Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 7/21/26: Krystal HEATED Debate w Top Dem On Israel, DSA

Transcript

7/21/26: Krystal HEATED Debate w Top Dem On Israel, DSA · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
0:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
0:05
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
0:07
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
0:08
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
0:10
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
0:13
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
0:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
0:17
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
0:19
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
0:22
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
0:25
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
0:27
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
0:29
Speaker 1: dot com.
0:33
Speaker 2: All right, guys, we are now joined in studio by
0:36
Speaker 2: a representative, Adam Smith. He is a Democrat. He is
0:39
Speaker 2: from Washington. He is the top Democrat in fact on
0:41
Speaker 2: the House Armed Services Committee, and your team actually reached
0:45
Speaker 2: out saying you wanted to have a conversation about the
0:46
Speaker 2: future of the Democratic Party and your ideas therein so
0:49
Speaker 2: very excited to have that confo.
0:50
Speaker 3: Welcome, good to be on.
0:51
Speaker 2: Thanks, you have a chance, of course, So before we
0:54
Speaker 2: get into all of that, you are at the center
0:56
Speaker 2: of a bunch of very impactful votes as the ranking
0:59
Speaker 2: member on the House Armed Services Committee. So, if you
1:01
Speaker 2: don't mind, I wanted to start by talking to you
1:03
Speaker 2: a little bit about the NDAA. That's National Defense Authorization Act,
1:07
Speaker 2: Section two twenty four. Has been of a lot of
1:09
Speaker 2: interest to our audience. This is what would effectively partially
1:14
Speaker 2: merge the US military with the Israeli military. You're originally
1:17
Speaker 2: in support of it, you change your position on it.
1:19
Speaker 2: I just wonder what did you know about your thoughts procesice.
1:21
Speaker 3: Here merge the US military with the Israeli military. What
1:25
Speaker 3: it does is it talks about co development program.
1:28
Speaker 2: So we can actually put element one up on the screen.
1:30
Speaker 2: Model's discussing because it has some of this.
1:32
Speaker 3: I mean, the Pentagon has one thousand different development programs
1:38
Speaker 3: that they they're put together for procurement of I don't
1:42
Speaker 3: know if everything from the F thirty five to a radio,
1:45
Speaker 3: and when you do that, you develop a program of
1:47
Speaker 3: record and the Pentagon works on it. We have, over
1:51
Speaker 3: the course of the last decade, had three programs that
1:53
Speaker 3: we co developed with the Israeli military around drones, not
2:00
Speaker 3: around drones, around missile defense, well, yeah, counter drones, and
2:05
Speaker 3: so the point of those programs was for the two
2:08
Speaker 3: militaries to work together to develop them. Okay, now neither
2:12
Speaker 3: controls the other in terms of how they use them.
2:16
Speaker 3: So those were just co development programs in this section
2:19
Speaker 3: two twenty four. When it came up to the committee,
2:21
Speaker 3: said let's have one person overlook all three of those
2:24
Speaker 3: programs and let's explore the possibility of more co development programs.
2:29
Speaker 2: Right, So it had to expand and accelerate bilateral defense
2:33
Speaker 2: technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation. That
2:37
Speaker 2: goes on to spell out what all that.
2:38
Speaker 3: Means, right, And it didn't create any new program And
2:42
Speaker 3: by the way, missile defense was the big thing that
2:45
Speaker 3: we had there, and you know it just so that
2:49
Speaker 3: was the point of it. And mostly I see this
2:52
Speaker 3: as a benefit to the US military, particularly when you're
2:56
Speaker 3: talking about missile defense. The Israeli military is really good
2:59
Speaker 3: at it. They can help us develop those systems so
3:02
Speaker 3: that we have a better system. I think it's an
3:04
Speaker 3: incredible exaggeration to say that this would merge the US military,
3:07
Speaker 3: because out of thousands, literally thousands of programs, we would
3:12
Speaker 3: have three, four, maybe five or six that we were
3:16
Speaker 3: co developing with the IDF.
3:19
Speaker 2: But you've changed your position now correct, you'll miss this.
3:22
Speaker 2: So what are your concerns, because I'll tell you the
3:25
Speaker 2: concerns you know from me personally, I think shared a
3:27
Speaker 2: lot by our audience. Is you are well aware there
3:30
Speaker 2: is a reckoning happening with regard to the US relationship
3:32
Speaker 2: with Israel, especially in the Democratic Party. And so what
3:35
Speaker 2: appears from the outside is that while votes are increasingly
3:38
Speaker 2: becoming difficult for Israel to win in terms of overt
3:42
Speaker 2: aid being granted, this would be a way to secure
3:45
Speaker 2: the Israel US relationship without having that transparency and that
3:49
Speaker 2: democratic accountability that would come from a vote. So that's
3:53
Speaker 2: the concern, is that it would make the Israeli US
3:56
Speaker 2: military relationship more entrenched in a way that lacks any
4:00
Speaker 2: sort of democratic accountability.
4:02
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, I don't agree with that at all. I mean,
4:04
Speaker 3: we're talking about so two different questions here. My concern
4:09
Speaker 3: is I don't support the net Nyahu government and I
4:11
Speaker 3: certainly don't support what Ben Gaver and Smotrich are doing.
4:14
Speaker 3: And that's been I think the real challenge for me
4:17
Speaker 3: is Israel has a right to exist. Israel is threatened
4:21
Speaker 3: profoundly Bahamas has Iran, So how do we help them
4:25
Speaker 3: defend themselves. Well. At the same time, they've got a
4:28
Speaker 3: government that's frankly out of control, particularly in the West Bank.
4:32
Speaker 3: You know, I associate myself with Romney manuals speech in
4:35
Speaker 3: Tel Aviv last week where he said netnya who has
4:38
Speaker 3: decided that he is going to be able to defeat
4:41
Speaker 3: all of his adversaries. So, whether you're talking Lebanon, Gaza,
4:45
Speaker 3: West Bank, Iran is perpetual war all the time. And
4:50
Speaker 3: then with Smoke Church and Ben Gavier, you've got people
4:52
Speaker 3: who really do want to drive all of the palest
4:55
Speaker 3: Indians out of Gaza and the West Bank, and they're
4:57
Speaker 3: in the government. Okay. So the basic idea of the
5:02
Speaker 3: program when it was first presented to me, like I said,
5:04
Speaker 3: it's code development programs and like a missile defense, something
5:07
Speaker 3: we could definitely learn from Israel on And it's a program.
5:12
Speaker 3: You can decide whether or not do code development programs.
5:14
Speaker 3: And by the way, if we decide in Congress that
5:16
Speaker 3: we don't like that program, we can vote it down.
5:18
Speaker 3: It's not outside of the democratic process. We don't have
5:22
Speaker 3: to vote and approve every single program a record that
5:26
Speaker 3: the Pentagon develops, So I don't give to that aspect
5:28
Speaker 3: of it. But a couple of constituents and particularly reached
5:31
Speaker 3: out to me and explained that, look, at this point,
5:34
Speaker 3: voting for anything that integrates the US and the Israeli
5:37
Speaker 3: government further given where the NAT and Yahoo government is at,
5:41
Speaker 3: is just a statement we don't want to make right now.
5:43
Speaker 3: And I agreed with that, and that's what caused me
5:46
Speaker 3: to change my mind on that particular issue.
5:48
Speaker 2: So you've said you would vote against that on the
5:51
Speaker 2: House floor, I.
5:51
Speaker 3: Would vote to remove it from the bill. Yes, So
5:54
Speaker 3: you are.
5:55
Speaker 2: Ranking member Houseworm Services. That makes you one of the
5:58
Speaker 2: most foremost important people in DC in terms of what
6:01
Speaker 2: ends up in the NTAA.
6:03
Speaker 3: And for the fact that I'm in the minority of
6:07
Speaker 3: George and I don't control sure what the majority does
6:11
Speaker 3: by any stretch of the imagination.
