Latest / Project 2028 / We Bombed Iran- let’s Talk About it

Transcript

We Bombed Iran- let’s Talk About it · Project 2028

0:07
All right, welcome to Project 2028. We have only
0:11
like four topics today. Elle's kind of out, so
0:14
we're going to try to get this done pretty quickly.
0:16
You know, obviously we'll address the elephant
0:18
in the room, but we have some other stuff, some
0:20
SCOTUS decisions, salt deductions, rant by me.
0:24
It's going to be a fun episode. Keep listening.
0:37
All right, firstly, we have to talk about the
0:39
elephant in the room. I was mentioning Iran earlier,
0:41
but actually something bigger for us personally
0:44
is that we have changed two things. Obviously,
0:46
it's a new season, so we hope you like the new
0:48
intro music that you just heard. Elle picked
0:52
it out, and I think it's very good. And the new
0:54
logo, which we hope you like. Our old logo is
0:56
great. It served us well. We thought we needed
0:59
something a bit more, you know, spiriting. So
1:03
I took the illustrator for two hours, and that's
1:05
what I came up with. It kind of looks like the
1:07
Workday logo now that I think about it, to be
1:09
honest, but I think it is quite fitting. There's
1:11
some hidden meaning if you look deeper. So it's
1:14
small, but you'll see. To kind of segue, any
1:17
thoughts about the logo or the new intro music,
1:19
Luchana? I think it's great. I just, I didn't
1:22
know it took you two hours. The first one I did,
1:24
five minutes on Canva. I sent it to you now and
1:27
I said, if you want a logo, this is our logo.
1:29
If not, you guys make it. Yeah, that's Project
1:33
2028 history right there. Our first logo was
1:36
great. It served us well. We thought we might
1:39
need something new, refreshing for a year or
1:41
a podcast, and so we thought we might as well
1:42
do it. But to kind of segue into the actual elephant
1:48
in the room, the conflict in Iran, or no longer,
1:52
but was, if you were listening to this about
1:54
a week ago, it would have been. we're just gonna
1:57
i'm gonna go through a timeline real quick i'm
1:59
gonna try to do it pretty quickly not to bore
2:01
you guys and then we're gonna kind of have a
2:02
conversation but what we think about it you know
2:04
talk about obviously all the stuff that's been
2:07
said especially from democrats about constitutionality
2:09
uh and all that stuff surrounding it so I'll
2:11
start just with a quick timeline. So June 12th,
2:15
Israel launches their Operation Lion or whatever,
2:18
hits all the nuclear sites, killing a lot of
2:21
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders, which
2:24
was a big deal because they were the heads of
2:25
the nuclear program. They had all the information.
2:28
Iran retaliated with all their ballistic missiles,
2:30
tons of drones, pretty simple, on June 13th.
2:33
And this is where it kind of gets interesting
2:34
because at that point they had kind of been fighting
2:37
it out for a few days. The Trump administration...
2:39
On June 17th and 21st, conducted bunker busting
2:42
strikes on four down in Natanz and Isfahan enrichment
2:45
facilities, which was what we're about to talk
2:48
about. It was a huge thing. Trump said he was
2:50
going to wait two weeks. He didn't. I personally
2:52
think it was kind of like the Nixon madman approach
2:54
where he misled the media on purpose, kind of,
2:57
I don't know, kept people on their toes. But
2:58
that was what happened. June 22nd, Iran fired
3:02
at a U .S. airbase in Qatar. We'll talk about
3:06
that too. On June 24th, more Iranian missile
3:09
barrages. Kind of, it's been happening. And then
3:12
on late June 24th, a U .S.-brokered ceasefire
3:15
began, and there were a few exchanges, but it's
3:17
been pretty well. Iran's parliament has now threatened
3:21
to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is a very
3:23
small place where almost, like, a lot of the
3:26
oil that fuels China, not us necessarily, but
3:29
China, a few other countries, flows through,
3:31
which is obviously very important for the world
3:34
and the oil prices. So if you're like Saudi Aramco
3:37
or something, you have a big problem on your
3:39
hands if you're not able to get your oil through.
3:40
But that's kind of just the general overview.
3:44
Luciana, I was wondering just initial thoughts
3:46
on the U .S. involvement. Well, my thoughts are
3:50
more I'm not a big fan of bombing. Personally,
3:54
I just don't think it's like the best solution.
