Latest / Luke Thomas Gets Political (LTGP) / Luke Thomas Political Live Chat, ep. 6

Transcript

Luke Thomas Political Live Chat, ep. 6 · Luke Thomas Gets Political (LTGP)

• 0:01
  All right, we should be live. I'm going
• 0:03
  to wait for the live chat, well, the
• 0:05
  chat window to fill up. Hello everyone.
• 0:08
  Hello. Hello. Hello. On this ninth day
• 0:12
  of October, a Friday, I don't want to
• 0:15
  keep doing these on a Friday, but it
• 0:17
  just kind of works out that way for now.
• 0:19
  I suspect when we really get this chat
• 0:22
  going it will not be on Fridays but it
• 0:24
  is obviously Friday today and at least
• 0:28
  for a little while it will probably be
• 0:29
  on Friday but we will move this around.
• 0:31
  Thank you so much for joining me. I
• 0:33
  really really appreciate it. Quite a bit
• 0:35
  going on in the world. I watched last
• 0:37
  night the Abdul Elsa and Mike Rogers
• 0:41
  debate out of Michigan. I did take in a
• 0:44
  little bit of the Osaf Collins debate in
• 0:47
  Georgia. Jesus.
• 0:49
  There's a question about which one was
• 0:50
  more one-sided.
• 0:54
  I might actually say the Oaf one was
• 0:56
  more one-sided because Collins is so bad
• 0:59
  even relative to a very bad Rogers. But
• 1:02
  both of them were very one-sided in
• 1:05
  favor of respectively Abdul say and and
• 1:08
  then John Oaf. So we can talk about
• 1:09
  that. There of course was another ICE
• 1:12
  shooting this time in the Bronx. We can
• 1:14
  talk about that. Um, I have not been
• 1:16
  able to read up on the US sanctioning
• 1:19
  the ICC. I don't necessarily have a ton
• 1:21
  of comment about that or about some of
• 1:23
  the other things. I'm trying to do a
• 1:24
  whole lot. I've already hosted my MMA
• 1:26
  podcast earlier today, so I have to
• 1:28
  obviously put a lot of prep in for that
• 1:30
  at least as much as I can. So, we shall
• 1:33
  see. But, we will talk about these kinds
• 1:35
  of issues or whatever really is on your
• 1:37
  mind. Now, uh, the MMA podcast that I
• 1:40
  do, the live chat on Thursdays, that one
• 1:42
  is like almost any topic. I will say
• 1:44
  that this live chat is not like that.
• 1:46
  This one we got to make I don't want to
• 1:48
  do MMA topics on this one. I don't even
• 1:50
  want to talk about MMA at all other than
• 1:51
  this disclaimer. I just don't this is
• 1:54
  there's plenty of places for me to do
• 1:55
  that and I don't need another one here.
• 1:57
  You know what I mean? So, let's keep
• 1:59
  this one free of that if at all
• 2:01
  possible. There could be some kind of
• 2:02
  political tie-in in which case the
• 2:04
  question is totally fine. In fact, did
• 2:06
  you guys see the Washington Sun is
• 2:08
  reporting that the FBI wants to sign a
• 2:11
  long-term contract with the UFC to train
• 2:13
  its um you know, its its agents. And
• 2:17
  again, some of the field agents could
• 2:19
  certainly benefit from that. But most of
• 2:21
  the FBI work has really very little to
• 2:24
  do with that, even for field agents.
• 2:27
  And uh again, it's not a bad thing to
• 2:29
  learn, but it's a question of like how
• 2:30
  much of a priority should it actually
• 2:32
  be. To say nothing of the fact that the
• 2:33
  president owns TKO stock, to say nothing
• 2:36
  of, you know, I mean, we could go on and
• 2:37
  on about the level of corruption that
• 2:40
  entails. There's something to be said
• 2:41
  for that, but um but otherwise, let's
• 2:44
  keep it just to the political stuff
• 2:45
  here. Okay. All right. Very good.
• 2:52
  best way to contribute.
• 2:54
  It's a great way to contribute to this
• 2:55
  channel, which is getting a question or
• 2:57
  a comment in on the super chat. We'll go
• 3:00
  for about an hour on some of this stuff
• 3:02
  and then um and we'll see how it goes.
• 3:05
  All right, let me get my window to
• 3:07
  toggle.
• 3:08
  There we are. Very good. Okay, we'll
• 3:12
  start here. It's more of a broad-based
• 3:15
  question, I think. Luke, what evidence
• 3:16
  supports DSA policies? How do CBO cost
• 3:19
  concerns, housing supply risks, and
• 3:22
  unintended economic effects challenge
• 3:24
  their feasibility? I mean, to be very
• 3:26
  clear, I'm not a DSA is a membership
• 3:28
  organization. I am not a member. Um,
• 3:31
  I've not fully examined really in any
• 3:34
  kind of way what, and by the way,
• 3:36
  various DSA chapters disagree with one
• 3:38
  another. I don't know what the National
• 3:39
  DSA organization um, affirmatively
• 3:42
  stands for. To be honest with you, it's
• 3:43
  not DSA is in many ways I've been aware
• 3:46
  of who they are, but I I they they're
• 3:48
  relatively new to my orbit in terms of
• 3:50
  anything I had a chance to pay attention
• 3:52
  to. Obviously, as I shift my focus to an
• 3:54
  extent anyway, away from sports and more
• 3:56
  into politics, I'm able to do this. But
• 3:58
  I don't have a strong comment. I mean, I
• 3:59
  think it's not really a DSA question one
• 4:02
  way or the other. we are so far from
• 4:04
  whether or not the you know the various
• 4:07
  questions of what they're wanting and
• 4:09
  the qu their policy um priorities are
• 4:13
  really I mean this is guys like
• 4:15
  understand what we're talking about here
• 4:16
  like for example Medicare for all this
• 4:18
  is not necessarily a DSA or not I mean
• 4:20
  there's this is a progressive kind of
• 4:22
  vision right to have universal
• 4:23
  healthcare there's various different
• 4:24
  ways to do it Medicare for all is one of
• 4:25
  the ways you could do it but let's just
• 4:27
  say it's Medicare for all this is this
• 4:31
  is to get that passed would be an
• 4:33
  enormous undertaking. An enormous
• 4:35
  undertaking. And recall that we not only
• 4:37
  want to do that, we want to do packing
• 4:39
  the Supreme Court to make sure that the
• 4:40
  legislation can get through. There is a
• 4:44
  question of like what we're going to do
• 4:45
  about the abuses of ICE, right? So, we
• 4:47
  have to like I mean another enormous
• 4:48
  battle that is going to have to be
• 4:50
  waged. There's like a series of very I
• 4:53
  wouldn't call it lowhanging fruit, but
• 4:55
  higher order priority reigning in the
• 4:57
  reigning in AI companies.
• 5:00
  um uh you know questions about what to
• 5:02
  do about housing supply, what to do
• 5:04
  about our immigration system, what to do
• 5:07
  about the the war in Iran and and again
• 5:09
  I mean like there's an enormous amount
• 5:12
  of work to get done that has a
• 5:14
  broad-based appeal that those battles
• 5:16
  themselves are going to be difficult to
• 5:18
  be won. I think you know worrying about
• 5:21
  like oh what is your question is not
• 5:22
  necessarily about the political
• 5:24
  feasibility and more about I think the
• 5:25
  economic justification I would have to
• 5:27
  examine it much more closely and I
• 5:28
  simply haven't but I think I would say
• 5:30
  as a real world material concern we are
• 5:33
  a very long way from having to have a
• 5:35
  question about whether or not these
• 5:36
  things have an evidentiary basis because
• 5:38
  we're not even approximating I think
• 5:40
  even a fraction of what the national
• 5:42
  chapter uh might offer as guiding
• 5:45
  principles LTF surveillance capitalism
• 5:48
  monetizes is human behavior. Can
• 5:50
  democracy survive when corporations
• 5:52
  profit from predicting and shaping our
• 5:53
  choices? No, it cannot. No, it cannot.
• 5:57
  Um,
• 6:02
  you you
• 6:04
  can have
• 6:08
  if if there is mass surveillance
• 6:11
  that is I mean you're talking about
• 6:14
  having a profit motive, but even that is
• 6:16
  I mean yes, that's obviously part of it.
• 6:18
  It's a for-profit company. I mean, this
• 6:19
  drives a lot of its
• 6:21
  ideological and then frankly it's
• 6:24
  uh you know organizational and other
• 6:28
  forms of direction.
• 6:31
  But remember like a lot of these places
• 6:33
  just have unions with the state itself.
• 6:36
  They're essentially like B2B like almost
• 6:37
  like government I mean they're
• 6:38
  government contractors, right? They have
• 6:40
  deals with sheriff's departments or
• 6:42
  various municipalities
• 6:45
  and and you know deals with various
• 6:47
  police departments. Like this is who
• 6:48
  their their customers are not us. Their
• 6:50
  customers are the state. Literally the
• 6:52
  [ __ ] state. I mean this is the
• 6:54
  problem, right? You've got this union of
• 6:57
  high-tech surveillance capitalism with
• 7:00
  the state carceral machine working with
• 7:04
  very at least at present very little
• 7:06
  oversight and a great and on their part
• 7:09
  a great desire to uh expand. I realize
• 7:12
  there has been some retrenchment of flot
• 7:15
  camera battles, but a lot of that is
• 7:16
  still very uneven and new and early.
• 7:19
  Like there's a lot of that that has to
• 7:21
  happen. And there, by the way, like one
• 7:24
  of the issue that's happening is I
• 7:25
  forget the name of the company. It
• 7:26
  starts with a letter A, but like Flock
• 7:28
  will get taken down in certain places
• 7:30
  and then replaced with like a slightly
• 7:32
  different but very similar kind of
• 7:33
  technology and then the public is none
• 7:35
  the wiser and it's still basically not
• 7:37
  maybe if not the exact same kind of
• 7:39
  problem, still a bad problem. Um, and
• 7:41
  that's that's still still happening too.
• 7:44
  But this is the issue. The issue is that
• 7:46
  and ultimately like how is the state
• 7:47
  affording it? They're just charging us
• 7:49
  for it. They're charging us for our own
• 7:52
  um, you know, over surveillance.
• 7:55
  I think that's what I'm worried about.
• 7:57
  Um, now there's other forms of
• 7:59
  surveillance. You It's surveillance
• 8:01
  capitalism. This can take other forms
• 8:02
  than what you would get with flot
• 8:04
  cameras. I mean, you have to ask
• 8:05
  yourself, are the creepy metagasses
• 8:08
  uh, which my wife bought me a pair. She
• 8:10
  didn't really understand that there was
• 8:12
  a debate around these kinds of things.
• 8:13
  She just likes cool tech. And I will
• 8:15
  say, uh, I've got them here. I don't I
• 8:17
  don't use them because how could you,
• 8:18
  but I can't throw away a gift for my
• 8:20
  wife. Um, it's a cool piece of tech, but
• 8:23
  the software that you have to use to
• 8:25
  interface it is all AI training data.
