11/12/25: Jon Stewart Shreds Dems For Cave, Economy Bleeding Jobs, MAGA In Shambles Over Economy

Krystal and Saagar discuss Jon Stewart unloads on Dems for caving, economy bleeding thousands of jobs, MAGA in shambles.

 

Katie Wilson: https://www.wilsonforseattle.com/ 

 

 

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 1 (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 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Good morning, and welcome to Breaking Points. You just got
a lonely studio camera shot. That's because Ryan is traveling today,
so I'm very happy to be joined by the one
and only Crystal Ball. Crystal, good morning, how are you.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Good morning? How's it going.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
It's going great, But we were just talking before the
camera starter rollings that actually it doesn't seem to be
going well for literally anyone in the country right now,
because we're about to talk about how Democrats are furious
with Chuck Schumer and Republicans maybe are getting increasingly impatient
with the Trump administration on a couple of different fronts.
We're going to break that down. Might have something to

(01:09):
do with the jobs numbers we're going to cover in
the show as well, but we're going to be starting
with the shutdown, which is set to end with a
House vote today. Obviously, the shutdown has Democrats enormously frustrated
with Chuck Schumer and party leadership. Actually, even party leadership
like Haakim Jeffreys is reportedly annoyed with Chuck Schumer. So

(01:30):
whether Check Schumer can withstand this wave in future leadership vote,
that's going to be a serious question on the table
going forward. Chris, So, we got some jobs numbers from
ADP because the government's not putting them out, don't.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
We Yeah, So those numbers have become increasingly important, the
ones that are put out by private outfits like ADP.
So we'll take a look at those. Not looking great
in terms of the economy not feeling that Golden age
so much. I think most of America also not feeling
that Golden age, and that is fueling some of the
Mega revolt, the early early stage signs of MAGA revolt

(02:06):
as well. We have some indications Ice might be leaving Chicago,
and also DHS is going after me, so that's a
fun one. Ben Shapiro has thoughts on affordability, and you
have thoughts on Ben Shapiro's thoughts, and I have thoughts
on your thoughts on Ben Shapiro's thoughts. So we'll get
that one. And then of course, since it's a lady show,

(02:26):
or a ho show as we like to call it,
we had to dig into this trend of mar a
lago face. So DC plastic surgeons are saying that more
and more people, men and women, by the way, this
is equal opportunity, are coming in looking for a look
where it's like used to be the thing that if

(02:46):
you got work done, you don't really want people to
notice you wanted to look natural. They're overtly like, no, no,
I want people to know that I got massive amounts
of things injected into my face, and like I want
that to be advertised. So it's an interesting trend, Like
it's very actually fascinating development.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
I like how you said we're going to dig into it.
We read a story about it, and we're going to
talk about this. The breaking points investigated.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Journal mostly what we do on the show.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
Yeah, but like the Shoelader, I.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Actually have been doing some of my own journalistic observations
on this as well, So you know, I'm not just
gonna go by what was what was put in the story.
That's just an excuse to talk about something I've actually
been thinking about for a while.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
It's gonna be good, So make sure you stay tuned
for that. And Katie Wilson, Right, Chris, we have an
interview towards the end of today's show. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
So I recorded this with her yesterday at a time
when so this is the sort of progressive insurgent candidate
for mayor in the city of Seattle. When I talked
to her yesterday, she was up in the vote count
by ninety one votes. Ninety one votes. Now we've had
another mail ballot drop yesterday evening after I spoke with her.
She's now up by I think between like a thousand
and two thousand votes and the later mail that's coming

(03:57):
in now because Washington State voters, all of the voting
is actually cast by mail, and the later ballots tend
to be more progressive younger voters your way to the
last minute. So as those drops have come in, she's
taken more and more of a lead, so it is
now like pretty fully assumed she's going to be the
next mayor of Seattle. And it's really quite fascinating because
Seattle obviously the progressive city and they prior to leading

(04:19):
into twenty twenty, they had quite a progressive city council.
Then you had twenty twenty, you had Black Lives Matter,
Seattle was a really focal point there. You also have
issues with homelessness rise and crime coming out of COVID
all of that. So there were some backlash elections that
led to some more sort of centrist candidates right wing
in the context of Seattle being put on the city
council and also in the mayor's office. So with Katie

(04:43):
Wilson's apparent victory here, it really sort of sweeps that
slate of more centrist candidates out of office and brings
back more progressives. And in fact, you know, Katie, I
think is one of the more progressive people to ever
hold the office of the mayoralty. Just as one little
tees for the interview, which I really think you guys
will I think you'll enjoy. I think you'll you know,

(05:04):
it was very interesting speaking with her and her perspective
on what it would take for her to deliver in
that office, and she said, look, I think I'm to
be judged by improvements in quality of living, in you know,
reducing chronic homelessness, and in public safety. So that was
very much, very much her focus and looks like the
message that she brought one the day there. So excited
to share that interview with you guys today.

Speaker 3 (05:26):
Yeah, looking forward to that. Crystal. Make sure you go
to Breakingpoints dot com to sign up for a premium
subscription to the show if you haven't done that yet,
you get the show early and also access to the
second half of the Friday shows, which so they've been
pretty lit, I have to say recently they've.

Speaker 2 (05:42):
Been If you're not getting the second half of the
Friday show, you're missing some of the best content of
the week. There's no doubt about it.

Speaker 3 (05:47):
That's for sure.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
Ryan Ryan unleashed in the second half of the Friday shows.

Speaker 3 (05:52):
That's really unfiltered.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yeah, all right.

Speaker 3 (05:55):
Let's go ahead and start with the shutdown potentially coming
to an end today. So the House of Representatives is
going to vote on that bill where Senate Democrats joined
with Senate Republicans to pass the Continuing Resolution to fund
the government. That has the left, as Crystal is going
to walk us through, absolutely furious with Senate Democratic leadership.

(06:18):
Chuck Schumer in particular, is understandably bearing the brunt of
the backlash. John Stewart addressed this on his show Let's
go ahead and take a look here at a zero.

Speaker 4 (06:28):
Tonight's show will be brought to you by I can't
fucking believe it.

Speaker 5 (06:34):
It's literally life or death.

Speaker 6 (06:39):
So Democrats have three words for this.

Speaker 4 (06:42):
No way, excuse me, cave on the shutdown hoo. Not
this forceful, young, authentic Democratic party that hangs out down
by the river.

Speaker 3 (07:02):
Democrats, you sold out the entire.

Speaker 4 (07:04):
Shutdown, not to get what you wanted, but for a
promise to not get what you wanted later. Where in
the art of war.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
Where, oh god, Crystal, this has I mean, the criticisms
of Check Schumer are just blanketing American airwaves. It's like
impossible to get away from. We actually have some more
to show, folks. But quick reaction there to John Stewart,
no real surprise.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
No, And I mean what he's saying is he puts
it in a name a comedic way, but it's incredibly obvious.
You did the longest shutdown in history to get literally nothing,
right after you had some of the most decisive electoral
results that I've seen in my lifetime. What are we
doing here? And so yeah, I mean, the insanity of

(07:55):
it is obvious on its face. And one quick note
before we play Harry In talking about Chuck Schumer's numbers
and how historically unpopular he is with his own party
they're trying to sell and Schumer's I'm sure staffers were
leaking to the press like, oh no, he didn't want
the shutdown and he was totally in it for the fight,
and I think it's a sign of how it is

(08:15):
a different day in the Democratic Party and with the
Democratic base. That Democratic based voters were like, that's bullshit, Like,
we're not stupid. We know that this deal was at
least tacitly supported by leadership. Your number two guy, Dick Durbin,
literally voted for it. So they're not you know, they're
not going to be snowed by these nonsense talking points.