3:58
And I feel like for us. I don't know. I feel
4:01
like it was kind of like, are we going to do
4:03
it? Are we not going to do it? Oh, we already
4:05
did it. And I know I don't have. Yeah, concrete.
4:09
I mean, look, my kind of stance on it was before
4:12
the attack. I believe that we were not supposed
4:14
to get involved. Then Yahoo said so himself.
4:16
I thought it was a mistake to get involved, even
4:19
as the bombs were dropping. The news was dropping
4:22
about the bombs. I thought it was a mistake.
4:25
To be honest, in retrospect, there's been obviously
4:28
minimalization. They kind of did that one thing
4:31
at their airbase, but they told Qatar, which
4:34
informed people before. It was very lackluster.
4:38
I'm not sure why, to be honest, they did that.
4:41
One breach, no casualties. It was kind of irrelevant.
4:45
So to be honest, I think in retrospect, it was
4:47
successful in what it did. And I think it was...
4:52
I was very skeptical if I didn't believe we needed
4:54
to get involved. And I think a lot of people
4:57
did. But I think in retrospect, you know, you
5:01
see at least a successful mission. I was just
5:05
going to say, were you surprised by the lack
5:07
of retaliation from Iran? No, I mean, they've
5:11
said there's communication issues. Their supreme
5:13
leader has no telecommunications ability, apparently,
5:16
because he doesn't want to be lit up by Israel.
5:18
And rightly so, I would be scared too. It's hard
5:22
to organize a military attack when half of your
5:25
Revolutionary Guard's gone. The people who would
5:27
be responding have already been killed. It's
5:29
just hard to do that. And I think what I've heard
5:31
mainly is that they kind of... If the U .S. strikes
5:35
you, you've got to strike them back somehow.
5:36
And I think that was their kind of mediocre,
5:39
not really trying to hurt anyone thing, where
5:42
they struck the airbase but didn't actually strike
5:44
the airbase. I think they were just trying to
5:45
get back on even terms, and that was what allowed
5:47
a ceasefire to begin. without Iran feeling like
5:50
they completely scammed out of it. Yeah, that
5:54
makes sense. And the last thing about this, kind
5:57
of, is that there's been a lot of talk about,
5:59
especially from the Democratic Party, that this
6:02
was unconstitutional, this was an act of war.
6:06
The New York Times, whether sensationalist or
6:10
not, called it a war. They said the United States
6:12
is now a war with Iran when we were dropping
6:13
bombs on it, which was interesting. They no longer
6:16
say that. I just want to hear, Luciana, your
6:18
thoughts. Do you think it was constitutional?
6:21
Do you think what some of the Democrats are saying
6:24
has credence that it was unconstitutional? Because
6:27
I find it quite interesting, just kind of some
6:32
of the stances they put on it. I don't really
6:35
know, personally. I think that it was, I think
6:41
it almost goes deeper into whether or not we...
6:44
like think this is war or we think this is like
6:47
what kind of attack or is this more yes i mean
6:50
that's the that is the question ourselves our
6:52
ally i think that i don't know if i think it
6:56
is i don't think it was like an act of war but
6:59
i also don't think we should have done it if
7:02
that makes sense i don't know if you get well
7:04
so like on the policy standpoint we shouldn't
7:05
have done it but it was legal in the sense of
7:08
constitutional authority yeah It makes sense.
7:13
The thing I want to kind of talk about was, you
7:15
know, there's been a lot of people saying that
7:17
bombing somebody's nuclear facilities is an act
7:19
of war. And that makes sense. They said if you
7:22
bombed the United States' nuclear facilities,
7:24
we'd almost certainly consider an act of war.
7:26
And I do agree. Oh, that's fair, actually. It
7:29
is. But the thing I don't fully get is why when
7:32
Biden bombed the special forces of Iran, respectively,
7:37
in 2023 and 2024, that wasn't. Imagine if the
7:41
Delta Force was training in Canada with Joint
7:44
Task Force 2 or something, and they got lit up
7:47
by some drones that Iran sent. That would also
7:50
be an act of war. So I see it as there's been
7:53
kind of laissez -faire and enforcement of what
7:56
we believe is an act of war, especially from
7:59
both sides. So I find that quite interesting.
