1/16/25: NYT Demands Venezuela Toppled, Vivek Exiled by Trump, Jon Stewart Skewers Partisan LA Fire Response, Mr Beast To Buy TikTok, Bernie Ally Wants DNC Revolution

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 the 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. Same time, we have had a slate of
hearings that happened yesterday, confirmation hearings for incoming officials in
the Trump administration. The most high profile person yesterday was
Senator Marco Rubio, up for Secretary of State. Had a

(00:46):
couple of interesting remarks. The most important for our purposes
is really going to be about future policy visa the Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Here's what he had to say.

Speaker 4 (00:54):
Let me first stackle the President's words and what he
said in an interview about a year ago. He was
asked about the war in Ukraine, he says, I want
to die to stop. I want people to stop dying.
I want the killing to stop. And frankly, I don't
know how anyone could say they don't. The destruction that
Ukraine is undergoing is extraordinary. It's going to take a
generation to rebuild it. Millions of Ukrainians no longer live

(01:15):
in Ukraine, and the disruption that means so many of
them are going to come back, and what are they
going to come back to. Even as I speak to
you now, the Ukrainian infrastructure and their energy infrastructure is
being decimated in ways that are going to cost hundreds
of billions of dollars to rebuild over the next decades.
So this is an important conflicent. I think it should
be the official position of the United States that this

(01:35):
war should be brought to an end. And I think
it should be the official policy of the United States
that we want to see at end. Now what that
master plan looks like, it's going to be hard work.
This is not going to be an easy endeavor by
this but it's going to require bold diplomacy. And my
hope is that it could begin with some ceasefire and
we're going to have there are in order to achieve
objectives like the one that needs to occur in Ukrainian

(01:57):
it is important for everyone to be realistic. There will
have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but
also by the Ukrainians and the United States lend itself there.
It's also important that there'll be some balance on both sides.
In essence, it will be difficult to achieve the subjective
of a ceasefire and ultimately a peace settlement unless both
sides have leverage.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
A couple of very interesting things that happened there. Number
one is saying that, echoing Donald Trump's phrase, we need
to stop the dying. But actually so I watched the
entire hearing. The most important part was he says it's
unrealistic to believe that Ukraine can ever push Russia back
to pre February twenty twenty two invasion lines quote. There
will also need to be concessions made by the Russian
Federation and by the Ukrainians. He brought up later on

(02:41):
Crystal the use of Russian sanctions as a leverage tool
from the United States, effectively saying, listen, you guys, pull
up this way, we'll take off these sanctions. I don't
know how powerful that will be. The Russians have figured
out a lot of ways around it.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Sanctions. Turns out they don't actually work that well. Shocker.

Speaker 3 (02:57):
But I was very interested to say, I mean, this
is effectively a declaration of policy here now from the
incoming administration, that this idea of nothing without Ukraine. He
even said, nothing without Ukraine, whatever long it takes, not
going to happen.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
He's like, that era is over.

Speaker 3 (03:12):
But two, the mere acknowledgment of the incoming Secretary of
State to say the pre February twenty twenty two is
not going to happen. That is a radical change in
US policy. I know that it was assumed and all
this nobody really knew for sure, but I mean that
is as close as you can get to an actual
statement from the incoming White House. And in Kiev they

(03:33):
must be I mean, they're probably freaking out, especially what
happened after they're used to the Biden people just being like, okay, okay,
you can shoot into Russia, but only two hundred yards,
and then the next month be like, now three hundred yards,
but all right, we'll let's do it, Okay, all right, sure, Well,
let's do whatever you want. Yeah, Now, I mean this
is a whole other this is a whole new thing.
So arguably the most important thing that came out of

(03:54):
my that hearing, in my opinion.

Speaker 5 (03:56):
Yeah, that's probably right.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
I mean Trump says he's going to get us a
deal on day one, and so we've seen.

Speaker 5 (04:01):
More days of war.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
Listen, Steve would cough, get your ass on the plane.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
The key to Moscow. He is our new Avrel Herriman,
who was this rich banker. He was the FDR's ambassador
of Moscow during World War Two.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
He was an excellent diplomat, by the way. So yeah,
so listen, Steve, get over there, man, we need you.

Speaker 2 (04:19):
Part of what you say, though, does underscore the difficulty
at this point of trying to bring this war to
some sort of conclusion, because while with Israel we have
all the leverage in the world, just requires the willpower
to actually use it. With Russia we don't have as much.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
Any I mean, with Ukraine, we've got total.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
With Ukraine, we do, but you have to get the
Russians to come to the table as well.

Speaker 5 (04:40):
So it is a tricky situation.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
But and you know, Rubio constitutionally like he is a
hawk and especially with regards to anywhere in Latin America,
which we'll get to in just a moment. But you know,
I think there's almost a built way wide recognition, whether
they want to admit it or not, that, like what
Rubio said, it's just manifestly true. They're not going to

(05:03):
be able to retake all of the I mean, they
were talking about Pelosi saying or one hundred percent going
to get back CRIMEA.