• 8:28
  And of course, like just walking around
• 8:30
  filming people is insanely creepy. You
• 8:32
  cannot do it. I wish so I don't. Um, you
• 8:35
  know, this is part of surveillance
• 8:37
  capitalism too to a degree. This is the
• 8:38
  and that's part that's the part that's
• 8:40
  not aligned with the state. Um and then
• 8:43
  you have these large scale tech
• 8:45
  companies who have various forms of
• 8:47
  invasion of privacy again using this to
• 8:49
  train AI.
• 8:51
  Uh all of it all of it carries
• 8:56
  um significant implications for
• 8:58
  democracy significant implications for
• 9:00
  privacy significant implications for um
• 9:03
  our connected world. It's a problem.
• 9:06
  Luke love the channel. Greetings from
• 9:08
  Miami. What do you think of Mullen
• 9:11
  saying that Mani's comments about ICE
• 9:13
  were dangerous and invite hostility? I
• 9:16
  mean, I suspect on some level that is
• 9:17
  sort of it's sort of like trivially
• 9:19
  true. Like
• 9:21
  um do comments that are forceful from
• 9:24
  the mayor about a paramilitary force
• 9:27
  shooting up the residents would would a
• 9:31
  forceful response from a mayor like that
• 9:33
  would that yield uh some kind of public
• 9:36
  agitation? I suspect that that is true,
• 9:39
  but of course like you leave the mayor
• 9:41
  no choice. You leave the mayor no
• 9:43
  choice. Like the the the one of the guys
• 9:46
  who the one who was responsible holding
• 9:48
  the long gun with the they look like
• 9:50
  they looked like they were construction
• 9:51
  workers and one of them had a long long
• 9:53
  rifle. This guy has been seen in various
• 9:56
  different eye surges all over the
• 9:58
  country. Um he got hit by a judge
• 10:00
  recently for a having a phony warrant. I
• 10:03
  mean, we are talking about a guy whose
• 10:05
  entire, at least from what we can
• 10:07
  discern, public tenure with this
• 10:09
  organization in the last few years is
• 10:11
  the epitome of fraudulence and abuse.
• 10:14
  And here he is out there. What do you
• 10:16
  expect the mayor to do?
• 10:19
  You could even say that the guy that
• 10:20
  they were trying to get was a guy of
• 10:23
  great need. Fine. He had his 5-year-old
• 10:25
  in the car. Why are you shooting it up
• 10:27
  seven times, I believe? Right. We are
• 10:30
  just talking about poorly trained,
• 10:31
  unaccountable federal paramilitary force
• 10:35
  invading our streets. Yeah, the mayor
• 10:38
  making a very
• 10:40
  uh stern comment about that is going to
• 10:43
  yield an agitated response from the
• 10:45
  population. Why wouldn't it? But of
• 10:47
  course, the mayor didn't even have to
• 10:48
  say that. the protests that were there
• 10:51
  organically both to the NYPD as well as
• 10:53
  to ICE to the entire situation that you
• 10:56
  saw last night. Um, uh, Darlisa
• 10:59
  Shioalier, she was pushed to the ground.
• 11:01
  I think you guys might have seen some of
• 11:03
  this. I think I saw on stat like what
• 11:05
  was it called? Um, what's the name of
• 11:06
  that news? I want to give them a shout
• 11:07
  out, but I can't remember the name of
• 11:08
  the news. It's like status quo news. I
• 11:11
  could be getting that wrong. Um, and
• 11:13
  then if you actually watch the there's a
• 11:15
  the NYPD uh chess cam footage that came
• 11:18
  out today. I did I get a chance to see
• 11:19
  that ahead of this live chat. If you
• 11:21
  watch that, I mean, there's already an
• 11:23
  agitated response on the ground
• 11:25
  immediately following the shooting from
• 11:26
  the local population. Like, this is
• 11:28
  obviously [ __ ] nonsense. This is
• 11:30
  obviously nonsense. This is obviously
• 11:32
  nonsensical. Who could possibly care
• 11:34
  what Mark Wayne Mullen had to say about
• 11:36
  this? I mean, you have to care in the
• 11:37
  sense that he holds power, but in terms
• 11:39
  of like, you know, trying to parse the
• 11:41
  value of it, they the the the the right
• 11:45
  the right is very good about ascribing
• 11:47
  blame to things, pointing the fingers
• 11:49
  and saying, "Isn't this bad?" And aren't
• 11:51
  the people who are not us trying to do
• 11:53
  something about it bad? But then when it
• 11:54
  comes time for them, these people are
• 11:56
  allergic to taking responsibility.
• 11:58
  everything gas prices are somehow still
• 12:01
  Biden's fault and any other kind of
• 12:04
  regulatory condition that they had a
• 12:06
  chance to repair or changed and it
• 12:08
  [ __ ] things up is somebody else's
• 12:10
  fault. The tariffs are Biden's fault or
• 12:13
  somebody else's fault. Like they can't
• 12:15
  they they they look at problems they
• 12:17
  don't understand them. They diagnose
• 12:19
  solutions to them that don't make any
• 12:21
  sense. Sometimes these problems aren't
• 12:23
  even real. These attempted interventions
• 12:26
  yield negative externalities because of
• 12:28
  course they do, right? You're tearing
• 12:30
  communities apart. You're shooting up
• 12:32
  people in the street. ICE does that. ICE
• 12:33
  straight up shoots up people in the
• 12:35
  street, right? You get this, you get a
• 12:37
  very agitated response from local
• 12:39
  leadership, but the local population as
• 12:41
  well. And what does the Secretary of
• 12:43
  what is the uh uh uh Department of
• 12:45
  Homeland Security Secretary say?
• 12:50
  Somebody else did it. What are you
• 12:53
  supposed to say to something like that?
• 12:54
  Like what do you I how what is that? You
• 12:58
  know, this is this is these are just not
• 13:01
  people that can be reasoned with. These
• 13:03
  are not people that they don't have a
• 13:05
  thoughtful inner life. They don't they
• 13:09
  don't understand America. They don't
• 13:10
  understand what makes America good or
• 13:12
  bad or what works or what doesn't or how
• 13:15
  to diagnose a problem and then follow
• 13:17
  through with it. These are just very
• 13:18
  very very incompetent people. When when
• 13:21
  you base a government on a spoils or
• 13:24
  loyalty system, this is the kind of
• 13:26
  leadership you're going to get. You're
• 13:28
  going to get a former MMA fighter from
• 13:30
  Oklahoma.
• 13:35
  Oh, [ __ ] Hold on.
• 13:39
  Luke, my many in my Cuban family that
• 13:42
  voted for Trump now despise him, mostly
• 13:44
  because of his uh ICE and immigration
• 13:48
  policies. thoughts on how Latinos voting
• 13:50
  blue in the coming years may affect
• 13:51
  things. I don't know if they will vote
• 13:52
  blue forever. I will tell you, I just
• 13:54
  saw a data point that I retweeted right
• 13:57
  before I got on the air. Uh, listen to
• 14:01
  this.
• 14:04
  More Latino voters have cast a ballot
• 14:07
  already than did at the same point in
• 14:11
  the 2024 presidential election.
• 14:14
  Right. As of now, Latino early vote is
• 14:17
  outpacing where it was at the same time
• 14:19
  in 2024 in raw vote totals. Presidential
• 14:22
  turnout is usually higher than the
• 14:24
  midterms. So, at the same point, the
• 14:26
  midterms are now higher than the
• 14:27
  presidential election. I think that
• 14:29
  speaks some pretty important volumes.
• 14:31
  Yeah, I know a ton of Latinos that have
• 14:34
  buyer remorse on this. I know a ton. But
• 14:37
  then you you know you say that and then
• 14:38
  you ask them how they feel about
• 14:40
  elections in the country where they come
• 14:42
  from and they're still supporting the
• 14:43
  right-wing [ __ ] clown down there. So
• 14:45
  it's you know how much of that are they
• 14:47
  really understanding? I you know hard to
• 14:49
  say. Cubans obviously it's a little bit
• 14:50
  different but like you know for for for
• 14:54
  um even for Venezuelans I know they have
• 14:56
  they have some weird responses. The
• 14:57
  Colombians I know a bunch who are like
• 14:59
  yeah okay I don't like Trump but I like
• 15:00
  Abelardo. I'm like,
• 15:03
  I don't believe that some part of that
• 15:06
  story doesn't add up, you know, or Noa
• 15:08
  or, you know, pick pick whoever. Mle.
• 15:11
  Um,
• 15:13
  all right. How do I feel about it? Um,
• 15:17
  thoughts on how Latinos voting blue in
• 15:19
  the coming years may affect things. I
• 15:21
  think it'd be I I really think that um
• 15:27
  it's extremely important to understand
• 15:29
  what the reality is here that this
• 15:33
  election and the turnout is is in part
• 15:36
  you might see certain races um where
• 15:40
  Democrats preaching messages of kitchen
• 15:43
  table issues making things affordable in
• 15:46
  certain cases speaking out against AI or
• 15:48
  ICE in particular but you know a lot
• 15:49
  more the kitchen table issues this
• 15:51
  obviously has a lot of salience this
• 15:52
  election. You're obviously seeing some
• 15:54
  examples of that. Again, some some much
• 15:56
  more pronounced in certain elections
• 15:58
  than others, right? We'll see what
• 15:59
  happens with Angie Nixon, for example,
• 16:00
  in Florida. Um, but, you know, most of
• 16:04
  this is repudiation of what Trump has
• 16:06
  done. To me, I think it is a fundamental
• 16:09
  misreading to say what's really powering
• 16:12
  this is the overwhelming nature of what
• 16:15
  the message is from the Democratic
• 16:17
  party. Now again, there are some very
• 16:18
  much some like as long as they're
• 16:19
  preaching various forms of economic
• 16:21
  populism, that by itself is broadly
• 16:23
  going to be available. But like what I'm
• 16:24
  saying is are people saying, "Man, I
• 16:26
  really am buying into the Democratic
• 16:28
  party." I would say that there's
• 16:29
  progressive messaging and progressive
• 16:32
  policy proposals that are that are
• 16:34
  polling quite high and to the extent
• 16:35
  that you can attach yourself to that,
• 16:37
  you can do yourself some wonders. But
• 16:39
  like I don't think that people have all
• 16:40
  of a sudden turned around and said, you
• 16:42
  know, you know what, we got to
• 16:43
  reconsider the Dems. They actually are
• 16:45
  pretty good. I don't think that's what's
• 16:46
  happening here. But what I do think is
• 16:48
  going to happen potentially anyway is if
• 16:50
  the Dems actually govern in some kind of
• 16:53
  a way that is bold and leads to
• 16:55
  substantive change and for our attacked
• 16:58
  immigrant communities some genuine
• 17:00
  relief. There is a way I think to buy
• 17:03
  some alliance and some allegiance for
• 17:05
  the long term. But if again everyone is
• 17:07
  making it out to be well how many of the
• 17:09
  Dems win? And of course this is an
• 17:11
  important calculation particularly if
• 17:12
  you win the Senate. Everyone understands
• 17:13
  the math.