8:03
But that's kind of the last point. Obviously,
8:07
there's a lot more into it. We'll dive into it
8:08
next time Elle's on the podcast. That's kind
8:11
of the overview, my thoughts. Luchana, do you
8:13
have anything? Yeah, no, I think you made actually
8:15
a really good point about how if someone did
8:17
it to the U .S., we would consider it an act
8:19
of war. And I think that that's something I haven't
8:21
seen a lot of people mentioning. So I'm really
8:23
glad you brought that up. Yeah, yeah. Now, Luchana,
8:27
I think you're going to head up New York City
8:29
primaries. Yes, I am. So this is something I
8:33
was very excited. to talk about so basically
8:37
we had some candidates well obviously these are
8:41
first of all let me backtrack a little i got
8:43
too excited this is the mayoral primaries and
8:46
the three kind of main candidates are zoron i'm
8:51
gonna butcher we butcher mandani Mandani. He
8:55
is a democratic socialist endorsed by Bernie
8:58
Sanders and AOC. Some of his main platforms are
9:01
like a rent freeze, free buses and child care,
9:05
city owned groceries and building new like affordable
9:09
housing units. Then we have Andrew Cuomo. He's
9:13
a former governor endorsed by Clinton running
9:15
as a centrist who may shift towards independent
9:18
during the race. And then we have Brad Lander,
9:21
a progressive. New York City person who is kind
9:25
of working to block Kumo. So he's working with
9:29
Zoran Mamdani so that Andrew Kumo won't. Cuomo,
9:34
sorry. Cuomo, sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm butchering.
9:39
No, you're good. I do it to Kamala Harris all
9:42
the time. It's not foreign. And Ryan, you can
9:46
jump in whenever you have something. But when
9:50
I think Zoran Mamdani, he took kind of an early
9:53
and pretty significant lead on Como, right? Would
9:57
you agree with that? Yeah, I mean, I love voting
10:01
systems. It's a very interesting thing in political
10:03
science. So I can explain that when you're done.
10:05
Like the Condorcet style stuff. It's very interesting.
10:08
I actually love to hear about that because that's
10:10
not like my strong suit, but I do enjoy learning
10:13
about it. Cuomo conceded on June 25th, but said
10:16
that he was going to run independently. So still,
10:20
like, even though he's not a part of the Democratic
10:22
Party's nominees, he's going to run as an independent
10:25
candidate. And at the time that I took these
10:29
notes, the final results were pending. But yes,
10:33
yes. Can I jump in on the voting? Yes, please.
10:37
By the way, real quickly, Cuomo hasn't officially
10:39
declared for independent. I have actually a stake
10:41
in a markets app. It's not real money that Cuomo
10:45
won't. So it's a really good deal. I think I
10:48
got like 15%, whatever. I bet it up to 20. So
10:51
it was very good. Anyways, I digress. So Zoran
10:54
Mandani, with just the primary results, and I'll
10:57
explain how this kind of voting system works,
10:59
got 43 .5%. Cuomo got 36 .4%. So neither of them
11:04
reached 50, which means the voting system continues.
11:06
It's called Condorcet style. He's a French political
11:09
scientist. He has a lot of interesting papers
11:12
and ideas out there. He was living just to be
11:15
like a long time ago. Anyways, rank choice mechanics.
11:19
They rank the candidates. If no majority, so
11:21
nobody over 50%, the lowest ranked candidate
11:24
is going to be eliminated. So if somebody has
11:27
1 % of the thing, whoever they rated second.
11:31
or whoever their voters all rated second, which
11:34
are a lot of the time Zoram and Daim because
11:36
they kind of formed a coalition, it's going to
11:38
go to that person. And they'll keep eliminating
11:40
people until there's somebody with 50%, which
11:44
there always will be because it's ranked choice
11:46
voting. The interesting thing is no voting system
11:48
is perfect. There are ways that this is not perfect
11:50
and where you don't get the ideal result. There's
11:52
a whole platform in political science about how
11:55
there's no voting system in the world that actually
11:57
gets the ideal result. It's not been invented
11:59
yet, at least. There are some that get close.
12:01
You know, there's IRV voting and all this different
12:03
stuff. But it's kind of... This one is a good
12:07
option out of a few. Obviously, it's a bit hard
12:09
to adapt, especially as a voter. There are voters
12:11
who just filled out one. It's hard to know five
12:13
people. So that's kind of where that comes from.