Speaker 5 (05:09):
Yes, that's not happening. Crazy, that's not happening.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
So it's nice to hear at least a little bit
of realism here from Rubio. We'll see how it actually
plays out in practice, and the means that Trump uses
he's a wild card in order to try to secure
some sort of an end to the conflict if he
decides to go in that direction. It was interesting, you know,
it's so interesting watching Washington work like Rubio is basically,

(05:33):
I mean, he is effectively a Neyoka.

Speaker 5 (05:35):
He's a hawkish guy.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
There's lots of always has been right, that is his
ideological direction. The fact that he gets put in as
Secretary of State is really antithetical to the idea that
the Trump administration is going to be oriented in this
anti war kind of a way, and so you would think,
like if it was you or I questioning, it would
be contentious. But because Rubio is one of them, it's

(05:57):
relatively like, you know, it's very core Joel The Washington
Post endorsed him, like.

Speaker 5 (06:02):
You know, they're like, oh, he's one of us.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
He can yeah, he's respect he passes their respectability threshold.
So it's a much different approach to him. I did
think there was an interesting line of questioning taken by
Senator Chris Murphy. He submerged as a kind of an
interesting voice here in the second Trump emerging, second Trump term,
where he really pressed Rubio on Trump's corruption and the

(06:24):
fact that and this is this very important line of argument.
Trump has these business deals all around the world, but
in particular, he has massive and Kushner have massive financial
interests in the Middle East and with the golf Arab
states Trump, we don't even know how much money he's
getting from this frickin Saudi live golf tour. They're going
to have another event at one of his properties. That's

(06:46):
just one example. Kushner got what two billion dollars from
the Saudis they're all kinds of financial entanglements there. And
you know, when you've got a president who the largest
sphere of influence that a president has is in terms
of foreign policy, you have to ask the question, how
are these financial entanglements impacting their views and their approach

(07:07):
to foreign policy. Is this just about American interest or
is this about your business interest as well. Chris Murphy
made this point and pressed Center Rubio on exactly this direction.
Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.

Speaker 6 (07:19):
Over the last eight years while he was in office
and since he's been out of office, he and his
family have become more deeply dependent on revenue from governments
in the Middle East. During his last presidency, Middle East
interests sent about ten million dollars to Trump properties. After
he left office, Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, who

(07:41):
was his primary Middle East envoy, was handed two billion
dollars in investment by the Saudis, even though a Saudi
investment board said the investment was a bad business decision.
That investment actually comes up for renewal in twenty twenty six,
giving the Saudi's massive leverage over the Trump family. And
then to make matters worse. Right after the election, the

(08:02):
Trump Organization said that in this term, the president elects
second term, it would drop its previous prohibition on doing
new deals in the Middle East with private with private
foreign companies aligned with foreign governments. So the Trump Organization
is going to be signing new business deals in the

(08:23):
Middle East with private companies that have connections to foreign
governments at the very moment that you are going to
be conducting sensitive diplomacy in these countries. That's just extraordinary.
Never before in the history of this country has a
president been, I mean literally receiving cash from foreign governments
and from foreign companies that are backed by foreign governments

(08:44):
in the middle of their term. If you or I
had done this as senators, we would be in violent
violation of Senate ethics rule. Do you have an issue
or will you raise an issue with the President about
his growing financial connection with the governments that you're going
to be negotiating with.

Speaker 4 (09:02):
Well, first of all, I am not neither authorized nor
in any position to give you sort of any insights
into any of these arrangements you've pointed out. You mentioned
Jared Kushner as an example. He's a private citizen happens
to be a Floridian. I don't know what, if any,
engagement he has in the work that's going on. Now.
I can tell you what I know. Obviously I'm not
in the State Department yet, but I can tell you

(09:22):
as an example, the President's envoid to that region who
is charged. Steve Woodcoff, who was charged with being an
onvoid towards reaching an accommodation between the Israelis and the Saudis,
has been working cooperatively and together with the Biden administration,
and in fact, I dare say that all involved deserve
credit for the seaswire that the Chairman's just announced, but

(09:43):
Steve wood calls been a critical component of it, and
he has been involved in it from day one. I
think the broader consideration about whether we want to see
a Saudi Israeli mutual recognition and relationship would be one
of the most historic developments in the history of the region.
They have a right to be in the business. I mean,
that's the business that they're in. They're in the real
estate business. They've been for a very long time, both

(10:04):
domestically and abroad. They have properties in multiple countries. So
at the end of the day, I don't know his
family is entitled to continue to operate their business. The
fundamental question is not whether his family is involved in business.
The fundamental question is whether that is in any way
impacting the conduct of our foreign policy in a way
that's counter to our national interests. And the Presence made
abundantly clear that every decision he makes, and every decision

(10:27):
we are to make at the State Department, should be
driven by whether or not it serves the core national
interests of the United States.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
So in any case, you're not going to get much
out for Abana there. But I think that's a very
important question, because we're a long way from Jimmy Carter
selling his peanut farm in order to avoid any conflicts
of interest. In fact, not only with regard to foreign
government entanglements, but I mean, everybody knows the way to
Donald Trump's art is through his pocketbooks. So they've been
showering him with like insane amounts of money even after