(08:37):
And this is really the sort of crystallization. I hate
using that word because of my name, but whatever, it's
the crystallization of the boiling rage that has really been
simmering with the Democratic base during Trump two point zero
in general, where they have felt that Democratic leadership is weak,
they have felt they don't know how to fight, they

(08:59):
have felt they don't understand the moment. You know, there
was a lot of disappointment, sense of betrayal when they
just for they just didn't even bother to try to
use the leverage they had earlier during the administration. You know,
they've been very you know, they they told Jasmine Crockett
basically to like sit down and shut up and stop
being so outspoken. They've been extremely reluctant to go after

(09:19):
Trump on immigration abuses and ice and National Guard abuses
in cities. They've just been incredibly lame, cringe and tepid,
and the Democratic base is done with it. So you know,
that's really and to connect this to you know, Zoron's
win and what's going on in main with grim Plattner,
and you know, the types of candidates that are succeeding
right now, like there is a sense, i think an

(09:42):
accurate sense from Democratic leadership they've lost control of the
base of the party in a way that we've really
never seen before. Previously, if they said, oh, it wasn't us,
it was who you know, I was the Republicans, it
was you know, it was these few rogue, bad senators
like Joe Manchin, Urcures and Cinema. The base largely bought
that those days are over, which is why you now
see this historic unpopularity for Chuck Schumer. Let's go ahead

(10:06):
and play CNN's analysis on that front.

Speaker 5 (10:09):
Least popular dem Senate leader ever. I looked at all
of the polls going all the way back since nineteen
hundred and eighty five. The one who was the lowest
rating among Democrats is, in fact, Chuck Schumer. Look at this,
He's underwater with Democrats, his own party. He's underwater.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
He's at minus four points.

Speaker 5 (10:27):
That makes him the least popular guy for a DEM
Senate leader going all the way back since the mid
nineteen eighties. At least, Dems in Congress do too little
to a post Trump. During the first term, it was
just forty six percent in twenty seventeen. That's the percentage
of Democrats who said that the Dems in Congress are
doing too little to a post down Trump. Look at
where we are now, sixty nine percent. That is an

(10:52):
increase of get this twenty three points. The super super
duper majority of Democrats believe that the Democrats in kind
are not doing enough to oppose Donald Trump. And that
of course is a big, big, big huge criticism of
Chuck Schumer, and that is why he is underwater. But
of course, the ultimate way to get Chuck Schumer out

(11:13):
of office is to beat him in New York State.
To how do New York State Democrats feel about Chuck Schumer?
And take a look here the net favorable among New
York Democrats. Chuck Schumer is above water with the Democrats
in his home state, but just by sixteen points. Look
at Alexandria Coshuo Kretez running way ahead. If she decides
to challenge Chuck Schumer come twenty twenty eight, she's got
a real leg up on the competition.

Speaker 6 (11:35):
I dare say at.

Speaker 5 (11:36):
This point she would be the favorite to beat him,
which would be something that would just blow my mind,
even just a few years ago, giving the Chuck Schumer,
of course, as a New York born bred type of guy, so.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
Christ there's any poetic I think if AOC runs against him,
it's like there's she would destroy him. I don't even
think it would be close at this point.

Speaker 3 (11:54):
You know, I was going to ask you that. And
when I look at this, Chuck Schumer and Hakim Jeffries
were persuaded into this shutdown because they're actually trying to
do what Nancy Pelosi sort of successfully did in Trump
one point zero, which is kind of put the lid
on the simmering pot of populist anger. It's not even
just populist anger. It's like anger across the board among

(12:16):
average Democrats and people in their own caucus. And that's
what they were trying to do here. They were trying
to head off the potential problem of a revolt and
give the base what they wanted so that they would
kind of calm their criticism. And the poetry of it
is that as the shutdown ends, Chuck Schumer is in

(12:36):
more trouble. He's in more trouble now than when it started.
I mean, I think that's pretty obvious at this point
that the leadership unsuccessfully tried to stave off the revolt
by going into the shutdown and by then ending the
shutdown a week after those election wins, in particular, with

(12:57):
no real commitment from Republicans on a real problem for Republicans,
by the way, which is heading into a midterm year,
having many people's premium spike with the expiration of those
Biden era credits. They got nothing out of it. They
got some fundraising out of it. I'm sure they got
some energy from organizing and all of that out of it. Sure,

(13:20):
but people wanted a whole lot more. And now rather
than staving that off, it stoked the fire even more.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
Yeah, that's exactly right. No, I mean, dempty party is
fully here, fully here, And I'm going to make a
prediction there are going to be some Democratic incumbents who
are primaried who lose to random, in their view, nobodies
who have never held political office, never been in the
political fray. You're going to see some come out of
nowhere surprises from you know, from just everyday people who

(13:52):
are disgusted with the failures of democratic leadership. And you know,
one thing I was thinking about, because it doesn't appear
that like Chuck Schumer's leadership role is going to be
threatened in any way by the elected Democrats. At this point,
you have had a number of people in the House,
led by Rocana. Kudos to him for understanding the moment
who have come out and said Schumer should go. Not

(14:13):
a single Democratic senator though, to include Bernie Sanders, who
got asked about it and was basically like, yeah, well
what are you going to do? You know, this is
just how it is. So I don't see Democratic electeds
in the Senate making any moves to toss him out
of leadership, however, you know, and I think it comes
in part from look, their comfort with the status quo whatever.

(14:37):
I also think it comes in part from an old
fashioned view of what Senate or House leadership should be.
So sort of the classic role is this very insider role,
right you're fundraising, you're handling the you know, the legislative
like the strategy, and you're whipping helping the votes. That's,
you know, this sort of internal role. And the frustration

(14:58):
with the Democratic base is they want Democratic leadership in
the House and the Senate to be leading a public effort,
a public fight. They want them to be sort of
activist leaders in the streets, fighting in a visible way.
And Summerly made a comment to this effect when I
spoke with her last week. When I interviewed her last week,

(15:19):
she was like, we they need to understand that we
need a new model of leadership that is in touch
with the grassroots space, that is leading the charge in
terms of you know, movements and activism on the ground.
And so I don't think that, you know, a lot
of the senators and the Democratic Caucus, many of whom
are old, including Bernie, who's you know, quite elderly at
this point, I don't think they really understand why people

(15:43):
are so frustrating and the role they actually want a
Chuck Schumer to be able to fill. Because if you're
a Democratic senator, you know, with that class like traditional
status chool model, you're like, well he fundraised as well
and he does okay, and the like legislative whatever. And
the base is like, but that's I don't care about that.
That is not what we want to see. We want
to see you guys fighting, and if you have a

(16:04):
point in someone, you're claiming this person as a leader,
we want to see them actually leading. So I think
that's part of the disconnect between where the people are
and where the Democratic Party electeds are. Another thing I
would say, and this has been abundant for abundantly clear
for a while. Something we've been talking about for a while.
The Democratic party has a democracy problem. They do not

(16:26):
feel that they need to listen to their voters at all.
If anything, their instinct is always to like go against
their voters, especially if you're talking about the progressive wing.
But now you have basically the entirety of the base
that is increasingly is increasingly sort of radicalized, you know,
increasingly aligned very closely with the progressive wing of the party.