12:17
Yeah? Well, first of all, this is kind of a bit
12:19
of a tangent, but I do think this would be really
12:21
interesting to do a full episode on. But... What
12:24
do you think versus just picking like one candidate
12:28
or ranked choice? I know that there's obviously
12:30
pros and cons. Neither is perfect. Which one
12:33
do you think is like better, though? If you were
12:36
the president making a standardized form of voting
12:38
for everyone, what would you choose? I mean,
12:41
look, I think you're talking about first past
12:43
the post voting, which actually doesn't make
12:44
any sense. I have a whole rant I could do about
12:46
how there's actually no post. You need to get
12:48
more than the other person. But if you're talking
12:52
about rank choice versus first -past -post, rank
12:53
choice has been the voting that has kind of transcended.
12:58
First -past -post voting is the voting that has
13:00
always happened. People put something down, whoever
13:02
has the most votes wins. Rank choice voting has
13:04
kind of ascended, and I think you see it, obviously,
13:07
in more urban, democratic areas. I personally
13:11
think... They have their advantages of each.
13:14
With first -past -the -post voting, you see a
13:15
ton of consolidation because you can't win without
13:17
consolidation. There's no point in fracturing
13:20
a third party. I've talked about median voter
13:21
theorem probably 1 ,500 times in this podcast.
13:24
Median voter theorem is the reason why first
13:26
-past -the -post voting consolidates. Whereas
13:28
this, you don't really need to consolidate. You
13:30
just kind of form coalitions. It keeps the candidates
13:32
much nicer to each other. There's actually a
13:34
video, I think, on YouTube of candidates... in
13:36
singing like kumbaya together because of ranked
13:39
choice voting. It was, it's a very funny clip
13:41
because they're all trying to get along so they
13:42
can get your second vote or your third vote.
13:44
And because that's how you kind of win this election
13:46
is not by, not by just tearing somebody, everybody
13:49
else down and trying to almost consolidate all
13:52
your votes and consolidate the people who are,
13:54
because they're dropping out, but to be nice.
13:56
So it encourages niceness. It encourages more
13:58
people. And I think, I think you see that, especially
14:01
in primaries as a good thing. In general elections
14:04
in the United States, it doesn't really matter
14:05
because there's only usually two, three, four
14:07
candidates if you include, say, a Libertarian
14:10
and maybe a Green Party or an Independent, whatever.
14:13
Max in an election, the Independent and the Libertarian
14:15
may receive 1 % of the vote total, 2 % of the
14:18
vote if they're lucky. Obviously, you have weird
14:21
years where some of them receive like 20%, but
14:27
that's kind of independent of that. So anyways,
14:30
basically... If you were looking at a presidential
14:32
voting standard, I would keep first -past -the
14:35
-post. It works. Obviously, there's other problems
14:38
with it that people have talked about. But if
14:40
you're talking about primaries, I think ranked
14:42
-choice voting, Condorcet style, is perfectly
14:44
fine. That's my little rant. That really answered
14:48
my question. All right. Just a little thing.
14:51
Trump called him a communist. He's a socialist.
14:53
But, you know, some of the stuff he says is kind
14:55
of like, I remember when... Kamala Harris threatened
14:58
to, not threatened, well, kind of, to, like,
15:01
stop, like, capped grocery prices, which was,
15:04
like, kind of caught some people off guard. You
15:07
know, he refused billionaire donations, which
15:09
I think helped him a ton. Obviously, you don't
15:12
have the influx. He promised a $30 minimum wage
15:14
by 2030, which is incredibly large, incredibly
15:17
generous when you might have a federal wage at
15:20
that point. That's going to be like $750 as it
15:23
is today. Fair free buses, rent freezes. A lot
15:25
of this is going to be subsized by taxing rich
15:27
majority billionaire communities in New York.
15:33
That was his kind of thing. Kind of populist,
15:35
kind of socialist. You know a mix. That's kind
15:37
of my take on his policies. Cuomo and Adams are
15:40
kind of more centrist figures. They're considered
15:43
right almost in New York. because you can't win
15:46
if you are next to your name in New York, so
15:48
they're as close as you're going to get to that
15:50
kind of figure. Luchana, any other things before
15:52
we wrap this one up? Sorry, I thought I was going
15:54
to sneeze. Pardon me. I think you touched on
15:59
everything. All right. Sounds good. I do think
16:03
it'll be interesting to see, like, what promises
16:07
he follows through on, you know? Yes, very much.
