I can just tell you very clearly that all the evidence says that Brian's message there is ten times more popular than Donald Trump.
So this really is the worst of Trump.
And it also shows you Everyone always talks about discipline, et cetera. I think Trump has been around long enough now at this point that there is no such thing as the discipline Trump. I think Trump is still having a very difficult time adjusting to Kamala in the race.
And psychologically I can understand it.
You had so much confidence that you were going to win, You had the coach, you know, you had the wins that you're back in a way. For almost two years now that he has been in the race, since he launched it, you've had some setbacks where you were relatively confident, and then the span of just two weeks everything has changed.
And he's always had difficulty calibrating changing his message and more and given the you know, in sheer insanity of the last month or so in American politics, it is understandable. That doesn't make it any less toxic at the ballot box for him.
Yeah, it's it smells desperate.
I mean, it just seems like he is completely sort of melting down and has lost his sense of what to do in this race and how to do it, and it's just randomly lashing out.
I totally agree with you.
All Right, Well, we got treat to Parsi standby talk about the situation Iran.
Let's get to it.
As we've been discussing in the week of multiple assassinations conducted across the region by Israel, we are now on the brink of a very dangerous escalation. Everyone sort of waiting to see what Iran is going to do in response. So as we await that, we're bringing in doctor Treta Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Staycraft to tell us where we are and where we could be headed. Great to see again, doctor, Good see sir, Thanks for
having me. Yeah, of course, let's go ahead and put this first ol up on the screen that just sort of summarizes everything. This is from journalist Joyce karm She says update Iran a tax singe as early as Monday, US forces arriving in the region, Sentcom Chief Israel tomorrow.
Per Barack Revid, Israel says plans in place for nationals leaving Lebanon, has an allies coordinate response strikes in Gaza with these target ships. That's sort of the top line of where we're at. Just give us a sense of how we got here and what you expect.
We've spoken about this numerous times that the Israelis, particularly in the Prime Minister Nataniel who has three years tried to push the United States to go to war with Iran and choosing to assassinate Haniya during the inauguration of kozshki On, the new Iranian president, in Tehran, whereas Israelis clearly had the ability to do so while he was in Doha since he lives there is a clear indication that they were trying to do something that would be
as escalatory as possible. The question is will the Iranians now walk into that trap? And the signal that they're sending is that they will retaliate and that if the Israelis respond, then they will continue it and they've essentially told foreign diplomats that they have a right to retaliate if it leads to a war. Essentially it's on Israel, not on Yvon. In some ways, the Iranians have trapped
themselves in an escalatory cycle. They took a lot of absorbed a lot of hits from Israel over the years, numerous scientists that were assassinated, the head of the Yvoni nuclear program was assassinated. The Iranians did not retaliate openly after the attack against the Iranian embassy, and Syria decided
to do so. And as a result, now after this assassination that is not necessarily worse, much worse than previous assassinations, they're in a corner in which they have to, in their view, retaliate, otherwise their efforts to restore the turrens has completely collapsed and failed, which is again part of
the risk of retaliating in the first place. You put yourself in a position in which you constantly have to respond if the Israelis are not deterred, which in this case clearly they've chosen that they're not right.
So, doctor Parsi, what we've learned is that there was a meeting in which apparently the Iranians told the Arab the Golf Arab states, they said, we don't care, you know if this does lead to war. Now, how much of this is bravado? How much of it is reality? And what are the political constraints within the regime itself that might drive their decision makings in the next twenty four hours.
I think much of that is bravado. I think the Iranians are going to respond in such a way that it minimizes the likelihood that it will lead to a significant escalation and a war, but still it will be more than what we saw in April. And April they went out of their ways to avoid any casualties on the Israelis sides. That's not likely going to be the
case this time around. I think they will actually try to draw blood this time around as a way of restoring that the terrence sort of saying, the risk obviously is that you have a prime minister in Israel than actually once escalation, and as a result, will use that as an opportunity to be able to escalate further. And I think is in that regard that the Iranians are saying they don't care if it goes in that direction.
I think they do, but I don't think that they will abide by what appears to have been American messages to Tehran of what the US would consider to be acceptable response from Yvon. I think the Iranians are likely going to go quite a bit beyond that, but perhaps not so far that it will give the Israelis a very clear justification for further escalation.
So the US EXU defense mainly jumped out and said, you know, the US will have Israel's back. We are now getting we can put this next element up on the screen. The empteenth version of the is having tough conversations and is really mad at bb Netnaho. Behind the scenes, Biden realized that Netnahu was lying to him about the hostages her rets. He's not saying it publicly yet, but in the meeting between them, he specifically told Bebe stop bullshitting me.
So that's the leaks that.
Are coming out of the latest meetings, you know, just reflects a little bit on that, and also how the calculus may have changed for Bebe, given that Biden is now a lame duck and Kamala Harris is the top of the Democratic ticket.
I think the White House's efforts to try to signal that they actually are tough with Natagno leaves them in a position in which they're portraying themselves as quite pathetic.
They're trying to say that we are being tough by leaking this information about what is being said behind the scenes, But reality is that if that is actually what is being said and NATO is not responding, it clearly shows that Biden is choosing not to use the actual leverage he has, which is to actually stop the arms supplies to his role, and as a result, Nataniello was absolutely no reasons to listen to Biden or take his threats or his harsh words in these mythological conversations behind the
scene particularly seriously. And this is part of the reason why we are in this situation now. We would not be in the situation if Biden actually had used America's leverage from the outset, he could have forced a ceasefire much earlier on. He chose not to, and even in April when he actually for the first time did use some leverage against Israelis and prevented them from escalating further. Nevertheless,
it wasn't successful. Because here we are two three months later and Natanyahu did something even more provocative than he did when he bombed the Iran in embassy consular section of the embassy in Damascus. It clearly shows that Biden's strategy of never actually being tough with these Raelis has been a complete disaster for US national interests because this war, if it breaks out in that large format, very likely
will drag the United States into another war. And I think Natania who came back from Washington after being here last week, realizing that the White House was quite a bit in a disarray as a result of Biden not really happily advocating the ticket, and as a result saw an opportunity to escalate dramatically and buy that force a conflict and a crisis on the next president of the United States, whether it is Trump or whether it is Kamala Harris.
