10/16/25: Mearsheimer Warns On Gaza Ceasefire, Newsom Short Circuits On AIPAC, China Says Trump Will Fold

Krystal and Saagar discuss Mearsheimer warns on ceasefire, Newsom short circuits on AIPAC, China says Trump will fold.

David Sirota's Book: https://www.levernews.com/master-plan-the-hidden-plot-to-legalize-corruption-in-america/ 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing
show for Buddy today. What do we have, Crystalde, We.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Do Jampacks show, John Meerscheimer wang In on whether or
not the ceasefire is going to hold. We've got some
terrible answers from Corey Booker and Gavin Newsom when they
are questioned on APAG Both of their brains just appeared
to completely melt. So those will be fun to react to.
Major updates in terms of our trade war with China,
big moves being made by the Trump administration. Also big
moves being made in terms of regime change in Venezuela,

(01:01):
the CIA apparently being greenlit for covert regime change activities.

Speaker 4 (01:05):
So that's great.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
DHS caught line about several incidents in Chicago, and David
Sarado is going to join us on a couple of
incredibly consequential upcoming Supreme Court decisions that could completely remake
the electoral map and the political contribution, the money in
politics map, I guess we'll say as well. So a
lot of big stories breaking this morning.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
Yes, that's right.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
Thank you everybody who has been signing up Breakingpoints dot com.
If you're able to support the show and become a
premium member. If you can't afford it, no worries, just
please go ahead and hit subscribe to our YouTube channel.
And if you're listening to this on a podcast, rate
us five stars or send your favorite episode to a friend.
It really helps us grow. So lo with that, let's
go ahead and get to Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
As you said.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Professor John Meersheimer weighing in on the ceasefire, we always
looked to him for his trentent analysis.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Here was his immediate reaction.

Speaker 5 (01:52):
I think you greatly underestimate peers how deeply committed the
Israelis are to ethnically cleansing both Gaza and the West Bank.
The Israelis now have a situation where there are roughly
as many Palestinians as there are Israeli Jews inside of
Greater Israel, and this is an unacceptable situation for most Israelis.

(02:17):
And they're completely committed to ethnically cleansing Gaza and then
the West Bank. I think the evidence is overwhelming on this.
Now you say President Trump sees this as a great
opportunity to prove that he's a statesman and he can
bring peace to the Middle East. I think in principle
that he'd love to do that. But I've written a
book with Steve Walt on the Israel lobby, and there's

(02:40):
absolutely no question in my mind that if President Trump
gets rough with Prime Minister net Yahoo net yawho will
turn to the lobby, and the lobby will force Trump
to back off. There's no way Trump is going to
get tough with net Yahoo if he violates the ceasefire.

Speaker 3 (02:59):
Some good words from the professor, and look, already we're
seeing a few indications nobody really knows right now Trump's
laser focused, at least for him, on the Israel ceasefire.
He doesn't want it to break. What about a week
from now? What about a month from now? What about
two months from now? Because ze Lanzi is going to
be here on Friday, and next thing, you know, that's
going to be the biggest story in the world. His

(03:20):
attention is going to start going this way. Steve Wikkoff
is running that negotiation too. So all of the groundwork
by Israel is being laid. Let's go and put this
up here on the screen. For example, there's currently some
major conflict between Hamas and Israel over the question of
the dead hostages, israelly hostages bodies. President Trump at the
White House yesterday said quote, this is a very difficult process.

(03:42):
They are digging. There are areas where they are digging
and finding a lot of bodies. Some of the bodies
have been there for a long time. Some of the
bodies are under soil, some are in tunnels. This comes, though,
at the very same time that all of the groundwork
on the Israeli side is being laid for both trying
to negate the ceasefire. Over this conflict over body bodies
being returned. But also is really Minister is just saying

(04:04):
the quiet part out loud. Let's put this up here.
For example, you have Finance Minister Smotritz who vowed quote,
there will be Jewish settlements in Gaza direct contravention both
of the ceasefire Agreement, the Phase two Phase three eventual
Coalitional Provisional Authority Plan. From everything that Donald Trump has
said about I will not allow Israel or to annex

(04:25):
the West Bank or Gaza.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
But here's what he says. And I mean, this is
part of the difficulty.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Is that for those of us, Crystal, who know how
to read the Israeli press or hit Google translate, it's
all a very different story. If you listen to Mark
Levin or any of these other folks. He says, literally,
so we have patients, we have determination and faith, with
God's help, we will continue the series of victories and
the big miracles, he says in relations specifically to Jewish

(04:52):
settlement of Gaza, directly from his mouth. And I mean,
I don't think it gets much more clear than that.
And you fit that with John Meiersheimer's pronunciation. Now listen,
maybe Smotrich is just a fringe part of the government.
He has gotten a hell of a lot of what
he wanted throughout the prosecution of this war. He's one

(05:13):
of the most powerful parts of that coalition. What would
some sort of future coalition look like that we even
replace Baby. By the way, Baby's corruption trial delayed. If
anybody's wondering, can we just.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
Do we have that? I think yeah, I think eight eight.

Speaker 3 (05:26):
Please if you're wondering for his own political survival, he
delayed his corruption trial.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
He has bronchitis. You know, he didn't.

Speaker 3 (05:34):
He wanted to make sure that he didn't pass his
bronchitas to others, and so he's such a thoughtful having
bronchitis thinking of everybody else.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
This is better, though, than the alternative. Usually when his
corruption trial is upcoming, then he'll decide to bomb some
other country.

Speaker 1 (05:52):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
Literally, that's happened multiple times. To be well, we can't
do the trial. Now we're in a war with the run.
What are we going to do?

Speaker 2 (05:59):
So him having bronchitis is I guess a better alternative.
It's the way he's gotten out of the trial in
the back.

Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yes, that's it.

Speaker 3 (06:05):
That is a good point, But in general that seems
to be the direction where things are going, and already
things are starting to fall apart in Gaza. That show
some of the folly of the Trump administration's plan here.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Yeah, well, and Israel already slow walking some of the
things they agreed to in the initial ceasefire deal.

Speaker 4 (06:27):
So they're supposed to be.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
Opening up the Rafa crossing on the Egyptian side, they say, hey,
we're ready to go. Israel has not yet done that,
so they're slow walking that. Obviously, they immediately tried to say, oh,
Hamas is violating the deal because we were supposed to
get all of the bodies of hostages back. Well, in reality,
everyone understood that this would be very, very difficult. You
have a the Gaza strip buried in rubble, eighty five

(06:50):
percent of it turned into rubble. Hamas has also been banned,
like Israel's banned all of the heavy earth moving equipment
from going in. So how exactly do you think that
they can achieve what you want them to in getting
the bodies out from under the rubble. In the ceasefire deal,
it contemplated all of this. It was understood in the
deal that this would be difficult, that time would need

(07:11):
to be taken that they would need equipment to be
able to do this. This was all supposed to be
overseen by There was you know, collaboration with international bodies
to make sure this was going preceding pace. So far,
the Trump administration has said we don't think that Hamas
is in violation of the deal, even as the Israelis
are pushing that idea, and you know which all obviously
gives them an excuse to go back to murder and killing,

(07:33):
not that they ever stopped. Okay, let's keep in mind
that Israel has already multiple times violated the ceasefire agreement
and killed Palestinians even post hostage release.