(16:51):
And so they're still in this outdated model of like, well,
we always got to punch left, and if it's something
that you know, that our like progressives want, then it
has to be something that we host. But what do
you do when it's not just the progressives, it's the
whole party that is like, you guys are screwing up
big time.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
And this is where Chuck Schumer could actually be in trouble,
is when you have Graham Plattner and a new generation
coming in. If that happens on a populist wave, that's
basically what ended up pushing you know, John Bayner and
Paul Ryan ultimately and then I guess, ultimately good Kevin
McCarthy as well out of office. But let's let's roll

(17:32):
this clip because I think to the point you just
made crystal. If you are Chuck Schumer, you should take
a look at Or you're at the DNC or the DSc,
you should take a look at this clip of John
Fetterman getting grilled by Sunny hostin of the View. Who
I joked us today is like going full Jennifer Welch
here about the shutdown.

Speaker 7 (17:53):
This is a three Democrats have big wins last week,
so you had momentum. Why give in now? Why bring
a butter knife to a gunfight? Are you willing to
gamble that the Dolts will negotiate on healthcare in good
faith once the government reopens, Because if that gamble is wrong,
half a million Pennsylvanians that you represent, their healthcare cost

(18:15):
will skyrocket if you are wrong, and I believe.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
You are wrong.

Speaker 8 (18:22):
Well, for first of all, MTG is quite literally the
last person in America that I'm going to take advice
or to get their kinds of my leadership and values from.
And now if Democrats are celebrating crazy pants like that,
then that's on them. And now I don't need and
I don't need a lecture. I don't need a lecture
from from whether it's Bernie or the governor in California

(18:44):
because they are representing very deep blue blue kinds of populations.
I promise you this isn't a political game. It is
viewed by that by many of us. But the reality
is forty two million Americans now not sure where their
next meal is going to come from. And because we
vote like that, vote like that, or people that haven't
been paid for five weeks now, and that kinds of chaos.

(19:06):
Those workers are are more than half a billion dollars
you know, from their credit union just to pay their
bills now. So for me, we're in the middle of this.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
When you've lost the view, Crystal. But like, actually and seriously,
like the view is sort of I don't know the
best way to describe it, but maybe center left is
one way. They're just kind of like the most moderate Democrat,
Like that's probably a suburban, moderate, affluent Democrat viewership. And

(19:36):
if that's what you're seeing, if that's what the kind
of average suburban lean's left mom is watching in the
middle of the day, fiery rants at John Fetterman. Chuck
Schimmer is seriously in trouble, and the Democratic establishment is
seriously in trouble.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
I think it's the beginning of the end for Schumer.
You know, I don't know if it'll be in a
primary in twenty twenty eight. To be honest with you,
I think think of AOC jumps in that primary fight.
I don't even know if he may just retire because
it would be embarrassing obviously to lose to her.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
And you think about would Joe bid.

Speaker 2 (20:10):
Yeah, well, he just seems to have a humiliation fetish.
So that's a different psychology that we'll have to analyze there.
But in any case with Schumer, assuming he doesn't have
a humiliation fetish, which you know, we don't know yet,
but but you know, I think certainly AOC would take
him out in a primary, and then there's probably other
New York New York state candidates who could easily take

(20:31):
him out in a primary as well. She's just the
best known and the one that people love to, you know,
love to to analyze, and I think she's certainly thinking
about it. You know, indications are she and her team
are debating do I run against Schumer or do I
actually run for president? And I don't think that they've
come to a decision in that regard. Personally, I think
she'd be a fantastic senator from New York, and again,

(20:53):
it would be a cake walk to defeed him if
he even bothers to try. And then you know, in
terms of the next leadership elections, you are going to
have a real revolt on your hands. There is going
to be mass pressure put on these Democratic senators to
go in a different direction. And you know, on MSNBC,
I've been watching it some of these past couple of

(21:14):
days because it's been kind of interesting to see where
they land. And the vast majority of them are furious
as well. You know, they are disgusted, they are shocked
that you know that they caved at this moment. I
talked yesterday about how Rachel Matta did her whole opening
rant on, like, guys, we just had the No King's protest,
the largest action literally in history. You had these election results,

(21:38):
and now is the time you cave when and you
literally got nothing for it? Like what the hell? And
she I don't know that I've ever really seen her
criticize the Democratic Party, certainly not in that forceful or
force right away. She's one to sort of like hint
in a direction, but that fully take a stand somewhere here.
She was taking a stand, and then she had Bernie

(21:58):
Sanders on as her gag to back it up. But
there was one MSNBC host, Lawrence O'Donnell, who comes on
right after Rachel Mattou, who did actually defend Chuck Schumer.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
A lonely crying out well, very.

Speaker 2 (22:14):
Very courageous of him at this point. Actually in a
certain way, it is let's go and take a listen
to the case that he was making for Schumer. This
is a four.

Speaker 9 (22:22):
It might be easy to criticize Chuck Schumer. It is
easy to criticize Chuck Schumer. It's easy to make fun
of him. You can wish he were smoother, you can
wish he had all the smoothest of Barack Obama. It's
easy to criticize, but it is not easy to replace him.

(22:43):
It might be easy to call for his resignation, but
it is not easy to say who with a name
could do a better job.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
It actually is easy to say that. I would say
Chris van Holland or Chris Murphy, either one of them
would do a better job. But I mean Chris van
Holland has really he in a certain way, is this
kind of unifying figure because he's this very mainstream democrat,
you know, in the firmament of the establishment of the party.
But he also was quite courageous and clever too, but

(23:11):
by the way, and creative when it came to kill
mar Abrego Garcia and leading the charge there when it's
come to Gaza and you know, going there and looking
at Okay, they're lying when they say that, you know
that the problem for a distribution is the un the
problem is these Raelis. And he's been very you know,
he's been very outspoken in that regard, and I think

(23:32):
has earned a lot of respect from progressives and liberals
who see him as someone who has stood up against
the Trump administration. But you know, he's going to be
able to do the fundraising and do the party insider
stuff as well. So personally, I think he would be
a fantastic choice. Now he's another one who may be
sniffing around at potentially running for president. I believe he

(23:52):
had either a New Hampshire or an Iowa trip or
something in that regard. In my opinion, you know, he's
he's the type. He's not like a super charismatic figure,
but he seems to be clever and principled and have
some decent strategic instincts. So to me, that would be,
you know, his best use would be in something like
leadership in the Senate. So the idea of it Chuck Schumer.

(24:15):
I mean, it's just farcical on its face that Check
Schumer's so so exceptional, how could we possibly replace him?
It's like, literally, what planet do you live on? I
could pick a random person off of the street, and
I think they would do a better job at this
point with the role of leadership that the base actually
wants their party leaders to serve at this point, well.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
Right, And I mean part of I'm just again thinking
back to Tea Party shutdowns. Leadership never really wanted Tea
Party shutdowns, like they were dragged into it by Ted
Cruz and whomever else. But they didn't have all those
like specific attainable goals outlined. In a lot of cases,
it was kind of just for the purpose of causing
trouble and getting like sorting a wrench into the gear

(24:59):
of washing. And what's interesting about this is Democrats created
a pretty specific benchmark that they wanted to achieve with
the shutdown, which was healthcare. And there's nothing that Democrats
have more of an upper hand on than healthcare, because
Republicans have nothing in terms of note What is Mike
Johnson saying right now, like we have notebooks full of
plans or something like that. They got a loving and

(25:22):
after all of that concepts of a plan. After all
of that, they get like when you spend, when you
set that specific of a benchmark and you walk away
like for really no, Like the timing makes no sense.
It's not as though, you know, the credits were on
the table. Again, it's not until the end of the year.