Yeah, doctor Parsi, how does has Bola factor into this?
So there's of course an Iranian response, But there are also Iranian allies like Hesbola and others. They themselves are on the brink of a war. We have diplomatic nightmare right now with Lebanon. All US citizens being urged to leave, there's canceled flights, everybody is bracing. So even if there is a quote unquote like tempered response from the Iranian directly, what still holds on the front between Israel and Hezbolah.
So, I think it's a very important question you asked, and I think it's important to bear in mind that when the Israelis took out the head of Hamas in Tehran, that happened just hours or days after they had taken out the number two in Hezbola in Lebanon, and the world was bracing itself for a potential escalation between Hezbola
and Israel. And in that moment where everyone was hoping that there would be de escalation, the Israelis decided to kill Haniya in Tehran, clearly indicating that their desire actually is to escalate and bring about some larger war. If there is an attack, and I think there's an extremely highlightly that Iranians will respond, it will likely be a coordinative response from Hezbola, Iran Iraqi Siri militious as well
as the huties in Yemen. Part of the risk of that is that some of these elements are far more eager to actually move towards a larger war than the Vanyans are. The Yvonians have been very calibrating and cautious. They've have plenty of opportunities to escalate they chosen not to. But the UTIs, for instance, have a very different calculation. They have publicly complained that the Vanians are trying to
hold them back. Some of the Irakian and Syrian malicious have also complained about the unhappiness of yvon trying to restrain them. So if we end up in this larger war and at some point there is a serious effort to de escalate, the question is will there be discipline within the ranks of these different groups that are aligned with Yvan to actually go along with such a de escalation, or will we have a very chaotic situation in which some of them may be willing to de escalate than
others will not. Then, as a result, we may not get the actual de escalation that may be desired in certain parts. So this is a very significant risk now as a result of this major deliberate escalation that that Tanyahu was brought.
About doctor Parson in that same article where you know an aid is leaking that Biden told bb this is bullshit, and he realized finally that Bibe was.
Lying about the hostages.
It's obviously long been clear that bib netna in ten months apparently right, Yeah, I mean, it's just preposterous. But in that same article, this official says the US is preparing to help Israel in the face of Iran and Hesbela's response. However, they made it clear there would be no American backing for moves that would further expand the
scope of the conflict. Do you give that any credence because it is very hard for me to believe that we would actually, you know, allow Israel to face Iran Hasbela alone, that we wouldn't once again jump to their rescue.
Well, this is what Biden said last time as well, you know, we'll come in and defend you this time, but don't escalate further. And guess what. Two pro months later, Ntaia escalated dramatically and much further than he did the
first time around. As long as Biden constantly comes to Tannaho's aid, despite all of these leaked stories about being angry behind the scenes, the reality is he's given Natanyahu a blank check or he has been so weak in his response that Nataiah, who is treating it as if he's got in a blank check from Biden to come now and say we will help you this time, but don't escalate further. Well, that's exactly what was said three
months ago. And here we are at some point either by the needs to put down his foot, use the leverage that he has to put a stock to this, or he's going to be responsible for the United States getting dragged into yet another disastrous for in the Middle East.
Yes, and doctor Parson, the US posture right now is one that is signaling more. We have the Carrier Strike Group there, we have several thousand US service members that are already in the region. Previously we had seen Obviously we dedicated enormous resource to the United States, Great Britain, Jordan and others. And so if there is some sort of bigger conflagration, do you have any doubt that the US would get involved here?
I absolutely know that that the United States will be doing exactly what it did last time in terms of shooting down Iranian missiles, etc. The question is will the US go beyond that, Will it use fighter jist, will it use other things to start directly targeting, whether it is Iraqi Militia's Hezbola or even Yvonne itself. At this point, I find that not very likely, at least in the early stages of this. However, the way this may play out is that the Ivanians strike is Roll together with
some of these other groups. It will cause damage, it will cause casualties, and then the question is what will Israel's response be. If the Israelis then respond, and if they respond particularly disproportionately, the message yvon has sense is that they're ready for numerous waves of attacks against Israel.
Under those circumstances, particularly if Israel is taking very significant hits, I find it unlikely that the bid the administration in particular, will be able to resist the pressure to get directly involved in that war. And that's when the United States will be at full skill.
Doctor PARSI always invaluable to have your insights, especially in such an important and fraught time.
So thank you so much for your time this morning.
Thanks sir, thank you so much for having me.
It's our pleasure.
Let's turn now to the very troubling news with the US economy and global economy and put this up there on the screen just breaking out this morning. Markets around the world are having a massive slowdown after two significant events here in the United States, a very disappointing unemployment report which showed unemployment rising and the Federal Reserve deciding
not to cut rates. Both of those twin fears have triggered a massive sell off in the Japanese market, with the largest single day drop in the nicky since nineteen eighty seven following US data and also significantly changing their own policy with respect to their currency end. This simultaneously came on the heels of a big slowdown in tech stocks, fears that the AI craze may itself have been a bubble, and a significant change in the way that people are
looking at the fundamentals of the US economy. Let's put the next one, please up there on the screen. This was the original event which triggered some of the initial sell off, which is now extending into Monday. US hiring falling sharply in July, quote unexpected setback for the economy
and stoking recession fears. Now, there's been a lot of debate around recession, whether we're in one or not now for almost two and a half years or so, but all of it is indicative of two separate things, which is, we've had the inflation the problem which the Federal Reserve has responded to by increasing or keeping high interest rates relative to where they were previously, and then debates around whether they are putting their boot too far on the
neck of the US economy and preventing it from quote unquote running hot. The fear amongstock markets and consumers and everywhere else businesses, small businesses up to large businesses is that they buy their refusal to cut rates as some European countries have now decided to do. They have actually waited now too long and simultaneously put pressure on an economy which itself is itself facing.
Pressure from that unemployment.
And then, of course, because we are the pre eminent leader in the global economy, you have other countries like Japan, China and others which are reliant on US consumers and manufacturing are buying manufactured goods in their economy which then significantly drop as a result.
So it's a global slowdown, Crystal.
We've got high inflation and now we're getting higher unemployment, much like the stagflation days of the nineteen seventies, and what we have on our hands is potentially a very real mess.
Oh, no doubt about it.