(10:56):
he wins reelection into his campaign coffies. They can't even
run again, and yet all this money, hundreds of millions
of dollars flowing into his campaign coffers. You know, Zuckerberg
and Sam Altman and all these people sucking up to
him with million dollar contributions into the inauguration fund. And
then obviously you know the Golf AUP States in particular,

(11:16):
they were early movers in this direction. I mean, the
thing to Jared Kushner was just a flat out bribe.
We know that MBS intervened in that decision to fund
him to that regard, he had been rejected by the
larger Council, and MBS came in over the top and
was like, no, no, no, we're going to We're gonna make
this one happen for him. So very legitimate, long line
of questioning. Obviously you don't get anything useful out of

(11:38):
Rubio there. The other thing that was just worth a
mention that Glenn Greenwold pointed out is New York Times
Hawks in particular Brett Stevens already making their move with
Rubio lined up here to be Secretary of State, and
he is almost certainly going to get confirmed by I
think a large margin. I think a lot of Democrats
will vote for Yeah, I think a lot of Democrats
are going to vote for him as well. But New

(11:59):
York Times publishing an op ed literally calling for military
intervention into Venezuela to take out Maduro. We can put
this up on the screen. This is B three. Donald
Trump has set some grandiose foreign policy goals for a
second term. They say, here's one goal that's overdue morally.
Wright an international security interest deposing the regime of Nicholas

(12:19):
Medoro in Venezuela through colercive diplomacy if possible, or force
if necessary. Any lays out the case for why we
should be willing to wage a regime change war in Venezuela,
something that certainly Marco Rubio would be. If anyone it
would be open to such a thing, it would be
Marco Rubio.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
Well, the only thing I can say is, at least
we have seen Donald Trump has been able to exert
some influence. Rubio was sing a real different tune on Ukraine,
and at least these guys know that it's not up
to them in public.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
Behind the scenes, I have no idea.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
In fact, Latin America is one of the very things
I warned about, because it's the problem is is that
you can only do that for stuff that you really
care a lot about. But when you have somebody like
that Secretary State in power, there's a lots of that
goes on behind the scenes. I've talked about this extensively,
that you have no power, that you have no interest
in right back burner relationship Venezuela whatever, who cares. So
that means that's kind of default up to the Secretary

(13:12):
of State. Now what policy is he going to pursue.
Don't forget you know, John Bolton and all that in
the past always advocated for a regime change in Venezuela.
So we're all going to keep our eyes on that one.
And I genuinely think that is the biggest danger area.

Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, and there's a significant constituency in favor of EUD
that's where it goes.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
All right, let's go to the next one. This was
Pam Bondi.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
She's going to be the art is up for Attorney General,
probably going to get it. Looks pretty likely she was
pressed about election certification in twenty twenty and some of
those cases.

Speaker 1 (13:45):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 7 (13:46):
That's central to the peaceful transition of power in a
democracy is the acceptance of the results of an election.
To my knowledge, Donald Trump has never acknowledged the legal
results of the twenty twenty election. Are you prepared to
say today, under oath without reservation, that Donald Trump lost
the presidential contest to Joe Biden in twenty twenty.

Speaker 8 (14:09):
Ranky Member Dervin. President Biden is the President of the
United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is
the President of the United States. There was a peaceful
transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly
elected in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (14:27):
So yeah, typical.

Speaker 3 (14:29):
But I mean, listen, I guess one, now this doesn't
really matter anymore. Let's put this one up there on
the screen as well, because we wanted to keep you
guys updated. Tulsi Gabberd's confirmation hearing is probably the diceiest
one currently just in terms of the number of votes,
and also it has not yet been scheduled, which people
are very interested in. Shall we say. They are blaming

(14:51):
it on procedural paperwork issues, but here the Washington Artistartre
of the Wall Street Journal reports quote some Senate Republicans
have left recent meetings with former Tulsi gapp Representative Telsea
Gabbard with reservations about her qualifications. Those concerns have largely
remained private, and gopmakers are expected to publicly support her
despite that, but further missteps could jeopardize her nomination. In

(15:13):
her meeting with Senator James Langford, Gabbard couldn't clearly articulate
what the role of the D and I entails, According
to two of her Republican aids and two transition officials.
When she met with Senator Mike Rounds, she seemed confused
about a key US national security surveillance power that's the
top legislative priority for nearly every member. I'm assuming we're
talking about seven zero two. They're keep in mind, these

(15:34):
are anonymous leagues.

Speaker 9 (15:35):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
They probably want a knew ger and so they're sending
this to the journal. The point, though, is that this
is the first one I have seen where they said
there were multiple people behind the scenes who are very,
very skeptical of her. Senator Susan Collins, for example, has
told reporters that she's going to wait for the background
check before making any decisions. So they're not outright coming
out and saying that they would vote for her. Senator

(15:56):
John Curtis of Utah said he quote needs more information.

Speaker 1 (16:00):
And that was just on Tuesdays.

Speaker 3 (16:00):
It was a couple of days ago before he can
decide to vote for her.