(25:43):
They expire at the end of the year. That's why
this is coming up right now. So it's not like
it was within a couple of days or anything like that.
Speaking of the timing, let's try to figure out what
it might have been. Because the Lever has some reporting
about the airline industry, which has swamped Washington, d C.
Over the last couple of weeks. The next element up
on the screen just going to town lobbying people, and

(26:07):
this was a report on the Lever that found correlation
between airlines favorite Democrats and who voted to end the shutdown.
Crystal and Political Influence had a great report last week
as well about the airline industry just like as soon
as Duffy announced the flight reductions or requested the flight reductions,

(26:27):
that sent the lobbyists for the airline industry into overdrive.
And I think that probably is as good of an
explanation as any for why they voted pretty randomly on Sunday.
I mean, it seemed as though even Democratic insiders were surprised,
maybe not Schumer himself, but it didn't seem like anyone
actually realized this was about to be on the brink

(26:49):
of them siding with Republicans, and that's exactly what happened.
It seems like maybe it was the airlines.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
I mean, people forget how powerful the airline lobby is
in DC. You know anytime, remember during COVID, like they
always got their custom bay allowance. You know, they're always
in the ear of legislators. And then what Zerota and
his team at the lever did is just to literally
look at Okay, let's take out look at the FBC contributions.
Let's pull up the history and lo and behold, seven

(27:17):
out of the eight of them in particular, have taken
large sums from the industry, which means that you're going
to be in constant communication with them, and then one
in particular, Jackie Rosen of Nevada, is one of the
largest recipients of airline lobby cash, So there's no doubt
that money is influential, impactful in terms of their thinking.
The other thing that I've been pointing to that I

(27:38):
really think it's important for people to keep in mind
is Trump's threat to nuke the filibuster. Republicans hated that,
but these type of corporate democrats also hate that because
even if they publicly claim they want to get rid
of the filibuster, the truth of the matter is they
love having an excuse for why they can't deliver, and

(27:58):
the filibuster is the best excuse they've ever had. It is,
in a sense existential for them in order to maintain
this pretense that they would love to deliver for working people.
They would love to deliver for Americans, but they just
can't because of this terrible rule called the filibuster, and
therefore we can never actually achieve the things that we
totally promise you we actually want to achieve. So I

(28:21):
think that was the other piece, because that likely was
the other way that this ends. Where Trump puts enough
pressure on the Republicans where it's like, no, you are
going to get rid of the filibuster. They cave to
Trump and nuke the filibuster, And in my opinion, that's
a better outcome and in my opinion, and I think
the base of the Democratic Party would have accepted that too,
because then it's like, Okay, you fought, you did everything

(28:43):
you could, and even if they ended up with nothing
on healthcare, it's like, you know, you took it as
far as you possibly could. You did not give up
the fight, and you press the case, you put health
care on the table. You know, you really put the
Republicans in a difficult spot. And now the filibuster is gone.
And guess what if Democrats take back power is increasingly
possible at least in the Senate in the next elections,

(29:06):
then you're going to be able to pass some of
your priorities that in the past you've always said you
could never achieve. You could get Puerto Rico as a state,
you could get DC as a state, you could pack
the Supreme Court, you could pass legislation that actually will
benefit working people. So I think that filibuster threat is
another thing that freaked them out because these corporate type

(29:26):
Democrats need that existentially need that as their excuse for
why they can never actually really do anything big with
the power that they have.

Speaker 3 (29:36):
Yeah, I mean, that's exactly right, I think, because you know,
what's made me come around on the filibuster even recently.
I always kind of go back and forth on the philibuster.
What's made me come about coming around on it recently
is that it's actually healthy for the country to see
more direct consequences of our votes. And I don't mean
consequences in a negative way, but actually it could be positive,

(29:58):
could be negative, that when you vote on something, you
see it happen. The philbuster is not like in the Constitution.
It's not like part of the part of the system
that the Framers designed. And so if you have a
majority of the House in the Senate and a president
to sign a piece of legislation, then the country feels

(30:19):
what they voted for, as opposed to, you know, feeling
that like constantly getting thwarted. Now, there are a lot
of other things that I would you do in addition
to nudie the billbuster to make sure that the country
was running. If I could wave my magic wand in
a way that I think made sense and was helpful,
But that one in particular, that means people would actually

(30:39):
have to face votes, so they would have to face
votes on the floor of the Senate. The senators would
have to face votes on the floor the Senate for
things that they said they would support, Medicare for All
being a pretty obvious example, and then they would have
to face votes from their voters who say, you told
us you were going to vote for I mean, John
McCain is the best example. You told us you were
going to repeal and replace how many times and then

(31:01):
you voted no on the rapill and replace. Uh that
those actually having those votes and actually seeing more feeling
more putting less of a buffer between what people vote
for and what the country looks like is probably helpful
at this point.

Speaker 2 (31:18):
I agree completely. And the other piece is, you know,
because you have a legislature that really is not interested
in governing, that has helped to help to create the
dynamic of an executive branch that just done does everything,
and so it creates I mean, Trump is responsible for,
you know, the consolidation of power in the insane ways
that he uses and abuses his power. But one of

(31:40):
the things that sort of greases the skids in that
direction is if you have a filibuster that makes them
impossible for Congress to do anything, then increasingly you have
presidents reaching for the pen using executive power, and Congress
just sort of like, I mean, they just they just
see their power completely to the president and they're happy. Yeah,
they might not have any Yeah, they're happy to not

(32:02):
have any actual legislative responsibility. That's easier for them, that's
more comfortable for them. So I do think that the
filibuster has sort of been an under discussed part of
why this thing came to an end the way that
it in the in my opinion, ridiculous, pathetic way that
it ultimately did.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
Gang of eight. Then you have Obama doing doco with
executive orders. This is it happens all the time, and
the Senators then can escape the backlash. So we may
have gotten something good out of it. If if dem
said continued to hold out, maybe Truff would have had
them nuke the philibuster. I don't know. I'm skeptical. Senate
Republicans were so so averse to that for the reasons

(32:41):
we just discussed. Chris, Let's talk about jobs. We have
new job numbers from ADP. We can go ahead and
put the one up on the screens to a tear
sheet from the Wall Street Journal, which is relying on
the ADP numbers as well. The headline here ADP Estimates
estimates private sector was losing jobs in October, although we

(33:03):
don't totally know whether an accurate reflection because we don't
have government numbers right now. In crystal reaction to these
ADP numbers, I'm not particularly surprised by them. What do
you make.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
About Yeah, I mean, you know, we've been seeing things
trending in this direction for a while, and I think
that Trump has thought that he could. Look Trump is
a master at bending reality, like bending perceptions of reality,
and I think he believed that he could do that

(33:36):
with the economy as well. He could point to the
stock market. We've had the government shutdowns, so we're not
getting government numbers, so we have to rely on numbers
like ADP. And we've been tracking here how people feel
about the economy. Some seventy percent plus say that the
economy is poor. That is a total reversal of where
things were in first term, where they had all sorts
of issues with Trump. His approval rating was underwater, but

(33:59):
they still felt the economy is really good. And I
think that is like the central reason ultimately that he
ends up back in the White House. So you have
a complete flip of that people in their own lives
are experiencing a lot of economic hardship. And then we've
also been tracking this slew of corporate layoffs that have
been coming down the pike, and you know, it has

(34:21):
been we have been moving in this direction for a while,
but I really think it's coming to a head now.
Where it used to be the general sense was, Okay,
if corporate America is doing well, then Americans are probably
doing pretty well too. Those two things have become completely disconnected.
The best thing you can do as a corporate boss
is fire a bunch of people. Your stock price is
going to go up. And so the fortunes of corporations

(34:45):
are actually now inversely related to the fortunes of ordinary Americans.
That is the reality of where we live now. And
so yesterday Soger and I covered how consumer sentiment is
at historic lows clows and as we go into the
Thanksgiving and holiday season, et cetera, you know, really bad
place to be. Meanwhile, corporate sentiment is near all time highs.