Speaker 4 (07:45):
So you can.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
See the direction they're trying to push in. And this
is why Meersheimer's comments are really important because, yeah, at
the moment, it seems that Trump wants the deal to
hold for the moment, but you know, net Yahoo will
be relentless. They will never stop. The Israel lobby will
never stop. They will keep pushing, they will keep looking
for vulnerabilities, they will keep trying to do everything they

(08:06):
can to go back to the killing, to go back
to the death. And so it will take a lot
of focus and a lot of determination from this president
to avoid that outcome.

Speaker 3 (08:16):
Did you were you the one who said that it
makes you nervous? How much the Israel lobby?

Speaker 2 (08:21):
Yeah, how much like Miriam Maddelson thinking, Okay, I love
the steal.

Speaker 3 (08:25):
I know, anything that they're super pleased about. The best
hope for would there from them would just be silenced
because it means they're mad, but they don't want to
say anything. But the fact that they're all out there cheering,
I'm like, I don't know, there's something a little sketchy.
I think that's going on here. And by the way,
I want to just highlight something that we spent a
lot of time on with Ryan yesterday, which is the
post administration, post war administration of Gossa. So, for example,

(08:49):
we played everybody this amazing clip obviously from Trump, who
was like, yeah, Hamas executed some guys.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. That's what
he said.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
He said, I don't have a problem with that, But
apparently his government does it problem with that.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
Let's put it up here on the screen. This is
from Sentcom.

Speaker 3 (09:03):
They say, quote, we strongly urge Hamas to immediately suspend
violence shooting at innocent Palestinians in Gaza. In both Hamas
held parts of Gaza and those secured by the IDF
behind the yellow line. This is a historic opportunity for peace.
Hamas should seize it fully by standing down strictly adhering
to President Trump's twenty point peace plan disarming without delay.

(09:26):
We have conveyed our concerns to the mediators who worked
with us to enforce the peace and protectness in Gaza civilians.
We remain highly optimistic for the future of peace in
the region. Now in terms of what's actually going on,
it's extremely chaotic and it is a reminder of what
a place with some one point eight one point seven
million people whoever's left alive, which has no civilian law

(09:48):
enforcement authority. It's just like Afghanistan. It's just like Iraq.
When you take out the central administration and you leave
it to rubble, what's going to arise in its place? Warlords?
That's literally what's happening. Let's put this next one up here.
This is from the Wall Street Journal, which actually has
some reporters and sources inside of Gaza. What they're talking about,
quote is that after Israeli withdrawal, Hamas has launched a

(10:10):
violent crackdown on rivals in Gaza. Effectively, apparently what has
happened is that there are these non Hamas parties, powerful
Palestinian families who have certain networks in particular cities, and
you also have these Israeli backed kind of gangs inside
of Gaza who are seen as collaborators by Hamas and

(10:31):
by some of the local population, although some of those
local population also do certainly support them. And so almost
immediately within the vacuum of no more bombing is there
has been a violent outbreak for literal law and order.
And we read yesterday Ryan an interview with a Palestinian
community leader who lives in Gaza, and he was like, no,

(10:51):
I support Hamas because some of these guys were stealing
flower from little children and then selling it on the
black market, right, And so in some cases they're no,
kill them, They're like, please, somebody go and get them.
But it gets to the point of if you lay
down on your arms, which you know, technically they are
agreed to in their twenty point piece plan, they're also
kind of to facto accepting some sort of law enforcement authority.

(11:15):
But it gets to this point about political legitimacy in
the post war state, because the only way to ensure
that stuff like this doesn't happen. And we don't have
an Afghanistan where we have war lords in the north
who hate the war lords in the south and everybody's
always beefing and basically warring over opium drug routes and
getting the US military to back them. Well, the only

(11:37):
alternative is occupation. But who is going to occupy? I mean,
the Israeli certainly aren't going to do it, or at
least the palacinated people wouldn't want to live with that.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
The Uaes, how do you rape them? They just simply
don't have enough troops.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
They don't even have weapons, so expertise and counterin certainty
like this is a nightmare just waiting to happen. You
can see exactly how the collapse and the eventual descend
into civil war is so easy to see on the horizon.
And Trump is going to own all of that because
he's the chairman of this peace board right the which
he put into place. So I would actually say that

(12:09):
this is the perfect example of what is to come
for years and years and years if they don't have
their own ability to have any faith or democratic legitimates
something in their input into who governs the state and
what that's going to look like.

Speaker 4 (12:24):
Yeah, no, that's true.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
And I mean listen, Israel backed some of these groups
and armed some of these groups. They were accused and
alleged to based on reporting, to have commandeered some of
the AID trucks, and so listen, I'm not condoning. Is
anyone surprised that Hamas is taking out and executing not
just there were people who were actively glaboring with Israelis.

(12:47):
The Israelis admit some of this, and part of what
the Israelis did in backing these groups internally is helped
to set up the conditions for potential civil strife, civil war,
societal breakdown. So so, yeah, of course it's very volatile.
Halmas is trying to reassort control. They're trying to reassert
some sort of you know, in a a certain sense

(13:09):
like a vigilante justice, but some sort of brutal law
and order here in the absence of you know, every
civil society institution has been destroyed, like there's no courts,
the police, the you know, the government police security services
were targeted by Israel because they were quote unquote Humas. Well, Yeah,
of course the government is Amas. Every government worker is
technically Hamas. And those were some of the people who

(13:31):
were targeted early on, which again creates more of an
atmosphere of lawlessness and chaos. So obviously very very volatile,
in dangerous situation.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
And then that's really what we want to stick with,
is because we just don't know really what's happening.

Speaker 1 (13:45):
Let's put a six for example, up on the screen.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
We can just show you you have some of these
anti Hamas gods and militias. Now they're claiming we control
numerous parts of northern Gaza. Do not approach our areas
of control. I just you know, for those of us
who lived through the war in Iraq, this is what
it was like. Every single day you had different parts
of Baghdad where you would have some Shia militia put

(14:11):
out videos I mean basically just lesser qualities shot on
a handicam that looked exactly like that, which would get
released on the early Internet, and you'd be like, Okay,
this neighborhood is controlled by these dudes.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
Syria was very similar. Covering that civil war.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
You had not even just provinces like areas within provinces,
areas within a leppo, where it's like, oh, they control this,
they control that, and these guys would be at war
all the time. Qatar and Saudi would back one person,
the Turks would back another.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
The Syrian government was involved.

Speaker 3 (14:39):
That's what causes the death, the chaos really to come.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
And that's what I worry about really the most.