6:12
Speaker 2: But what I wanted to know is if you would
6:14
Speaker 2: use that position when it comes to conference, which is
6:17
Speaker 2: when that this is for our audience. I know obviously
6:19
Speaker 2: you know this. When the Senate version is merged with
6:21
Speaker 2: the House version in a difference reconcise, I.
6:23
Speaker 3: Will advocate for the removal of that provision.
6:26
Speaker 2: And if it's not removed, will you refuse to sign
6:28
Speaker 2: off on the conference report.
6:30
Speaker 3: I don't know that I would go that far. It
6:32
Speaker 3: depends on what else is in the bill. I mean, look,
6:34
Speaker 3: the bill itself has the massive problem that it's it's
6:37
Speaker 3: continuing to fund the war and Iran, which is it
6:39
Speaker 3: under disaster. So I am probably not going to vote
6:42
Speaker 3: will almost certainly not going to vote for the bill
6:44
Speaker 3: as it comes off the House floor now, just of itself,
6:46
Speaker 3: regardless of that particular section, just because of that one section,
6:51
Speaker 3: I don't know that I would vote against the entire bill.
6:54
Speaker 2: Well, that was actually the other thing I wanted to
6:55
Speaker 2: ask you about is why are Democrats considering supporting an
7:00
Speaker 2: NDA at all while Trump is prosecuting disastrous, illegal, unconstitutional war, which,
7:07
Speaker 2: to your credit, you've been very vocally unspoken against.
7:09
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, there's a couple of layers to that. First
7:12
Speaker 3: of all, and this is where we get into some
7:14
Speaker 3: of those divisions within the Democratic Party. I believe that
7:18
Speaker 3: we do need to have a Department of Defense. We
7:20
Speaker 3: need to support our troops. We have national security threats
7:23
Speaker 3: that we have to be prepared to deal with. All right,
7:26
Speaker 3: So do people disagree with that, Well, there are somebody, Look,
7:30
Speaker 3: the Democratic Socialists of America in their platform is defund
7:35
Speaker 3: the Department of Defense. It's in their platform.
7:37
Speaker 2: Haven't the candidates that you're aware of held that position
7:42
Speaker 2: or advocated that position?
7:43
Speaker 3: I don't.
7:44
Speaker 2: I see lots of people advocate for cutting the Pentagon,
7:46
Speaker 2: which I would agree with. That you may agree with
7:48
Speaker 2: as well.
7:48
Speaker 3: I don't know.
7:49
Speaker 2: I haven't heard anyone advocating for getting rid of it,
7:52
Speaker 2: at least nobody who's elected to office.
7:54
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, they've But it's part of the DSA platform, okay,
7:59
Speaker 3: and also a broader.
8:01
Speaker 2: View, you agree with everything single word of the Democratic
8:03
Speaker 2: Party platform, I do not, Okay, Okay, so yes, But
8:08
Speaker 2: so should you be held to whatever views are theoretically
8:11
Speaker 2: in some policy position paper or should we deal with
8:14
Speaker 2: the reality of what your positions are?
8:16
Speaker 3: Why would they put it in there in the first place.
8:18
Speaker 3: But aside from that particular point, there is the larger
8:22
Speaker 3: question of the role the US plays in the world.
8:24
Speaker 3: And this is where I do disagree with the DSA.
8:28
Speaker 3: I mean, their general position is that the US is
8:31
Speaker 3: responsible for most of the conflict in the world. And
8:34
Speaker 3: I've heard these arguments about whether you're talking about Iran,
8:37
Speaker 3: North Korea, Russia, China, that everything they're doing is merely
8:41
Speaker 3: in reaction to us, and I don't agree with that.
8:44
Speaker 3: I think we've done some bad things without any question,
8:48
Speaker 3: but i do think we face threats that we need
8:50
Speaker 3: to be in a position to deter. So I'm not
8:54
Speaker 3: going to say that we shouldn't ever have a National
8:57
Speaker 3: Defense Authorizing Act. The second piece of this that I
9:00
Speaker 3: and I'm curious.
9:01
Speaker 2: I'm not saying curious.
9:01
Speaker 3: What people think about this.
9:03
Speaker 2: Just a pause on that point for one second. The
9:06
Speaker 2: argument I'm making I don't and I think other people
9:08
Speaker 2: is not that we should never have a National Defense
9:10
Speaker 2: Authorization Act. It's that in this moment, Democrats, as you know,
9:15
Speaker 2: have precious little leverage that they can use as Republicans
9:18
Speaker 2: control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Trump
9:22
Speaker 2: is prosecuting what is in a legal war. There was
9:25
Speaker 2: a War Powers Resolution that was passed through the House
9:27
Speaker 2: and what he is in violation of.
9:29
Speaker 3: Just to be clear, it's bigger part of the problem.
9:30
Speaker 3: Even if this war was legal, it would still still
9:33
Speaker 3: be a disastrous, stupid, terrible, horriblelode.
9:35
Speaker 2: We want hundred percent to play on that, but it
9:38
Speaker 2: is also illegal. So why not use this moment when
9:43
Speaker 2: they would dearly.
9:44
Speaker 3: Like, oh, we are Democratic vote, I'm not disergroute with
9:46
Speaker 3: you at all.
9:47
Speaker 2: So you think that so you want support an NDA,
9:49
Speaker 2: and you don't think the rest of the Democratic Party.
9:51
Speaker 3: There will probably be some who will and some who won't.
9:53
Speaker 3: I mean, and again, how do we use that leverage
9:56
Speaker 3: in an effective way? You know? And keep in mind also,
10:00
Speaker 3: so the National Offense Authorizing Act doesn't actually fund anything.
10:03
Speaker 3: It's not the appropriations bill. It's authorizing, which is the
10:05
Speaker 3: other point I've been trying to get to. Congress needs
10:08
Speaker 3: to exercise oversight of the Department of Defense. You know,
10:11
Speaker 3: We've got a provision in the bill that would bring
10:13
Speaker 3: back collective bargaining for all DoD employees, which we got
10:16
Speaker 3: put into the bill. We've got a variety of different
10:18
Speaker 3: things that Fence Secretary, he says, budgets if he doesn't
10:22
Speaker 3: begin to turn over more information, it's us exercising our oversight.
10:26
Speaker 3: If we pull back from that and don't do anything
10:28
Speaker 3: that winds up with the executive branch having all the
10:31
Speaker 3: control of all the authority, if we just don't pass anything.
10:34
Speaker 3: So there are some things in this bill that exercise
10:37
Speaker 3: oversight of the Pentagon. We step back from that, Trump
10:41
Speaker 3: just goes and does what he wants to do without
10:42
Speaker 3: any congressional oversight. So that's the balance, because I think
10:46
Speaker 3: the mistake when you say leverage, the notion is if
10:49
Speaker 3: we say we won't vote for the Republicans, will therefore
10:51
Speaker 3: give us this, this, this, and this.
10:54
Speaker 2: It'll put some pressure on them. I mean a lot
10:56
Speaker 2: of this there.
10:57
Speaker 3: Will, but they may not. But it may not result
10:59
Speaker 3: in that, so but.
11:01
Speaker 2: May be worth a try.
11:02
Speaker 3: They're on worth are very unpopular.
11:04
Speaker 2: And yeah, let me ask you about your your vote
11:06
Speaker 2: for the Thomas Massey Amendment, which would would blockade to Israel.
11:10
Speaker 2: And this is another one where you had told one
11:12
Speaker 2: outlet that you were planning to vote against it, and
11:14
Speaker 2: then you changed your mind and decided to vote for it.
11:16
Speaker 2: You put on a statement saying that you wanted to
11:18
Speaker 2: send a message to Benjamin at Yahoo. I just I'd
11:21
Speaker 2: love for you. There's actually been a lot of pro
11:23
Speaker 2: Israel folks who have been attacking you, saying you gave
11:25
Speaker 2: in to pressure tactics, et cetera. I'd love for you
11:28
Speaker 2: to explain your own words how you came to this place,
11:31
Speaker 2: because I do think your vote and others are quite
11:33
Speaker 2: extraordinary given where consensus within Washington has been on the
11:39
Speaker 2: you know, relationship with Israel. You had even Nancy Pelosi
11:42
Speaker 2: voting for this amendment. Yourself, given your position and your
11:45
Speaker 2: track record, you're someone who's been supported by APAK.