(35:09):
I mean that tells you everything about the tale of
two economies and about the way that now what benefits
corporate America is directly advantageous for them and disadvantageous for
your average Americans. So I don't think you know whether
these ADP numbers are exactly precise. I think they are
probably directly correct that there was either very little job

(35:30):
growth or actual job losses. This is also for the
time period when the government was shut down, and the
government is a huge part of our economy as well.

Speaker 10 (35:36):
Well.

Speaker 3 (35:36):
Yeah, and so the ADP numbers, I mean, it's crazy
right now, the way that we are trying to understand
what's happening without the usual information. So payrolls firm, So
the ADP is estimating the private sector, according to the Journal,
was shedding two hundred and fifty jobs a week in
the four weeks through October twenty five. Now, it also

(35:57):
says last week in a separate data series, ADPs mean
it that the private sector added forty two thousand jobs
in October, but that figure uses a different methodology and
tended to replicate the government's monthly jobs report more closely.
So it's just it's a mess just trying to understand
even what's happening in the economy. But the consumer sentiment

(36:20):
versus corporate sentiment marker is a pretty good one, and
the well, it's a good one in terms of taking
the temperature of the public and in terms of Trump
not understanding and not being able to explain away consumer
sentiment or assuage consumer sentiment. I think that's really really true, Crystal.

(36:40):
It's a problem that the Biden administration had, and they
kind of went for greedflation for a little bit, but
in a very half hearted way to say we understand,
like yes, we're in charge of the economy, but we understand,
you know, to the extent any government is in charge
of the economy, or any presidents in charge of the economy,
but we understand what's going going on, Like find another scapegoat,

(37:01):
et cetera. But this was half hearted. And now for Trump,
it's like he's not even looking for escape escapegoat other
than Biden. You just keep saying we inherited about economy.
Once you're year into your presidency, which she almost says,
you really have to stop setting that line about the
economy you inherited because people are. It's just going to
piss people off. Not only does it stop working, it's

(37:23):
also just going to piss people off. So here's how
House Speaker Mike Johnson talked about the idea, all the
ideas that Republicans have to reduce healthcare costs which are
going up, up, up for Americans. This is B two.

Speaker 11 (37:39):
Subsidizing the insurance companies is not the answer because it
just drives the cost up even further. So we need
to look at the root causes. The Republican Party is
the party that is working on that has been working
on it, and has more ideas going forward. We've got
to bring down the costs, and you can do that
in a responsible way that also increases access and quality
of care. And we've got we've got notebooks full of
ideas on how to do that. We got a book

(38:00):
sensus around it.

Speaker 3 (38:01):
That's news to me they have notebooks of ideas of
how to do this, Crystal, because if they had notebooks,
we would probably expect to hear a little bit more
about what's in those notebooks. And all we can hear
about is the notebooks.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
Now, that's right. I'm having major flashbacks submit Romney and
as binders full of women. But we'll never know whether
he really had those binders or not, now, I guess.
But yeah, with the notebooks of ideas, it also harkens
back to Trump saying, you know, we've got a concept
of a plan on healthcare. The truth of the matter
is Republicans have given up on healthcare and they just
decided the best thing to do is to just hope

(38:34):
that nobody talks about it. Like litour in twenty twenty four,
it worked, right, Kamla didn't really bring it up because
Democrats also had kind of given up on healthcare. You know,
Biden's theoretical plan was a public option, which I do
think would be a significant improvement over the system that
we have. Of course, I support Medicare for all, you know,

(38:55):
I think that's the direction that we should go in.
But you know, the Republicans have a point when it
comes to the subsidies just going straight to the health
insurance companies. They have a point about that. I mean,
that's been my criticism of Obamacare from the beginning, is
you actually have to confront the health insurance, you have
to confront big Pharma, you have to confront the hospital

(39:15):
system and the private equity barons that are rolling up
those hospital systems, like you actually are going to have
to confront capital if you're going to deal with this thing,
and there is zero indication that Republicans want to do
that at all. So to the extent they ever float anything,
it's like truent price transparency. Sure, fine, Does anyone believe

(39:36):
that that's going to solve the problem the thing that
Trump floated of? Okay, well, instead of giving the subsidies
to the health insurance, we're going to give it to
you guys in your health savings account. Okay, fine, But
the reality of what's going to happen there that doesn't
deal with prices at all, It doesn't deal with the
underlying problems at all whatsoever. And what you likely end
up happening happening then is even fewer people inside the

(39:58):
health insurance marketplace, which leads again to this death spiral
situation that people that are still there are older and sicker,
and guess what, that raises premiums for everyone, So it
could actually accelerate the collapse of the system we have,
which look, maybe that's something we should be cheering for
at this point, Like I'm not really you know, I'm
not an accelerationist typically, but something apparently catastrophic is going

(40:21):
to have to happen before legislators are really willing to
confront capital and deal with the system. But yeah, I mean,
you listen to Mike Johnson talk and I'm just hearing
Marjorie Taylor Green in my head saying, why do I
have to be in like a skiff to, you know,
to even stiff what a Republican healthcare plan is? And
I think it was again the ladies of view that
were like, well, maybe there's not one, and she said,

(40:41):
I think that's the real truth. And of course obviously
that is the real truth. They are not going to
do anything to try to tackle healthcare. They're just going
to try to change the subject. Again, that is the
actual strategy.

Speaker 3 (40:53):
Yeah, they got nothing's It is the biggest failure of
the conservative project in the last what fifteen years. When
they could run on repeal and replace, it became a
replacement in and of itself for an actual policy because
it was such a useful political bludgeon and hammer for
so long that by the time they had the power

(41:14):
to actually repeal and replace, it was abundantly obvious there
was no consensus plan, and there was no good plan.
There was no consensus plan because there actually was no
good plan that people agreed on. And to your point
about the Trump idea of giving subsidies directly to people,
that's basically what we do rather to insurance companies. That's
basically what we do with college tuition. And I know

(41:37):
we're going to talk about this a little bit later
in the show, just on the general question of affordability.
But that has not brought down the cost of college
tuition in any way whatsoever. So it's not a long
term solution. I don't know how interested Donald Trump is
in a structural long term solution. I don't think anybody
is under the illusion or is under the illusion or delusion.

(41:57):
You could probably call it that Donald Trump wants to
do like structural long term fix to the healthcare system.
He's never run on some type of like comprehensive fix
to Obamacare. Just you know, repeal replaced, everyone will have healthcare.
So there there is no Republican plan waiting in the
wings that Trump could like shepherd through like a good
old tax cut bill. There's nothing like that for healthcare.

(42:19):
And you know what, it matters to every single American family,
normal American family, not ultra wealthy American family on a
monthly basis. Even if you're upper middle class, your healthcare
costs are out of freaking control.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
That's exactly right. Yeah, no, I mean Trump, all he
knows how to do is like brand plays and gimmicks.
That's it. So, you know, someone brings him fifty year
mortgagees like and with a meme that appeals to his ego,
and he's like, yes, let's do that, and everyone absolutely
hates it because he never thinks beyond like this compares
me favorably to FDR. Let's do it. The fake you know,

(42:53):
two thousand dollars stimulus checks that he's you know, claiming
he's going to send out, which is one hundred percent
never ever going to happen. And already his officials are like, well,
what we really mean by that is the theoretical savings
that you achieved through lowering the price of avocados or whatever.
It's like, you know, So, I mean that's really all
he knows that. Now he's good at that branding and

(43:15):
those gimmicks write no tacks on tips. I think that
was very appealing in the election. You know, I think
people liked that idea, But if you're actually going to
govern and deal with complicated, entrenched systems and entrenched interests,
you're going to need a little bit more. You're going
to need an ideology, You're going to need some backbone
and some will to do it. You're going to need

(43:36):
some actual, like policy knowledge, and that is never ever
going to be this man who was so stupid that
he would float something like a fifty year mortgage, which
literally enraged absolutely everyone, as an actual plan for affordable housing.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
Yeah, we're going to get to that in just one moment.
Let's take a listen to Kevin Hassett here, who's the
director of the National Economic Council, talking about if the
shutdown had cantinued, he was on face the nation over
the weekend, there would have been a negative quarter. While that,
I guess based will happen.