Speaker 3 (14:46):
And then you have, in a similar way to the
Syrians or you know, Americans or whatever, in Iraq you
have this kind of overarching nemesis as well, where you
also have the Israelis which are involved here. So for examples,
put this up here on the screen. You had Al
Jazeera reporting yesterday that is reelly tanks were firing at
palest Indians in some towns which I'm still not exactly clear.

(15:08):
They claim for most of these firings they had crossed
with the yellow line, like into their line of control.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
They claimed that they were approaching the yellow line, approaching.

Speaker 3 (15:19):
So it's like, well, then you also are still in
the imprisonment effectively of these people are at the total mercy.
And that's the same circumstance which led to October seventh,
which led to Hamas, which led to.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
A lot of the support right for some of these parties.

Speaker 3 (15:36):
If we think to I forget the exact name of it,
but October was it In twenty twenty one there was
that nonviolent march to the Great March of Return to
the Fence where you had snipers and other people who
were killed.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
So it's like, if this.

Speaker 3 (15:49):
Is going to be the status quo of some sort
of militarized buffer zone where you get shot for even approaching,
and then you also have literal lawlessness in the streets. Yes,
you have aid trucks and all of that, but there's
going to be wars and things that break out over that.
So some of the some of the worst parts of
the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war
in Syria, any lawless place Sobalia Sudan, you're going to

(16:12):
see replicate. And that is when things can actually get
even more insane, possibly than where we are right now,
because that leads to a widespread called a violence, a
political vacuum, and you have no idea what can possibly
come out of that. Well, you know that's nobody predicted
or very few predicted in three that we would give

(16:33):
rise to al Qaeda's greatest dream, and eventually isis the
retaking of Mosul in a twenty year US occupation or
US experiment in Iraq, same with Afghanistan. I'm just watching
the ingredients all here, and you know, unfortunately it does
take a genius to figure any of this stuff out.
You said it from day one, but that's just not
what the Israelis are ever interested in doing. And I

(16:53):
can't fall away from this. The whole point was to
destroy Hamas, and now the war is over according to
the Americans, and Hamas has retaken control of Goazda. So
what does that tell you about the prospect of the war,
the point of the war.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
And do you think that BB is just going to
allow that to occur? No, and be okay with Hama's
reasserting control over the Gaza Strip. I mean, because the
only parts of this deal, you know, Trump likes to
frame it as a peace plan and likes to talk
up all the twenty points or twenty two points or
whatever that it is. The only pieces that were actually
agreed to was this very initial phase of the hostage return,

(17:27):
the withdrawal from a portion of the Gaza Strip, the
reopening of the rawa crossing, the increase in the aid
that is searched into the strip. Beyond that, none of
the underlying issues that led to October seventh, that have
led to endless conflict, you know, none of that has

(17:47):
been resolved, and very hard to see how they're going
to be able to come to terms on these later stages.
It would again basically just require Trump forcing the Israelis
into it and you know, being willing to withhold arms
and withhold aid and like actually going to the mat
to force some terms on them that they are not

(18:08):
going to particularly like. That is what it would take.
But none of those underlying issues have been resolved at
this point. I wanted to were referring to the Yellow
Line and what is Israel doing with regard to this,
so Israel's President Israel Kat said, the IDF operates in
accordance with directives and enforces a clear policy of preparedness
along the Yellow Line, which includes over fifty percent of

(18:31):
Gaza's territory, which important reminder that IDF still occupies fifty
percent of the Gaza Strip. The enforcement policy is unequivocal
for every violation and immediate response. Yesterday, terrorists who attempted
to approach and cross were thwarted, and so it will
be in the future as well. So that is his
explanation for why they're continuing to fire on and kill

(18:54):
Palestinians is because they were approaching the yellow line and
that they're in a state of constantquoe unquote preparedness. So
and Ryan tweeted this and said, Israel's redefinition of the
word ceasefire to allow for them to fire at will
it people they claim to believe might have been approaching
a yellow line as one of their more sordid contributions
to the world.

Speaker 4 (19:13):
Whilst that is always from Brian there.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Yeah, I think it is an important point. So there's
a couple of views of the future. There's mass civil war,
there's coalitional authority, some sort of nightmarish, you know, attempt
to try to govern this. There's also the status quo
itself was a nightmare for the Gossen people that we
have to remember, the so called mowing the lawn strategy.

(19:35):
So there's that on top of a collapse of their
entire civil society. So I have just no idea where
things are going to go for them and for their
own ability to find some sort of political solution to whatever,
like the ability to live in peace, and you can't
do that I'm under bombardment. You can't do it in
a civil war either, And in the interim, it just

(19:57):
seems like all of that is incredibly likely. The international
community they just want to hit the pressure release valve
and say the hostage and all that is over, and
they've just never understood. It's like, for them, there has
been a perpetual state of conflict since occupation itself, in
particular since two thousand and five, and you know the
blockade and all that beginning, and what fifty percent of
their population is very young, so think about the formative

(20:19):
years for them, about their even frankly, like, how can
you have faith in a democratic process at all when
the only time you had an election, the election was
deemed illegitimate by the authorities and the powers that be
from Israel and from the United States. So I don't
know where things go. I just don't think it's going
to be good. And in profession, Meerscheimer's words are very very.

Speaker 4 (20:40):
He's been right about a lot.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
So he's been right about ever.

Speaker 4 (20:43):
Yeah, that's why we.

Speaker 3 (20:45):
Just say he's always right about everything, for all of
his critics and everything, they just you know, they try
to point to one or two things. But like, listen,
the guy who wrote thisere like you predicted and called
all of this is called Ukraine, called Russia, all of it. Yeah,
why don't we get to a pack.

Speaker 4 (21:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
So some extraordinary political moments on the Democratic side of
the aisle where two big potential twenty twenty eight contenders
were asked specifically about a pack in particular, and with
Corey Booker support for Israel in general, and just completely
crashed into the rocks for both of them.

Speaker 4 (21:20):
So let's start with Gavin Newsom.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Here he went on the podcast of a guy named
Van Latham and gets asked about a pack, and his
answer is pretty unbelievable.

Speaker 4 (21:29):
Let's take a look. I will not vote for a
candidate that takes one dollar from APE.

Speaker 6 (21:33):
It's interested, I mean, it's it's interesting. I even thought
about APAC and it's interesting. You're like the first to
bring up APAC in yours, which is interesting. Why did
I say that? Not relevant to my day to day life?

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Okay, which is just interesting.

Speaker 6 (21:49):
Listen, it's interesting you say that Jpack perhaps more, but
APAC less and less okay, Brenda, which is just interesting.
What's interesting about it that it's just interesting as you
bring up a pack that it hasn't been part of
I'm just reflecting quite openly and honestly hasn't been part
of the day to day.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
If you're just listening to that, you're it's extraordinary. But
if you watch it, it's even more because he's like
wiggling and squirming in a seat like a little kid,
keeps just repeating the word interesting, which Sager I think
his initial like I think when he said it's interesting,
his first instinct was to insinuate, like this is low
key anti semitic that you're asking me about a pack

(22:27):
when I'm the governor in Calfol, Like, what do I
care about?