16:12
Some of them I think people will be like... very
16:15
people are really expecting to see some of these
16:17
so they'll be very upset if he doesn't but some
16:19
of them feel not super realistic so i think i'm
16:23
very curious to know how it goes yeah most definitely
16:26
a quick thing and then i have my salt rants scotus
16:30
end of term decisions uh first one mahmoud versus
16:33
taylor you probably heard about this one it's
16:35
about parents opting out of lgbtq things based
16:39
on religious stuff it's more wide than that that
16:42
was just the specific issue in the case. Ruling,
16:44
yes, along pretty much lines of where they were
16:48
elected, or not elected, but appointed. Justice
16:51
Alito emphasized, you know, the parents' longstanding
16:53
rights to direct their children's religious upbringing
16:56
and reversed, like, basically said you have to
17:00
notify the parents in advance and allow them
17:02
to opt out if they feel that they would need
17:04
to do so. That's kind of, yeah. I think this
17:07
is very interesting. I'm so sorry I cut you off,
17:10
but... No, you're good. I was just about to transition,
17:12
so please. I think you can almost see, like,
17:14
if you've been listening to some of our other
17:16
episodes where we talked about the Ten Commandments
17:18
in schools, I think it's interesting that parents
17:20
can say, no, because of our religion, we don't
17:23
want our child learning about these things. But
17:25
if you were Muslim or Jewish or your family wasn't
17:29
religious... Muslim and Jewish, I'm pretty sure
17:31
both of them do follow the Ten Commandments.
17:33
Okay, if you were not, like, a Christian branch,
17:36
if you... Let's say you were religious. Sorry,
17:39
Ryan. No, you're good. And you don't really want
17:42
your child seeing the Ten Commandments in the
17:44
classroom. I think it's kind of interesting that
17:46
you couldn't opt out of that, but you could opt
17:47
out of this. That's just my two cents, but...
17:50
Yeah, I mean, that makes sense. I think, look,
17:53
you're not forced to follow the Ten Commandments
17:55
in class. Obviously, also, by the way, Muslims,
17:57
they don't follow the Ten Commandments almost
17:59
the same, but they do have basically the same
18:02
things in the Quran. But, like, you know, I see
18:06
that as, obviously, if you're going to... push
18:09
something anything I think also that this case
18:12
and I'm pretty sure would allow if you're going
18:15
to teach about the Ten Commandments like explicitly
18:17
teach not just put up a sign that says like don't
18:20
steal and like don't lie if you're going to teach
18:23
about them I think it would allow parents to
18:24
take their kids out of class for that because
18:27
this is more of a wider case than just LGBTQ
18:30
storybooks obviously it's kind of more you know
18:35
about the ruling of the fourth circuit and just
18:37
in general the case so that's kind of where i
18:41
would see that with that uh specifically um we're
18:45
trying to give any other thoughts on that before
18:46
i move over to uh one of our favorite cases that
18:50
was just my quick little tidbit trump versus
18:54
casa et al there's a lot of people it's a class
18:57
uh it's they're talking about class cases um
18:59
do federal courts have the under the Judiciary
19:03
Act of 17, I want to say 80, 87, 89 maybe, to
19:09
issue universal injunctions that blocked government
19:12
policy nationwide. The answer is no. District
19:15
courts or federal courts in general do not have
19:20
the injunctions because they likely exceed the
19:22
court's power. and must be limited to the parties
19:25
just before the court. This is basically just
19:27
if you go to a district court and you ask for
19:29
an injunction, does it apply to the whole United
19:31
States or just you and your little district or
19:34
whatever? Justice Barrett had a majority opinion
19:36
saying that the government's applications to
19:38
partially stay multiple nationwide injunctions
19:41
is against the Judiciary Act of 1789. So I think
19:46
you see that. This is one of the biggest cases,
19:49
to be honest. It does allow for the birthright
19:51
citizenship thing to be temporarily allowed.
19:55
Luciana, thoughts on the case? I think that one
19:59
of the most... Okay, I don't really know how
20:01
to explain this. I'm probably going to sound
20:03
really stupid trying, but I feel like... I don't
20:08
know if you agree, but I feel like... I don't
20:11
really know how to word this. I guess... I think
20:15
you hit everything I wanted to say. I want to
20:18
hear it, please. No? Okay. Very much. Okay. Concurring
20:26
where all the conservative justices are dissenting
20:28
was just Sotomayor and Jackson wrote the opinion,
20:32
kind of warning of a weakened judicial system,
20:35
especially in federal district and appeals courts.