11:48
Speaker 3: Just take us through this, yere take its going to take.
11:50
Speaker 3: That's fine, take your time, okay, because the real challenge
11:54
Speaker 3: here is what Israel has historically been. Okay, Israel the
12:00
Speaker 3: historically a democratic state in the middle of no democratic states.
12:05
Speaker 3: They were a very strong ally of the US. We
12:08
Speaker 3: partnered with them in a variety for things, counter terrorism
12:11
Speaker 3: being the biggest thing during the ISIS fight and elsewhere.
12:14
Speaker 3: So you've got that historical relationship, and then you've got
12:17
Speaker 3: the reality of what Israel is living in, and that
12:21
Speaker 3: is that they are the only, well, except for Ukraine,
12:24
Speaker 3: they're the only country in the world. Well, they're the
12:26
Speaker 3: only country in the world that from the day they
12:28
Speaker 3: were founded, people have been trying to eliminate them. I mean,
12:32
Speaker 3: there's no other country in the war that the Yemen
12:34
Speaker 3: and Saudi Arabia fought. But the Huthis never said that
12:38
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia didn't have a right to exist. Okay, very
12:41
Speaker 3: existence wasn't on the line, you know, when Israel came
12:44
Speaker 3: into being. From that very moment, they have been attacked constantly.
12:48
Speaker 3: And yeah, it comes down to a fundamental question. Does
12:50
Speaker 3: Israel have a right to exist? Now, I'll tell you,
12:52
Speaker 3: and this is absolutely the DSA position is that they don't. Okay,
12:58
Speaker 3: let's pause on that.
12:59
Speaker 2: I want to get to want and I don't want
13:01
Speaker 2: to fight you on all of this, but I want.
13:02
Speaker 3: You to get I got to get through this. I
13:04
Speaker 3: got to get through this. So so you know, if
13:06
Speaker 3: you have a situation where Israel is threatened on all sides,
13:09
Speaker 3: and I know, it's like, well, no, it's not saying
13:12
Speaker 3: they don't have a right to exist, just they have
13:13
Speaker 3: to let all the Palestinians back in and then effectively
13:16
Speaker 3: the Jews no longer control Israel.
13:18
Speaker 2: Okay, well I'm sorry, but don't you like as an
13:21
Speaker 2: idea of equal rights for all ethnicity is something that
13:24
Speaker 2: you and Dairy support as a democrat.
13:26
Speaker 3: Well well sure, but the practical result of this is
13:30
Speaker 3: if you say there should be equal right, right, right,
13:33
Speaker 3: so within Israel. But if Israel allots, they cease to
13:36
Speaker 3: exist as a country.
13:37
Speaker 2: No, they cease to exist as a Jewish ethno state.
13:40
Speaker 2: That's very different from ceasing to exist as a country.
13:46
Speaker 3: Why is whoo? Why is no? No, No, we got a.
13:49
Speaker 2: Drill that issue for US taxpayers.
13:51
Speaker 3: We got it. We got to drill down on that. Okay, Okay,
13:54
Speaker 3: all right, they cease to exist as that's the states.
13:56
Speaker 3: So basically, Jews would live in Palestine and begun earned
14:00
Speaker 3: by the Palestins, by the Arabs. Okay, And maybe that's
14:04
Speaker 3: just what has to happen in the minds of some people.
14:07
Speaker 3: But understand the consequences of it. Understand why Israel was
14:10
Speaker 3: created in the first place, so that the Jews would
14:13
Speaker 3: have some place to go, okay, and to just bliffly
14:17
Speaker 3: say well, yeah, it'll go away and it will be fine.
14:21
Speaker 3: So that's the point.
14:22
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, you're mischaracterizing my position, But.
14:25
Speaker 3: What is your Second of all, what is your position?
14:27
Speaker 2: Second of all, you're ignoring that Israel was not created
14:31
Speaker 2: and a land with no people land.
14:32
Speaker 3: No, no, no, I know it wasn't.
14:35
Speaker 2: There were people there, there were just placed very different countries.
14:38
Speaker 2: Ever there was there is a dispute over land and
14:41
Speaker 2: the Israel today, which I think is what you were
14:43
Speaker 2: getting to is an apartheid. Ath no state that and
14:46
Speaker 2: I don't think you use this language, but that is
14:48
Speaker 2: in the process of committing a genocide. So we can,
14:52
Speaker 2: you know, we can debate the Israel of the past
14:54
Speaker 2: and the various historical interpretations of how we got to
14:58
Speaker 2: this place. But I think you're correct when you say
15:00
Speaker 2: we have to deal with the reality of today. And
15:04
Speaker 2: you know, I would argue that it's not just the
15:05
Speaker 2: Net Yahoo government. We can sertly argue that point. But
15:09
Speaker 2: you know, we have Jake Sullivan who just came out
15:11
Speaker 2: and said that he regrets the Biden policy of the
15:15
Speaker 2: Bear hug. He thinks they should have done more to
15:17
Speaker 2: restrain Israel. And I'm wondering if you have any regrets
15:20
Speaker 2: because now you're voting in a somewhat different way, you know,
15:22
Speaker 2: both with the NDAA shift in position, with the massive
15:26
Speaker 2: amendment saying hey, we should blockade. I want to send
15:28
Speaker 2: a message to net Yahoo. At the peak of the
15:32
Speaker 2: you know, the gaza onslaught, you had a complete siege,
15:36
Speaker 2: you had entire neighborhoods that were leveled. They created the
15:39
Speaker 2: largest population of child amputees. Do you have any regrets
15:43
Speaker 2: about your votes during that time period?
15:45
Speaker 3: I don't because everyone forgets about October seventh. Everyone forgets
15:50
Speaker 3: about what Hamas and Husbald and Ron have done, and
15:53
Speaker 3: their desire is to wipe out the state of Israel
15:57
Speaker 3: and all the Jews living there. Is that not I mean,
16:00
Speaker 3: that's in Hamas's charter, and Hamas is still extent. They're
16:04
Speaker 3: still doing that. I don't like the way Israel decided
16:06
Speaker 3: to defend themselves, but the solution being proposed is and
16:11
Speaker 3: this is the consequence of what you're saying is sorry.
16:15
Speaker 3: You know, we had this idea back in nineteen forty eight.
16:18
Speaker 3: We were going to give you a state and that
16:20
Speaker 3: way you could protect yourselfie and so all these tacks
16:22
Speaker 3: didn't work out. So go back to Europe, go wherever.
16:26
Speaker 3: This just isn't going to work anymore. I think the question,
16:29
Speaker 3: I don't think you understand how difficult that is to
16:32
Speaker 3: just go Yeah, I guess that's fine, because no, I
16:35
Speaker 3: think the question.
16:36
Speaker 2: Of let me and this is not you know, this
16:38
Speaker 2: is my perspective, but I think this is also what
16:40
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party base in particular and most of the
16:43
Speaker 2: country view at this point is why should our tax
16:47
Speaker 2: dollars given all the things in the world and all
16:50
Speaker 2: the things in our country.
16:51
Speaker 3: Why I voted it should be That's why I voted for.
16:53
Speaker 2: The mask, you know, in the more effective ways. Exactly
16:57
Speaker 2: why should that be going to prop up no state
17:00
Speaker 2: that is an apartheid state? And I wonder if you
17:03
Speaker 2: agree with that characterization that has been committing. If you
17:05
Speaker 2: don't want to say genocide, certainly war crimes with that
17:08
Speaker 2: tax money.