Speaker 4 (22:29):
I haven't even thought about.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
A pac It was also giving a little bit remember
when David Pacman was like is it pronounced eight?

Speaker 4 (22:35):
Is it ipack? Is it eight? I've never heard of this.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
It's like, dude, you are clearly setting yourself up for
a run for president in twenty twenty. You've wanted to
be president your entire life. Apak is one of the
biggest spenders in elections, and you want me to believe.
I haven't even thought about that. I haven't thought about
them in years. I have no idea, and you cannot
bring yourself to just say, hey, you know what a

(22:58):
group that's in favor of a GENII, Maybe I don't
really want their support. He is such a donor creation
that he just cannot say anything other than this is interesting,
it's interesting. Haven't thought about them. I don't know, talk
about like brain melt in real time.

Speaker 3 (23:13):
I am extremely disappointed at it, and I take it personally.
I trusted his political judgment much more than that, to
be honest. I mean, I thought he's done quite well
in general with the social media campaign in general, you know,
like standing up for true I'm talking about purely in
a lens of democratic politics. He's a smooth talker. He

(23:33):
seemed to me like a coalitional manager. That just is
a sheer sell in terms of political talent, because it's like, dude,
you're either pretending and you're not doing a very good
job of it, or you're actually unaware of APAK and
the controversy that's online. Both of those are frankly disqualifying
in terms of just sheer political talent. I could give
you a better answer from a democratic perspective right now,

(23:55):
which is kind of what Corey Booker tried to do,
which we'll get to in a little bit, which is
I don't take corporate pack money, and I don't want
anybody's money who's trying to push a particular agenda next question, right,
and that's it.

Speaker 7 (24:04):
That's that's all it takes. But instead getting some does
want to controversial money. I mean, that's the problem.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
I know, but I mean there's as you know, when
Slatkin was here and she's like, well, I don't take money.
It's like, well, you took money from their bumbler, so
you did kind of take money. But there's a way
to rhetorically figure your way out of it. And look,
no disrespect to Van, by the way, I did talk
to him. I am a huge fan of the Rewatchables
and the Ringer guys over there, and so it's great
to have his support. He apparently watches the show quite
a bit, which is very cool. But my point, just

(24:32):
more broadly is that for him Van, for example, coming in,
there's been like I won't take money from someone with APEC.
I don't think it's that hard to I don't think
it's that hard to square. Like, it's just one of
those where you're right, I don't. I don't want special
interest support if you're any and I would say that
about anybody, and then I would go into a tangent
about some big business area which he's comfortable with, right,
and then just.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
Go in that direction.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
You know, what would be a good pivot to try
to pull off? And if you have a dog at
an interview where there's no good answer for him, right,
But you know, if you wanted to try to pull
off a pivot, you would say something like, you know,
I'm really concerned about money and politics in general, per
influence of all sorts of whether it's you know, a
pack or J pack or the corporate lobby or you know,

(25:15):
like big pharma. I am so concerned about the way
our democracy has been taken over by big money. Supreme
Court decision coming up, Trump is bad? Next question, right,
And like I said, if you have a dog at interview,
interview where they're obviously going to price you, okay, but
what specific what about APAC specifically? Like have you taken
money for them? Will you take money from them in
the future? And then he just has to make a

(25:36):
choice like, are you going to say no and be
aligned with where the base is at this point and
where not just the face.

Speaker 4 (25:43):
By the way, this has become.

Speaker 2 (25:44):
A very like mainstream concern with a pack as a
catch all for the incredible influence of Israel on our politics.
So are you going to align yourself with them? Or
are you going to keep on the table the possibility
of getting apax millions of dollars and you just are
going to have to make that decision when you look

(26:05):
really terrible, is when you're trying very obviously trying to
have it both ways.

Speaker 4 (26:11):
With Gavin, you know, so much of.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
His political career and his success, ohs not just you look,
he does have political skill and talent, there's no denying that,
but also his ability to raise vast amounts of money
from in particular the California big Democratic donor class that's
primarily Stilicon Valley. It's also Hollywood, you know, Even putting
a pack aside, there are many people in both of

(26:33):
those donor worlds who are very interested in you know,
who are committed Zionists, who are going to want to
hear you say the right things on that issue from
their perspective. So he's not just thinking about, Okay, am
I going to lose a pack support and have them
back some other candidate who's in the race, But am
I also going to piss off a bunch of people
that I'm friends with, that I've relied on for support,

(26:54):
who've given me millions and millions of dollars over the
course of my career. And that's why his brain just
sort of melts. He can't say anything.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Now.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
I am shocked. I am a little surprised that his
answer was this bad yeah, right, exactly because he went
on with this this like gamer streamer. I'm sorry, I
forget his name, but in any case, I watch it,
and he got asked some questions about Israel and generally like.

Speaker 4 (27:13):
To state one state, what do you think?

Speaker 2 (27:15):
And he did fine, like he clearly anticipated those questions
would be there. He said things that were not going
to kill them politically.

Speaker 4 (27:23):
It was fine.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
And so to me, is such a sign of how
incredibly out of touch these guys are with their own voters,
with the base of their own party. They still think
because they look at the polling and it'll you know,
people will say, this isn't their number one issue.

Speaker 4 (27:40):
They do not get the way.

Speaker 2 (27:42):
That it is serving as a litmus test for character,
as test.

Speaker 4 (27:45):
For basic morality and.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
Character also control.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
I think it's actually absolutely I think independence right, so
absolutely for me, that's really what it's mean. Yeah, bro,
if he can't say that age nine, like, it's like
you're not you are not a original thing. I guess
I should never have thought that from Gavin, And that's
more my mistake, but I always thought that he had
the ability, the political ability to chart a different direction,
another easy way to thread the needle to say, don't

(28:10):
nobody controls me, no matter what right. You could just
go off man, talk about all the independent times you've
bucked big money interests in the in California, which I mean,
you probably can't find a ton of examples, but I'm.