20:37
Random stuff. You know, lower courts in the 1st,
20:39
4th, 9th circuits must now narrow their injunctions
20:42
because they just kind of were ruled to have
20:45
overstepped their bounds. Pretty simple. That's
20:47
kind of going to end us. Those were two big cases
20:49
I wanted to talk about. Luchana, do you have
20:51
any cases that are particularly interesting?
20:53
I think those were my main two as well. All right.
20:58
Just kind of a quick talk about the big, beautiful
20:59
bill. Right now it's in the Senate. Odds of it
21:02
passing in June fell from 62 % to 37 % last night.
21:07
I got a notification on my watch this morning.
21:09
You have SALT provisions, which is something
21:12
that's been marked up by the House and then the
21:14
Senate and then the House probably again and
21:16
the Senate and the House and the Senate because
21:18
it's kind of a point of interest. It's a bipartisan
21:23
thing, but it is kind of... So basically, I'm
21:27
going to just set the scene. Salt deductions,
21:28
state and local tax deductions. If you already
21:30
pay your state and local taxes, it's how much
21:32
of that you can deduct from your federal taxes.
21:35
The higher your salt deduction is, the less income
21:38
the federal government takes because it means
21:39
you can deduct more from your taxes. It is being
21:41
marked up in the Senate Finance and Budget Committee.
21:43
There's obviously some other provisions I'll
21:45
just talk about that are under debate. $500 billion
21:47
in green energy investments, some infrastructure
21:49
funding, child care tax credits, business tax
21:52
cuts, all that kind of thing. But to go on salt,
21:55
you know, pre -17, there was no cap. You could
21:58
do large deductions in high tax states. I live
22:00
in a high, we all do, in Illinois. But New York
22:03
is another big one. Michigan, I think, is another
22:05
big one. All kind of the big tax states. Now,
22:07
you're going to see a lot of Republicans don't
22:09
come from these big tax states. A lot of them
22:11
have little or no income tax in their respective
22:14
states. But a lot of Democrats come from urban
22:16
areas where there are high taxes. New York is
22:19
one of the biggest ones where your election campaign.
22:22
is mainly focused on these kind of salt deductions
22:25
because people are wealthy or even not wealthy.
22:28
It doesn't really particularly matter because
22:30
if you pay more than $10 ,000 right now, post
22:34
-2017, there was a $10 ,000 cap kind of hitting
22:39
upper -middle -class income earners. So if you
22:41
paid more than $10 ,000 in, say, local income
22:43
taxes, you would get $10 ,000 reduced from how
22:47
much you'd have to pay the feds, which was nice.
22:50
It was a big thing in New York. Obviously in
22:53
Illinois, California, where these taxes from
22:57
state and local authorities are much higher than
22:59
they are in the rest of the United States. But
23:02
now you have kind of a bipartisan caucus. This
23:04
is my rant, sorry. Coming together, blue and
23:08
red, pushing the cap up to $40 ,000, or they
23:11
say they won't vote for the bill in the House.
23:13
Then they voted for it. It's called the SALT
23:14
Caucus. Some Republicans are split. Some want
23:18
the 2019 sunset. Some want to curb other costs
23:22
to offset it. Democrats are largely opposed because
23:26
they see it kind of as a wealthy tax break, but
23:28
there are Democrats that see it for their districts
23:31
particularly as something of key importance because
23:34
a lot of their voters kind of want bigger ones.
23:37
Pretty self -explanatory. So right now it's getting
23:39
marked up in Senate. It will probably stand sent
23:42
back to the House. If the House doesn't like
23:44
it, we may never get a big beautiful bill. But
23:46
hopefully the bill can be passed before their
23:49
July 4th deadline. We will see. But the salt
23:51
relief will continue to be one of the biggest
23:53
parts of the bill. And I just kind of wanted
23:54
to talk about that to explain it. Yeah. I think
23:59
you did a great job explaining everything. All
24:03
right. So just kind of quick recap. Iran, New
24:05
York City, New York City, Maryland, SCOTUS, big,
24:08
beautiful bill, a lot of different stuff. Thank
24:09
you for listening today and go true. Bye. to
24:26
this episode of Project 2028. If you liked this
24:31
episode, please leave us a comment. Let us know
24:34
what you thought. And you can also follow us
24:36
on Instagram. We are at project2028 .podcast.
24:40
There you'll get notifications and updates about
24:43
our latest episodes and what's going on with
24:46
the podcast. And if you have any comments, questions,
24:49
or concerns, please feel free to email us at
24:51
project2028 .pod at gmail .com. Thank you so
24:55
much for listening and have a great day.