17:09
Speaker 3: That's fine. Yeah, Look, no, that's why I vote for
17:11
Speaker 3: the MASSI a moment, I don't think we should be
17:14
Speaker 3: sending that money over there. But look, I have concerns
17:17
Speaker 3: about Hamas, about Hesbola that people don't seem to share.
17:23
Speaker 3: You know, Let's say that this plays out the way
17:25
Speaker 3: you describe, and okay, there is no Jewish youth, no state,
17:28
Speaker 3: and the consequence of that is there is no Jewish state. Basically,
17:32
Speaker 3: you have the Palestinians As they would now be governing
17:35
Speaker 3: that area, and that means Hamos would be governing that area.
17:39
Speaker 3: Do you have any problem with that? Do you have
17:41
Speaker 3: any problem with Hamas suddenly becoming a much more powerful
17:44
Speaker 3: entity and having the country you know, from the river
17:47
Speaker 3: to the sea, if you will, will now be a
17:49
Speaker 3: Hamas run state on the Mediterranean. Are you okay with that?
17:54
Speaker 2: First of all, I'm not convinced that that would be
17:56
Speaker 2: the reality. Well, I don't know how you can get
17:59
Speaker 2: a way from how illiberal it is to not support
18:04
Speaker 2: equal rights for people, regardless of it there, Jewish, Arab, Muslim, totally, totally.
18:09
Speaker 2: But then the other pieces. Do you support two state solution?
18:14
Speaker 2: Is that your idea?
18:15
Speaker 3: Look? Yes, how do we get there? How do we
18:19
Speaker 3: get there? Stop? Stop?
18:22
Speaker 2: Stop?
18:22
Speaker 3: Hold on?
18:23
Speaker 2: Hold on? Do we get there at a time when
18:26
Speaker 2: you have settlements that have made it stop effectively impossible?
18:30
Speaker 3: There's something that.
18:33
Speaker 2: Makes sense in order to create a Palestinian state.
18:37
Speaker 3: Look, let's go back to what you said. I support
18:40
Speaker 3: a two state solutions. I am also aware of the
18:42
Speaker 3: fact that it's probably no longer possible. You didn't let
18:44
Speaker 3: me get that part out, Okay, okay, which is really
18:47
Speaker 3: kind of important to this whole conversation. I would agree,
18:49
Speaker 3: And it's very disappointing. I mean, and there's a lot
18:52
Speaker 3: of blame to go around for why we got there. Yes,
18:54
Speaker 3: I would like to see a two state solution. I
18:56
Speaker 3: am not naive as you just described, to know that
18:59
Speaker 3: it's simply not on the table at this point, and
19:01
Speaker 3: that creates a massive, massive problem. But the idea again
19:05
Speaker 3: that the easy solution is, okay, we get rid of
19:08
Speaker 3: the Jewish ethno state and the details of how Israel
19:12
Speaker 3: is currently running you know, their country. There are there
19:15
Speaker 3: are Arabs in the parliament, but there are parts of
19:18
Speaker 3: it that aren't okay. So we get rid of that. Okay.
19:21
Speaker 3: So what's your idea for what replaces that. You say
19:24
Speaker 3: you're not convinced that it'll be a Hamas run thing.
19:26
Speaker 2: Well, I've offered that, listen. I really honestly think that
19:30
Speaker 2: this is something for Palestinians and Israelis to decide. I
19:33
Speaker 2: don't know why it is. Can I get American tax payer?
19:36
Speaker 2: There's a new business to fund this. That's why I
19:39
Speaker 2: voted for the massive ideas. Incredible, you're saying, you know
19:43
Speaker 2: you don't support a you know there is one solution.
19:46
Speaker 2: You don't support the two states. So there is no
19:48
Speaker 2: good solution. That's where you are. That is the reality
19:51
Speaker 2: of where.
19:51
Speaker 3: We are now. And I'm no good and I'm open ideas.
19:54
Speaker 3: But let's understand the history of this. There's a great
19:57
Speaker 3: book called Palestine nineteen thirty six that describe what was
20:00
Speaker 3: going on there. So you were coming to the end
20:02
Speaker 3: of the British mandate, and you had the Jews had
20:06
Speaker 3: been coming in since the nineteenth century. They had been
20:09
Speaker 3: there a long, long time ago, and they were looking for,
20:12
Speaker 3: you know, a place to be. The Palestinians. We're looking
20:15
Speaker 3: to drive out the British and the Palaestinisian Arabs reached
20:19
Speaker 3: a conclusion in the mid nineteen thirties and said, okay, Jews,
20:22
Speaker 3: you can stay, but you're not going to run anything. Okay.
20:25
Speaker 3: Jews said, now we can't say so they started a
20:27
Speaker 3: civil war okay, and they fought, and then of course
20:30
Speaker 3: nineteen forty eight they got the country created. Another war
20:33
Speaker 3: was started a war and I know people say, well,
20:35
Speaker 3: this is all a war to drive the Palestinians out.
20:37
Speaker 3: It was also a war to eliminate Israel, to basically
20:40
Speaker 3: kill Israel in the crib in nineteen forty eight, and
20:43
Speaker 3: they fought and they fought, and they fought and they fought,
20:45
Speaker 3: and at no point was there ever anything carved out
20:48
Speaker 3: for the Jews. And so the Jews have been fighting
20:51
Speaker 3: an existential fight. And it just it's so.
20:55
Speaker 2: Hard for me to because I know you consider yourself
20:57
Speaker 2: I think liberally, you would describe yourself that way, like
21:00
Speaker 2: in the classical liberal sense.
21:01
Speaker 3: But there's no liberal option on the table. That's what
21:04
Speaker 3: I'm telling you. Why saying, but what nobody Jews illebal Jews,
21:09
Speaker 3: we cannot have why illiberal Palestinians are fine? No, but
21:13
Speaker 3: why I voted forward? It shouldn't, Why shoulder it shouldn't? Okay?
21:18
Speaker 2: So and is that is that your answer for this
21:20
Speaker 2: particular amendment or will that continue to.
21:22
Speaker 3: Be your poquestion moving That's where we're at.
21:24
Speaker 2: So you're done with the US funding Israel? I think
21:27
Speaker 2: working out themselves.
21:28
Speaker 3: I'm not one hundred percent, I gotta say. I mean, look,
21:31
Speaker 3: if if if tomorrow there's a peace agreement, okay, and
21:36
Speaker 3: they actually go forward with something where they create a
21:39
Speaker 3: reasonable alternative for the Palestinians in Gaza, if they actually
21:43
Speaker 3: stop what they're doing in the West Bank and get
21:45
Speaker 3: the piece in Lebanon, that may change it. I don't
21:48
Speaker 3: see that happening, which is why I give you the
21:50
Speaker 3: answer I gave. But again that this this notion that
21:53
Speaker 3: somehow there's a liberal option on the table, and how
21:57
Speaker 3: could we possibly support the illiberal state of Israel. What's
22:01
Speaker 3: going to come in there. Okay, it's going to be liberal.
22:05
Speaker 3: Now I'm on the taxpayer dollar.
22:07
Speaker 2: You mentioned Rama manual speech, you said you associate yourself
22:11
Speaker 2: if memory serves, he supports banking sanctions on Israel. You
22:15
Speaker 2: know we sanctioned our Times South Africa. You support that.
22:19
Speaker 3: I am the one of the original co sponsors of
22:23
Speaker 3: the what is it, it's the West Bank Violence Prevention Act,
22:26
Speaker 3: which sanctions Israel for what they're doing in the West Bank. Yes, absolutely,
22:30
Speaker 3: it's wrong, it shouldn't be done. Yes, we should sanction them,
22:32
Speaker 3: and we should specifically sanction smoke Rich and Benevier, who
22:36
Speaker 3: are advocating so much of this.
22:37
Speaker 2: Yes, let's move on to some of these broader disagreements.
22:44
Speaker 2: And I guess a good transition into that is how
22:47
Speaker 2: much do you think the question of the relationship with
22:49
Speaker 2: Israel Palestine is serving as a litmus test in democratic primaries.