Speaker 4 (28:21):
Sure she could come up with five or six or.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
Whatever off the top of his head. I did look
up Jpack.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
It's like the Jewish Political Action Committee of California, so
that's what he was referencing. But it's like, look, you
know what a Pack is. You also a really talented
political person. If I think back to Bill Clinton, one
of his best moments in the nineteen ninety two presidential debates.
You can go watch this on YouTube if you're interested.
Is a woman asked him about the national debt. But

(28:48):
Clinton is smart. He's like, this lady doesn't care about
the national debt. She's asking about the economy in general.
She's just a voter. I'm not blaming her. So he
takes it and he goes, you're concerned about the national debt.
He starts talking about He starts rantic trickle down economics
and people who lose their.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
Jobs to factories and everything.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
It was one of his best moments because you took
the question, but you answered it in a way that
got to the heart of what she was trying to say.
And what Van I think is trying to say is
I'm not taking money. I don't want to. He's like,
I will not vote for a person who to me
appears controlled by the Israel Lobby, because that, to me
is about independence. I'm outraged about what's happening in Gaza.
I don't know why. That is a very difficult needle

(29:26):
to thread. And so the fact that Gavin is not
either online aware or whatever enough, or that the lobby
is so powerful he thinks that they're necessary for his election.
It's honestly mystifying to me for any prevailing politician. I
think even Bootage Edge has given better answers about that.
I'm not saying he's given a good answer to okay,
but his first interview with pod was a disaster. But

(29:48):
did you notice with Andrew Callahan there wasn't a single
viral clip that came out of that one, Like, I mean, look,
maybe that's Andreid by his own admission, he didn't press
him that hard or whatever on the Israel question, but
he tightened it up enough to where it go viral
for a moment like that. Yes, And I mean, look,
Gavin is a talented guy, so I'm not going to
count him out just yet. You know that it eats

(30:08):
his soul that something like this does go for You
never want to go viral for a bad answer. So
maybe you'll come up with a better answer and he
might be able to thread the needle. But the fact
is is that if you're most talented people in the party,
your stars and this is where they're at.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Man, we got a lot of work to do.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Like if you're if you're in the if you're in
the echelon, like you got a lot of work to do.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Let me go ahead and play the Corey Booker with
my with My Girls, the ladies over it that I've
had it podcast. Because part of the problem for these
like you know, slimy career politicians is they want to
like word solid like rhetoric their way out of it,
when people really just want a very simple yes or no,
like am I going to take money for Are you
going to take money from a back yes or no?

(30:50):
Like there's no rhetorical flourishing your way out of it.
At the end of the day, you either are or
you aren't. And so she asked Corey Booker, is your call?
He did that photo op with Benjamin Yaho was like
trying to hide behind people remember that picture that came
out of it, And so she asked them, just fat, okay,
is he a war criminal or not? Let's take a
listen to how Corey responds.

Speaker 8 (31:11):
One of the things I dislike about the Democratic Party
is that we do a circular firing squad all the
time their party they disagree. There's a wild disagreements in
the Republican tent, and yet they don't shoot at each other.
And we have a really good way of holding up
these purity tests that if I agree with you.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
On night, that's such a bullshit.

Speaker 8 (31:26):
That is bullshit.

Speaker 9 (31:28):
They fired each other all the time. Trump has sent
so many people out to pasture, so many people that
he calls rhinos. Liz Cheney can tell you that they
have the firing squad as well. It's not a purity test,
it's are we in this fight? And are we being
behold into corporations and corporate interests where we really the
party of the working class.

Speaker 8 (31:48):
I'm one of a handful of people that don't take
corporate pac money. I don't understand my Democrats.

Speaker 4 (31:52):
What about a PAC many?

Speaker 9 (31:54):
You take APEC many.

Speaker 8 (31:55):
Don't you a minuscule percentage of my resources come up?

Speaker 9 (31:58):
It's like eight hundred thousand.

Speaker 8 (32:00):
Yeah, but that's a lifetime number of raising ten millions.

Speaker 9 (32:03):
The Democratic base feels like there is a disconnect. We
hear you, Like when you do your twenty five hour speech,
I was like, go, Corey, I love this. That is amazing.
And then there's a photo shoot with you with Benjamin
Nett Yahoo, and I was just like, what in the
actual fuck, Like, how can he do that? It was heartbreaking.
I felt betrayed and that is that hang on, and

(32:25):
that doesn't just happen in an echo chamber. Democrats like
you where the base. We should make each other better.
It's not a purity test. We want credible messengers because
when we are down the middle, beholden to corporate interests,
we leave this vacuum. And that's how fascism has flourished.
For myself and a lot of our listeners. When I

(32:46):
saw the picture with Benjamin Nett, Yahoo, I felt like
it diminished your twenty five hours. That's how it felt
to me. Do you think he's a war criminal? Benjamin Nett, Yaho?
Do you think he's a war criminal?

Speaker 8 (32:58):
I again, these are questions that a lot of people
think are the important liness tests that are loaded and hot.
My urgency is to be an effective leader in bringing
an end to this crisis, and I get these questions
all the time that to me undermine my urgency.

Speaker 9 (33:17):
I think the thing that democrats get so frustrated with
where we are right now, where you see like those
zoron Mom Donnie's and the Grand Platiners rise up because
you can they can go on podcasting. You can say,
do you think Benjamin Nette know who's a war criminal?
And they just say yes, and that's the end of it.
It's not all of the rhetoric answering. It's like what

(33:38):
happens to democratic politicians. They go through this prism and
then we can't ever get like the answer to yes
or no conversations like Bernie. And that's the frustration.

Speaker 8 (33:49):
For the Trump Yes do. I think that we right
now in America should be doing everything possible to bring peace,
not just to that crisis, but to the ones that
shock me that no one talks about. And I hope
and I don't know if you guys have or not.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
And I think what Jennifer hits on there with like,
listen our frustration, why can't you just say yes or no?
Like all of this Oh it's you know, trying to
talk your way out of it or talk your way
around it, like it's a yes or no question.

Speaker 4 (34:17):
Is he a war criminal? And frankly, I'm actually.

Speaker 2 (34:21):
A little surprised that he couldn't even say that, because
what a lot of liberals do is they will try
to do like, oh, Israel's great and amazing, there's no problems.
It's just net Yahoo, He's the problem, and try to
because at this point it's undeniable, like the war crimes,
the Horde, the genus, all of that is like undeniable.
So the best bet for a lot of liberal Zionists

(34:43):
is now to say, yeah, but I really hate net
Yahoo and yeah, he's the real problem. So it is
actually a little bit surprising that Corey Booker can't even
do that. I agree, Yeah, I mean I found that extraordinary,
and I think he's surprised by it too.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
The whole thing is shocking by the way Corey Booker
in twenty twenty two sponsored a war crimes just being
bought against Putin in case anybody's wondering he knows what
a war crime is. He also, look, if that's the
liberal framework that you believe in, this is always what
screwed to the pro Israel liberals is because they're happy
to call for regime change in Putin and Russia war crimes,
but with Israel.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
They're like, oh, it's complicated. The ICJ is so biased, right,
that's what he's like, he said, yeah, he said that singles.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
Out, And then he also tried to do the whole like, well,
why don't you care about these other conflicts? Why don't
you care about these other things. So he used all
of the Dodger.

Speaker 3 (35:32):
Because we're not funding all of them. Dude, that's just
people just bullshit.