Speaker 1 (16:04):
So there are multiple people.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
It seems, behind the scenes who are way like weary
and absent direct intererviation from Trump. Let's say there's one
thing they can hang their hat on, then they She's
only one vote away from getting voted down. So she
right now actually seems to be in a way more
precarious position than even ourf cagion.

Speaker 5 (16:24):
I think that's right. I think that's right.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
I mean you have to think about both the personal
and the ideological.

Speaker 1 (16:29):
Right.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
The Democrats hater because she's a turncoat, right exactly, she
cannot count We'll not get a single vote. She cannot
count on any support from the Democratic You may have
one or who knows, but she cannot count on any
support from the Democratic caucus because she's a turncoat.

Speaker 5 (16:41):
They don't want to support her.

Speaker 2 (16:43):
The Republicans, you have a lot of ideological concern because
of things she said in the past. Now she's proven
herself like willing to bend with the wind and you know,
flip completely her position on Section seven oh two whatever.
But they don't trust her, right and she doesn't have
her really she was in the Senate, so she doesn't
have a relationship with these people, And I'm just gonna
be honest with you. When you're around Tulci Gabbard, she

(17:05):
comes off kind of odd, like she's a hard person
to like, really immediately click with. So the Republicans are like,
not sure about this one now. I think they'll probably
all end up voting for her. Donald Trump wants her.
Donald Trump is likely to get her.

Speaker 5 (17:18):
But if there was any other shoe to drop with
her and.

Speaker 2 (17:23):
They had an excuse to not vote for her, I
think that there are a number of them who would
take that excuse to.

Speaker 5 (17:29):
Not vote for her. And the margin is very narrow.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
Republicans control fifty three seats in the Senate, so she
only has a few that she could lead lose assuming
that she gets absolutely no Democratic support, So hers is
definitely the most on the rocks. Again, I expect that
the most likely outcome is she also gets through. But
this leak to the Wall Street Journal is, you know,
a little bit of like a test balloon. I feel

(17:54):
like to the Trump people of like, well, if we
didn't vote for this one, how mad would you.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Be at us? Effectively?

Speaker 3 (17:59):
Yet, so let's all watch it. It's very possible that
it may not happen the hearings. I mean, we've only
got four days till Donald Trump is going to take office.
They're going to continue a little bit after that. But
da I mean, John Ratcliffe appears to be able to
go through like quite easily for CIA director. But as
of things where they stand right now, Kirsty Nome and

(18:19):
Telsea Gabbard and R. K. Junior do not have hearings
currently scheduled before the committees, which itself is kind of
a problem, just because the longer this drags out, the
more juice and energy that may be able to have.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
That said, probably more likely not she gets confirmed.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
But she's the one who I only have at like
the fifty five percentile as opposed to the rest where
I have in like the sixties and plus absence.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
Something pretty crazy what happened.

Speaker 3 (18:45):
At the same time, Turning to Vivik Ramaswami, it seems
that there could be a way out of him for DOGE,
but it wouldn't be necessarily a firing, maybe just moving off.
Let's put this up there on the screen. Our very
own Jeff Stein has scooped this report. Ramaswami is being
encouraged by Donald Trump to consider filling Ohio's vacant Senate seat.

(19:08):
So remember jd Vance has officially vacated his seat as
United States Senator before he's worn in as the Vice
President of the United States in interim, Mike DeWine has
a few days before he has to name the replacement
for jd Vance. Now, the reason why that's important is
that it is presumed whoever Diwine will appoint to fill

(19:29):
out the remainder of the two years on jd Vance's term,
that that person will then run for the seat after
the term is up in twenty twenty six. Okay, So
when we think about that though, it means that Shared Brown,
who just narrowly lost his election Crystal, could actually run

(19:50):
against the vivike Rama Swami. So part of the reason
why people are afraid of appointing Viveke is, Yeah, look,
he might be a beloved Maga figure and all this
Ohio read, but it's not that red. We're not talking
about Montana or something like this. And Shrige is a
very unique political talent. Also, black Swan stuff happens all
the time. Right in two years, who knows what's going

(20:11):
to happen. Trump could be massively unpopular, like in the
twenty eighteen midterms, and you can have all these people
who get elected who have no business usually getting elected
in their home state. You know, you don't want to
leave a lot of things up to chance. But it
seems clear that Trump Viveke is not tweeted in what
two weeks January third, So it's been thirteen days since

(20:32):
we've heard from Vivike.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
He's been effectively disappeared.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
Trump is now leaking or people around them are leaking
that they want him to go take this Ohio sentence.
So clearly they're like, yeah, this doge thing, maybe that's
going to happen. The other argument here is that he
didn't piss Trump off. He pissed off Elon, which I
think is equally possible. Is big egos, you know, eat,
maybe Elon doesn't necessarily want to share the doge mantle
with Viveke Ramas swam and he told Trump He's like, hey,

(20:56):
I need you to get rid of a vic for me.
So I don't know what's happening, you know now, But
it is interesting because they had zero chance of getting
the Senate seed zero Like previously Mike Dwine were about
to show everybody. Ohio local media had lists of people floated.
As of a couple of days ago. His name's not
even on the damn list. It was one hundred percent assumed.
But ever since this hold h one b saga, it

(21:19):
now seems that Trump is looking for a way to
get him out of the government and shunked him over
to the Senate. A little weird though, because senator is
actually like a very important job, like also your own
principle and your own right. You know, I'm not so
sure how Ohioan's feel about being called lazy. Love to

(21:40):
see that one go over good luck, good luck to you.
I'm sure shared would make a so I'm very curious
to see what happens here. But nonetheless, something is happening.
Either he pissed Trump off or he pissed off Elon.
He hasn't tweeted it in a while, and now this
thing before he's even taken his job.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Now he's being flowed for another job. You don't want
to be this whenever you're here in DALs.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
Could be some combination of both, but the pissing off
Elon thing actually does make some sense, because this.