And I think it's becoming increasingly clear the FED screwed up. You know, there was a lot of premature celebration about a quote unquote soft landing because inflation had come down and employment had still been quite strong. But as we've been saying for quite a while now, these tools that the FED uses of hiking interest rates are very blunt tools, and it is a real guessing game, and it takes a while before those tools show up and really bite.
So the fact that they waited so long to reverse course and begin cutting interest rates is right now at this moment, looking like a tremendous mistake, because this jobs report that just came out was an I mean, it was an utter disaster in terms of the hike in the unemployment rate, the very low number of jobs that were created, and now it is triggering this massive global free count because the US economy had been somewhat unusually strong and really bolstered kind of world prospects and world
economic sentiment. So with the rug being pulled out from under that, we don't know where this free fall ultimately ends. You add to that other thing that we've been covering is this possibility that all the AI euphoria is another tech bubble a la the late nineties Internet bubble. Not to say it's not an important innovation, not to say it won't be game changing in certain important respects, just
as the Internet was. But you can still have this irrational exuberance, all of this money pouring into ventures that don't make a lot of economic sense, and it seems like we may be in that position as well. You add to that, you've also got huge drops in terms of bitcoin and other crypto So this is a very chaotic situation that we're looking at this morning. It'll be, you know, quite frightening to see where the US indexes end up at the end of the day here too.
Yeah, the stock market index that tracks Wall Street fear, known as the VIS is at the highest level since it's been since April of twenty twenty as of this morning. Let's put this up there on the screen, because we literally just did a segment about not only about US economic data, but what they mentioned here in the Guardian is market turmoil from a potential war in the Middle East.
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that missiles flying all over very critical airspace and in naval waters, which are critical to transporting large petroleum and natural gas shipments, could significantly spike global prices and put even more pressure, very much like they did in the nineteen seventies with.
The OPEC embargo.
So all of the fundamentals there are literally around for a complete catastrophe in the next several months. We talked previously about the potential horse race implications, but economically it's probably never been worse since that time, just because we have a housing crisis in terms of the stickiness of overall home prices that's still affected by supply and demand.
In fact, I just read this morning that they're actually going to be increasing the standards for lending, further restricting the amount of capital that's out there for people who want out mortgages.
This is from Fanny May and Freddie Mack.
You've also got the geopolitical tensions and pressure Russia, Ukraine, now the Israel situation with Iran. Then you've got the unemployment fears, and now you've got some misguided federal reserve policy. Let's put D three please up on the screen. This is another indicator data wise of where we may be. This is the official chart showing the quote unquote PSALM
rule has been triggered. This is the real time recession indicator that was developed by an economist, Claudia sam historically quote this indicates the economy is in the early stages of a recession. It's possible quirks of the post pandemic recovery mean we could still avoid that, but this is concerning. As Heatherlong notes, now, I wanted to previously raise one of the things that made the Federal Reserve move so puzzling is that was actually in contrast to other central banks.
Let's put this up there.
For example, from the Bank of England just days ago actually lowered its A and interest rate yero point two five percent to five first cut in over four years. Some people were expecting that. Now it seems that the earliest possible rate cut from the Federal Reserve come in September, but that is, of course, you know, a little bit of time to wait, and there could be significant sell off in the interim period.
Crystal.
Yeah, and you have a lot of Wall Street types analysts saying, hey, we need an emergency rate cut and we need it right now. I know you shared with our group chat this morning, you had Jeremy Siegel from Wharton saying we need a seventy five basis point emergency cut in the FED funds rate, with another seventy five basis point cut indicated for next month at the September meeting.
And that's minimum.
That gives you a sense of the level of concern that we could be entering this sort of doom spy role now with the Fed having waited way too long to begin cutting interest rates. So it's a very very scary morning out there. And I think the big trigger was this very poor jobs report came in way under expectations and triggered the SAM rule. And officially, the SAM rule holds that if unemployment has jumped zero point five percent from the low of the past year, and that's soccer,
as you were pointing out, that's what this chart shows here. Now, there could be mitigating factors. The economy has been really weird, So you know, maybe the Fed is able to act quickly, maybe they're able to forestall the worst of potential consequences. But I don't think there's any doubt that they waited too long. To act it to change course here. I think that's pretty clear this morning.
Yeah, and it appears when markets are pricing in some emergency rate cut certainly possible, but anytime you just have that,
it just indicates chaos amongst decision makers. It does look like a huge amount of this comes back to Japan, but a lot of it also has its roots as I'm reading in the Financial Times in AI, and we've done several segments here previously just about how much of the quote unquote magnificent seven stocks or Nvidia or others compromise the S and P five hundred, and how you might have a lot more exposure just given the significant
growth in those stocks. Even if you do or are invested just in a very standard S and P five hundred index, you will have much more exposure than you previously might have thought, just to technology stocks, which itself have expended tens of billions of dollars on expected AI returns, which we know have not yet materialized. Doesn't mean they may not, you know, it could take a couple of years.
But in the immediate term, which is what the stock market is generally kind of you know, interested in, and what future quarterly returns, et cetera.
That's not the best place to be in.
So with contracting stock prices, you always have liquidity problems at different companies. You're also seeing a major slide at Bigcoin, as you said, probably indicative of people having to take risk off in their portfolios. And there was also I was kind of I'm still trying to get my head around it, but apparently it was a very popular trade
on Wall Street that involved the Japanese yen. I am not smart enough exactly to understand it, but it has something involved with interest rate, and it was called a
carry straddle. But anyways, the Bank of Japan has blown that trade up, which is apparently was one of the most popular trades on all Wall Street for the last six to ten months, blowing that up overnight, which also is a problem because if it triggers a sell off, and of course it always filters down to us, because when companies have problems, they take it out on their workers.
Yeah.
I also saw tweets about that and also was incapable of Really I didn't take the time to wrap my head around that one yet.
I'm not smart enough to understand the carry straddle. I know it exists. That's the best I could possibly do if I spent.
A day like really taking into it. Maybe, But yeah, just based on a tweet. No, it wasn't gonna wasn't gonna get that one wrapped into my head this morning. But you know, as we're recording this, Dow futures are down one thousand points, So bubble your seat belt. This could get extremely ugly, all right, speaking extremely ugly, we have a big old culture war fight that normally soccer and I typically avoid these like the plague.
If we're being totally honest.