• 17:15
  But I'm trying to explain to everyone
• 17:17
  that is merely the beginning of the
• 17:19
  challenge. Like the Dems have an
• 17:20
  enormous amount of challenges. They have
• 17:22
  to defeat I think within the party the
• 17:24
  corporatist forces. I think that's a
• 17:26
  part that has to happen. They have to
• 17:27
  defeat MAGA. They have to get bold
• 17:29
  legislation. Like it's like the task
• 17:31
  that they're up against here, I think,
• 17:33
  is is is so insane. It boggles the mind.
• 17:36
  But there really is no other path to
• 17:37
  pursue at the present moment. Like it
• 17:38
  just simply it has to get done. But
• 17:41
  unless I I I say this on every live
• 17:42
  chat, but I'm sorry to sound like a
• 17:43
  broken record, but I I see so much focus
• 17:46
  on the election and I don't really I'm
• 17:49
  just very concerned about like I'm happy
• 17:52
  to spend Senate time trying to impeach
• 17:55
  these guys and be maximally difficult
• 17:57
  with them. But I also think that like
• 18:00
  the Latino vote for this time around,
• 18:04
  yes, they're voting for the Democrats,
• 18:05
  but unless the Democrats truly deliver
• 18:08
  on relief for them, this won't stick.
• 18:11
  This is not some generational shift.
• 18:14
  This is uh a recognition that the
• 18:17
  architects of the present moment are out
• 18:18
  of their [ __ ] mind. That's what that
• 18:20
  is. That's very different than, you
• 18:23
  know, we really believe in this
• 18:24
  organization. that's
• 18:27
  you got to govern to get that
• 18:30
  and I don't know how they're going to
• 18:31
  govern. So I don't know what to say
• 18:34
  about that. Um, but I would say that
• 18:36
  like, you know, I think that people need
• 18:40
  to understand like, you know,
• 18:44
  obviously the Hispanic speaking world is
• 18:47
  an extremely varied, extremely different
• 18:50
  place, extremely
• 18:52
  diverse. And yeah, they can be united by
• 18:54
  language to a degree and united by
• 18:56
  religion to a degree, but they are
• 18:58
  wildly different people with wildly
• 19:00
  different realities. And uh you know I
• 19:03
  think a lot of Americans tend to not
• 19:05
  understand that. Um but like a lot of
• 19:09
  the world a part of the Spanish speaking
• 19:11
  world has turned very conservative. Um
• 19:13
  and part of that is evangelicalism. Part
• 19:16
  of that is a failure of the left to
• 19:18
  deliver in certain cases. Part of that
• 19:20
  is political corruption, right? Part of
• 19:22
  that is you know a lot of different
• 19:24
  things. But
• 19:26
  I, you know, and I know that's different
• 19:28
  from what like domestically what you
• 19:30
  know, Latinos may or may not vote, but
• 19:31
  I'm just I I think there's just a lot of
• 19:33
  this expectation of like, oh, the
• 19:35
  Republicans were really mean about ICE.
• 19:38
  I think that if they stopped doing some
• 19:40
  of the more harmful [ __ ] Um, and you
• 19:44
  know, I I think that there I'll put it
• 19:46
  this way. I think that there are ways
• 19:47
  that the right even still could
• 19:49
  recapture them if the left doesn't
• 19:51
  understand the task of governing in
• 19:53
  front of them. I just don't see it as a
• 19:55
  robust connection at all.
• 20:00
  Abdul uh this person writes, "Abdul
• 20:03
  schooled Mike Rogers and his post-debate
• 20:05
  press conference was a masterclass. [ __ ]
• 20:07
  the centers. Luke, I'm driving to visit
• 20:08
  my parents in gorgeous Santa Rosa
• 20:11
  Mendosino. Much love, my brother." Um
• 20:14
  yeah, if you guys didn't see the debate
• 20:16
  last night between Mike Rogers and Abdul
• 20:17
  Elsa, it was, you know what was really
• 20:20
  interesting about it? First of all, I
• 20:22
  don't recall hearing about Hassan [ __ ]
• 20:24
  hardly at all in that. I mean, I mean,
• 20:26
  maybe there was one or two references,
• 20:28
  but like you would have thought Hassan
• 20:29
  would have been maybe a little bit more
• 20:31
  mentioned. Not really. Let me tell you
• 20:34
  what Mike Rogers did, and I actually
• 20:35
  think it's very, very instructive,
• 20:38
  right? Very instructive. You can we
• 20:40
  there's been reporting to this effect
• 20:42
  and one could simply deduce this anyway.
• 20:46
  But one of the really interesting things
• 20:47
  that Mike Rogers did last night was he
• 20:51
  mentioned Islamic
• 20:54
  stuff all the time like associations,
• 20:56
  names, right? just really trying to
• 20:58
  Islamify
• 21:00
  so to speak Abdul say which who
• 21:02
  obviously he's a Muslim but I mean like
• 21:04
  every part of his life he was just
• 21:06
  trying to put Muslim Muslim Muslim
• 21:07
  Muslim in there you know you can imagine
• 21:10
  why someone would want to do that
• 21:11
  particularly given the voters that he's
• 21:12
  courting but an interesting thing
• 21:14
  happened along the way
• 21:16
  one thing he did what he'd be asked
• 21:18
  about like tariffs or you know some kind
• 21:21
  of issue where the where the GOP was on
• 21:23
  the back foot and what you kept hearing
• 21:26
  was him trying to thread this needle of,
• 21:29
  you know, I'm a I'm a rock ribb
• 21:31
  Republican. I'm uh, you know, I support
• 21:34
  the president, but taking a much more
• 21:37
  moderate tone on a variety of different
• 21:39
  issues, right? or at a bare again and
• 21:42
  listen to the words I'm saying not
• 21:43
  saying that he was substantively
• 21:45
  changing policy exactly but trying to
• 21:48
  sound softened trying to sound neutral
• 21:52
  trying to sound um you know oh whatever
• 21:55
  you think the the the thing that we
• 21:57
  support is we support a more humane
• 22:00
  version clearly what is happening within
• 22:03
  the national leadership that's trying to
• 22:05
  you know either run for the
• 22:06
  congressional races let's say these
• 22:08
  republic and then the governorships too
• 22:10
  but these republic Republicans re many
• 22:12
  of them anyway realize that MAGA has
• 22:15
  gone way too [ __ ] far and they're
• 22:17
  about to pay for it and what they're
• 22:19
  trying to do is trying to be like hey
• 22:21
  remember us you know the Republican
• 22:23
  party before MAGA got here and sure we
• 22:26
  had some crazies but we were a little
• 22:27
  bit more reigned in we also liked going
• 22:30
  to Harvard we valued it you know we were
• 22:32
  in the same country clubs right you know
• 22:35
  that that that you know the more the
• 22:36
  Mitt Romney kind of thing which is not
• 22:38
  to say a great thing but you relative to
• 22:41
  I don't know the kind of Republican that
• 22:44
  Pete Hexath is. Mitt Romney is a
• 22:46
  substantive improvement.
• 22:49
  You you know what I mean? He was trying
• 22:50
  to take a moderate to like they weren't
• 22:52
  doubling down on what they were doing.
• 22:55
  They were trying to say, "Well, the
• 22:56
  tariffs, you know, they might be bad in
• 22:58
  this way, but I'm going to make it work
• 22:59
  in this way." Right? They didn't come
• 23:01
  down and say, "You know what? The
• 23:02
  tariffs are [ __ ] awesome." You know,
• 23:04
  they didn't do that. Uh they did kind of
• 23:06
  go I mean he went to them he went to the
• 23:07
  one thing that was interesting was
• 23:10
  dude if you're literate about the Israel
• 23:12
  Palestine issue or he's even semi
• 23:15
  literate because I don't think that I'm
• 23:16
  literate but I'm semi literate about it
• 23:18
  right if you're even semi literate about
• 23:21
  it and then you watch how it gets gets
• 23:23
  discussed in our in our in our politics
• 23:25
  it's an insane conversation for example
• 23:27
  like Mike Rogers last night was saying
• 23:29
  things like and this guy supports this
• 23:31
  person and he supports Hamas who put
• 23:33
  babies in ovens who cut off women's
• 23:35
  breasts and all that stuff. And I'm
• 23:36
  like, he's repeating stuff from a famous
• 23:39
  New York Times article called Screams
• 23:41
  Without Words who had which has so many
• 23:44
  problems including but not limited to
• 23:45
  who wrote it. But even putting aside the
• 23:47
  author, their motivations, and their
• 23:49
  particular background, the none of the
• 23:51
  claims were ever corroborated. In fact,
• 23:53
  many of them had to get walked back.
• 23:54
  It's an utterly discredited article.
• 23:56
  There's just really no proof that what
• 23:59
  is asserted in that article. There's
• 24:00
  nothing to to to certainly the more
• 24:02
  heinous things like there was mass rapes
• 24:04
  and stuff like that on October 7th. It's
• 24:06
  not to say that October 7th didn't
• 24:08
  contain real horrors that one should
• 24:10
  contend with. In fact, there was. But we
• 24:13
  have to be very clear about what
• 24:14
  actually happened and what didn't. And
• 24:16
  maybe some of those things happened, but
• 24:18
  the evidence that the was put together
• 24:20
  in that article utterly fell apart. It's
• 24:22
  one of the New York Times's gravest
• 24:24
  errors, I think, during the entire Gaza
• 24:27
  um you know, genocide manufactured
• 24:29
  consent campaign. Anyway, he just
• 24:31
  reasserts everything that happens in the
• 24:33
  article. And if you're Abdul say, how do
• 24:34
  you respond to that? Because if you're
• 24:36
  like, "No, it sounds if you fight back
• 24:38
  on it, it sounds like you're being
• 24:39
  like," and I think all everything Hamas
• 24:41
  did was virtue. Like it makes you sound,
• 24:44
  you know, you know what I mean? Like
• 24:46
  especially if you're your [ __ ] name
• 24:47
  is Abdul and you're like, "No, but Hamas
• 24:49
  did it. Hamas restrained themselves."
• 24:51
  And even if that's true, how does that
• 24:53
  sound just given the nature of how we
• 24:55
  discuss these issues? It's a it puts him
• 24:58
  in an impossible position. So he has to
• 24:59
  kind of, you know, kind of, you know,
• 25:02
  slip and parry there a little bit. Um
• 25:04
  because there's really no way to fight
• 25:05
  back on it despite the fact that the
• 25:06
  guy's just saying demonstrabably untrue
• 25:08
  [ __ ] or at the bare minimum
• 25:09
  demonstrabably uh things that have no
• 25:12
  evidence for them, evidence-free claims.
• 25:14
  It's it's it's insane. But dude, Abdul
• 25:17
  say was calm. Abdul sayed was
• 25:21
  I don't mind this kind of a thing. So
• 25:23
  I'm not speaking for me in this regard.
• 25:26
  I thought when it was over Mike Rogers
• 25:28
  got his ass whooped. You can tell
• 25:31
  because he was stammering a lot. As I
• 25:33
  mentioned, he was just going Muslim,
• 25:34
  Muslim, Muslim, Muslim the whole time.