Speaker 5 (22:08):
Did the vics.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
You know, boy, meets World Saved by the Bell infamous
tweet at this point, which seems to have spelled somewhat
of an undoing here in Maga world. I mean, that
is part of what brought so much wrath against not
just a fake but against Elon's the h I mean
that just was absolute fuel on the fire. And you
can see the way that Elon has reacted, you know,

(22:30):
jumping into the UK Grooming Gang's discussion and all of
that in an effort to regain the credibility that he
previously had with Mega. So he clearly sees this as
having been a problem for him with regard to his
rep on the right.

Speaker 5 (22:43):
And yeah, Vivek was an.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
Important part of creating that story and making it as
much of a conflagration as it ultimately was. So that
does actually make sense to me that Elon was like,
you know, I don't really need this dude around, Like,
go do something else with him, Go to the hinterlands
and run for this Senate seat in the you know,
in his conception, Yeah, I don't know how it will
go for him if he's running against Jared Brown, who's

(23:06):
probably the one Democrat who could potentially still even win
in the state of Ohio has tons of working class
and labor cred. After Viveake did his whole screed against
the white working class and kind of showed us colors there,
that might be a little bit of a difficult thing
to overcome. And then the other thing Sager that I
didn't realize is apparently Vivecan wanted to run for governor
of Ohio, which is up in twenty twenty six, which

(23:29):
if you are in this Senate seat and you get appointed,
then you have to run in twenty twenty six for
the full Senate term. So it creates some awkward timing
for him. So and then you've got DeWine who just won,
I mean Diwine won his seat, and absolute Landslide has
its own power base in the state of Ohio, does
not have to kowtow to Donald Trump and you know,
enact his wishes. But then what does he want to

(23:51):
do post governor's mansion? Does he want some sort of
administration gig? Is there something that Trump could give him
as well? So there's a lot of different interesting political
peace is here going on, But the most fascinating one
is the big standing within Maga world visa v. Trump
Visa v Elon and how they clearly are trying to
kind of push him aside and push him out of DOGE.

Speaker 5 (24:12):
At this point.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
Absolutely, let's put C three up there on the screen.
So this is why this is a time sensitive segment.
Governor DeWine is set to put his is set to
name this person, like I said, any day now. According
to somebody close to him, this was local Ohio media.
They say, whoever it is has to be sworn in
or should be sworn in before Jdvance is sworn in

(24:33):
as vice president on January twentieth. Okay, so that means
like we're talking about four days and now this is
a very fast moving thing. The previous names that have
been floated are the Lieutenant Governor John Husted. Sorry, by
the way, to the local ohioans, I don't know who
you are. Other notable names include the Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague,
former state Senator Matt Role, yeah Big Sprague, Head Secretary

(24:55):
of State Frank LaRose, Columbus Area Congressman Might Care, and
former Ohio Republican Party chair Jane Timkin.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
I don't know why that name.

Speaker 5 (25:05):
I know she's familiar to me, so she ran for
something else. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
It's funny some of these names, they're back here somewhere
from various news coverage now over the years. But the
point is, every single one of the folks that we
just listed are Ohioans in their own right. There are
people who are long standing ties in the state. They
have been floated previously. Vivek is from Ohio. I don't
actually know if he lives there. I'm assuming he does,
probably has houses everywhere. But he was not even on

(25:32):
the short list. It was assumed one hundred percent of
was going into dog. So the question mark now is
if he does get it. Was that an Elon move?
It makes some very interesting politics going forward. Man, I
would love to cover that if he is. If he
gets it, I'm gonna go to Ohio to go see
the midterm. I got to see it for myself, Like
this h one b stuff, Share it and it would

(25:53):
be an incredible race.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
It absolutely would well because I mean not only the
victims anti why working class creed, but also I mean,
here he is this billionaire dude who you know, basically
got rich from scamming investors on this Alzheimer's drug that
had already failed test trials multiple times, and so there's
a lot to work with that someone like Shared can

(26:17):
actually make Hay out a different Democrat. Like we had this,
you know problem in Virginia with Glen Youngkin running against
Terry mccuff. Like Colo couldn't make anything of Glenn Youngkin's
past financial dealings.

Speaker 5 (26:30):
Because he was implicated in that sort of thing as well.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
So so yeah, he couldn't make anything out of it.
But Shared Brown, that's his lane. He would know how
to exploit those weaknesses with regard to if the vague,
So that would be I'm cheering for it just because
that would be a really interesting race to cover and
listen if you had to.