However, this one has been embraced by the top of the GOP ticket, both by Donald Trump and JD. Vance, and I have to tell you it is one We're going to try to have a non stupid discussion about it. It is actually a topic that I find challenging and intellectually interesting, So let's go ahead and dig into it. There was a women's boxing match in the Olympics. We can go ahead and put some of these images up
on the screen. We have an Italian boxer, Angela Karini versus an Algerian boxer Amani Khalif, and this match ended very quickly. The Italian boxer took a couple of blows and then she forfeited the fight. She came out tearfully, and we can actually put her comments up on the screen immediately afterwards and talked about why she decided to withdraw. Here are her comments in full. She said, my face and nose were hurting. I couldn't breathe anymore. I thought
about my family. I looked at my brother in the stands, and I went to my corner to retire. I've never been hit with such a powerful punch. She added that the withdrawal was not a premeditated move. All this controversy, she said, makes me sad. Later on she said this, and she said she wanted to apologize to Amani for the controversy. And the controversy is that after this withdrawal, a bunch of people online, including JK. Rowling, began speculating that Amani was actually a man.
Now.
First of all, they were saying she's transgender. She is not transgender. We can put put E four up on the screen that has some of the details of this fight and what happened. So she was born a woman, woman on her passport, raised a woman, et cetera. However, there was another boxing organization that at one point had disqualified Amani and another fighter is not meeting their gender criteria. Now, this boxing organization has come under a lot of scrutiny.
It's called the International Boxing Association. The Olympic Committee actually kicked them out from regulating the sport and took over the sport because they had all.
Kinds of corrupt dealing.
One of the guys that was running it was this like Russian mob boss. Another person was super close to Putin, and it called into question this test that had allegedly found that Amani and another boxer who's also competing at
the Olympics did not meet the gender criteria. And just to give you the backstory, I went too deep on this, but anyway, to give you the backstory here, Amani had just defeated a Russian fighter who at that point had been undefeated and was this very promising amateur coming up. So Amani's been fighting no problem, you know, in the
women's category, raises women, et cetera, et cetera. She beats this Russian boxer and all of a sudden, this very closely Russian tide organization disqualifies her and this other boxer for failing to meet their gender criteria.
They told a.
Russian state sponsored news organization that it was because she had an x Y chromosome. However, since then they haven't been willing to verify what the test was or really speak about it. The Olympic Committee is standing by Amani's classification as a woman. We haven't heard really from Amani herself her full side of the story. In any case, this sparked a whole political freak ount and really a kind of like online mob going after her for her
number one not looking sort of traditionally female. Number two, this this is just a total lie that she was transgender and sort of tying it into that debate. And then number three, wild speculation about things that we really don't know. You know, it is possible that she has DSD differences in sexual development or she's in the other word for that is intersex. That is possible that could have been indicated by this test. We don't know for sure.
It's possible that she has some sort of a hormonal disorder, could be from DSD that causes her to produce more testosterone.
We don't know that either. So what you've ended up with.
Is just a bunch of wild speculation and what I've found, you know, sort of offensive and has struck me, as a former female athlete myself difficult about it and disturbing about it is the way that so much of it is just based on her appearance as not conforming to sort of traditional female beauty standards. And then just the fact that they're just completely lying that she's transgender when she is not in fact transgender.
Okay, I will say this, I blame that Italian lady because she's the one who heavily implied that she lost as a result of her opponent being transgender. Now I'm not going to sit here and justify JK. Rowling immediately
coming out and not doing enough research. This is part of the problem, is that people want to sling takes, and they want to take things at face value, and now all of a sudden, you know, they take they're like, oh, well, the IBA set at the International Boxing Association, nobody knows anything about the background, And of course there's a political
incentive in order to portray that. I guess one of the only reasons I'm willing to cut some slack here is that there have been instances previously in athletics and elsewhere where transgender athletes were allowed to compete in women's sports, and there obviously, well, I mean, it's a reality that was created that made it believable in the first place. That is not justifying people who are coming out and pushing these out, because I am not satisfied that there
is any real evidence that this woman even has. While we were talking about that, what was it, DSD as, I understand it she passed the quote unquote gender test at the International Olympic Committee. I do understand though, that the IOC and many of these countries have significant incentives sometimes to game the system, not just on gender, but for testosterone hormone therapy, et cetera.
As we all learned it's so cheap, countries.
Are literally willing to go to extraordinarily extraordinarily extraordinary efforts to try and to deceive the Olympic Games.
So I saw it.
Within the context of people thought it was believable simply because it has literally happened, you know, previously, not only in combat sports, but also and other competitive athletics. I do feel bad for her, though, certainly because just because somebody's created a reality where such an event would be certainly believable, doesn't mean that she deserves to be victim of it.
Yeah, you know, it made me think a lot.
And we've actually talked a little bit offline about this case of Castor Semenya, who is a sprinter and a runner. She's an extraordinary athlete, and she faced similar scrutiny and it came out and now you know, I actually in some ways prefer to talk about Caster's case because we actually know the details, whereas with the money we genuinely don't know the details. Here, there's just rampant speculation. One
thing we do know, she was identified female birth. Transgenderism is literally illegal in the country she's from, right, She was identified female at birth, so she has the visual genital appearance as a female. Apparently love having to talk about these things. She was raised as a girl. There's pictures of her as a very girly looking little girl with giant pink earrings, and in fact she had huge obstacles to being able to train as a boxer because
her dad didn't approve of girls boxing. She and her mom she came from a very poor family and a very conservative part of Algeria. She and her mom sold scrap metal and would cook and sell the food to raise money for her training, which she hid from her father because, as I said, he didn't.
Approve because she was the girl.
So it is heartbreaking to see the way that she has been, you know, unfairly Attacksmearred lied about et cetera, et cetera. You know, the case of castor semenia. It does raise really difficult questions because she is intersex or has DSD. She visually, you know, if you just were looking at the external bits, looks like a woman. However, she doesn't have some of the internal bits fallopian tubes, ovaries,
et cetera. And because of the way she was naturally born, she naturally produces more testosterone than is.
The quote unquote normal range for women. So what do you do with that?