22:55
Speaker 2: You know, from my perspective, it's been very important because
22:57
Speaker 2: it serves as a proxy for kind of a host
22:59
Speaker 2: of other issues concerns that the Democratic base has with
23:02
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party at this point. But I'm curious your
23:04
Speaker 2: perspective on how important that has become and the reason
23:08
Speaker 2: why you think it has become an important issue, it's.
23:11
Speaker 3: Becoming more important. It's not the most important issue, the
23:13
Speaker 3: most important issue, and it's not even close to the
23:15
Speaker 3: most important issue in these primaries. The most important issue
23:18
Speaker 3: that is driving the anti establishment feelings in the primaries
23:23
Speaker 3: is two things. Number one, the belief that we have
23:27
Speaker 3: not effectively fought Trump. Okay, when you look at what
23:30
Speaker 3: really drives these people, Yes, Israel's part of it, but
23:34
Speaker 3: it's also going after you were part of the establishment,
23:36
Speaker 3: how come you didn't beat Trump? Now I have a
23:38
Speaker 3: complaint here, and that is that a lot of the
23:41
Speaker 3: policies of the DSA and the left, open borders, defund
23:45
Speaker 3: the police, the idea that you can't possibly spend enough
23:50
Speaker 3: government money, identity politics, a lot of those things are
23:54
Speaker 3: what gave Trump his power. And part of the reason
23:57
Speaker 3: those of us in the establishment struggle to beat Donald
24:01
Speaker 3: Trump is we were having to defend policies like open borders, okay,
24:06
Speaker 3: and Trump walked right into that. All right. So the
24:10
Speaker 3: notion that there is is just the establishment that led
24:13
Speaker 3: to Trump losing, I think is in this place, fact, can.
24:16
Speaker 2: We pause there for one second, Go ahead, get to your.
24:18
Speaker 3: Critics, true, you know, and so, and I certainly, But
24:22
Speaker 3: I also think that the established Democratic Party, I mean,
24:25
Speaker 3: the whole Joe Biden thing nominating you know, even thinking
24:28
Speaker 3: about nominating Joe Biden in well, because he was he
24:32
Speaker 3: couldn't I don't care how old he is. He just
24:34
Speaker 3: couldn't speak Okay, he couldn't communicate clearly.
24:37
Speaker 2: You know.
24:37
Speaker 3: Whether that was because he was old or because he
24:39
Speaker 3: couldn't communicate clearly, you know, it had the same effect.
24:43
Speaker 3: And then the second big issue is income inequality. It
24:46
Speaker 3: is absolutely true that whoever has been governing for the
24:49
Speaker 3: last twenty or thirty years hasn't done enough to create
24:54
Speaker 3: opportunities for enough people. Those two issues, I think really
24:58
Speaker 3: drove the feeling of let's try something different. Now. The
25:01
Speaker 3: question is whether or not the DSA agenda of you know,
25:06
Speaker 3: is actually going to achieve either of those objectives. Is
25:10
Speaker 3: that what's going to help us defeat Trump and MAGA?
25:12
Speaker 3: Is that what is going to build a more broad
25:14
Speaker 3: based economic thing. But this is where I am very
25:16
Speaker 3: sympathetic with the DSA. I'm an economic populist, all right.
25:20
Speaker 3: I think we should rewrite the tax code to actually
25:22
Speaker 3: tax rich people. I've been working with a woman Ray Madoff.
25:26
Speaker 3: She's a professor of Boston College who wrote a book
25:29
Speaker 3: about how we built our tax code so that the
25:31
Speaker 3: investors don't ever pay taxes. Let's change that. Okay, I'm
25:34
Speaker 3: very pro union. I stock buybacks. Why do we have
25:37
Speaker 3: stock buybacks? They didn't exist prior to nineteen eighty two,
25:40
Speaker 3: so obviously corporations can exist without them. On that agenda,
25:44
Speaker 3: I'm there. You know. Part of the problem I have
25:46
Speaker 3: with the broader agenda is you can't have free stuff
25:50
Speaker 3: for everybody all the time. A and another message that
25:54
Speaker 3: the left gave us in the last ten years was
25:56
Speaker 3: that deficits and debts don't matter. Are you familiar with
25:58
Speaker 3: modern monetary theory, of course, Yeah, it's absurd. The idea
26:02
Speaker 3: that we just spend as much money as possible is
26:04
Speaker 3: not a problem. Now. I want to tax people. I
26:07
Speaker 3: want a better social welfare state. But to argue that
26:10
Speaker 3: we could have a better social welfare state because the
26:13
Speaker 3: debt doesn't matter, I think we kind reminds the.
26:15
Speaker 2: Credibility of that every line of the US dollar and
26:18
Speaker 2: potential risking of the US dollars a reserve currency. It's
26:21
Speaker 2: something we have to think more about now.
26:23
Speaker 3: But here's lets understatement, by the way, because you.
26:27
Speaker 2: Drilled down a little bit on a few things you've said.
26:29
Speaker 2: So you've argued both from a most of your argument
26:32
Speaker 2: against the DSA thus far, I think you could characterize
26:34
Speaker 2: as an electability argument. You've no, no, no, no no
26:36
Speaker 2: no no no no no, no, no no no.
26:38
Speaker 3: It's bad policy. Okay, So I don't think having unlimited
26:44
Speaker 3: immigration is sustainable. I don't think my question, getting rid
26:47
Speaker 3: of the criminal justice system is a smart way to govern.
26:50
Speaker 3: It's not just electability.
26:51
Speaker 2: Here's a question I have for you. So back in
26:53
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, you work together with Primilegaia Paul on a
26:56
Speaker 2: bill to abolish ICE, which.
26:58
Speaker 3: Is a key Yeah. I worked with her on Here's
27:03
Speaker 3: what the bill did. Okay, well it's here.
27:05
Speaker 2: We haven't We have an article here from the Seattle
27:08
Speaker 2: Time as your local paper, US Repstramentlajia Paul and Adam
27:11
Speaker 2: Smith am to abolish ICE, restructure immigration and force exactly.
27:15
Speaker 2: You were one of the Democrats actually who was in
27:17
Speaker 2: office when you vote.
27:19
Speaker 3: I tell you what this actually does.
27:20
Speaker 1: We can.
27:22
Speaker 2: Well, Number one, do you still do you still support this?
27:26
Speaker 3: Let me tell you what it does. Because you still
27:28
Speaker 3: support that doesn't help anything, because what is can? I cannot?
27:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course at first? Do you support that? You're
27:33
Speaker 2: can explain more in detail what it is.
27:35
Speaker 3: Let me tell you what it is, okay, okay, Yes,
27:38
Speaker 3: when we created the Department of Homeland Security, we took
27:42
Speaker 3: immigration enforcement away from the Justice Department and we put
27:46
Speaker 3: it into DHS and created ICE.
27:49
Speaker 2: Correct.
27:50
Speaker 3: What this does is it puts immigration enforcement back at
27:54
Speaker 3: the Justice.
27:54
Speaker 2: Department and get the rid of ICE.
27:57
Speaker 3: Right. Well, it gets me, no, but.
28:00
Speaker 2: That's the position too. But you're we're on the same
28:02
Speaker 2: page here, yes, but.
28:04
Speaker 3: It doesn't get rid of immigration enforcement.
28:08
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, So let me let me hold account again.
28:12
Speaker 2: Tell me which candidates specifically not a policy paper that
28:17
Speaker 2: they're theoretically so, which candidates have said we should get
28:21
Speaker 2: rid of all immigration?
28:22
Speaker 3: I forget the name that the woman who beat Andrew
28:25
Speaker 3: esque alot, absolutely Chevalier.
28:28
Speaker 2: So you have one candidate who said that. Do you
28:30
Speaker 2: think that do you think that her views should be
28:33
Speaker 2: associated with everyone on the under the DSA label, or
28:36
Speaker 2: do you think that you have valuated.