Speaker 2 (35:35):
People just see right through it, and I'm so sick
of you don't want to. Tucker's best moments was when
he called out Ted Cruz for insinuating He was an
answer like, I am so sick of all of these
like little passive aggressive ways of insinuating someone's an anti
semit Fucking come out and say it. You know what,
if you think it's antisemitic that she cares about Israel,
just fucking say it. Don't be such a weasel, such

(35:58):
a worm. I'm so sick of that.

Speaker 1 (36:00):
I agree.

Speaker 3 (36:00):
I couldn't. I couldn't agree with you more. I think, Look,
with Corey, Corey's not actually counted. That's my thing is
so I expect this from him.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
It's still Gavin.

Speaker 3 (36:08):
I'm stuck on where I'm like, dude, Like, look, Corey
is a discount Obama from the day he came to office.
He's always been trying to do the affect. He's always
trying to go via for his veganism or whatever. You know,
It's just it's it's cringe. He's been cringe from day one.
He's obviously controlled by the big money guys in New Jersey.
So this isn't all that shocking. I guess what's more

(36:29):
shocking why he agreed to go on the podcast and
why he was so shocked. You know that he was
getting pressed on Israel, which it's like, how about you
pay attention. But that's one thing that a lot of
people underestimate is that these politicians, you don't get to
this position from nothing. You are a egomaniacal narcissist to
a degree that the average person has never interacted with

(36:49):
like this type of political this type of personality profile
is extremely rare, and they gravitate to Washington for a reason.
So yeah, he has supreme confidence in his ability to
school her or any of that. But I think what
he is not able to deal with is it would
almost respect him more if you'd be like, look, I'm
pro Israel for this and this reason, and he could,

(37:10):
if you could articulate a case, it would be respectable.
But for me, it's all of the split, the different stuff,
which is just mealy mouthed. It's weasley. It just seems
like you're trying to have it both ways. You see
that with Gavin, you see it with Corey. It's just
a sheer lack of political talent. And I think what
these guys underestimate. To your point about the polls, no

(37:31):
one says it's the number one issue, but it's a
proxy for are you independent, controlled? Are you going to
say what you actually think? And if you can't say it,
then get out of here. It reminds me, you know,
at the time Trump twenty sixteen, radical Islamic terrorism, You
remember this and Hillary just wouldn't say it. It's like,
why won't you say it? She just was like, I
prefer radical Jahadism. And everyone's like, heyah, you just it's

(37:55):
like for everybody else, for people who were concerned about
it or anything, they're like you, you seem more a
concern with political correctness than you do about keeping us safe.

Speaker 1 (38:05):
That's why it was an issue. Right.

Speaker 3 (38:06):
You can object to the term or whatever that intellectually,
but politically that's what it was about. This is like
that on steroids, because this is active hot war where
you actively are taking money and you're actually participating and
sending bombs to fund it. That is just look beyond
even just morality again, for most people, especially a lot

(38:26):
of young people who are out there.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
I presume that's what Newsom wants.

Speaker 3 (38:30):
That's why he's in his jeans and his shirt and
all that on the higher learning pod is he's trying
to reach these younger audiences. This is hot, like you
just can't get away from it. Look, by the way,
this is a right left phenomenon. There's this TPUSA thing
going on right now where Glenn Beck and Megan Kelly
and all these people are out there. Glenn Beck is

(38:50):
torturing himself over Israel. Every single event. They're like, okay,
you know, give Charlie is due. It was actually not
much better at it. And part of the reason why
he had the focus groups and he had much more
workshop dnswers. You could see all the text messages and
things that have come out. What's he working through. He's like,
I don't know how to deal with all of this
stuff that's bubbling up on campuses. So you're seeing this

(39:12):
happen at every level. And if you can't just say
the truth, you're done in my opinion. So you know,
left liberals, you guys, you deserve everything that's coming to you.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
You deserve your tea.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
Party moment because you again not Corey but Gavin Pete.
You were talented enough, you had the ability, but you
tried to split the difference.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
And somebody's going to beat your ass.

Speaker 3 (39:33):
Who is has believes in a whole other type of
stuff simply because they're just going to seem like they're real.

Speaker 1 (39:39):
That's it.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
Hary Booker is particularly offensive to me, as you guys
know if you my monologue about him, because he postures
like he's the civil rights hero, moral crusader. Yeah, and
he wants to have basically the positions of John Fetterman
on Israel and still wear the mask of some progressive
humanitarian icon. And this is very binary, like the rubber

(40:01):
has met the roape, and you are either going to
be a humanitarian who cares about innocent women and children
getting murdered with our tax dollars, or you're not.

Speaker 4 (40:11):
And you are complete fraud and phony.

Speaker 2 (40:13):
And I think we all, you know, we all know
what he is really going on there.

Speaker 4 (40:17):
I mean, this is a.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
Guy who bragged about like being text message besties with
the head of Aback, Like this is who he is.
He was super super close Rabbi Shmuli for years and
years and years. They did ultimately have a fallout over
apparently like they were I don't know, she mule ended
up being too self promotional, even for Corey Bugger, which
is an extraordinary thing. You go back and look at

(40:39):
all the details of how that all went down. But
you know, this, this is who he is, and a
part of that is this is this is going back.
I don't know if you guys remember in Obama twenty twelve,
Corey Booker came out and he was a spokesperson, like
a major spokesperson for Obama's campaign and was so upset
about Obama going after private equity and said that publicly,

(41:00):
and it was a whole thing. I mean, that's where
his bread is buttered. Like he represents New Jersey. He
gets all his money from a bunch of like you know,
finance guys, Wall Street, those types. There are a number
of those donors who are also very interested in this issue,
and you know, and he wants the APAC money whatever,
and so that's who he is. So I think there's
this is going to this trend of liberals trying to

(41:23):
posture like their progresses, trying to posture like their humanitarians,
I think, and getting exposed is going to continue because
in a certain sense, again with a dog and enough interviewer,
there is no good answer here. Now he could have
said on the war criminal thing, he could have said
something like, well, he's indicted by the ICC, and you know,
I believe in international law and so I'm gonna watch

(41:44):
but they.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
Don't they do it.

Speaker 4 (41:46):
But like that's you. You would have to do something
like that.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
But I don't think that's going to be totally really
satisfying to people at this point either. They just it's
refreshing when you hear a grand Platner or Zoran Mom
Donnie just be able to say, yes, he's a war criminal,
Yes he should be indicted. Yes it should be in
the hag, like that is what people actually want to hear.
And if you aren't prepared to say that, then just
just do the fetterment.

Speaker 4 (42:09):
Just be John Fetterman.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
You know there's like you are not going to make
anyone happy with this attempted middle ground bulsheon.

Speaker 3 (42:14):
And you can actually split the difference too, because then
you get the accusation of like why are you obsessed
with Israel?

Speaker 1 (42:20):
Actually, Zoron is the best of this.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
He did his interview yesterday with Fox News, and she
kept He's so good.

Speaker 8 (42:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:26):
She kept pressing and being like, should Hummas disarm? And
he's like, I think New York City should have less cost.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
And it was like, I don't have an opinion of it.
He's like, I don't do have an opinion on afford
Bill exactly.