Speaker 12 (44:07):
Here's B three Golden Sacks. They have a top economic team,
and they're estimating that we've already knocked about one and
a half percent off of GDP. I think that number
is probably low if we keep going even a couple
more weeks, because there's going to be a massive amount
of air disruption, especially around the holidays. And you know,
one of these things every daw and ed when we're
talking at economics, you and I we talk about seasonal

(44:29):
adjustments and things like that. But the fact is that Thanksgiving,
that Thanksgiving time is one of the hottest times of
the year for the economy. It's you know, Black Friday
and all that kind of stuff. And if people aren't
traveling at that moment, then we really could be looking
at a negative quarter for the fourth quarter.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
All right, And here's a very smiling when he says that,
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
Here here's a tear shot from Reuters. The headline is
US fourth quarter GDP could be negative if shut down
drags on. White House Economic Advisor says just about what
he mentioned there on Face the Nation US crystal. Some
of this could be getting at the pressure that Democrats
were underhearing from. I mean, he's citing Goldman Sachs, So

(45:07):
I'm sure Democrats were hearing from some of their friends
at places like Goldman Sachs about some of those very
same numbers. And you know, we were talking about the
airlines pressuring Dems to cave on the shutdown. I'm sure
this worked its magic with some of those Democrats as well.

Speaker 2 (45:24):
Yeah, no doubt about it. And you know, for a
top Whitehouse official to be saying we could be looking
at negative GDP growth in the fourth quarter is pretty stunning.
We also had Scott Bessant previously saying, effectively admitting that
some sectors of the economy are already in a recession.
So even this administration, which is happy to spin in

(45:44):
July about you know, basically everything, is having to acknowledge
some measure of reality because it's just becoming too obvious
to you know, whether you're someone who's Wall Street looking
at the numbers, looking at activity, whether you're a regular
person and like just going about your life, it's becoming
too obvious to deny. And it's worth saying in terms

(46:05):
of the shutdown impact. First of all, the government is
still technically shut down right now. You know, I live
in a town where the most of the economic activity
is centered around this naval base that does a lot
of civilian research. A lot of people have been furloughed there.
I'm getting questions of gymnastics, but like, so when are
we getting paid again? When is that happening? I don't know,

(46:26):
I have no idea. So in any case, it'll be
a while even before things are back up and fully running,
and then the impact in Sean Duffy admitted this, the
impact of the airports is going to be long lasting.
We were already in a dire situation with a lack
of air traffic controllers. Now you've had people who couldn't
go this long without a paycheck, and they laughed and
they're gone or they're just sick of being treated in

(46:47):
this way. Like you know what I thought working for
the government meant that I had a steady and reliable job,
and I clearly I don't, so I'm going to go
and do something else with my life. Those are going
to be long lasting impacts that are going to I
think bleed over into holiday Thanksgiving travel. It's just right
around the corner. So you know, has it to be

(47:11):
sounding the alarm here about negative GDP growth? I think
is quite exceptional. And the last thing I'll say about
that is we've of course been tracking how almost all
of the GDP growth anyway has just been this giant
bet giant speculative bet on ai has been the entirety
of GDP growth anyway that has been covering up a

(47:32):
lot of other underlying problems in the economy, including in
other you know, corporate stocks, consumer consumer centered stocks in particular,
all of which are underperforming stock indexes in you know,
in Europe and other parts of the world. So you know,
if even with the AI hysteria, you are having negative

(47:53):
GDP growth, that's a really ugly place to be.

Speaker 3 (47:56):
And I wonder, actually, if we do see that they
blame the shutdown, if that's what looking back on it,
if that becomes the line for the administration is, you know,
they're looking to either say we inherited this economy. It's
such a mess. But there's there's so much going on
in this economy that you and Soccer have covered recently.

(48:17):
Let's go ahead and put this next element up on
the screen. This is a CNBC report on ghost job postings,
which the headline here says are adding another layer of
uncertainty to the stalling jobs picture. Since the beginning of
twenty twenty four, job openings have outnumbered hires by more
than two point two million a month, according to Bureau
of Labor Statistics data That points to ghost jobs that

(48:39):
never seems to get that never seem to get filled.
This is a really shocking report, Crystal, because it's one
of those things you just it's not even on your radar,
and then when you look at it. This is a
part of the article. Job openings have generally been on
the decline since peaking above twelve million in March twenty
twenty two, when opportunities outnumbered available workers by better than

(48:59):
two to one. In August, latest month through which data
is available because of the government shutdown, opening's totaled more
than seven point two million, well hires were just five
point one million. The ratio of vacancies to workers was
about even. What did you make of this, Crystal, because
to me, it just seems to be another wrinkle in
the enormously complicated picture of an economy that feels like

(49:22):
a total bubble right now.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Yeah, it feels fake in a lot of ways, and
so ghost jobs make sense as part of that picture.
You know, we covered statistics about how many more job
applications new college graduates are having to put out just
an astonishing number, and then even with that additional effort
put in for worse results where they're not getting as
many jobs, the unemployment rate for new college grads is

(49:46):
going up, and so you know, people who are going
on whatever the resume what is it? Indeed, what are
the resume websites? Now I forgot when I was coming
out of college. It was Monster, I think was the
one that we went to. But in any case, they're
looking at these job openings and it's like, Okay, I've
applied for a million of these who is even getting
these jobs? And apparently in some significant number the answer

(50:07):
is no one. These are just sort of hanging out
there in the ether, fake job postings that never get filled.
So you have this perception of like, oh, there's all
these job openings and you know, surely one of them,
surely one of them will be interested in me, at
least for a callback. But the reality is that they're actually,
I don't know, just they're just been hanging out there

(50:29):
and no one bothered to delete them. They like to
keep them out there to have resumes coming in in
case at a you know, last minute notice, they need
to bring in someone for some purpose or other. But
I think for a lot of people who've been in
the job market, it will probably ring very true to
them that this is what's going on.

Speaker 3 (50:45):
Yeah, I think that's right, And This is also part
of the data package that economists used to understand where
the economy is going. And some of the reactions in
the CNBC story here are like, well, that's not helpful
because right now we're trying to act I understand where
things are going, what the real story is. And it's
a reminder that honestly the experts here don't exactly know

(51:07):
what the real story is, let alone with changes in
an immigration enforcement and then changes in artificial intelligence, how
rapidly that is sweeping different professions. So things do not
feel good, that is for sure.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Yeah, indeed, and.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
Maybe that explains the MAGA revolt we're about to cover.
There are rumblings of impatience with the Trump administration here
in Washington, d C. Among some people on the right now.
Of course, there's always going to be some rumblings of
discontent with any political party. But I'm just here to

(51:44):
convey this is getting to be a little bit louder
by the day. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett was on Morning
Joe yesterday and asked about that Argentinian beef bailout. Dare
we call it a bailout? Not the beef bail out?
I'm so there was the beef bailout. This is the
the market bailout. Here we go. This is Scott Bessett

(52:07):
responding to some questions. Listen to exactly the language that
he uses and doesn't use.