You know, this is like, this is a woman by most metrics, but she naturally produces more testosterone than your average woman. Okay, well, on the one hand, you say, okay, well, maybe that's not fair, But then you also think about there are many competitive advantages which don't seem particularly fair. I'm sure Michael Phelps competitors didn't feel it was particularly fair.
That he's like, you know, built like a fish, with.
This insanely freakishly long wingspan and double jointed ankles that allow him to get more propulsion out of his kick, and his body doesn't produce as much lactic acid as other athletes. He's another sort of genetic outlier, which, of course, when you get to elite athletics, you're going to find almost everybody who's competing at this level is going to
be some sort of a genetic outlier. So I guess part of what I don't have many easy answers for this, By the way, I think it's actually very difficult question to figure out where you draw the line, because no matter where you draw the line, it's going to be unfair to someone. Right, There is really no perfect answer.
I think the answer are also probably very score by sport, Like for example, in boxing, you know, we've obviously decided it's not fair to have some giant person fighting against some tiny person, so they instituted weight categories because it's not just you're not just losing a race, you're in the possibility of getting injured, getting hurt, and so that adds a level of care and concern about unfair advantages that could be dangerous to your competitor. So I think
it could be different sport by sport. But I guess my big takeaway here is that a lot of the discourse on the right is very simplistic, just like women should be fighting women and men should be fighting men, and cases like cast or Semnia, and potentially, although we don't know, cases like a moaning Khaliph shows that nature
doesn't actually draw a really clear and obvious line. Usually, yes, in ninety nine nine point nine percent of cases, it's very obvious, but especially in elite athletics, you're going to have these edge cases, these borderline cases that are really difficult and aren't really black and white.
So yeah, but I think it's a very different case here. You have somebody who's born naturally. Again we don't know. Okay, the IBA apparently claimed that they say they have evidence.
I don't know, they should release it.
Okay, maybe the IOC should come out and clarify the situation too, just to make it very clear.
But it's very different.
We're born naturally and then we're taking exogenous hormones, or if you're not taking exogenous hormones and you just happen to identify as female and you compete in female athletics. I think is a totally different situation, and that's what people are reacting to. And I get I mean again, to be fair, this literally happened the whole Lea Thomas situation. We have sprinters and other situations that happen here in
the United States. So people are primed to believe it because it's a reality that was created frankly, you know, by elite liberalism who thinks that this is somehow justifiable.
So my line is quite simple.
If it's natural, I mean, I guess you know, if it's natural, it's with the conversation. If it's not natural, then no, I don't think it should be in the conversation. I don't think exogenists hormone should be legal really period, you know, whenever it comes to elite athletics.
Lance Armstrong is a good example of why.
You know, you have somebody naturally who had a quote
unquote advantage but then gets disqualified for taking exogenous substances. Now, Michael Phelps, you know, like what I forget exactly what his genetic mutation was, but it is something that is born of nature and so I just think it's quite a simple conversation, I guess within this and the reality is is that there was an entire thing created over the last decade of if let's say this woman was transgender, then I think the left would be like, yeah, that's
completely fine, or they would ignore it. So in a sense, I don't know if it's necessarily the same controversy.
Well, it's definitely not the same controversy, except that people lied about this person said she was transgender, to try to fit it into the same controversy.
Right, yeah, idea. I don't think that was responsible.
I mean, here's here's why it is related though, because you're talking about you know, innate characteristics and where is the line that you're going to draw between the two genders. And so I don't know that anyone would argue Maybe there's some person out there that would argue it, but I certainly went on I don't know anybody else on the left that would argue it would be enough to just say, you know, oh, I feel like I'm a woman now and you know, get to compete in female athletics.
The conversation is about, okay, is there a process by which if you transition over a number of years, and you are, you know, suppressing your testosterone levels and you you know, it's it's been a certain period of time. Is there a time period in which, okay, now it's all right for you to compete or is it just if you, if you went through puberty as a biological male, do you have too much of a competitive advantage to ever, you know, forever to be fair for you to compete
against women. And I do think that that's a difficult because it wouldn't be fair to just say no, that's it.
You just can't compete, period, end of story. You're done, right.
And on the other hand, I think that certain sports, like for example, I think what was it a was like a pool player or something who quit because she was up against a transgender Woman's like this has you
your gender doesn't even confer any sort of advantage. So in certain sports, you know, yes, I think that it's like boxing, I think would be one of them where if you went through puberty as a biological mail, you probably have advantages that even if you've been taking you know, hormone suppression and medically transition for years, that you're not going to be able to just totally put in the in the background. But there are other sports where it
may not make as much of a difference. That's why I'm saying it's a complicated question and also why it could vary support by sport, and why the fact that you have these natural, naturally occurring edge cases makes it really clear that it is not a black and white question that sex, even you know, just naturally occurring differences create these edge cases that actually, when you come down to it, makes it very difficult to draw that line of you know who goos in which category, et cetera.
And yeah, but this is a yes butt question.
This is a so yes, there are point zero zero zero zero one occurrences people like this in which it will manifest in elite athletics. But the puberty conversation, this, the data is incredibly clear. If you went through puberty as a biological mail, then the natural differences that you have are immense. There has been tons of research on this.
It doesn't matter if you've been on hormone blockers for five years, just in terms of your muscle development, what the amount of testosterone that you had that could contribute to you know, growing larger, et CETERA friend of mine, Derek more Place More Dates, has done extensive research on this and put out a lot of videos that are on the subject. You can go and watch them for yourself.
So I really just think it's totally different, Crystal. I mean we're talking here, I mean we're almost seems like, well, just because there's a point zero one percent edge case, that means that the modern fun nomenon of transgenderism and tried to ideology is somehow comparable.
I don't think that's the case at all.
And then that also, I mean when you say difficult question, then that even raises the idea that you can put puberty blockers in a child and not allow them to go through puberty in their natural gender, which I think is frankly disgusting and abhorrent. I would personally be forbanning it if I could. I don't know if the public would necessarily be on my side. I know that in Europe they've certainly gone in a different direction, So I don't think that this conversation is really related in any
way to a natural phenomenon. And then the specific choice, frankly by parents who are deciding to plug children and chemically castrate them with chemicals. I mean, that is just not even in the same leak of conversation to me.
So to stick with the conversation about the athletics. I mean, the other thing I would say is just this has made been made into such a top political issue on the right and it hasn't succeeded in terms of I think on the public opinion its succeeded. You know, if you pull people, majority will say yes, I don't think that transgender women should be able to participate in women's athletics.