Speaker 3 (42:35):
I was like, wow, ahead, Look, I mean, I got
a lot of beef with Zorn, mister Zorn, but I'm like,
I respect talent where I see it, man, and like
for that.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Why why?

Speaker 3 (42:46):
Why is that even a refreshing answer to be able
to see something like that from Corey, from Gavin, all
these guys.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (42:52):
I just get the feeling again to the proxy of control.
It's like, dude, if you're going to say that, that
means you're never even going to wink in my direction
to anything that I particularly care about.

Speaker 1 (43:02):
And this is for anybody. It's about being controlled.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
And that's part of the probably you know, if you
look at some of the gen Z, and some of
the gen Z like disillusionment with Trump in particular with
men Israel's a huge I mean, I don't think people
are grappling with that. Like from TikTok to the general
feeling of like, I feel betrayed because one of the
reasons that a lot of gen Z guys even supported

(43:26):
Trump is like he tells it like it is right.
I'm sick of these liberal They seem like they're controlled
by these big groups and all they care about is
some woke bullshit. And Trump is offensive, but that's good
because it means he's authentic. But then when you start,
you know, pulling the chair out for baby and rolling
out the red carpet and giving them everything they want,
that's that's the rubber meet the road issue. And they're like, yeah, man,

(43:48):
I'm sick of this, right, And so that's why I
think this is such a potent thing.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
It's not number one.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
I never would claim that it is number one, but
it's a gateway drug if you will, to this person
is independent and yeah, I mean right now, they're just
giving it away to the Platiners and the Zorns and
to everybody else. And I don't know, in a way,
I don't feel bad for.

Speaker 1 (44:07):
Them at all.

Speaker 3 (44:07):
I'm like, you, you deserve everything that's coming to you.
You deserve to get beat out in the election or
lose a primary or look foolish on the internet, because
this is a political talent question, and these people are
purely cynical.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
They don't care about anything.

Speaker 3 (44:20):
So it's just obvious that they don't have what it takes,
at least right now from what my perspective.

Speaker 1 (44:26):
Indeed, yeah, all right, do you have anything else on
this real thing?

Speaker 4 (44:29):
We have a couple. Let's move it on to China.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
Okay, let's go to China.

Speaker 3 (44:35):
Yeah, I'm a huge story, really huge story come out
of China. There's been all of these swings in the
trade war. So for example, you guys covered with Emily,
Trump announces a one tariff on China in retaliation for
rare earth minerals being cut off. The Chinese are holding
incredibly firm, and the administration is now taking a very

(44:57):
different tone saying, actually, we are in sustained trade war
now with China.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Let's take a listen to Trump yesterday in the Leival Office,
and you're meeting with President she in a few weeks.

Speaker 3 (45:06):
If you can't come to an agreement or a deal
at that meeting, are we in for a sustained trade
war with China?

Speaker 2 (45:13):
Well, you're in one now.

Speaker 6 (45:14):
Look, we have one hundred percent tariff. If we didn't
have tariffs, we would be exposed as being a nothing.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
We would have no defense.

Speaker 3 (45:25):
We're in one now, so he's declaring the trade war.
This actually needs to pair with these comments from Secretary
Scott Bessett, who is ripping the Chinese negotiators taking a
very very hard line despite some of the things going
on behind the scenes.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
We'll tell you about in a bit, but let's take
a listen to that first.

Speaker 10 (45:39):
What happened from your point of view, because I thought
talks were going well, lines of communication were open, and
then we learned about this rare earth mineral restriction from China,
and now it's back and forth and things are heating
up again.

Speaker 11 (45:53):
They are, and that the Chinese are trying to backfill
the narrative, you know, saying, well, the the US did A,
B and C, therefore we had to do D and
that's not true. Is that there was a lower level
trade person who was slightly unhinged here in August I

(46:15):
think his name is Lee Kwongong and threatening saying that
China would unleash chaos on the global system if the
US went ahead with our docking fees for Chinese ships,
and this is clearly something that they were planning all along.

(46:36):
I think that things can de escalate that we don't
want to have to escalate.

Speaker 8 (46:43):
We have things that.

Speaker 11 (46:44):
Are more powerful than the rarer export controls that the
Chinese wanted to put on. And so to be clear,
this is China versus the world. It's not a US
China problem. Good news is that this is IMF. We
a lot of my counterpart or all my counterparts are here.
We're going to be speaking with our European allies, with Australia,

(47:08):
with Canada, with India and the Asian democracies, and we're
going to have a fulsome group response to this because
bureaucrats in China cannot manage the supply chain or the
manufacturing process for the rest.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
Of the world.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
So he frames it as China against the world. However,
big news actually just out this morning from New Delhi.
The Finance Minister of India is actually skipping this year's
annual meeting of the World Bank and of the IMF
over unresolved differences on trade and the Indian purchases of
Russian oil. By the way, Trump did say yesterday Modi
told him he would stop buying Russian oil has yet
to be confirmed by New Delhi, so I'll let you

(47:48):
decide whether that one's true or not. Right, And I
did check the overnights coming out from there, But the
point remains China's holding firm. They're like, no, do it,
then do it? The reason why it's kind of amazing.
I've been reading into their strategy. Let's put this up
here on the screen from the Wall Street Journal, who
obviously got this from the CCP itself. It's from their

(48:10):
Beijing bureau. They say, China, betting it can win a
trade war, is playing hardball with Trump. I just want
to read this to all of you just to show
the incredibly weak position that we are in. Shishingping is
betting the US economy cannot absorb a prolonged trade conflict
with the world's second largest economy. China is holding a
firm line because it's conviction that an escalating trade war

(48:30):
will tank markets, as it did in April after Trump
announced Liberation Day, prompting Beijing to hit back. China expects
the prospect of another market meltdown will ultimately force Trump
to negotiate, and an expected summit with SI later this
month Beijing continues to play hardball this month, escalating the
trade fight by Monday sanctioning US units of South Korean shipping.

(48:52):
The move whipsawd US markets on Tuesday, triggering a sharp
early selloff as hopes for easing tensions and fit before
markets partially rebounded and steadied in the afternoon as it
looked again as if negotiations were going to happen. Beijing
is imposing restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals,
which is vital to the consumer electronics and tech industry. Now,

(49:14):
if you want to know how America is going to
hit back at China for rare earth minerals, literally, one
of the most critical things that we have. Let's go
ahead and put C five on the screen just to
see what the cards that we're holding.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
This is from Trump.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
I believe China purposefully not buying our soybeans and causing
difficulty for our soybean farmers is an economically hostile act.
We are considering terminating business with China having to do
with cooking oil and other elements.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
Of trade as retribution as substitutes for that.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
As an example, we can easily produce cooking oil ourselves.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
We don't need to purchase it from China.