• 25:37
  But the other thing you could say was he
• 25:38
  would have these awkward pauses in the
• 25:40
  middle of a sentence. like not where you
• 25:42
  would normally have a pause in your
• 25:44
  thought cuz you could tell he was trying
• 25:46
  to collect himself to say something
• 25:48
  because he was overwhelmed by what Elsa
• 25:51
  was doing to him and then he kept
• 25:53
  calling him like an AI chatbot that you
• 25:55
  know is able to just spit out stuff spit
• 25:56
  out spit out spit out. One of the things
• 25:58
  I I learned, I didn't do much debating
• 26:01
  uh in my life. I did a little bit, but
• 26:02
  one thing I learned is that when people
• 26:04
  accuse other people of like, oh, look at
• 26:06
  him spitting out all these facts. 99
• 26:08
  times out of a hundred, that is a person
• 26:10
  that knows they're losing. And what they
• 26:12
  do is they try to say, oh, yes, they're
• 26:14
  saying a lot. Sure, they're saying a
• 26:16
  lot. But it's really just, you know,
• 26:18
  it's just that it's just a high volume
• 26:20
  of not that much because they know that
• 26:22
  they're overwhelmed. It's it's a
• 26:24
  surrender without surrendering. And he
• 26:26
  did this multiple times during the
• 26:27
  course of this debate. He got whooped.
• 26:29
  He got whooped. And then afterwards
• 26:31
  there is a you know they each go to
• 26:33
  various spin rooms and Elsad is asked
• 26:36
  you know how come Rogers has to answer
• 26:38
  for Donald Trump and you don't have to
• 26:40
  answer for Hassan [ __ ]
• 26:44
  And Elsad Elsed is like one of those
• 26:47
  guys who I don't think he's I mean maybe
• 26:50
  he's a bad guy. I you know I mean I
• 26:51
  interviewed him. He seemed very friendly
• 26:52
  to me like you know what I mean but like
• 26:54
  he's a politician. Who knows, right?
• 26:57
  But he's not like I don't I don't take
• 27:00
  him for a jerk in that way, but he
• 27:03
  definitely doesn't suffer fools gladly.
• 27:05
  That's my kind of guy just, you know, he
• 27:07
  actually tells the reporter he's like,
• 27:08
  "Is that a serious question?" Because
• 27:10
  and then he of course the answer is
• 27:12
  because one of them is the president of
• 27:14
  the United States and the other one is
• 27:17
  on Twitch. Like I do think there's a bit
• 27:20
  of a dodge on per where people will say
• 27:22
  things like, "Hey, just a Twitch
• 27:23
  streamer in California." No, he's
• 27:24
  influential in the party and like you
• 27:26
  should be able to talk about that. But
• 27:27
  even if that is true, that versus
• 27:32
  that versus Donald Trump is so [ __ ]
• 27:34
  ludicrous,
• 27:35
  you know, as to be just mind-blowing. So
• 27:38
  yeah, it was a fun it was a fun debate.
• 27:40
  I enjoyed it. God, these I mean, but how
• 27:42
  do how do you defend how do you defend
• 27:45
  being MAGA right now? It's like it's
• 27:48
  just very very difficult with JD having
• 27:51
  charisma saying socialism is men and
• 27:54
  with women's sports and yeah it was all
• 27:55
  trans stuff and deflecting from
• 27:57
  ambassador Abbas Kim who do the R
• 28:01
  actually run in wait what similar with
• 28:04
  the D poor choices are pushing leftist
• 28:06
  the I'm sorry what the [ __ ] is this with
• 28:08
  JD having charisma saying socialism is
• 28:11
  men with women's sports and deflecting
• 28:13
  from Ambas Kim who oh who do Republicans
• 28:17
  actually run in 2028. Similar with the
• 28:19
  D. Poor choices are pushing the leftists
• 28:21
  away. Who do the who who should who
• 28:24
  should they run in 2028 or who are they
• 28:27
  going to run? Yeah, it's going to be
• 28:28
  Vance and Rubio.
• 28:31
  You might see one tech oligarch in
• 28:32
  there. Um
• 28:36
  Hagath might might run.
• 28:39
  Um,
• 28:41
  you know, I mean, but like the
• 28:42
  Republican party is so hollowed out from
• 28:45
  every part from,
• 28:48
  you know, again, like I I'm not here to
• 28:50
  like exalt the Gordon Gecko wing of the
• 28:52
  party, but the Gordon Gecko wing of the
• 28:55
  party, you know, they thought it was
• 28:58
  good that people went to MIT,
• 29:02
  you know what I mean? like uh you know
• 29:05
  they probably wouldn't have executions
• 29:07
  shown on live television or streamed
• 29:10
  live in some capacity, right? You know
• 29:13
  what I mean? This is kind of the thing
• 29:14
  that I'm talking about. Uh you're not
• 29:16
  you're left with a confederacy of dunes.
• 29:19
  That's sort of what you what you're left
• 29:21
  with here. It is a you know this is a
• 29:23
  sort of like a loosely released insane
• 29:26
  asylum. Um there isn't a good choice
• 29:29
  there. There is no one of that way that
• 29:31
  you could even look. I mean JD Vance can
• 29:33
  be a lot of things. Maybe you might
• 29:35
  think that a more moderated JD Vance is
• 29:37
  something tolerable. But of course he is
• 29:39
  prone to do anything for power. I don't
• 29:41
  know how you could possibly trust that.
• 29:43
  Marco Rubio has turned out to be one of
• 29:45
  the more authoritarian figures frankly
• 29:47
  within the Trump administration.
• 29:49
  Obviously it's a non-starter with him in
• 29:51
  every possible way. Just just what
• 29:52
  they're doing in Colombia alone for me
• 29:54
  would be a deal breakaker. To say
• 29:55
  nothing of the broader Latin American
• 29:58
  and South American push that they're
• 30:00
  making.
• 30:02
  Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't
• 30:04
  think that there is one. I don't think
• 30:05
  there's I don't think there's a very
• 30:06
  dynamic candidate. I mean, dude, the
• 30:08
  Republican party is the is Trump and
• 30:10
  when he leaves, uh, which, you know,
• 30:13
  won't be far too long from now just by
• 30:15
  virtue of old age or anything else. Um,
• 30:20
  their their party is not set up
• 30:23
  dynamically
• 30:24
  in any kind of it's it's a it's a
• 30:26
  loyalty system. How could it have
• 30:29
  richness within its ranks? It's designed
• 30:32
  to not do that. Do you know how many
• 30:35
  centerright folks I know that I grew up
• 30:37
  with that are like not they're not
• 30:41
  Democrats exactly, but they're going to
• 30:42
  vote Democrats because they it's not
• 30:45
  like the biggest group. I I don't mean
• 30:46
  to say that the Wall Street Republicans
• 30:48
  who left are some gigantic group. I I
• 30:51
  guess that's wrong. I guess the way I
• 30:52
  would say that is though like that wing
• 30:54
  of the movement which had something of
• 30:56
  an outsized role and perhaps its role
• 30:58
  declining in some ways is also has some
• 31:00
  benefits. I mean MAGA substituting it is
• 31:04
  not in all ways better but there might
• 31:05
  be something to be said for its decline
• 31:07
  in in other respects. But what I will
• 31:09
  say is like that part of the wing which
• 31:11
  would give the right some credibility in
• 31:14
  some kind of ways you know for trying to
• 31:17
  like achieve through our legal training
• 31:20
  system achieve through our you know our
• 31:23
  science and technology to become you
• 31:25
  know someone who could be the the
• 31:27
  secretary of energy who really
• 31:28
  understood you know uh nuclear physics
• 31:31
  or something you know what I mean like
• 31:32
  somebody who had
• 31:35
  people who were had distinguished
• 31:36
  records of achievement in the military
• 31:38
  ultimately becoming, you know, Secretary
• 31:40
  of Defense, not Pete Hexath, who was a
• 31:42
  like a company or low field grade
• 31:43
  officer as a reserve. Like he's nothing.
• 31:45
  He's a nothing. He's a total nothing. Um
• 31:49
  they don't they've they've created a
• 31:50
  party system that sues this.
• 31:56
  It's going to take a while for them to
• 31:57
  unfuck themselves once Trump croakkes.
• 32:01
  Thank you. Thank you. We need fighters
• 32:03
  in these times. I don't know how much of
• 32:04
  a fighter I am, but I did see on the
• 32:06
  news today that there were National
• 32:08
  Guardsmen
• 32:10
  uh
• 32:11
  guarding ballot boxes here in DC. Boy,
• 32:15
  that's super [ __ ] illegal. As soon as
• 32:17
  this live chat is over, I'm going to go
• 32:18
  get on my bike. I know exactly which one
• 32:20
  I saw in the news. I know exactly where
• 32:21
  it is. There's one not too far from my
• 32:23
  neighborhood. I'm going to go check that
• 32:24
  one out. I want to see how many National
• 32:26
  Guardsmen are guarding ba uh uh election
• 32:29
  boxes. I see so many of these dumb
• 32:31
  [ __ ] Dude, I've been living in
• 32:33
  this [ __ ] city since Marian
• 32:36
  Barry was the [ __ ] mayor. People are
• 32:39
  going to talk to me like they know
• 32:41
  anything about DC. I know more about DC
• 32:44
  than just about anybody you [ __ ]
• 32:45
  know. I've been here longer than almost
• 32:48
  anyone any of you know. Now, not for
• 32:50
  some locals. If you know other locals,
• 32:52
  maybe a little bit different, but for
• 32:53
  people who are not from this area, I'm
• 32:54
  telling you, these people know nothing
• 32:59
  about this city. uh and may not realize
• 33:02
  the impact the National Guard is having.
• 33:04
  You'll hear things be like, "Yeah, man.
• 33:05
  Who cares if they're around?" I [ __ ]
• 33:07
  care. It's a military walking your
• 33:10
  streets. Yeah. Right now, are they
• 33:13
  hardcore going doortodoor like it's
• 33:15
  Fallujah trying to round up all military
• 33:17
  age males? No. But what if they get
• 33:20
  ordered to? There's not enough of them,
• 33:22
  of course, to do it now, but like what
• 33:24
  if that kind of orientation begins to
• 33:27
  happen under order and then they just
• 33:29
  add more to them that are already here.
• 33:31
  What are you talking about? What are you
• 33:34
  talking about? They were out front of
• 33:36
  [ __ ] ballot boxes today in the city.
• 33:40
  Scary. Scary.
• 33:43
  I hear so many people say they'd vote
• 33:45
  Dem if they weren't so beholden to
• 33:46
  progressive and leftists. Well, those
• 33:49
  are dumb asses. Meanwhile, progressives
• 33:50
  say Dems lose because they are too
• 33:53
  centrist. How do you square this
• 33:54
  difference? Um, most people have a very
• 33:58
  propagandized understanding of what it
• 34:00
  means to be progressive. To the extent
• 34:02
  that I've heard complaints about the
• 34:05
  left from people who could potentially
• 34:07
  conceivably be interested in voting, it
• 34:10
  would be along two different lines. One
• 34:12
  would be that they have some version of
• 34:13
  wokeness that's too far. And that can
• 34:15
  vary person to person. That's not all
• 34:17
  one thing. But, you know, someone who's
• 34:20
  like, um, you know, actually, and they
• 34:22
  look like a librarian or maybe they've
• 34:24
  got colored hair and they've got some
• 34:26
  ambiguous [ __ ] outward gender like
• 34:28
  that's, you know, some kind of this is
• 34:30
  almost a a caricature in certain ways.