But there were a lot of candidates who really leaned into this topic in the midterms and it was not successful, and so it was sort of dropped for the agenda. Now it's been picked up, you know, because of this debate about this Olympic women's boxing match. It's been picked up by Jade Vance and Donald Trump, who very much do want to make it about transgender women, even though this woman is not transgender at all. So they've been
using this rhetoric on the campaign trail. This is what do we have here?
E three. Let's go ahead and run this thot.
We think it's.
Weird that the far left wants to allow biological males.
To beat the living crap out of women in boxing, I.
Used to use the bar bells.
You have to do is look at the boxers.
This young girl from Italy, a very a champion boxer. She got hit so hard she didn't know what the hell hit her. So person that transitioned he was a good he was a good mailboxer.
Yeah, he was.
A good mail boxer. And she didn't even go down. He hit it with two jams and she said, I'm out.
So anyway, that's all just that's a lie. She did not transition. She was not a great mailboxer. She was born a woman. She has competed as a woman. There is this question about the tests. We don't know the details, but that is all a complete lie. So there's the
political aspect of this. But yeah, I'll just say with regard to part of why I don't think the transgender sports debate has been the politically salient issue that Republicans at one point thought it would be, and why I take these two examples once again of like them sort of flailing around and not really knowing how to run against common Harris.
At this point.
In fact, I saw someone online who tweeted, like Donald Trump is losing, so they had to make up that this boxer is transgender. But why part of why I think that this has not been salient is because, like, look at the Olympics. Now, you know, Katie Ldeki is the dominant female swimmer, She's a woman. This looming threat of destroying female athletics, et cetera, et cetera, like it just hasn't come true. There have been a few cases, like Leah Thomas that I think have been, you know, nationally,
very sensational. Lee Thomas isn't at the Olympics, right, So as a salient issue that impacts people frequently in their lives. You've got states that are passing bands on transgender athletes that don't that have like one transgender athlete in their entire state. So I think it's a much greater threat to women's athletics they sent that any of these people
actually care about that at all. Outside of like creating this culture war issue, I think the greater threat is stoking these online lynch mobs to judge women by their appearance and hold up whether or not they meet the standard that they think that they should look like, and then smearing them internationally.
Accordingly, Chrystl, the reason Leah Thomas is not in the Olympics is apparently because she lost in the World Aquatics Governing Court of our arbitration that would have not allowed her to compete. So it's not that she wasn't competing against Katie Leadecci. It's because she legally was not allowed to compete in the event.
Would take her ass But.
Anyway, maybe I don't know.
I mean, look, she's got the top twenty fastest times in the fifteen hundred freestyle that have ever existed.
Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't.
I think seeing her him whatever up on the dais frankly is disgusting and that is something that I deeply object to. Now on the transgender point, now, the reason I don't think that it was politically salient is because it was in the context of abortion in a vacuum.
As you said, Poles dramatically agree that transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in women's sports, and in some governing bodies where they have been allowed to compete, you had the grotesque outcome of people like Leah Thomas and weightlifters and others that are competing against women. You've had athletes like Riley Gaines and others who have spoken out about this and, by the way, face significant social consequences as a result of that.
In their university.
Yeah, after she quit, you know, and had to make this hor By the way, I don't recommend making this your whole identity. You know, there's a reason that I conduct myself the way that I do. But if forced to discuss, you know, certainly will the vast majority of the American public agrees on this issue. And by forcing you know, people like Leah Thomas and others, you just frankly create this grotesque spectacle which sets back, as I have told my gay friends, the quote unquote gay marriage
polling numbers that we have seen within the GOP. Now, abortion is always going to be a lot more salient issue. Now after that's solved, now maybe we can tackle the puberty debate. And I think it's going to be very different on the polling and political salience with abortion off the table. But of course, I mean there's a ton more women who exist in America, so there's going to be a lot more important. But in a vacuum, I don't think it's nearly as unpopular as.
You're laying out.
I didn't say it was unpopular. I'm saying that people don't care that much, Like they don't, you know.
They're so you shouldn't care, don't particularly care that much.
But there's so few instances. And that's that's the thing.
That's what I'm trying to get at, Sager, is look at the Olympics. Look at the female start Shikari Richardson, Simone Biles, Katie Ladeki, Like, none of these people are threatened by transgender athletes. There was there's one. There is, just through another wrinkle is there actually is one self identifying transgender male who is boxing but hasn't taken hormones or whatever and just changed their pronouns and is boxing
as a woman. I think I'm getting these details right, But there's very few transgender athletes, even at the Olympics. So again my point is not that this, you know, I actually think probably the most fair thing, if you had sufficient number, is to have separate categories for transgender athletes. But I think that's practically difficult because the few numbers. Because I agree with you that I think if you
go through puberty as a biological male. It does convert certain advantages that even if you've been taking hormone, you know, suppressants for many years, are not going to just magically go away.
I just subject to.
This being such a like fixation and focus and the demonization of you know, this boxer or now apparently anyone who doesn't there's another boxer by the way, who's in the same category, anyone who doesn't fit this ideal. I just find that to be so gross, and I do take it kind of personally, just because you know, I'm a former athlete. I wasn't going to the Olympics, but I was a Division one swimmer. I was a big
part of my identity. And you know, when you are a high level athlete, oftentimes as a woman, you do have some characteristics that are not traditionally feminine. If you look at the swimmers right, really broad shoulders, flat chests, because you're more aeroors dynamic, big lats. I've always been able to put on a lot more muscle than other women.
And so if you're creating a situation where now they're these like online Lynch model of people judging whether you're feminine enough, like they did to cast er Somnia Duti chand Ammani Khalif. Now, to me, that's far more damaging to women's athletics than these you know, very few cases of transgender athletes that I also by the like I said, I also have.
Issues with and have questions about.
But you know, it's sort of they're sort of killing the uh They're they're doing more damage to the thing that they're claiming to protect. And I do wonder what you make of like the Trump comments where he just like lies about her. I mean, do you think that this is a smart political direction for Trump and Jade Vance to go in embracing this culture war question over the.
Audience people who really care.