Speaker 4 (49:52):
Oh okay, so devastating blow.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
China's got us on rare earth minerals, which we need
to power tsumer electronics, iPhones, everything, rare earth minerals, ivy
bat whatever, you know, so many different things.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
We're like, yeah, but we won't buy your cooking oil.
Not great, it's not great.

Speaker 7 (50:12):
Okay, so yeah it's not good. Okay, I'll just put
it that way. In terms of it, like so much smart.

Speaker 4 (50:19):
I mean they planned.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
We when Emily and I cover this, we're talking about
our nose thread where he was talking about like one
of the vulnerabilities China actually had was on helium, which
is like something you wouldn't necessarily think of, but they're
very dependent on us for helium, and so over years
they were like, we're going to make sure we're not
dependent on them for helium so that if push comes
to shove, we can take some actions like you know,
we're not going to send you rare earth minerals anymore,

(50:43):
and they will have limited ways that they can retally,
so they did all that planning in advance. Meanwhile, Besson's
comments about like oh, it's the world versus China. You
have picked a fight with the entire freaking world. I mean,
this is something you and I have been saying since
Liberation Day. If you actually want to China, then you
have to isolate China.

Speaker 4 (51:02):
You have to have friendly relations with the rest of
We have to.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Give them reasons that we want to be on your
side and not looking for a reason to actually side
with China.

Speaker 4 (51:11):
And so you see the fallout with India.

Speaker 2 (51:12):
We've been you know, extraordinarily like provocative and irritating towards
them and really screwed up that relationship. So yeah, we're
not in a great not in a great position here.
And I think the smart money is on you know,
Trump Taco, because the Chinese are absolutely right, Our entire
economy is just a bet on Ai and China can
screw that up like they can pop the bubble. So

(51:35):
you know, I think they're intelligent enough to realize that
Trump lives and dies by what the stock market is doing.
So you know, when they're able to genuinely threaten the
performance of the market in a way that really stings, Yeah,
he's going to back down.

Speaker 4 (51:50):
I think that's a good bet.

Speaker 1 (51:51):
The S and P's near an all time high.

Speaker 3 (51:52):
If you see even a ten percent correction, it's going
to be big problems for Trump because that is floating
the whole economy. And if you start to see stops
in our credit markets, which is fueling all this AI stuff,
good luck, because then, you know, what do we talk
about here All the time we talk about AI. It's
literally covering up an actual recession. Without them, we're dead.

(52:13):
We have a recession in almost every other industry. We
have problems with employment, we have problems with consumer demand.
We have the bifurcated economy of the rich and the poor.
If you see the contraction of again, even ten percent,
that's going to cause fear in the top ten percent
of consumers.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
They will cut back, which means.

Speaker 3 (52:30):
That's fifty percent of all consumer spending, which will take
a hit. By the way, it's October, We're going into
November and December, which is when the vast majority of
retail sales happen in a very short period of time
during the Christmas season. That also factors into travel. Everything
you know, can go on forever. And so the point
just broadly, with the China tariffs and with the war
of where we are right now, is they know exactly

(52:51):
who we are.

Speaker 1 (52:52):
They know who we are, and.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
The problem is that we created the situation in like
multiple different ways. So for example, we'd blew our wad
entirely in sanctioning Russia, and we showed that even with
the full force of United States sanctions against you, that
as long as you have enough material, enough weapons and
war and some sovereignty and some few allies like China
and India, not only can you survive, your GDP can grow.

(53:16):
China is what orders of magnitude twenty fifty, one hundred
times more powerful than Russia.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
So for them, they're like, yeah, it'll hurt for sure.

Speaker 3 (53:25):
But as I told everybody in the original parts of
the trade deal, they have functioning government. So when they
knew that Chinese Chinese producers were going to have a
hit to their sales as a result of tariffs, what
did they do. They created an immediate slush mound. They
don't need Congress or Christen Cinema or whatever. They created

(53:46):
an immediate slush fund, and they gave it to producers
and said here is a way for you to tide over.
Then they forced the amazons of China to say, you guys,
are all going to massively discount made in China into
products to make sure that production doesn't die on the
Chinese side, and of course they survived by the way. Meantime,

(54:07):
they have thousands of bureaucrats intimately studying and these aren't
just our bureaucrats. These are people who are actually highly
educated to the technocratic engineering state, which studies all of
their critical industries and is looking with a one, a, five,
a ten year plan and intimately making sure that they
have no disruption. That all of this isn't there. And

(54:27):
it's not as if they haven't been planning for this
for the last five years because they knew Trump was
going to come into office. So just compare that level
of seriousness to where we are. Of course, it's not
going to work. I mean, yeah, if we had a
requisite similar program, we could do it. I have no
doubt that we don't have the human capital or the money.
Of course we have the money, we have, you know,
the political capital. There's so much that we could but

(54:48):
not under this, not under this, like yeah, not only
in terms of blinking, but it does look like they're
going to get everything that they want because it's not
just going to be rare with minerals. Trump is caved
on TikTok. Trump's caved on I mean, on en video,
on the on the on the chips. Like the most
hawkish members China hawks of his former first term are
freaking out about this. They're writing open letters in the

(55:10):
Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. They're like, this
is a disaster. It's basically capitulation. That's what Trump is.
That's what Trump has chosen. Like the path of independence
is gone in my opinion, especially after the tax bill.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
We had a chance there, but that's it. It's it's over.

Speaker 3 (55:24):
Yeah, Like I mean, I didn't I say that in
our maybe I said that our last show.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
You only open up the tax code every five years.
Five years from now. Where is China going to be?

Speaker 5 (55:31):
Right?

Speaker 1 (55:31):
You know it's done?

Speaker 4 (55:32):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Yeah, And our sequencing is all wrong, Like they're talking
now about we're going to take more stakes and companies
and designate certain things as like national security risk. We're
gonna put price fors in places. It's like you do
all of that preparation before you launch the Trader four.
That's the way that that works. I did look it up.
According to Grock, us imports of China. Chinese cooking oil

(55:54):
account for approximately zero point zero seven percent of China's GDP,
So we're really hit, and I'm where it hurts critical
critical part of their economy that point seven percent.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
Yeah, exactly, It's so crazy. I can't even get over it.
I can't even get over it. By the way, do
we even want that stuff?

Speaker 6 (56:14):
You know?

Speaker 1 (56:14):
They cook with vegetable oil? I thought this was Maha, right?
What happened to mama?

Speaker 4 (56:18):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (56:19):
This seed oil's galore? Over there again?

Speaker 2 (56:21):
This is again according to Grock and I have a
fact checked it outside of Rock, but apparently most of
their exports are consist of used cooking oil, a byproduct
collected from food services process for export as a biofuel feedstock.
So it's not it's not like the stuff you're buying
in the grocery store.

Speaker 4 (56:38):
It's like going to livestock or what.

Speaker 3 (56:40):
It's just going into the fuel or into the livestock
which we also eat.

Speaker 1 (56:43):
Right, got it again? What happened to Maha? What happened
to that