28:38
Speaker 3: Individually many many conversations with many many immigration advocates, and
28:42
Speaker 3: I always ask them and look, I'm in favor of
28:44
Speaker 3: a robust immigration system. I think what immigration enforcement is
28:47
Speaker 3: doing right now is an absolute crime, okay, and it
28:50
Speaker 3: should be limited. I think we should go back to
28:52
Speaker 3: the Justice Department. That's why I said.
28:53
Speaker 2: And you still support the bills, absolutely, you support abolishing ice.
28:57
Speaker 3: Abolishing ICE is just a rhetorical yes, it's you don't.
29:02
Speaker 3: But the problem is it means different things to different people. Okay,
29:07
Speaker 3: if you're talking about no, let's go back to a
29:09
Speaker 3: Justice Department enforcement mechanism, that's fine. But there are a
29:12
Speaker 3: lot more people who support eliminating enforcement. And let me
29:16
Speaker 3: tell you the question I always let me tell you,
29:18
Speaker 3: giving me one let me tell you. Let me tell
29:20
Speaker 3: you the question I always ask and the answer I
29:22
Speaker 3: always get from dozens of different immigration advacy groups. I said, look,
29:26
Speaker 3: in order for this work, you have to be able
29:28
Speaker 3: to tell me who would you deport and who wouldn't
29:32
Speaker 3: you let into the country? And they literally never answer that.
29:37
Speaker 2: Are they in Congress? They Here's here's my other question
29:41
Speaker 2: for you, is you know, do you want to take
29:44
Speaker 2: the most extreme positions that you can find in the
29:47
Speaker 2: DSA platform or that Let me let me finish my question, please,
29:52
Speaker 2: that one candidate Daria le'sas Chavalier, who I agree has
29:55
Speaker 2: positions that I think are can legitimately be characterized as radical. Right,
30:00
Speaker 2: you want to take those positions and you want to
30:02
Speaker 2: tire an entire group of candidates with them as you
30:05
Speaker 2: aren't you? Hold on, aren't you effectively doing the work
30:09
Speaker 2: of the Republicans?
30:09
Speaker 3: There? Yes, that's all these people.
30:11
Speaker 2: They're all so crazy they don't want any borders.
30:16
Speaker 3: Let me consolidated. You've done your let me do.
30:20
Speaker 2: They could easily characterize your abolished position as just as
30:23
Speaker 2: crazy and radical as Daria Liza.
30:25
Speaker 3: But but I can't because that the justice to burn's
30:29
Speaker 3: going forth. Let'll ask you this. Joe Biden his policy okay,
30:33
Speaker 3: so not just one person in a platform whatever. Do
30:36
Speaker 3: you think his policy was to lax in terms of
30:39
Speaker 3: border security?
30:40
Speaker 2: I don't, but I acknowledge that politically that helped fuel
30:45
Speaker 2: the rise of the return of Donald Trump.
30:47
Speaker 3: So let me say that is something.
30:49
Speaker 2: But hold on a second. Which wing of the Democratic
30:53
Speaker 2: Party does Joe Biden come from. He doesn't come from
30:56
Speaker 2: the DSA left, does he? He comes from the establishment.
31:00
Speaker 2: And so to go back to one of the origins
31:04
Speaker 2: comes from.
31:04
Speaker 3: How did he go?
31:05
Speaker 4: Well?
31:05
Speaker 2: He funded the genocide. So you governed in a lot
31:07
Speaker 2: of right wing ways. But to go back to your
31:09
Speaker 2: original point about electability, I think it's very hard.
31:12
Speaker 3: I never made a point about it.
31:13
Speaker 2: You said that you thought that these positions. If you
31:15
Speaker 2: listen to your original answer, you said you thought these
31:17
Speaker 2: positions for the DSA were part of what brought that
31:19
Speaker 2: Donald fair.
31:20
Speaker 3: Yes, but there's also policy concerns, okay.
31:22
Speaker 2: But on the electability point, how can you argue that
31:27
Speaker 2: your camp within the Democratic Party has a lot of
31:30
Speaker 2: credence when it comes to electability.
31:32
Speaker 3: When I.
31:34
Speaker 2: Argued with you, when pillary Clinton loses to Trump, Biden
31:39
Speaker 2: wins by adopting some left wing views, then loses to Trump,
31:42
Speaker 2: it was the establishment that props him up, that forced
31:46
Speaker 2: war of a primary. So how could it be the
31:48
Speaker 2: fault of the left. It's not that we're losing.
31:51
Speaker 3: There's three things, okay. I always say that the fall
31:54
Speaker 3: of the Democratic Party is a tragedy in three acts. Okay.
31:57
Speaker 3: Number one, we didn't do enough on the economic issues,
32:01
Speaker 3: and I think that that Obama and Clinton get way
32:04
Speaker 3: too much of the blame for that. I think they
32:06
Speaker 3: really tried to get after broader economic issues. Certainly the
32:09
Speaker 3: Affordable Care Act, a whole lot of other provisions that
32:12
Speaker 3: were put in there, but we didn't do enough on
32:14
Speaker 3: economic anequality. Number two, the left came along and took
32:18
Speaker 3: some positions that weakened us. I'm not blaming one group.
32:21
Speaker 3: Everyone's like, well, you're blaming us, what about them? It's like,
32:23
Speaker 3: there can be collective responsibility. Okay, it's not an either
32:27
Speaker 3: or choice. Yes, we didn't do enough in economics. And
32:30
Speaker 3: then some of the positions of the left, And there
32:32
Speaker 3: were a lot of people running around. And when people
32:34
Speaker 3: say abolish ice, do they mean abolished enforcement or do
32:38
Speaker 3: they mean change enforcement? Okay, And that's what you get
32:41
Speaker 3: into that difficult issue. We've had criminal justice problems. You
32:44
Speaker 3: know that defund the police movement did not help us
32:47
Speaker 3: in any way. And it was a thing and oh no,
32:50
Speaker 3: we never did that, okay. And then three Joe Biden. Yeah,
32:55
Speaker 3: those three things are what led to us and you
32:57
Speaker 3: and every time, and I want to bring them all in.
32:58
Speaker 3: But people say, well, if you blame the left, you're
33:00
Speaker 3: just being a Republican. Well can't we learn as we go?
33:04
Speaker 2: Well, my problem is not with your I have my
33:06
Speaker 2: own critiques of the left.
33:07
Speaker 3: Right.
33:08
Speaker 2: I think that not. I actually think the identity politics
33:10
Speaker 2: thing came out of the Hillary Clinton campaign and was
33:13
Speaker 2: a way for the establishment to beat back the rise
33:16
Speaker 2: of the Bernie Sanders left. No doubt the left embraced it.
33:20
Speaker 2: I have been a critic of quote unquote woke, although
33:22
Speaker 2: I hate the word. At this point, I generally politics.
33:24
Speaker 2: That's my you know, my position. I'm a class first leftist,
33:27
Speaker 2: so I have my own critiques here. I'm not I'm
33:29
Speaker 2: not saying you can't. I'm saying, when you caricature an
33:33
Speaker 2: entire wary at this.
33:36
Speaker 3: Point, aren't you character the entire wing of the centrist
33:39
Speaker 3: and saying they we're all like no, because I'm not.
33:41
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to say you have the same views
33:42
Speaker 2: as John Fetterman. I don't think that you do, or
33:45
Speaker 2: Josh s Goottheimer for that matter. And I'm not saying
33:47
Speaker 2: that you are trying to take the views of let's say,
33:50
Speaker 2: Darry Visa and the DSA platform and saying this is
33:52
Speaker 2: what the entire.
33:54
Speaker 3: Not just I'm just saying, well, it's an issue and
33:57
Speaker 3: it's a challenge.
33:57
Speaker 2: Let me get you to So. I think the most
33:59
Speaker 2: prominent example of socialist governance in the US right now
34:04
Speaker 2: is zorimm Donnie in New York City. He got asked
34:07
Speaker 2: a question that's very relevant to this conversation about you
34:10
Speaker 2: know what about people who are concerned about socialism, are
34:13
Speaker 2: concerned about democratic socialism. Let me get you to respond
34:15
Speaker 2: to what he had to say. This as E.