• 34:32
  But that that is one complaint. And the
• 34:33
  other complaint is that, you know, they
• 34:35
  might have their heart in the right way
• 34:36
  to say, "Hey, we got to take care of the
• 34:37
  poor," but that the economic policies
• 34:39
  that they propose are ludicrous. They
• 34:41
  wouldn't work. Borderline or outright
• 34:43
  communist, right? But in both of these
• 34:45
  cases, this is a very caricatured way of
• 34:46
  of of understanding the world. Um, I
• 34:50
  think that um, what was the second
• 34:52
  question? How do you score this
• 34:53
  difference?
• 34:56
  One thing you really have to understand
• 34:58
  is um, there's a podcast you could
• 35:00
  listen to called citations needed. In
• 35:01
  fact, they just put out their third part
• 35:03
  of a three-part series. And one of the
• 35:05
  things that they go to is there has been
• 35:07
  a consistent element in politics, a
• 35:09
  union between, it's not new, between the
• 35:11
  right and the center left to defeat the
• 35:13
  progressive left at all times. And one
• 35:15
  of the things that they take from this,
• 35:16
  for example, is the defeat of Nixon, his
• 35:19
  re-election when he defeated George
• 35:20
  McGovern. And what they show in this
• 35:23
  election is, for example, that Nixon
• 35:26
  wins and he wins handily. McGovern
• 35:28
  loses. And there was this uh discussion
• 35:31
  both before the election and certainly
• 35:33
  after the election where what you ended
• 35:35
  up seeing was messaging that like aha
• 35:38
  you know the reason why Nixon won is
• 35:41
  because McGovern was way too far out
• 35:44
  there and people were not receptive to
• 35:47
  this kind of pie in the sky messaging
• 35:50
  and whatnot. Meanwhile, what election
• 35:52
  experts have looked back on and said was
• 35:54
  what really was going on was there was a
• 35:55
  time of security and a booming economy
• 35:57
  and Nixon was presiding over it at the
• 36:00
  time. And in fact, if you look at like
• 36:01
  the ideas that McGovern was pushing at
• 36:04
  the time, they have increasingly gained
• 36:06
  popularity not merely with the the
• 36:09
  Democrat but with independents and
• 36:11
  frankly the broader American public. And
• 36:13
  in fact, if anything, the party estuing
• 36:16
  the wing of McGovern um has actually set
• 36:19
  it back and the corporist direction that
• 36:21
  it went has brought it to its current
• 36:23
  place. How can anyone possibly argue
• 36:26
  that a pop that a Democratic party
• 36:28
  historically unpopular by its own terms,
• 36:31
  historically unpopular, that is
• 36:33
  dominated in every possible way by
• 36:36
  corporate and other special interests?
• 36:38
  That the problem with that party is that
• 36:41
  it's too progressive, that the things it
• 36:43
  does are too, this is a ludicrous
• 36:46
  comment. It's absolutely ludicrous.
• 36:48
  Could you find individual instances of
• 36:51
  pieces of legislation or individual
• 36:54
  towns or municipalities or states or
• 36:57
  whatever where some kind of legislation
• 36:59
  was a little bit too woke and it went a
• 37:01
  little bit too far? Yes, of course you
• 37:02
  can find examples of this. Um or even if
• 37:05
  it wasn't too woke, it was just
• 37:06
  ineffectual in some kind of a way. Um
• 37:09
  yes. Yes, this obviously exists here in
• 37:12
  my own hometown for example, you know.
• 37:15
  Um they and and I will give the mayor
• 37:17
  credit. She has there have been I don't
• 37:20
  know how successful the interventions by
• 37:22
  the city have been to meaningfully house
• 37:25
  the homeless population. I think the the
• 37:27
  success of that in terms of what they're
• 37:29
  spending and in terms of what they've
• 37:31
  done in terms of accessing the
• 37:32
  population and how much of the
• 37:33
  population they've accessed putting them
• 37:35
  into housing has been not the number
• 37:37
  that they expected. I think it's a
• 37:38
  difficult challenge, but I do think that
• 37:40
  I I have seen them try and I have seen
• 37:41
  them made a difference, but there was a
• 37:43
  moment in time where they were just
• 37:44
  letting them camp out in front of Union
• 37:46
  Station, you know. Um I don't want um I
• 37:51
  don't want the the solution to those
• 37:54
  people who need homes who are camping
• 37:56
  out on the front of Union Station was
• 37:58
  not to just take all their [ __ ] and burn
• 38:00
  it or just let them be there. It's to
• 38:02
  put them in housing where they can have
• 38:03
  safe safety, they can have security,
• 38:06
  they can have stability, and they can
• 38:08
  have the resources they need to take
• 38:09
  care of their lives and hopefully get
• 38:10
  back on their feet. Again, that has not
• 38:12
  worked out as well as I think we would
• 38:14
  all have hoped. There have been programs
• 38:16
  that they have instituted to get they
• 38:17
  have made some kind of difference. But
• 38:19
  you also have to have a degree of
• 38:21
  municipal order. And when people see
• 38:23
  these kinds of things, it just leads to
• 38:25
  a sense of breakdown um with what the
• 38:27
  government is willing to do and how much
• 38:29
  you can trust them. And so yes, any kind
• 38:31
  of policy that they just let them camp
• 38:33
  out like that, the solution is not to
• 38:35
  just tear their [ __ ] out like a homeless
• 38:37
  encampment and throw it all away. The
• 38:38
  solution is how do we really help these
• 38:40
  people very even though the answer to
• 38:41
  that can be quite difficult. So I can
• 38:43
  understand some of these things. But who
• 38:46
  has been guiding the Democratic party
• 38:49
  since the time of McGovern?
• 38:51
  Has it been the progressive wing? the
• 38:54
  wing that is constantly pushed down to
• 38:56
  the side. And in fact, some of the
• 38:58
  groups, the working groups that got put
• 39:00
  together were unions of um center left
• 39:04
  and the right. In fact, before the
• 39:06
  election of McGovern and Nixon, there
• 39:08
  was a union of these groups and they
• 39:10
  were, for example, they would um they
• 39:12
  would call journalists and they would
• 39:14
  say, "Hey, we've got some people we want
• 39:15
  you to talk to that are, you know, we
• 39:17
  think that are real Democrats." And
• 39:19
  they'd be like, "You know what? I I
• 39:21
  definitely want to take care of the
• 39:22
  working poor, but you know, the the soul
• 39:24
  of the Democratic party has gone way too
• 39:26
  far and blah blah blah blah blah. And
• 39:28
  these were designed by forces within the
• 39:31
  right and the center left, the corporate
• 39:32
  center left, the think tank left, as a
• 39:34
  matter of fact, on purpose to discount
• 39:37
  what it meant to have a progressive
• 39:38
  vision. The progressive vision scares
• 39:41
  the [ __ ] out of the right and the and
• 39:43
  the center left for many reasons. the
• 39:45
  more the more, you know, like the
• 39:47
  Mauists would scare them because no one
• 39:49
  would want or not many people would want
• 39:51
  that in the United States, but like the
• 39:53
  progressive left, it scares them because
• 39:56
  it centers an entirely different kind of
• 39:58
  power within the the government.
• 40:01
  It centers an entirely different kind.
• 40:04
  This is what they are afraid of. This is
• 40:07
  what they are afraid of. and look at
• 40:09
  what their leadership, look at what a
• 40:11
  muscular,
• 40:13
  you know, militarized neocon adjacent
• 40:18
  agenda has done for the for for the
• 40:20
  Democrats. Look what, you know, the free
• 40:22
  trade Democrats, look what it's done for
• 40:24
  the party. How can anyone with a
• 40:25
  straight face argue
• 40:28
  like the the state that it's in and the
• 40:32
  and the the who staffs its leadership?
• 40:34
  Look at Hakeem Jeff. Look at Chuck
• 40:36
  Schumer. These are progressives. Bernie
• 40:38
  Sanders has been popular in spite of all
• 40:41
  of them. And look at how the party has
• 40:43
  done its level best to undercut him.
• 40:47
  This country has not given progressivism
• 40:49
  a try in a long time. And the times that
• 40:52
  it did, for example, under FDR,
• 40:57
  didn't do so bad.
• 41:00
  With Dems likely to take the majority in
• 41:02
  Congress, what precautions are in place
• 41:03
  to prevent another Jan 6esque event
• 41:05
  happening? Nothing. Nothing as far as
• 41:07
  I'm aware. Nothing. Nothing at all.
• 41:11
  Nothing. Zero. I don't I I I Dude,
• 41:15
  they've got National Guard here in DC
• 41:17
  standing out front of [ __ ] ballot
• 41:19
  boxes.
• 41:23
  We're going to have to just force the
• 41:24
  issue. You're just going to have to get
• 41:26
  out there and [ __ ] force it.
• 41:31
  Look, the economic case for immigration
• 41:32
  is clear and compelling. yet right-wing
• 41:34
  movements here and across the globe are
• 41:36
  being fueled by anxiety about invading
• 41:37
  migrants. How do you bridge the gap? I
• 41:39
  mean I don't this is to me a very
• 41:41
  important thing to understand like we're
• 41:44
  looking at a time where audience like I
• 41:46
  this is what bothers me about the
• 41:48
  immigration debate too where it's like
• 41:50
  the Dems are like oh we want to reign in
• 41:52
  the abuses of ICE. No the argument is
• 41:55
  immigration is very good for this
• 41:56
  country and is a key ingredient in how
• 41:59
  we became an economic and world
• 42:01
  superpower and that's a [ __ ] fact.
• 42:03
  That's not that's that's not that's not
• 42:04
  false. That's a fact. That's a fact. One
• 42:07
  of the things that America has been
• 42:08
  exceptionally good at is taking people
• 42:10
  from other parts of the world and making
• 42:12
  them American. You know who's not as
• 42:14
  good at America is in terms of taking
• 42:17
  people from a part of the world and
• 42:18
  making them American? You know who's
• 42:19
  like way way worse at it? The French.