Speaker 5 (26:47):
Bet right now.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
I mean, just history is that typically the opposition party
does well in the first mid term. After you know that,
there's like a backlash and people want to check and
the opposition is motivated and the people were in power
less motivated. So you know, that also makes things more interesting.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
I think there's only been three midterms since the eighteen
hundreds where the party in power has gained seats, so
three since the eighteen hundreds. Biden was actually one of
those who defied expectations shockingly enough only to go on
to get blown out in the next election. So that
goes to show you public opinion is very thermostatic, and

(27:24):
it moves around a lot. You can get do well
on the midterms, you can get blown out in the
general election. So things happen and they move and they
shake all the time. Yes, all right, let's get to California.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
Yes, So, John Stewart had a in my opinion, fantastic
monologue talking about the LA wildfires and really in particular
going after Republicans for suggesting, and many of them will
show you in a minute, including Speaker of the House
Mike Johnson, that either California not get aid or that
it be tied to some sort of preconditions. Let's take
a listen to a little bit of what John Stewart

(27:56):
had to say.

Speaker 10 (27:57):
Problem now is Republicans apperior to want to attached there.
I told you SOS as a condition of funding California's
disaster relief, expect.

Speaker 7 (28:07):
That there will be strings attached to money that is
ultimately approved.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
I think there should probably be conditions on that day.

Speaker 5 (28:13):
That's my personal view.

Speaker 10 (28:14):
Before we put funds into place, we've got to find
out exactly how we're going to hold these leaders accountable
and what sort of policy changes are required. Reb states
are always the tragic victims of circumstance outside of their control,
and Democrats always vote for their aid, whereas blue state
disasters are a function of their flawed morality and policy.

(28:34):
And if we help blue state survivors, well, what message
will that send? Improvements can be made in leadership, in management,
in design, in materials, in myriad ways, but sometimes fire
fox a tornado and make some mockery of human infrastructure

(28:55):
and our ability to dictate the terms of our existence
on this planet. One thing it shouldn't dictate is the
cruelty that we would show to those in pain because
we don't think they consistently vote right.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
I think that is all very well said, And I
was telling you, Sager, one of the things that actually
radicalized me against the Democratic Party is when I lived
in Kentucky, and Kentucky has was one of the sort
of shifting red states that actually held on to Democratic
majorities in their state House for a long time. This,
like Appalachian Realignment, was the last one to happen at

(29:30):
the state level, and the number of just I mean,
I'm not talking about like you know, Nancy Plis, I'm
talking about just random Democrats online who as this raft
of terrible legislation, attacks on teachers, pension, and attacks on
labor unions, et cetera, et cetera, was rolling through the
Kentucky State House and being signed into legislation by the
at that time Republican governor Matt Bevin.

Speaker 5 (29:52):
Who were like, we'll screw you.

Speaker 2 (29:53):
You should have voted different, like you should have known better,
you should have done something different. And I found that
attitude so disgusting because I don't think whether people have
a good life or not should be dependent on whether
they voted for the politician that you like or don't like.
I you know, have Karen Bass I think has made
a mess politically for herself.

Speaker 5 (30:15):
She pled she wouldn't go out in the country.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Then she was out in the country when the worst
disaster possible struck the state. I am no Gavin Newsom fan.
I don't think that should have anything to do with
whether or not people who just lost their homes and
everything they ever worked for, whether or not they get aid.
Some of those people, by the way, are Republicans too.
There are a lot of Republicans in California, though the

(30:36):
state overall is blue. And if we start going down
this path of saying I'm only giving aid and only
helping out when you vote for the politicians that I
want you to vote for, there is no end to
that hell for this country that we would go, I.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
Will look, I'll split the difference.

Speaker 3 (30:50):
I'm not saying I'm fine with conditioning aid as long
as it's reasonable. And what I mean by that is,
for example, like when we bailed out pension funds, right,
we don't bail out pension funds and allow them to
just continue doing business after two thousand and eight. We'll
bail you out, but we need to have some systematic
reform to make sure that this stuff doesn't happen. So
if it was actually policy focused, I would be fine.

(31:11):
But the problem is is if they're for example, as
people here know, I don't agree with the electoral vehicle
mandate at all.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
It had nothing to do with the fire.

Speaker 3 (31:19):
So we shouldn't be bailing out the state, conditioning on them,
reversing policy that has nothing to do with the actual
circumstances here. So let's say we're talking about water reservoir Well,
we're like all right, Well, here's this money for this
water reservoir to build ten more. Don't use it for
something else. I'm fine with that, you know whatever. I
don't even know if.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's necessarily conditioning eight.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
But if it's about broader politics, I'd be totally against it.
I mean another principal thing too. People here, now, I
love California always. Well, it doesn't matter how screwed up
it gets. It's just a beautiful state. But the thing
is is, we're given unconditioned aid to Ukraine and to Israel,
but we're going to condition aid to the state of Calcia.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
That's too much for me.