34:17
Speaker 3: Two.
34:18
Speaker 4: For all of the fear mongering around democratic socialism, the
34:21
Speaker 4: best response is to show what it actually means. And
34:25
Speaker 4: what we've shown over the last six months is exactly that.
34:28
Speaker 4: We've shown that a city with a democratic socialist vision
34:32
Speaker 4: is one that paves more than one hundred and seventy
34:35
Speaker 4: thousand potholes, fifty thousand more than the prior administration by
34:39
Speaker 4: this point. It's a city that has delivered the lowest
34:41
Speaker 4: recorded number of shootings and shooting victims and murders in
34:45
Speaker 4: New York City's history. It is a city that is
34:48
Speaker 4: on a pathway to universal childcare, saving thousands of parents
34:52
Speaker 4: more than twenty thousand dollars a year. And it's a
34:54
Speaker 4: city that is doing all of these things while fighting
34:57
Speaker 4: for the people who are often left behind, workers who
35:01
Speaker 4: we've secured more than ten million dollars for tenants, more
35:04
Speaker 4: than sixty four million dollars. These are all indicators of
35:08
Speaker 4: what is so scary to a right wing that has
35:11
Speaker 4: built its entire power and framework on the idea of
35:15
Speaker 4: debating who should be left behind.
35:17
Speaker 2: So is Zorn's version of socialism a version that you
35:21
Speaker 2: could get on board lot, since he's really focused on
35:24
Speaker 2: the affordability pieces they need.
35:25
Speaker 3: I'm encouraged by what he's doing, and I think that
35:28
Speaker 3: form of trying to get things done. That's the other
35:32
Speaker 3: problem is so much of the left, and certainly we
35:34
Speaker 3: experienced this in Seattle. You know, became an academic exercise.
35:39
Speaker 3: They were spending all day long talking about, you know,
35:41
Speaker 3: the history of racism, as opposed to going out in
35:45
Speaker 3: the community and saying, these are people who've been discriminated against.
35:48
Speaker 3: Let's get them access to capital so they can start businesses.
35:51
Speaker 3: Let's get them access to capital so they can get homes.
35:54
Speaker 3: Let's do a job, you know, let's let's do workforce
35:57
Speaker 3: development so they can get jobs. It became even academic
36:01
Speaker 3: exercise about the history of the US and about you know,
36:04
Speaker 3: are we, you know, just an irreversibly bigoted racist and
36:10
Speaker 3: that's all interesting? What are we doing to govern effectively?
36:13
Speaker 3: And actually everything that mom, Donnie said, right there, I'm
36:17
Speaker 3: encouraged if you govern and focus on getting things done,
36:20
Speaker 3: so called sewer socialism from back in the day, you
36:24
Speaker 3: know when you had mayors who were socialist because they're
36:26
Speaker 3: going to go ahead and work. That's great as an
36:28
Speaker 3: academic exercise. Will you want to explain to me the
36:31
Speaker 3: history of oppression when you say things to me like well,
36:34
Speaker 3: that person can make that argument because of the power dynamic,
36:37
Speaker 3: and we operate in this weird intellectual world that's got
36:41
Speaker 3: nothing to do with practical problem solving and logic. Okay,
36:45
Speaker 3: that's where I have a problem. You know, Michelle wou
36:49
Speaker 3: up in Boston, also on the left governing really well.
36:53
Speaker 3: There are other folks who haven't governed so well because
36:55
Speaker 3: they got trapped in this sort of ideological thing with
36:59
Speaker 3: the whole focus was on oppressed and oppression as opposed
37:02
Speaker 3: to actually governing. Well. So, yes, I am encouraged by
37:06
Speaker 3: what I've seen in the last what are we now,
37:08
Speaker 3: six seven months in Mondani's term. You know, I'm a
37:12
Speaker 3: working class, blue collar kid. I'm in favor of economic
37:15
Speaker 3: populism and a socialism can work on that level. Now,
37:19
Speaker 3: I think you also have to recognize that private industry
37:21
Speaker 3: has to be part of it. Okay, we have to
37:24
Speaker 3: have businesses that grow. But yeah, you know, I had
37:27
Speaker 3: someone that was up in New York a month or
37:28
Speaker 3: so ago and someone said, you know, the problem is
37:30
Speaker 3: we took the guard rails off capitalism. And know of
37:33
Speaker 3: the course the last fifty years, that's what we did.
37:34
Speaker 3: We took the guard rails off capitalism. So let's put
37:37
Speaker 3: those guard rails back on. And if you want to
37:39
Speaker 3: call it socialism, whatever you want to call it, I
37:41
Speaker 3: don't care. But let's govern more effective.
37:44
Speaker 2: So let me ask you. Then Josh Gottthheimer said, if
37:47
Speaker 2: you're a socialist, you're not a democrat. It sounds like
37:48
Speaker 2: you don't agree with that.
37:51
Speaker 3: No, I mean, but again, the problem with this, and
37:53
Speaker 3: it's the whole abolishized thing. You throw a term out
37:55
Speaker 3: that means fifteen different things to fifteen different people, and
37:58
Speaker 3: then you're like, do you support this? It's like, which
38:00
Speaker 3: one of the fifteen versions are you talking?
38:01
Speaker 2: I'm not asking you to support it. But he and
38:04
Speaker 2: others have said, basically, we don't want these people in
38:07
Speaker 2: the party. Well, we don't want to share the tent
38:09
Speaker 2: with them. It doesn't sound like you're in that place.
38:11
Speaker 4: I am not.
38:12
Speaker 3: Now. I think we ought to be able to have
38:14
Speaker 3: a conversation about the issues. I was sick to death
38:17
Speaker 3: and you did it to me again when I was
38:18
Speaker 3: trying to say, hey, look on immigration, you know we
38:20
Speaker 3: need to show that we are in favor of enforcement. Well,
38:23
Speaker 3: you're just giving me Republican talking points. I didn't say that. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no,
38:28
Speaker 3: said something, but no, no, no conversation about it.
38:33
Speaker 2: What I said is that when you take the most
38:36
Speaker 2: radical position of one person or from a policy platform,
38:39
Speaker 2: and you paint with a broad brush, you're handing Republicans
38:42
Speaker 2: and talking, well, this is what these people are. And
38:46
Speaker 2: what I'm saying is that you could easily be put
38:49
Speaker 2: into that camp. Sure, given some of your positions that
38:51
Speaker 2: you continue to hold. For example, whether you want to
38:53
Speaker 2: call it dismantling ICE or reorganizing ICE, need to do
38:58
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call it's start getting rid of it.
39:00
Speaker 3: It's not actually a joke. It's how are you going
39:02
Speaker 3: to enforce it? What sort of enforcement are you going
39:03
Speaker 3: to do? And it's going back to the Justice Department
39:06
Speaker 3: makes sense to me, and you know ICE would no
39:08
Speaker 3: longer exist, But you'd still have immigration enforcement.
39:10
Speaker 2: But this is the biggest could you actually I am
39:13
Speaker 2: curious your view, because the counter to that would be, well,
39:16
Speaker 2: if you're just going to do enforcement, ay, why not
39:19
Speaker 2: just keep ICE and reform ICE? Right, there's a you know,
39:21
Speaker 2: some group of people would say, oh, it's too radical
39:23
Speaker 2: to get rid of ICE, we need to just reform
39:26
Speaker 2: it vet better. I just think, et cetera, why do
39:29
Speaker 2: you think that it needs to be take Because I
39:31
Speaker 2: obviously agree with what Trump has done with it.
39:34
Speaker 3: I think just puts it in a category. And I
39:36
Speaker 3: don't know. I mean, theoretically within the Department of Homeland Security,
39:40
Speaker 3: I suppose you could have immigration enforcement that made sense,
39:43
Speaker 3: But I think at this point we need a clean break.