• 42:24
  The French are not very I mean they've
• 42:25
  gotten better in recent years, but
• 42:26
  historically over the course of the life
• 42:28
  of the French, they're not that great at
• 42:30
  taking someone who's not from there and
• 42:31
  just making them French. They're not
• 42:35
  that they're not that good at it. We are
• 42:37
  very good at it. We're extremely good at
• 42:39
  it. We can take some anybody and make
• 42:41
  them a [ __ ] cowboy. Anybody from any
• 42:44
  part of the world and we can get them
• 42:45
  wearing cowboy hats and tell them saying
• 42:47
  yeeha and I love the cowboys and blah
• 42:49
  blah blah. We can do that. Like we have
• 42:51
  an extraordinary ability to influence
• 42:53
  culture in that way and I cannot believe
• 42:57
  that people do not seem to understand
• 42:59
  that. So like the argument is not well
• 43:01
  ICE is doing abusive things. I mean yeah
• 43:04
  that's true. We got to really do a
• 43:05
  thing. I've said this like like if you
• 43:08
  just understand these things not like a
• 43:10
  child and just take a like a deep
• 43:13
  breath. Let's understand what's
• 43:14
  happening here. We set up an
• 43:16
  immigration. We eased restrictions and
• 43:18
  reformed the system in 65. And then we
• 43:21
  did it again in 90. And the reason why
• 43:22
  we did it again in 90 was because the
• 43:24
  economy from 65 to 90 had grown
• 43:26
  substantially. We needed to find a new
• 43:29
  way to make an aotment system to meet
• 43:31
  our our needs, our farm needs, our
• 43:34
  high-tech needs, you know, all the ways
• 43:37
  in which the various immigration
• 43:39
  instruments exist to uh facilitate
• 43:42
  economic growth, to facilitate
• 43:45
  all the different benefits that come
• 43:46
  from either, you know, temporary or even
• 43:49
  permanent kinds of immigration, right?
• 43:51
  And we came up with that system and that
• 43:52
  a lotment and that was based on the size
• 43:54
  of the economy in 1990. We have not
• 43:57
  updated that system since 1990. It is
• 44:00
  now 2026. So what has happened? Well,
• 44:02
  the economy in 2026 is significantly
• 44:06
  larger than the economy in 1990. And
• 44:08
  that has meant that we have a lot more
• 44:11
  surplus in terms of labor demand than
• 44:14
  the existing immigration system can
• 44:17
  account for. So what happens to fill
• 44:19
  that demand is you get other forms of
• 44:22
  immigration. Very there's different
• 44:24
  kinds of illegal immigration. There's
• 44:25
  not all one kind, you know, but that
• 44:27
  that is essentially what happens. They
• 44:29
  get here to fulfill a labor demand that
• 44:32
  happens because there isn't an
• 44:34
  immigration instrument that they can
• 44:35
  legally use. As Zeke Hernandez has
• 44:37
  argued multiple times, and there's
• 44:39
  research to this effect that he has
• 44:40
  done, we know for a fact that if you
• 44:43
  give someone some kind of legal pathway,
• 44:45
  that is a onetoone substitution over an
• 44:47
  illegal one. They will take it every
• 44:48
  single time. It's a very, very easy way
• 44:50
  to cut down on it. They just have to
• 44:52
  have some kind of legal pathway. And of
• 44:53
  course, the argument is, well, if
• 44:54
  there's a surplus labor demand, that
• 44:56
  should go to the Americans that are
• 44:57
  here. But this is what immigration
• 44:59
  experts keep trying to explain to you.
• 45:01
  There wouldn't be this appetite for
• 45:03
  these people to come get jobs if the
• 45:05
  jobs weren't like available. If
• 45:08
  Americans were fulfilling the surplus
• 45:11
  demand that exists from the size of the
• 45:12
  economy now versus 1990, right? That
• 45:14
  difference. If they were filling it
• 45:16
  themselves, why would people be coming
• 45:18
  over here to risk life and limb to come
• 45:20
  get the work? Oh, it's because of the
• 45:21
  generous welfare system. That only
• 45:23
  really goes so far. Most of the people
• 45:24
  that we're talking about here, look at
• 45:26
  all the people they're yanking out. Are
• 45:27
  these freeloaders? Are these people
• 45:29
  getting yanked off of job sites or
• 45:32
  people getting yanked out of
• 45:33
  restaurants? This is where they're
• 45:35
  getting yanked out of. They're getting
• 45:37
  yanked out of the [ __ ] job.
• 45:40
  If these places, if these places that
• 45:44
  don't fulfill these things, if if the
• 45:45
  Americans were doing the work, there
• 45:47
  wouldn't be any ability for the people
• 45:49
  to come get the jobs, these are in large
• 45:52
  part jobs that Americans simply don't
• 45:54
  want to do. And that is where the excess
• 45:56
  labor demand, this is all an economics
• 45:58
  question. It's all an economics
• 46:01
  question. And if we reformed our
• 46:02
  immigration system to meet modern
• 46:04
  demands, do you understand how so many
• 46:06
  of these problems problems that we have
• 46:09
  would go away, what is happening is a
• 46:12
  real kind of anxiety. We're talking
• 46:14
  about the greatest transfer of wealth up
• 46:16
  to the 1% in human [ __ ] history.
• 46:20
  That is a thing that is happening. And
• 46:22
  because there isn't an advocate for
• 46:25
  people to help to help them understand
• 46:28
  um that the immigrants are not the
• 46:29
  problem. They're not the ones that are
• 46:31
  taking the money. In fact, if anything,
• 46:32
  they're net contributors to the economy,
• 46:34
  certainly to the tax base.
• 46:37
  And again, we know for they've been
• 46:39
  measuring the incarceration rate since
• 46:41
  1850. Immigrants have never had a higher
• 46:44
  share of the incarceration rate even per
• 46:45
  capita relative to natives ever. Not a
• 46:48
  single year. every single kind of
• 46:51
  immigrant. When you open your eyes, who
• 46:53
  are you most likely to suffer being a
• 46:56
  victim of from crime, you are much more
• 46:59
  likely then to be suffer a victim of
• 47:01
  crime versus natives than you are for
• 47:02
  any kind of immigrant, legal or illegal.
• 47:05
  And this has been true forever. They've
• 47:08
  measured it the entire time.
• 47:11
  Do you understand like how insane what
• 47:13
  we're doing is? It's insane. It's
• 47:16
  absolutely insane. And it's all damage.
• 47:19
  It's all damage to ourselves. All of it.
• 47:21
  All of it. The history of
• 47:23
  entrepreneurialism in the United States,
• 47:25
  particularly after 1965
• 47:28
  without a story of what immigrants have
• 47:29
  contributed, is a significantly smaller
• 47:32
  story. This idea that like all of the
• 47:34
  best things are already here. All of the
• 47:37
  many of the best things are here. But
• 47:38
  the way in which we're able to maintain
• 47:40
  it is again I I keep making it's a very
• 47:43
  simple analogy. If you coached at the
• 47:45
  University of Georgia and you said,
• 47:46
  "We're only going to take players from
• 47:49
  Georgia," you will have a very good
• 47:51
  football team. But if Alabama is saying,
• 47:53
  "We're gonna take all of the best ones
• 47:55
  from Alabama. We'll take any of the ones
• 47:58
  from Georgia that don't want to play for
• 47:59
  you. We'll take all the best players
• 48:01
  from California, all the best players
• 48:02
  from Florida, all the best players from
• 48:04
  Texas." Who is going to have a better
• 48:07
  football team?
• 48:10
  You got to recruit. That's how it goes.
• 48:14
  especially with declining birth rates.
• 48:16
  Schools are closing in Northern Virginia
• 48:17
  because of declining birth rates. There
• 48:19
  was an article today in the Washington
• 48:20
  Sun about the DC Council considering
• 48:22
  what schools might need to be closed in
• 48:24
  the coming years because of declining
• 48:25
  birth rates. Who is going to fund these
• 48:27
  social programs to make them possible in
• 48:29
  a world where you're not allowing
• 48:30
  immigration to take place? And by the
• 48:32
  way, KO did a study. Donald Trump has
• 48:34
  cut down more on legal immigration than
• 48:38
  illegal immigration proportionally since
• 48:40
  he took office again.
• 48:44
  Guys,
• 48:46
  this is not what smart people would do,
• 48:51
  right?
• 48:53
  People who are putting their thinking
• 48:55
  caps on would look at this and say, "Oh,
• 48:58
  well, what about the inherent conflict
• 49:01
  between groups? What about it?" It's
• 49:04
  largely elucory. There can be certain
• 49:07
  situations where there can be um
• 49:10
  tensions for a time. For example, I do
• 49:13
  think that the border was poorly managed
• 49:15
  by Joe Biden and all of those people
• 49:17
  getting dumped over the border towns and
• 49:19
  then those border towns being forced to
• 49:21
  face those significant needs. This is
• 49:24
  going to cause problems. This is not
• 49:26
  done in an orderly way. This is not the
• 49:28
  way that it can go or should go. It's
• 49:29
  not really fair to frankly anybody. This
• 49:32
  is a disorderly way in which to do it
• 49:34
  that puts an a a a disproportionate
• 49:36
  burden on those border communities. This
• 49:38
  will lead to hostility. This is bad.
• 49:41
  That's that's not what I'm talking
• 49:42
  about. I'm talking about an orderly
• 49:44
  process where all of it is managed. We
• 49:45
  know exactly what the economy needs. We
• 49:47
  know which ones we can approve. We know
• 49:49
  when we can approve them. And we can
• 49:51
  help the economy better recruit the
• 49:53
  talent it needs in an orderly way while
• 49:56
  having secure borders, of course, in
• 49:58
  order to make this work.
• 50:01
  It's like, dude, we're just taking a
• 50:04
  problem. Like, this is really what has
• 50:06
  happened. Our government has failed to
• 50:09
  properly address and maintain like
• 50:11
  orderliness about the immigration
• 50:13
  system. They've let it get overrun
• 50:17
  without order at a time when wealth is
• 50:20
  being sent to the 1% at a rate never
• 50:22
  seen in human history. And now the right
• 50:25
  is demagoguing around it. And the left
• 50:27
  is unwilling to really challenge it
• 50:29
  other than the abuse of the mechanisms
• 50:30
  enforced to make deportations happen
• 50:32
  when really this is just an issue that
• 50:34
  we have to understand as an economic one
• 50:37
  and a model of governance one. It's
• 50:39
  [ __ ] insane. All right, let me go
• 50:41
  through some of these.
• 50:43
  Why do public figures who switch
• 50:44
  political views seem to go towards
• 50:46
  conservatism? Dennis Miller, Bill Maher,
• 50:49
  Joe Rogan, Kristen Cinema, John
• 50:51
  Federman, but no Republican switcheroos
• 50:53
  causing them headaches. Guys, what do
• 50:55
  all of those people have in common? They
• 50:57
  got older and they got wealthier.
• 51:06
  John Mirshimer detailed the ways the
• 51:08
  Ukraine war is clearly already lost. Why
• 51:10
  do Europe, Pardon me y'all,
• 51:13
  why do Europe and Canada keep pouring
• 51:15
  money into this? Um,
• 51:18
  I need to see what what Mir Shimemer had
• 51:20
  to say.
• 51:25
  I need to hear what Mir Shimemer had to
• 51:27
  say. Um,
• 51:30
  I don't know. Uh, well, Europe, I mean,
• 51:34
  it's sort of a sunk cost fallacy at this
• 51:36
  point, I think, in both those cases. But
• 51:37
  again, I get asked about Ukraine, and I
• 51:39
  just haven't had any time to offer any
• 51:43
  kind of informed commentary about it.