Speaker 5 (32:00):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Where I'm like, so the Israelis can do whatever they
want with our money, and so the Ukrainians can do
whatever we want through our money.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
And look, I can make.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
An economic case probably California deserves to get bailed out
than any other state in the entire nation. They paid
probably more income tax to the federal government than anybody else.
They've got the biggest population. It's a G seven nation
in its own right. You got twenty five percent of
the GDP of the entire country tied up in an
industry which is headquartered there. So look, got a lot

(32:29):
of problems and all that, but you know, if California
is split off from America, we'd be screwed.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
It'd be not good for any of us.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
So look just based on that alone, and then you've
got the civic argument here, which is, look at state
just like any other I would stay for Alabama, I'd
say from Mississippi. All these other states which are probably
net negatives you know, on a balance sheet for the
federal government, doesn't mean they aren't our citizens. Puerto Rico,
any of these places. If you're under our purview, we
take care of you. So yeah, I have some problems

(32:56):
with it, and I just think it'd be absurd.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
I also do think.

Speaker 2 (32:58):
It's pretty antithetical the America first conception of it, when
you're like, sure, Israel have whatever you want, but oh,
struggling citizen in California.

Speaker 5 (33:08):
Sorry, not a big Karen Bass fan.

Speaker 3 (33:10):
So your and I do think that there are I mean,
like you said, there are a lot of Republicans in California.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
I need to go look it up. I have millions
of people.

Speaker 5 (33:17):
I saw someone there.

Speaker 2 (33:18):
I think just the state is so large, but I
think there's the largest number of Republicans of any state
in the state of California, just simply because it is
such a large population there.

Speaker 3 (33:29):
Population shift all the time. I I can tell you this.
I know people in La California, they have been radicalized.
Things are very going to be They're going to be
very different. I think the LA elite. I mean, look
at ari Emmanuels are supporting a recall on not officially,
but he's like endorsed Karen Bass. He's the unofficial mayor
right like WMME. You've got people like Rick Caruso and others,

(33:52):
the tech guys, half of them are right wing. Peter
Thiel lives in La. There's a lot of right wingers
who live in LA. There's a lot of very rich Californians.
But not just them. Now, the voters, they've got a
good case against Karen. I mean, she's done right, she's dead.
She's never gonna I would certainly, Yeah, she'll probably get
a recalled given them what's happened to her, and that
guy Rick Caruso is probably gonna win. So you can

(34:13):
think about You've got all these guys and others who
are effectively supporting a Dino like a Democrat in name only,
I mean, who cares whether it's Democrat or Republican if
you want the policy to change. This would actually give
Karen Bass and some of the liberals an argument for
why to you know, to argue against people like the
actual reformers and others that you may want to see

(34:34):
in power. So that'd be another main reason not to
do it well.

Speaker 2 (34:37):
And also just keep in mind, like a lot of
the focus has been on Pacific policies, which is not
I guess the I mean, I have sympathy for anyone
who works their home, even they're rich, famous, whatever, But
you know, these are wealthy people.

Speaker 5 (34:48):
They're going to be able to rebuild. By and large.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
There's a middle class, longtime black community that was just
utterly devastated, and you're going to tell me you're not
going to give them help in this horrible situation, No
fall to their own because you don't like the way
that California votes, like that's disgusting, That is just to me,
that is just an absolutely repellent way to treat your
fellow human beings, let alone your fellow citizens. And you know, Democrats, certainly,

(35:13):
they have always consistently voted for the aid for whatever
state wherever it comes from. But there's nothing that would
keep that principle in place. If you're going to wage
war on California that way. Guess what next time there's
a hurricane that hits Florida, which Lord know is going
to happen next to hurricane season, suddenly they may have
some questions about whether they want to vote that aid
through and help Floridians in their time of need because

(35:34):
they don't like the way that the state has shifted
to the right.

Speaker 5 (35:37):
So that's why I say this is, you.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Know, absolute hell path to go on, as if the
nation isn't already divided enough.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
There you go.

Speaker 3 (35:45):
All right, let's get to mister beast. This is a
really fun story. I've been excited to cover it. First
and foremost is just the fate of TikTok. What the
hell is going to happen? Literally four days from when
we're taking this segment, TikTok is set to shut down
as long as the Supreme Court doesn't issue an opinion,
and the Supreme Court has already said we're not issuing
opinions for the next week, So basically it's over as
of January nineteenth, TikTok's plan is shut it all down.

(36:08):
Now people have been floating trying to buy it. Mister
Beast has planned. Nobody really knows if this is a
bit or not. It's probably both. But mister Beast has
come out and said that he's met with a bunch
of billionaires to try and buy TikTok.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
Here's what you have to say.

Speaker 6 (36:23):
Just got out of a meeting with a bunch of billionaires. TikTok.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
We mean business. This is my lawyer right here. We
have that offer ready for you. We want to buy
the platform America deserves.

Speaker 5 (36:32):
TikTok. Give me a seat at the table.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Let me save this platform. TikTok. So that's his lawyer.

Speaker 3 (36:36):
I don't watch enough mister Beast to know the names
of all the side characters.

Speaker 1 (36:40):
Isn't one of them named Chris or something? Is that
his name?