39:45
Speaker 3: And look, the biggest thing that I want in all
39:47
Speaker 3: of this is the ability to have a conversation, all right,
39:49
Speaker 3: And this is where this is my biggest problem with
39:51
Speaker 3: the left. I have been unable to hold a town
39:53
Speaker 3: hall meeting for a year because a bunch of leftists
39:57
Speaker 3: show up and scream at me and don't let anyone
39:59
Speaker 3: else speak. We had a hearing in the University of
40:02
Speaker 3: Washington on whether or not to divest from Israel. After
40:05
Speaker 3: all the protets. We're going to have a hearing. So
40:07
Speaker 3: the first three people got up and testified in favor
40:09
Speaker 3: of divesting. Fourth person got up and testified against divesting.
40:14
Speaker 3: Two sentences in, shouted down, screamed at, wouldn't stop the meeting.
40:19
Speaker 3: The meeting, you talk about illiberal, okay, having people stay
40:22
Speaker 3: it out in front of my house, you screaming death
40:24
Speaker 3: threats at me and threatening my wife. Okay. And the left,
40:28
Speaker 3: oh well, of course we don't support we're peace activists.
40:31
Speaker 3: We would never do something like that. Okay, how about
40:35
Speaker 3: you just say no, they did it, it's wrong, We're
40:37
Speaker 3: against it. We are going to be liberal, We're going
40:39
Speaker 3: to stand up for stuff. I think that whole thing
40:43
Speaker 3: has created a major problem as well, and that's what
40:46
Speaker 3: I try to have these conversations and people out you're
40:48
Speaker 3: just a trump supporting it. We have to be able
40:51
Speaker 3: to have a discussion. I guess positive thing. I think
40:54
Speaker 3: Mamdani has done that. I don't agree with that meaning
40:56
Speaker 3: he's doing, but he's having legitimate, thoughtful conversation instead of
41:00
Speaker 3: screening matches over who can threaten the loudest.
41:04
Speaker 2: Let me just last question, because I know you have
41:05
Speaker 2: a briefing that you need to get to as a
41:08
Speaker 2: result of your vote on the massive amendment which would
41:11
Speaker 2: block aid to Israel. Apax said, basically, we're done with
41:13
Speaker 2: this guy pulled your name off their fundraising website. You're
41:16
Speaker 2: a person who you know, you are in a very
41:18
Speaker 2: important position for them, ranking member. They've given you a
41:20
Speaker 2: lot of money in the past. Have you spoken to
41:23
Speaker 2: them about that decision? And would you in the future?
41:27
Speaker 2: Do you want their money back? Because I know Pat
41:29
Speaker 2: Ryan was in a similar situation, he said, I'm done
41:31
Speaker 2: with them. I don't want their money. You know, I
41:33
Speaker 2: think I don't think that we should.
41:34
Speaker 3: This is another thing that I've ever bought any well.
41:36
Speaker 2: I'm not just my question, he said, effectively, you know,
41:39
Speaker 2: I don't think we should be in league with this
41:42
Speaker 2: right wing foreign government and an organization that supports it.
41:45
Speaker 2: Do you share that view or you would be open
41:48
Speaker 2: to taking their money again.
41:49
Speaker 3: I'd be open. I mean, I'd given my position. I
41:51
Speaker 3: don't think that's going to happen. It's always been my position.
41:53
Speaker 3: I vote take positions, and people decide whether or not
41:56
Speaker 3: to donate. And that's another thing that I don't think
41:59
Speaker 3: the last should take no money from corporations. Corporations are
42:03
Speaker 3: evil or awful, they're terribly I don't think that's in
42:06
Speaker 3: keeping how the country is going to run. We need
42:08
Speaker 3: businesses and look, I've had many donors.
42:11
Speaker 2: I mean as not a business but well no, but
42:13
Speaker 2: but but.
42:14
Speaker 3: But it goes beyond a pack. You know, we're not
42:16
Speaker 3: supposed to take any money from any people. How can
42:18
Speaker 3: you put I think that position divides us, and not
42:23
Speaker 3: necessarily as far as a pack is concerned. You understand
42:26
Speaker 3: that they count anyone who's ever donated to a pack.
42:28
Speaker 3: I have a lot of friends that the supporters, going
42:32
Speaker 3: back decades give money to a pack and give money
42:35
Speaker 3: to me. Okay, I'm not going to you have.
42:38
Speaker 2: Taken a pack contributions.
42:39
Speaker 3: It's not ano characters, no, no, no, no, absolutely, but
42:42
Speaker 3: the whole broad thing of you know, I well, they
42:45
Speaker 3: make it.
42:45
Speaker 2: In fairness because I think it's very difficult thing to track.
42:49
Speaker 2: They intentionally, you know, they create a well and they
42:53
Speaker 2: try to hide some of this money now that it's
42:55
Speaker 2: become a toxic name. But final, real last question for you.
42:59
Speaker 2: Adela side run in Michigan against Representative Hailey Stevens. APAC
43:03
Speaker 2: and affiliated groups have spent thirty million dollars in that
43:07
Speaker 2: race to support Hailey Stevens. You're someone who is concerned
43:10
Speaker 2: about democracy. I mean, do you see that as a
43:12
Speaker 2: crisis for democracy when you have tens of millions of
43:16
Speaker 2: dollars of outside money where there's a path or big
43:18
Speaker 2: farm or whoever. I think coming in and backing one candidate,
43:21
Speaker 2: is that something that should be banned democratic bumberies.
43:23
Speaker 3: I support McCain fine Gold and I think Citizens United
43:27
Speaker 3: was one of the two or three worst Supreme Court
43:29
Speaker 3: decisions ever made. You ought to be able to limit
43:31
Speaker 3: iees and I don't care if it's coming from business,
43:33
Speaker 3: if it's coming from apac, if it's coming from labor,
43:35
Speaker 3: if it's coming because left groups have big ies too.
43:39
Speaker 3: I mean everyone acts like they don't have any money.
43:41
Speaker 3: I remember the.
43:43
Speaker 2: It's no competition for what's coming in on the other side.
43:45
Speaker 2: But just to put a fine point on it, the
43:47
Speaker 2: Democratic Party could itself. You know, it's hard to change
43:50
Speaker 2: the Constitution and the Supreme Court, et cetera Democratic party
43:54
Speaker 2: itself could ban that type of spending. They can in primers,
43:57
Speaker 2: they can. They can cut their own of course they can,
44:00
Speaker 2: and they can set their own rules for how their
44:02
Speaker 2: own primaries are run.
44:03
Speaker 3: They can't block an ie.
44:04
Speaker 2: Yes they can.
44:05
Speaker 3: No, they can't. What are you talking.
44:06
Speaker 2: They can set their own rules for what type of
44:09
Speaker 2: money can be spent in these campaigns. Is that something
44:12
Speaker 2: you would support? I would, but you would, But you
44:16
Speaker 2: don't believe that it's possible.
44:17
Speaker 3: No, the i ees are independent. They can do what
44:20
Speaker 3: they want to do. The Democratic Party can't come You
44:22
Speaker 3: think the Democratic Party could just come in and tell
44:23
Speaker 3: Apak not to spend money.
44:25
Speaker 1: Yeah.
44:25
Speaker 2: I think they could run their own primaries the way
44:28
Speaker 2: they want to run their primaries and set the rules
44:30
Speaker 2: for that. They absolutely could. That's something that was part
44:32
Speaker 2: of the debate for the last DNC chair. I'll have
44:34
Speaker 2: to look in people look at it in theory, you
44:37
Speaker 2: would support it.
44:38
Speaker 3: I would support anything that band's ies. But i ees
44:41
Speaker 3: are by thee.
44:42
Speaker 2: It's a problem for democracy wherever the money is coming from. Absolutely, Congressman,
44:48
Speaker 2: spirited exchange. I appreciate it, genuinely, Thank you for coming in.
44:51
Speaker 3: Happy to do it.