I mean, the American people are on their side regardless of whether this is true or not. If it was a transgender athlete, then yeah, I mean most people. I look, it is not all that politically salient. Like I said, it forced to discuss. I'll lay out you know, what I think is a pretty clear case of why this is gross. I don't think that is nearly as damaging that the left created reality where women are literally or men are literally allowed to compete in women's sports biological men.
So then you can't get upset when people are like, hey, is this a biological man or not?
And then if they were, and.
When the information is there and you're just flat on looks.
But if it was a biological man, people would say, oh, what a great celebration you know that this is an amazing outcome of you know, transgender equality. It's like you can't simultaneously cheer on like bearded guys in dresses and then say like, oh, we shouldn't be able to criticize
the whatever, like female aesthetics. I mean, this is a reality that was created literally by modern liberalism, post O Burger felt, which I think was a massive mistake as we look at the political polling that has now happened both on gay marriage and on the transgender is an issue. So I just certainly I almost feel frankly like a gas lit on this bit on little this conversation, because if you create an entire reality where everything is questionable and then people can't ask questions.
But there was, it was readily apparent, it was readily available information that this is not a transferent person. How can I just don't think it's fair to just give a path to these big accounts and JK Roll and the freaking former president of the United States, like, well, it's not his fault because somebody else, you know, did
something that he didn't like. Once the facts exist out there, you are able to you know, absorb them and read articles about what's going on and assesss it accurately and have empathy for this person and not just go on this nasty like demonization kick and make her into some sort of political fodder. So I think just like excusing them as well, it's not really their fault. I find
that preposterous. But the last thing, just to tie up, like what we know about this and the reaction from the Italian boxer who you know, I going back and reading her initial comments I know a lot of people, and you were saying, like you really blame her for service, right.
I don't know that that's.
Really fair because all she said is just like she'd never been hit that hard. She didn't say that Amani shouldn't be able to fight, or she was a man or whatever. So I don't know if it's really fair to put it all on her. But in any case, we have her final comments where she was talking about how she would actually apologize to Amani. She says, it wasn't something I intended to do. Actually, I want to apologize her and everyone else. I was angry because my
Olympics had gone up in smoke. She added, she bet cahlif again she would embrace her. So, in any case, just kind of a wild situation that really touched a cultural nerve and has now been embraced by the former president of the United States, in spite of the fact that some of the very basics of the situation have been nothing but lies in innuendo.
All right, well, let's see what the developments are. Maybe a gender test. I believe that people are demanding she'd take a gender test, or so maybe we'll say, perhaps we'll get the truth.
I don't know.
Did they have to pass the gender test to even compete in the IOC. This is where I'm confused, this governing body. Yeah, like, what are the rules? What do they even say?
Yeah, so I think that the Olympic Committee, as best as I was able to understand, they don't conduct chromosomal tests. And they so typically again this is my layman's understanding of doing one day of research. Yes, typically, I believe they allow these various sports governing bodies to sort of legislate themselves. So previously they had been relying on this International Boxing Association.
However, they were all kinds.
It was legitimately very sketchy organization and like you know, tied into the drug trade and like you know, Russian mobsters.
Whatever. It was kind of a mess.
So they banned them from allying with them, and the Olympic Committee themselves put together a temporary committee.
To adjudicate these types of questions.
From my reading, it was not entirely clear to me what they based their assessments on. The thing that they said is that she was born a woman. She's you know, woman on our driver's license, woman on our passport, et cetera.
And so I don't know if I don't think that they have like a testosterone limit, and I don't know that they conducted these same sort of uh, you know, potential chromosomal tests now in track and field where castor sima, where this was relevant for castor semenia, they decided that for certain events, not all events, but for certain events, high levels of testosterone were a sufficient advantage that they regulate.
They set a maximum bar for what your testosterone levels can be even if you're in all other respects, you know, present as a female, so cast or semenia. In order to compete in some of her top events, was forced to take testosterone suppressants in order to be able to compete. And she's written about how it really it made her really sick and she hated doing it. Ultimately, she stopped taking those testosterone suppressants. So different sports, it seems like,
have different criteria. And I guess one question I have for you is, Okay, so let's say that she does have DSD and she does have x Y chromosome, even though you know she you know, physically presented as a female.
Do you think that she should compete as a woman or not.
I don't think so. I just think that the risk is too high for people in boxing.
Whenever you're literally hitting somebody else in the head, that's that's the red line, you know, run. I would switch it from track and field to anything where you could potentially harm somebody.
I actually agree with that, Yeah, But then I was thinking about if.
You reverse it.
Let's say you have a someone who presents as a male but who has so they have, you know, the male bits externally, but they have XX chromosome.
Do that get to compete as a female?
Is that possible? I don't think.
I'm not sure.
I know that there are thirty different like biologies, there are thirty different ways of being intersext, So is that one of them. I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure. But you know, again, that's why I think it very sports to sport. I think it's very difficult.
I do.
I tend to think I disagree with the castor subnian decision. I think her naturally high levels of testosterone. I think that's just a natural genetic advantage, in the same way that many athletes have natural genetic advantages and no one's getting hurt. To your point, but I agree with your point that in fighting, that's why you have different weight categories.
There's an added level of we need to protect these, you know, individuals as much as we can, and so you know, an advantage like if you have an elevated level of testosterone, which is probably going to occur more often, like I bet if you tested a lot of these women competing in Olympic boxing, like they're probably at the high end of normal or beyond the high range of normal because it is an advantage there. So you know, maybe you have an addition to the weight classes, maybe
you have like a high testosterone class. Maybe that's the most fair thing to do.
I know, at least amongst men, there's like physiological doses and there's like super physiological So somebody who is far more well versed in hormones can weigh in.
Here.
We do have Jordan Sheridan standing by the crystal, so we should get to them.
All right, let's get to that.
So, as you may recall, an entire city, Flint, Michigan, was poisoned, and much of the media has forgotten about that and let many of the politicians who had their hands all over.
This horrific act off the hook.
But one person who never did is journalist Jordan Cheriton, founder of Status Ku, an author of an incredibly important and revelatory new book about the Flint water cover up called We the Poisoned, with a forward I should add by Aaron Brockovich.
Welcome, Jordan, Hey, thank you for having me. Yeah, it's our pleasure.
So talk to us about why this crisis still continues to be so relevant to Americans and not just in Flint.