Speaker 12 (52:13):
How does a twenty billion dollar bailout of Argentina help Americans?

Speaker 3 (52:18):
Do you know what a swap line is? It's currency swap?

Speaker 10 (52:21):
Yes, yes, but what what is that that you're the
treasure secretary?

Speaker 9 (52:24):
Yes?

Speaker 10 (52:24):
But why would you call it a bailout? I think
that is how In most bailouts, you don't make money.
The US government made money. We used our financial we
use our financial balance sheet to stabilize the government. Are
one of our great allies in Latin America. During an election,
the president there won the landslide. The government's going to

(52:46):
make money, and I would rather use peace through economic
strength than have to be shooting at Narco boats coming
offshore if the government collapsed.

Speaker 3 (52:58):
All right, well there were some you know friends.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
He's got bitchy, so bitchy there right, Well, do you
even know what a swap line is? Why would you
call that a bailout? Define it? Define swap like he
thinks he's got such a gotcha there, But in reality,
I mean it is a bailout. That is an appropriate
term to you. Yeah, both can be true, like.

Speaker 3 (53:20):
Make money on a quote bailout?

Speaker 2 (53:22):
Yes, right, even if your technical financial engineering you know,
has a different term as well, that doesn't change the dynamics. Okay,
you have a swap line for them. Do you have
a swap line for other countries? No, you don't, right,
because you specifically wanted to prop up this country, because
you Scott besn't have You know, your buddy's money is
on the line with regard to these hedge funds that

(53:43):
had bet big on Argentina, and by the way, you
wanted to intervene in their upcoming elections, which you did
successfully and helped to forestall what looked to be incoming
electoral losses for Javier and Malay. So like, no one is,
no one is buying this bullshit.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
The reason that I slipped up and said beef bailout
as I was setting up the segment is that that
was also part of this right is people were annoyed
with the use of fungible taxpair dollars going specifically to Argentina.
But then when Donald Trump mentioned potentially starting to import
some modest amount of Argentinian beef. MAGA was furious. MAHA

(54:23):
was furious. I wrote a story about it over at Unheard,
just tracking everyone who had come out and was just
completely beside themselves with this what they saw as a
betrayal of particularly small American farmers. Now, obviously the American
beef industry was annoyed by that period, but there are
a lot of small American farms that have put some

(54:46):
stock in MAGA and the Trump movement hoping to get
a little bit of help out of it. And we're
just completely caught off guard by that proposal to import
any Argentinian beef, period, because they see themselves as being
in need of help from the US government and getting
basically nothing. Now, Donald Trump was also grilled by Laura

(55:09):
Ingram and what was obviously a pretty tough interview and
actually a contentious interview at certain points like this one,
maybe the most contentious point of the interview on H
one B Visas. This has set off another firestorm on
X Again, this is just social media where a lot
of the elite discourse happens. So does it trickle into

(55:29):
polling soon? Maybe not. We'll have to see but this
is what Trump said about H one B visas CE one.

Speaker 6 (55:37):
There's never going to be a country like what we
have right now. And does that the Republicans have to
talk about it a lot?

Speaker 13 (55:41):
And does that mean the H one B visa thing
will not be a big priority for your administration because
if you want to raise wages for American workers, you
can't flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds
of thousands of.

Speaker 6 (55:52):
Foreign Also, do have to bring in talent when we're
gone to.

Speaker 13 (55:56):
Be a talent, we don't have talented people.

Speaker 6 (56:00):
You don't have you don't have certain talents, and you
have to people have to learn. You can't take people
off an unemployment like an unemployment line and say I'm
going to put you into a factory who we're going
to make missiles or I'm going.

Speaker 10 (56:10):
To put do we ever do it before? Well, I'll
give you an example.

Speaker 6 (56:14):
In Georgia they raided because they wanted illegal immigrants. They
had people from from South Korea that made batteries all
their lives. You know, making batteries are very complicated. It's
not an easy thing and very dangerous. A lot of explosions,
a lot of problems, they had like five or six
hundred people early stages to make batteries and to teach

(56:36):
people how to do it. Well, they wanted them to
get out of the country. You're going to need that lure.
I mean, I know you and I disagree on this.
You can't just say a country's coming in, going to
invest ten billion dollars to build a plant and to
take people off an unemployment line who haven't worked in
five years, and they're going to start making their missiles.

Speaker 9 (56:55):
It doesn't work that way.

Speaker 3 (56:57):
So that's happening. As people are also, like the interview
airing as people on the right are also furious about
the proposal for fifty year mortgages, which Donald Trump had
to defend to Laura Ingram in that interview as well.
And he did basically defend it in that interview to
Laura Ingram as well. One point he said, it's not
a big deal. We're going from forty year to fifty
year mortgages, and Ingram jumped in and said, no, thirty

(57:17):
year mortgages to fifty year mortgages.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Hu.

Speaker 7 (57:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (57:22):
And so here's a post that I just noticed hanging
around some group chats yesterday. This is from Savannah Hernandez,
who is a contributor with Turning Point USA. She posted
this long x almost essay. It's that long.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
She says, I'm tired ackmanesque.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
Yes, yeah, amesque. She pulled an Acman and she wrote
I'm tired of based social media videos and big talk
from the ADMIN with zero follow through. First thing she cites,
we voted for home affordability and we were given fifty
year mortgages and debt slavery at one point. She then
goes on to say people are being arrested for quote

(58:01):
anti Semitic attacks. Meanwhile, it's Christian children who are being
targeted and killed in the middle of mass and it's
mobs of violent leftists who continue to scream kill white
people with zero repercussion. That is a recurring theme in
her post. She goes on to say American students are
drowning in debt, and the ADMIN has responded by making
them compete with six hundred thousand Chinese students. Oh and
if you're lucky enough to get a degree, you're still
going to have to compete with the Republican promoted h

(58:22):
one B visa hire that will work for half your pay.
She goes on to say this is why the right
wing is divided. She says, every time Americans, or because
Americans voted, feel safe, prioritize, and protected, and every time
we try to voice our concerns, we are labeled as
anti Maga, anti Israel, or anti Trump for bringing for
substantial criticism of the direction of the parties. She says,

(58:43):
she's watched the quote right wing implode over the last
two weeks. So and by the way, goes on and
the reason we are is because many are afraid to
legitimately criticize the administration. That is absolutely true, Crystal, And
I think she's directing this at those quote based social
media posts from Maga world. So she seems to be
especially upset with like her fellow influencers, who say, you know,

(59:06):
if there's a little bit of a breath of criticism,
it becomes a pile on over someone being anti Maga
having their like Maga bonafides challenge, which has definitely happened
to Marjorie Taylor Green and Marjorie Taylor Green. You know,
whatever you want to say about her going against the
team during the shutdown, Marjorie Taylor Green is as Maga

(59:27):
as it gets, Like true maga as it gets. This
is a person who is like organic grassroots maga and
is represents that sort of I would I always put
it on thirty to forty percent of the Republican Party.
That's the type of maga that actually goes to rallies,
buys merch, that sort of thing. Marjorie Taylor Green represents

(59:47):
those people who were inspired by Donald Trump's drain the
swamp message. And you and I could disagree or could
debate whether or not people were you know, right or
wrong to put their hopes and drain the swamp Donald
tr Trump. But people feel like they were out of
options and they did. And that's the bottom line. And
a lot of the people who were brought into the
conservative movement, brought into the broader right on those promises,

(01:00:10):
are now seeing second administration Donald Trump. And second administration
Donald Trump is a legacy building Donald Trump who's been
laser focused on foreign policy. And now is what did
he say last week, Crystal after the Tuesday elections, Like
they have this new word affordability. That was a good one.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Oh my god, which is an which he describes as
a con job by the Democrats, which is like, oh
my god, and by the way, speaking of anotage, guess
who's hosting at the White House today, Jamie Diamond and
a bunch of other Wall Tree CEOs. So really finger
on the pulse there, brother. I'm sure you can walk
them around your new gilded ballroom, and you know, you

(01:00:54):
can all marvel at the splendor of your home depot
disgusting gold interior of the White House, you know, I mean, listen, Obviously,
I think part of what this lady said was insane
about like whatever, her you know whatever, her right wing
hysterias and her critique that basically like, oh, they're not
being fascist, and like the theatrical part.

Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
I too, am frustrated that you're not in prison yet, right,
right exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
I mean, it's understandable, right, we're all disappointed by that,
right I you know, you months ago. I mean, Glaine
looks like she's having fun in prison.

Speaker 3 (01:01:28):
Zo you you can get a service puppy maybe, in
any case, I don't think I'd be getting that kind
of treatment.

Speaker 2 (01:01:35):
Unfortunately, I don't have the goods on Donald Trump the
way she does. In any case, putting that aside, you know,
her point that she makes about I'm tired of the
base social media videos like the sense is basically, I
didn't take that as actually a shot at other influencers.
I took that as a shot at the administration, which
loves to create this fascist content their ASMR like deportation
videos and they're you know, set to music rating of

(01:01:57):
the Sandwich guys apartment and all this kind kind of bullshit,
right or staging this, Oh, we're going to march all
the horses through the park where children were playing and
record it, even though like we're literally doing nothing other
than posturing for the cameras we showed many times. Obviously
what is happening in Chicago has been extremely real and

(01:02:18):
extremely violent and horrifying for the communities there, but also
it was meant for the theater. Every single action they
took when you see people recording them, they've got tons
of cameramen, people recording on iPhones and actual, like you know,
real legit cameras, so they can package it up and
produce it for mass content. You see the DHS nazi

(01:02:39):
posting on a daily basis, and I think that they believed,
and I think up to this point, in a large
part it has been that that would be enough, because
that's that's like they're triggering and owning the Libs, right,
and they're like, that's what you people want, right, that's
all you really need from us. And so what Savannah
is saying is like, and again I think part of
what she says completely insane and rageous, but she's saying, no, actually,

(01:03:01):
that's not enough. I see what you're doing, and I
see that you're you're trying to play us, like you're
trying to play us, You're trying to substitute in this
you know, this show for the actual things that we
thought we were getting and we thought we were voting for.

Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:03:16):
I don't think she's reflective of her specific disappointments. I
don't think are reflective of the overall population. I think
most of the population is pretty horrified by the level
of authoritarianism, does not agree with the way that the
deportations have been accelerated or the show of force. And
we can see that if we look at C three.
In these last elections, every single demographic group in the

(01:03:39):
country shifted away from Donald Trump and or for I
should say, from the Republican Party. But I'm like, you know,
those two things are one and the same. And in particular,
the largest shifts came from some of the groups that
were really heralded as a new part of the Republican coalition.
You're looking at young people, young men in particularly, You're

(01:04:00):
looking at Hispanic voters, you're looking at Asian voters. Those
groups fled the Republicans in these elections. So you know,
when you have that sort of an undeniable national reckoning,
and even the people who are coping and saying, oh,
these were blue states and it's not a big deal,
they know the truth and this sense of we have

(01:04:23):
a new coalition and we're going to be acendant forever.
You know, demographics is destiny, the way that Democrats thought
back in two thousand and eight, that has just run
smack into an actual reality. So not surprising that you
have more and more voices on the right who see
the writing on the wall, recognize that Trump is wildly

(01:04:46):
unpopular and will not be alive, let alone in power forever,
and are starting to feel more emboldened to make some noises. Emily,
I do want to just say about that h one
B thot, which I find incredible. So first of all,
I think the visa program sucks. I support bringing you know,
on very pro immigration, but it does create a situation

(01:05:08):
of basically indentured servitude. I think it needs to be,
you know, wildly reformed. I don't think that the immigration
status should be attached to the employer. So I have
my issues with h one b okay putting that aside.
The thing he said about Georgia was so fascinating because
he's like, he's one hundred percent correct about Look, they're
building out this battery plant. Hyundai has their own people

(01:05:30):
who know how to do this. We literally don't have
workers who have this specific skill for how to build
these batteries with by this particular company, Like, we just
don't have that. And so yes, we need some people
here to train up our workers so that maybe in
the future they can hold those jobs. And he said
something to the effect of like and they wanted them out. Well,

(01:05:51):
the they is Stephen Miller, Like this is his administration
that conducted this raid, and he's acting like I can't
believe this was done. It's like, dude, are your people
that you know that went in and did this and
created this whole diplomatic crisis and did again the base
social media video show of force put them in shackles
the South Korean workers who were legitimately here, put them

(01:06:12):
in shackles and arrested all of them and deported them
back to their country. So it also showed just a
level of disconnect between what he was willing to say
in this interview and what the actual policy in direction
of his administration has been.

Speaker 3 (01:06:26):
Yeah, that is a really good point. So I'm looking
right now at a New Economist you gov poll on
approval for Donald Trump. If you look at people who
voted for Trump in twenty twenty four, only sixteen percent
disapprove of the way he's handling his job as president. Now,
but we should also look at this. I mean, it's
at eighteen percent among conservatives, so by ideology eighteen percent,

(01:06:48):
that's almost one in five, and then by party id
independence sixty three percent. Sixty three percent of independence disapprove
of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president.
In any presidential and independent voters are absolutely crucial as
they were in twenty twenty four. So when you have
sixty three percent disapproval with independence, it's just going to

(01:07:09):
depend on how much Donald Trump values I mean, he's
doing the legacy building he wants that Nobel Peace Prize
for a reason, because he wants history to see him
as an enormously consequential figure and one who's sort of
who completely what's the best way to put it, completely
outperformed the expectations of the elite. I think that's what

(01:07:32):
he wants people to see him as. And that's where
he's willing to cut deals with different countries and do
all of these like big foreign policy kind of moonshot
type negotiations. But at home, that question is going to
hinge on independence. And one of the gripes that you've
heard from people in MAGA world recently is that he's

(01:07:54):
been too focused on foreign policy and not focused enough
on affordability and domestic policy questions that matter like home ownership,
student loan debt, price of college, just cost of living stuff,
which crystal his political instincts. Whatever you think of Donald Trump,
he has better political instincts than a lot of people
in the party leadership because he was out there talking

(01:08:17):
about things like the price of eggs and the price
of gas, and gas prices are roughly down, so he's
got that going for him. But what the price of
beef is still over like six bucks a pounds when
I checked last week. Yeah, and he talked about that,
So he knows that it's a problem. The question is
whether he has the sort of will to tackle some

(01:08:38):
of these problems in a way that really does make
a difference, because I think what we're starting to see
as he approaches the one year mark of his second term,
which most people assume will be his final term. We
still don't quite know whether that will be the case,
but which most people assume is his final term. People
are not interested in the bullshit anymore. It's just not

(01:08:58):
going to work because when you're looking at the post
Trump era, a lot of the Trump era politics fade away,
not all of them, but a lot of them, which
is to say, the specific debate about Trump himself. When
that fades away, you're left with way more nuts and bolts.