• 51:45
  And I'm not going to sit here and
• 51:46
  pretend that I've got omni competence. I
• 51:48
  do not.
• 51:50
  after his recent LA and San Diego
• 51:52
  comments, which he just made another one
• 51:53
  by the way, has the conservative
• 51:55
  Christian loyalty to Trump reached the
• 51:56
  point where they judge Christianity by
• 51:58
  what he does rather than judging by what
• 51:59
  the Bible says? That's been the case the
• 52:01
  entire time. Dude, it's the same thing
• 52:03
  you see everywhere. Why do um So,
• 52:06
  there's an interesting documentary I'll
• 52:08
  let me recommend to you guys. I It's got
• 52:10
  a Portuguese name, but the English one
• 52:11
  would be Apocalypse in the Tropics, and
• 52:14
  it's basically the story of
• 52:15
  evangelicalism in Brazil. Now, as I
• 52:18
  understand it, they get the story a
• 52:20
  little bit wrong. I mean, who am I to
• 52:21
  say because the person who makes it is
• 52:23
  Brazilian, but as I I saw some Brazilian
• 52:25
  scholars say that, well, evangelicalism
• 52:28
  actually goes back to the late part of
• 52:29
  the 19th century and the early parts of
• 52:30
  the 20th. It did get kicked into high
• 52:32
  gear later on, but it didn't necessarily
• 52:36
  like there is a history of it that
• 52:37
  doesn't start in the 70s, but certainly
• 52:39
  in the 70s, it begins to get kicked into
• 52:41
  high gear. It was like 3% of the
• 52:43
  population then. Now, it's 30.
• 52:46
  30. Now, the rate of growth has also
• 52:48
  slowed dramatically. Like maybe 30 or
• 52:50
  30-ish is where it tops out. It's hard
• 52:53
  to say if it goes any bigger than that,
• 52:55
  but it's a huge change. The Roman
• 52:56
  Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has
• 52:59
  declined. Its profile has declined
• 53:00
  worldwide, but it's being acutely felt
• 53:03
  in in Brazil. And what's what do they do
• 53:06
  there? They've got the Bolsinaro family
• 53:08
  who are just corrupt to the bone in
• 53:09
  every possible way. And you know, Lulu's
• 53:12
  had some issues, I suppose, along the
• 53:13
  way, too. I suppose every South American
• 53:15
  politician does. What I'm trying to make
• 53:17
  is it's not really a strong argument
• 53:18
  that Jaier Bolsinaro was like some kind
• 53:21
  of savior, but they didn't care. What
• 53:23
  they wanted was someone who, you know,
• 53:25
  pantoimed towards them and their
• 53:27
  interest, pretended to kind of be like
• 53:28
  them. But what they really cared about
• 53:30
  was a what their pastor was telling them
• 53:32
  was important. And the pastor wanted
• 53:34
  someone who would take government policy
• 53:37
  and enforce evangelical priorities onto
• 53:40
  others. And in fact, what you see the
• 53:41
  evangelicals in Brazil say is that, you
• 53:45
  know, one of the one of the
• 53:46
  documentarian asks him like, you know,
• 53:48
  isn't democracy also about like minority
• 53:50
  rights? Like, yes, it's the will of the
• 53:51
  people. That's true. But with
• 53:53
  protections for vulnerable populations
• 53:55
  and he's like, no, absolute majority
• 53:57
  rule, period. That is what they want.
• 53:59
  They want dominion. They want dominion.
• 54:01
  So, they want a politician who will give
• 54:02
  them evangelical dominion. And honestly,
• 54:06
  uh, de lasa in Colombia, I know you guys
• 54:08
  don't pay attention to Colombia news. I
• 54:09
  pay I read it every single day. I'm
• 54:10
  fascinated by it. He uh there's been a
• 54:13
  decline in in the Catholic church there.
• 54:15
  Now, what's interesting about Colombia
• 54:16
  is it's Catholics is the first
• 54:19
  identification in Brazil and then the
• 54:21
  second one would be uh evangelicalism.
• 54:23
  Catholicism still is the biggest. In in
• 54:25
  Colombia, it's different. In Colombia,
• 54:27
  it's Catholicism first, second is no
• 54:29
  identification, third would be
• 54:31
  evangelical. It's about 15% of the
• 54:33
  population there. And also, it's much
• 54:35
  more fractured there relative to Brazil.
• 54:37
  and it raises less money there relative
• 54:39
  to Brazil and no one really measured how
• 54:41
  much they went for deeda as well as that
• 54:44
  election was kind of also a referendum
• 54:45
  on pro but either way you can begin to
• 54:49
  see it and you might ask well okay so
• 54:51
  how is the left doing well in Mexico you
• 54:54
  know what the portion of evangelical
• 54:56
  population is in Mexico three 3% now of
• 55:00
  course putting this all on evangelicals
• 55:02
  would be overstating it a big part of
• 55:04
  Mexico success is how they've basically
• 55:06
  tied their econ economy to the US and
• 55:07
  that that has really helped them in many
• 55:09
  ways to, you know, raise their level of
• 55:11
  the standard of living. But but it's
• 55:13
  something to pay attention to for sure.
• 55:16
  Apparently, our government wants to live
• 55:18
  stream a firing squad. Do you view this
• 55:19
  as cruel and unusual punishment? This is
• 55:21
  so insanely [ __ ] up. First of all, I
• 55:23
  was reading about this last night. There
• 55:24
  is evidence to suggest, it's not super
• 55:27
  strong. It's, you know, it's not it's
• 55:29
  not overwhelming, but there's at least
• 55:30
  some evidence to suggest that um in
• 55:32
  places that do this, you could
• 55:34
  absolutely increase the murder rate or
• 55:37
  increase violent agitation. Um, but that
• 55:40
  wouldn't be the reason that it would
• 55:41
  matter. I mean, guys, I keep saying this
• 55:43
  MAGA, like for example, I saw this week
• 55:45
  where Matt Matt Walsh was like, you
• 55:46
  know, obviously there should be co-ed
• 55:48
  colleges. I'm like, dude, do these guys
• 55:50
  propose ideas that survived scrutiny in
• 55:54
  the 20th century? Because they don't
• 55:56
  seem to be doing that. the only places
• 55:58
  that do these kinds of public executions
• 56:00
  which stopped in the United States in
• 56:01
  the 1930s when it became like 20,000
• 56:03
  people showed up and it was such a
• 56:05
  public embarrassment that they ended up
• 56:06
  banning laws. I think France was roughly
• 56:08
  the same time. I mean even the people
• 56:09
  that we killed in Nuremberg for being
• 56:11
  Nazis. They we didn't do it as like a
• 56:13
  public form of entertainment. There is a
• 56:15
  debasement that comes to oneself and a
• 56:17
  cosening of the culture that can have
• 56:19
  long-term implications when you indulge
• 56:20
  in this kind of a thing. You know,
• 56:22
  understand who does this. ISIS does
• 56:25
  this. Um, the Taliban has done this,
• 56:28
  North Korea does stuff like this. Um,
• 56:31
  you know, al-Shabaab has done stuff like
• 56:33
  this. Like, it's so funny to me that the
• 56:36
  right moans about third worldism,
• 56:40
  whatever the [ __ ] that's supposed to
• 56:41
  mean, infiltrating our politics,
• 56:43
  infiltrating the country, infiltrating
• 56:45
  our way of life. And yet, the only
• 56:48
  countries or places or groups that do
• 56:50
  this are essentially third world.
• 56:54
  You know what I mean? the the the like
• 56:56
  these people the right is basically
• 56:59
  upset in large part not totally but in
• 57:02
  the right is basically upset at the 20th
• 57:05
  century the 20th century was not good
• 57:08
  for them they don't the current version
• 57:09
  of the party doesn't like it they don't
• 57:12
  like the civil rights movement they
• 57:13
  don't like certainly what came after it
• 57:15
  they don't like co-ed education they
• 57:17
  don't like you know uh I mean the whole
• 57:20
  point about being a social democracy and
• 57:23
  the attendant values that are supposed
• 57:25
  to power the government, our decision-m
• 57:28
  and the principles of how we live is
• 57:30
  that we have a better system of dealing
• 57:34
  with punishment and state enforcement
• 57:37
  for, you know, various kinds of crimes
• 57:40
  that don't devolve into the coarsest
• 57:42
  version of itself. We actually have a
• 57:44
  civilized, at least a semi-vilized
• 57:47
  process. And the best part is like
• 57:48
  there's an argument to be said that
• 57:49
  that's not even real in a world where
• 57:51
  Tennessee tries to execute a woman twice
• 57:53
  and can't successfully do it. Like even
• 57:55
  a even a system that is supposed to be
• 57:57
  lifting us out of pure barbarism
• 58:00
  somewhat ends up descending into it. But
• 58:01
  I would rather have that than the
• 58:03
  alternative.
• 58:05
  We are in deep trouble.
• 58:11
  Katie Hobbs in Arizona is refusing to
• 58:13
  debate Andy Biggs even if she believes
• 58:14
  it helps her campaign. explain why
• 58:17
  skipping a debate can be good or bad. It
• 58:19
  would depend on how the I mean the thing
• 58:22
  is about skipping a debate is you can
• 58:23
  skip a debate or two. You eventually
• 58:25
  have to do one of them. Um so you don't
• 58:28
  have to do all of them. That that can be
• 58:30
  a mistake but you should definitely do
• 58:31
  one of them. But the other one could be
• 58:33
  like if you really feel like okay what
• 58:36
  kind of it's just a basic calculation.
• 58:37
  What kind of a hit am I going to take
• 58:39
  for not doing it versus what kind of hit
• 58:41
  could I take if I do it and get
• 58:42
  humiliated
• 58:44
  and which one is worse? And that that
• 58:46
  calculation will end up mattering.
• 58:50
  Oops. Hang on.
• 58:57
  Now that we're less than a month away
• 58:59
  from the midterms, how far will the
• 59:00
  regime go to undermine, intimidate, and
• 59:02
  steal the election? Honestly, boys and
• 59:04
  girls, we haven't even run into the
• 59:06
  October surprise, of which there is
• 59:07
  definitely going to be one. Hold on to
• 59:09
  your ass. What I would recommend is if
• 59:11
  you're going to vote, make all the time
• 59:13
  in the world to do it. Go do it in
• 59:15
  person. Don't even mail it in. I'm not
• 59:17
  saying don't do mail-in balloting if
• 59:18
  that's the best idea that or the best
• 59:20
  option that you have, but I'm saying if
• 59:22
  you're able to go to the ballot box,
• 59:24
  please do and stand in line and just
• 59:26
  force your way in the door. We are we
• 59:29
  are up against it. We are up against it.
• 59:34
  How trusting of polls are you? I'm in
• 59:35
  Iowa and everyone here is tired of polls
• 59:37
  and responses are mostly coming from the
• 59:39
  most politically engaged. Government
• 59:41
  here will go blue, but Senate is a true
• 59:43
  tossup. I mean, it really depends on the
• 59:44
  quality of the poll. It depends on how
• 59:47
  much they're getting to landlines. I
• 59:49
  think that's really a big one.