Michigan.
But you know, we see echoes of this in crises like that in East Palestine, Ohio.
Yeah, I mean, red, white, progressive, conservative water is one thing we could agree about. Ten years later, the water is still contaminated in Flint. Residents are still posting pictures of brown water, and the playbook for this cover up is now being copied in other communities like East Palestine,
their situations in Kalamazoo, Michigan, East Chicago, Indiana. I mean, it would take too long to name other cities with water contamination where the federal government, in coordination with state officials, are basically just kind of checking some boxes, doing some testing, cherry picking data to claim everything's fine. Meanwhile, residents are receiving dirty or smelly water, getting rashes, and in the case of Flint, cancer is surging. Some cancers are up
three hundred to five hundred percent. And meanwhile, you know, nobody is being held accountable. And my book kind of reveals a massive cover up. I mean, we're talking the federal government, the state government, local government, and Wall Street all kind of together. That is still ongoing. Reminder, no one has been criminally convicted.
So Jordan, we have some passages.
To put this up there on the screen that you pulled out for us, maybe you can explain a little bit about what's in front of us about Todd Flood, some of the quotes that you were able to unveil.
Yeah, So Todd Flood was a special prosecutor for the investigation, kind of like Robert Muller on a local level, and he was interviewing Richard Baird. Think Richard Baird is kind of like Tony Soprano's consiglieri. He was the right hand man for former Governor Rick Snyder, known as his fixer.
And my reporting which is shown in the book indicates that Richard Baird, apparently with the governor's knowledge, was going around throughout Flint and offering sick residents who happened to be getting media attention deals payments from the state government with strings attached that you can't say anything and you
can't say who's paying for it. And in this passage, the criminal prosecutor caught when that a resident suddenly got enough money to replace her busted service lines, the water pipes that deliver water into the home they were damaged by the Flint River water cash from the state and he asked the governor's right hand man about that, do you know anything about this cash to this resident?
And he simply answered, I guess I have to answer that.
Wow, what are the echoes that you see?
What is the kind of the playbook that was utilized in Flint that is now being utilized in other places like East Palestine.
Yeah, so in Flint, essentially they told you don't believe your lying skin, your ashes, don't believe your lying eyes. The brown water, it's just, you know, it's just an aesthetic thing, it's not a health thing. They told the residents were working on it, it's safe. The EPA was getting complaints but didn't actually step in to take over, which they do have the legal right to do in
a case of an emergency. And then it was residents and activists, not politicians, streaming and literally conduct doing their own testing. They secured independent researchers to help them test that they blew the liddle up the scandal. Same thing is going on in East Palestine, for example, the EPA is doing testing even though they've acknowledged that their equipment cannot find certain levels of contamination, and they're saying, we're
not finding certain contaminants. Meanwhile, residents that I speak with have shown me also they're getting rashes. I mean, residents are having seizures and strokes. In East Palestine. They're still passing blood, some of them through their vowels, through urinating. I got sick of these palicine. I mean, it's a chemical petri dish. Just like Flint. It was very apparent just through walking in the houses that the water was contaminated because it was breaking washing machines, it was breaking
dishwasher machines, it was coming through the walls. But the government simply told them everything's fine, and media simply in both cases regurgitates what the government says. So that's kind of the playbook being used. And in the case of Flint, it was a privatization scheme that caused this.
And in the case of East Palestine, you have.
A multi billion dollar railroad company that blew up toxic chemicals unnecessarily by the way, and are now the government is allowing them to oversee the response.
So Jordan, with all of the criminal investigation now and all the stuff that we've learned and throughout your book, does it still stun you that there was no justice eventually done over the mass poisoning of the city.
You know, not a lot of things stunned me, but in this case, yes, because you would have to think that if an American city with one hundred thousand people at the time this happened, was poisoned, at least some low level, some low level.
Person would be thrown under the bus.
I mean, this is so severe that literally the Attorney General that came in, who happens to be a Democrat, she took an unprecedented step to restart the investigation. I believe, unnecessarily dismiss all the charges. Now she is refusing to provide me documents, particular documents that would expose the financial
scheme that caused this, involving the Wall Street banks. I believe they basically swept this all over the rug, because if it went forward in criminal court the full scope, which is revealed in my book, particularly the Wall Street part this, I believe it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party because it would show there's a lot of privatization and for profit schemes involving you know, complicated like bond deals and things like that
that communities don't know about that are endangering their health. That's actually the backdrop of what caused the Flint water crisis.
It's stunning that nobody.
Is above the law justice system that ten years later, no one has even seen a jury, and as of now it doesn't even see if anyone will ever be convicted.
I think there's also a deeper story that you're effective in telling here about who matters in the country and who doesn't. And that's another parallel between East Palestine and Flint, Michigan. You know, these are both industrial Midwestern places that have been really sort of forgotten and left behind by political class in both parties. You know, in one instance, you have majority poor black city, in another instance, you have
a majority poor white area in the country. And you can only imagine that the response and the political discussion around this would be much different if it happened in like you know, McLain, Virginia, which is where all the rich people around DC live.
Yep.
But we don't have to imagine because when this happened, an hour down the road from Flint is ann Arbor, Michigan. That's where former Governor Rick Snyder lived, and they preemptively without a problem replaced all the lead pipes. Meanwhile, in Flint, ten years later they had not replaced all the lead pipes.
So that's insane. That is insane.
Jordan, tell people where they can, where they can get the book and support your work.
Yeah, a book will be available in all major bookstores. You could order also on Amazon, Barnes and Noble. It will be available on audio in September. And definitely, definitely the book not only details after the water switch, it details to cover up and the fraud that caused the water prices in the first place.
Which has not been reported.
I also exclusively got testimony a former governor Rick Snyder under oath that has never been released, where he seems to contradict his Congressional testimony, particularly on what he knew and when he knew about the deadly legionnaire's outbreak. So definitely I encourage people to get the book, you know, and we need to unnormalize the poisoning of an American community,
any community. So yeah, it'll be available in all bookstores as well as audio in September, and you could support my work at Status coup on YouTube coup we cover this, East Palestine and many other important stories.
Very nice Jordan.
Congrats on the book and thank you for staying on this story always.
Thank you guys so much for watching. We have a great show for everyone tomorrow and we will see you all later