• 59:50
  Obviously, we have seen some polls for
• 59:52
  the left overstated, particularly in the
• 59:54
  Midwest, Iowa. The Anseltzer poll is
• 59:56
  kind of the famous one from the 2024
• 59:57
  election. She got sued for that.
• 59:59
  Obviously, the suit was ludicrous and
• 1:00:01
  ultimately got settled or dropped
• 1:00:02
  anyway. But um but I mean one of my
• 1:00:06
  neighbors is from Michigan and she put
• 1:00:08
  up an Abdul El Say uh thing and I was
• 1:00:10
  talking to her about the election and I
• 1:00:11
  was like how are you feeling about the
• 1:00:13
  polls and she was like I mean they all
• 1:00:14
  kind of show Abdul with like a five some
• 1:00:17
  places a sevenpoint lead no less than a
• 1:00:19
  four in a lot of places like outside of
• 1:00:21
  the margin of error you know but she's
• 1:00:23
  like you just never know how many people
• 1:00:25
  are being like oh yeah I don't want to
• 1:00:27
  sound racist so I'll sound like this or
• 1:00:30
  you know I'm going to tell this I'm
• 1:00:32
  going to give that poster I'm going to
• 1:00:33
  tell them that I feel this way and then
• 1:00:34
  when it actually comes time to vote
• 1:00:35
  they're like you know what I can't do
• 1:00:37
  that you know how many people are just
• 1:00:39
  you how many how many how much what
• 1:00:40
  portion of the electorate are you
• 1:00:41
  getting by virtue of what sample means
• 1:00:44
  that you're using but I I I'm going to
• 1:00:48
  say this I'm cautiously optimistic that
• 1:00:51
  Abdul Elsed can win I think Angie Nixon
• 1:00:53
  has a fighting chance
• 1:00:56
  um I think Terico has a decent chance
• 1:01:00
  although obviously he's been sick
• 1:01:01
  recently which has not been right? Um,
• 1:01:05
  you know, in the mid in the Midwest or I
• 1:01:08
  don't know. I don't know.
• 1:01:12
  While I got love for my Irish being on
• 1:01:15
  right side of Gaza, Connor, I just can't
• 1:01:17
  understand where the anti-immigrant
• 1:01:18
  sentiment is coming from. I do not know
• 1:01:21
  the Irish complaints or
• 1:01:24
  um
• 1:01:27
  I don't I don't know enough about the
• 1:01:29
  the dynamics of Irish migration or I
• 1:01:31
  should say immigration to Ireland rather
• 1:01:33
  because Irish migration would be what
• 1:01:35
  they did here. Um I don't know enough
• 1:01:37
  about it to comment intelligently.
• 1:01:43
  My hunch has always been that the US's
• 1:01:45
  first female president, if ever, will
• 1:01:47
  actually come from the right. Do you
• 1:01:49
  think that's a reasonable bet?
• 1:01:52
  Um,
• 1:01:56
  I wouldn't rule it out. I think that
• 1:01:58
  that would be
• 1:02:01
  um obviously u Montdale tried on the
• 1:02:04
  Democratic side. That didn't work. And
• 1:02:07
  we've seen, you know, governors,
• 1:02:09
  senators, ambassadors,
• 1:02:11
  cabinet secretaries as women, as vice
• 1:02:14
  presidents.
• 1:02:15
  Um although that was a Democrat too.
• 1:02:20
  I I just the thing is this. I don't
• 1:02:22
  know. I mean if the right descends into
• 1:02:25
  groperism then that's an impossibility.
• 1:02:28
  Like if the future of the party is James
• 1:02:30
  Fishbach, then no. You know, and I think
• 1:02:33
  one thing you really need to understand
• 1:02:34
  is like like how much of the rights
• 1:02:36
  descent into white male grievance will
• 1:02:39
  produce a a a broad democratic coalition
• 1:02:42
  of even like, you know, right-leaning
• 1:02:44
  women, but like right-leaning women who
• 1:02:46
  just want to have their existence
• 1:02:48
  respected and their rights protected.
• 1:02:50
  How many of them will vote left if if
• 1:02:52
  that's what ends up happening with that
• 1:02:53
  party? So, I I don't rule out the
• 1:02:56
  possibility that you could find an
• 1:02:58
  operator in that world who could defy
• 1:03:00
  expectation, but mathematically it seems
• 1:03:02
  like that wouldn't be the likeliest
• 1:03:03
  outcome.
• 1:03:05
  All right, LT, how are DC public
• 1:03:07
  schools? Much better than when I was in
• 1:03:09
  them. Okay, with the education Tuki has
• 1:03:11
  been getting very the system is broken.
• 1:03:13
  A lot of my colleagues are leaving the
• 1:03:15
  profession. 50% of my students can
• 1:03:16
  barely read and write. Now, there are
• 1:03:18
  bigger issues with education broadly in
• 1:03:20
  the country and certainly even within
• 1:03:22
  DC. Although um DC has been I mean dude
• 1:03:25
  relative to how it was when I was a kid
• 1:03:27
  it's unrecognizably better.
• 1:03:29
  Unrecognizably better. You can see how
• 1:03:32
  different schools rate. You can go on
• 1:03:33
  niche.com and you can go on um great
• 1:03:38
  schools. These are services that
• 1:03:40
  nationwide they rank all and rate all
• 1:03:42
  schools and they have different rating
• 1:03:44
  systems, but you can check how your
• 1:03:46
  school rates on there. And the school
• 1:03:49
  that we send my daughter to rates very
• 1:03:51
  highly on everything. It's a public
• 1:03:53
  school, so you know, um we're just very
• 1:03:56
  very lucky in that regard. Very very
• 1:03:58
  lucky in that regard. Um and it meets a
• 1:04:02
  lot of the needs that we have. Uh and
• 1:04:04
  it's close by to where we live. like we
• 1:04:06
  just got we got there's a lottery system
• 1:04:08
  and we got into the lottery and you know
• 1:04:12
  it we just got lucky. So um I don't know
• 1:04:16
  how else to say it other than that. So
• 1:04:18
  we feel pretty good about that which
• 1:04:19
  isn't to say that there aren't lagging
• 1:04:20
  DC public education schools but the the
• 1:04:23
  system underwent a big overhaul in the
• 1:04:25
  late 90s and early 2000s and it's been
• 1:04:27
  there's been some ups and downs but it's
• 1:04:28
  steadily improved since then. There was
• 1:04:30
  a truency issue following the pandemic.
• 1:04:32
  They've made a huge uh improvement in
• 1:04:34
  that and they made a lot of improvements
• 1:04:36
  on standardized testing and math. Um the
• 1:04:39
  the the public school system has
• 1:04:40
  undergone I I think a revolution
• 1:04:42
  relative to the time when I was in it
• 1:04:44
  would be a strong way to put it. But it
• 1:04:46
  but I'm telling you it's unrecognizable.
• 1:04:48
  It's very it's way way way better. Um,
• 1:04:53
  you know, depending on where you go,
• 1:04:55
  it's not universally true, like you do
• 1:04:56
  have to do your due diligence as a
• 1:04:58
  parent, but depending on where you go in
• 1:05:00
  any of the four quadrants, um, well, I
• 1:05:03
  mean, I don't know about Southwest, I
• 1:05:05
  don't know how many schools are down
• 1:05:05
  there at this point, but certainly in
• 1:05:07
  the, you know, the places that people
• 1:05:08
  live, Southeast, Northeast, and South
• 1:05:10
  and and Northwest, I mean, Northwest has
• 1:05:12
  like all the best schools, right? Like
• 1:05:14
  every one of them out there is a [ __ ]
• 1:05:16
  is a A on niche and an eight or higher
• 1:05:19
  on great schools. Like all of them out
• 1:05:20
  there. Um I'm in Northeast which is it's
• 1:05:23
  much more hit or miss. But um but the
• 1:05:26
  point being is even those kinds of
• 1:05:28
  things were not necessarily the norm in
• 1:05:31
  any stretch. And you know obviously the
• 1:05:33
  very rich of DC they send their kids to
• 1:05:35
  Georgetown Prep or you know there's
• 1:05:38
  Madiraa or there's a million private
• 1:05:41
  schools for the [ __ ] ultra elite.
• 1:05:44
  Georgetown day you know there's a
• 1:05:45
  million of them.
• 1:05:47
  For 12 years, MBS has been leading Yemen
• 1:05:50
  and KSA toward destruction and ruin.
• 1:05:53
  Just 12 years of destruction, death,
• 1:05:55
  casualties while his opponents are
• 1:05:56
  getting stronger and bolder. Yeah, he
• 1:05:59
  has made a series of bets that have
• 1:06:00
  blown up in his face. This last one,
• 1:06:02
  Saudis willingness to have confrontation
• 1:06:04
  with the Houthis rather than some kind
• 1:06:06
  of negotiated resolution is very
• 1:06:09
  surprising to me given how badly it's
• 1:06:10
  going for the Saudis. They very much
• 1:06:12
  overestimated their hand. Um,
• 1:06:16
  I find that surprising. I find that very
• 1:06:18
  surprising.
• 1:06:21
  Um, well, remember he was not
• 1:06:22
  necessarily the guy that was supposed to
• 1:06:24
  take leadership. He was the one that
• 1:06:25
  just sort of took force by power or but
• 1:06:28
  to took power by force I should say.
• 1:06:30
  And,
• 1:06:32
  you know, he's tried to do he's tried to
• 1:06:34
  lead with a bold vision, the 2030
• 1:06:36
  vision. Um,
• 1:06:40
  you know, he tried to make this
• 1:06:42
  futuristic city. He's tried to do the
• 1:06:43
  sports washing thing. Some of that has
• 1:06:45
  worked actually. But in terms of
• 1:06:50
  you I mean this is not he didn't start
• 1:06:52
  this but in terms of like reliance on
• 1:06:53
  American security that has blown up in
• 1:06:55
  his face. I think some of his the Saudi
• 1:06:57
  alliances with Israel have blown up in
• 1:06:59
  his face. Um and then certainly the way
• 1:07:01
  that they have prosecuted the blockade
• 1:07:03
  and then the assault on Yemen has
• 1:07:04
  absolutely blown up in his face. Um and
• 1:07:06
  of course the Jamal Kosogi murder blew
• 1:07:09
  up in his face. I mean, there's been
• 1:07:10
  quite a bit that he has he has made bad
• 1:07:14
  decisions through. All right, I got to
• 1:07:16
  get out of here. Thank you guys so much
• 1:07:17
  for watching. I really appreciate it.
• 1:07:20
  Um,
• 1:07:22
  I love you guys. Thank you so much.
• 1:07:24
  Thank you. Have a wonderful weekend.
• 1:07:26
  Plenty of content coming your way.
• 1:07:28
  You're the best. And I'll see you guys
• 1:07:30
  next week. I mean, I'll, you know, I'm
• 1:07:32
  not going anywhere, but for this live
• 1:07:33
  chat, I'll see you next week. Have a
• 1:07:35
  great one. Have a great weekend. Take
• 1:07:37
  care, boys and girls. Bye.