Speaker 9 (36:42):
I don't know.

Speaker 5 (36:42):
Idea all right, Yeah, but my kid, I do know.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
That there are many people in the Beast universe. He
may be one of those. I'm not one hundred percent sure.
Maybe he's the one who they're always making fun of
his mom. But anyways, that is something on the table.

Speaker 1 (36:58):
We have previously.

Speaker 3 (37:00):
We've previously covered the Chinese Communist Party floating selling it
to Elon Musk without even the consent of byte edance.
They didn't even know that that was possible. They have
also come out and said previously, we're.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
Just gonna shut it down. So we have no idea.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
Yeah, so even if mister even this is real and
billionaires are backing a mister Beast.

Speaker 5 (37:21):
Purchase may not be TikTok. It may not be for sale.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
I mean, that's what TikTok is saying is we are
not for sale. If this does not get you know, thwarted,
this ban, uh.

Speaker 5 (37:32):
Like reversed, then we're just going to shut down.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
One update is that Trump is apparently looking at an
executive order that I mean, he can't reverse the legislation
without converse exactly, but he could issue an executive order saying, yeah,
we are going to use our prosecutorial discretion to not
enforce this ban against TikTok at least for this number

(37:56):
of days while I try to work out some kind
of a deal. So that to be the direction that
they're moving in. Keep in mind, though the band is
supposed to go in a fact the day before Trump
is invungarated.

Speaker 3 (38:05):
So whatever we also know that Trump has now invited
the CEO of TikTok to sit with Mark Zuckerberg and
Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk at the day.

Speaker 5 (38:14):
How do you feel about that, Sager?

Speaker 1 (38:15):
I'm not happy.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
What did I open the show talking about how Trump
is a deeply transactional, egomaniacal figure who has to be
manipulated through the media.

Speaker 5 (38:25):
Well, you know, it's like they succeeded.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
I mean, the Trump became talking popular on TikTok. Yes,
he has now a warm place in his heart for
I think he even said something to that effect. He did.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
He literally said that he's like the young people love me.
The TikTok said.

Speaker 5 (38:39):
Better with young people than he's ever done before.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
And so suddenly he feels and oh and by the way,
he got a bunch of money from jeff yass That
never hurts since.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
Oh certainly does.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
He's a Marlago member who's got twenty billion dollar net worth,
half of it's tied up and by dance, why a
US billionaire is allowed to have a majority of his
networth tied up in a Chinese coming very interesting? Anyway,
we'll continue to move past it. The whole point is
in all of this, though, is there's also been an
organic backlash, and this may surprise people, I'm really enjoying it.
So lots of Americans are now downloading Chinese social media

(39:10):
apps as a screw you to the government for banning TikTok.
Some of those apps include and I'm going to butcher
this in Mandarin, I'm really sorry, is a jijong shu
or Xiao x hoong shu. That's where we're going to
go with. And also red Note ja jong Shu. Red
Note is a Chinese social media kind of TikTok competitor,

(39:30):
but also has a messaging function on it. The fascinating
part of this has been Americans interacting with actual Chinese netizens.
It's the first time in almost twenty years that that
has happened, which I think is great.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
So let's go ahead and show people some of what
we have got here.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
We've got some creators just marveling over Chinese infrastructure. She says,
your mind is about to be blown at what I've
found on Red Note, and she's showing off that here
we have created, just reminding all of the new Americans
that this is a safe Chinese space. We need to
respect the rules that are on this platform and not

(40:08):
bring our American bullshit.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
I actually like it. That's how all Americans should act
whenever they go to Asia.

Speaker 3 (40:14):
Shut your mouth, stop being so loud, eat the food
that's put in front of you, and observe local customs.

Speaker 1 (40:22):
This was great. I love this.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
I didn't know China was so beautiful. Does China really
look like this? So this is what I just wanted
to talk to you about. There seems to be this
like lib and leftist consideration that Americans have been syoped
into believing China is like some backwards nation. I don't
think that that is the case. I think this is
actually just a matter of people being completely uninformed. Because

(40:48):
if anybody, if even listening to me at least on
China and others, what's the number one thing they're getting
ahead of us?

Speaker 1 (40:55):
I respect them.

Speaker 3 (40:57):
It's not in terms of, oh, there are these backwards,
horrible people. I'm like, no, no, no, you don't understand. They're
lapping us on multiple different industries. In many ways. They
have a better quality of life in some cities and
others than American citizens do, which also apparently be shocking
to people.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
So my take on this is it's great.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
I think it's great that Americans are getting to talk
to Chinese people on their social media apps. The question
for the Chinese is are they going to continue to
allow that?

Speaker 2 (41:25):
Yeah, well, it's an interesting question for them because on
the one hand, you know, it makes it so it's
harder to control, right, and you have this. I mean,
I think this sort of cultural exchange is a beautiful thing.

Speaker 1 (41:35):
Oh, it's good, and that's most important.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
So I think the more that we interface with people
from other countries and see them as just human beings,
absolutely going about their lives and doing their thing with
personalities and sense of humor and whatever, I think that
is a beautiful thing. I also think I don't know
what conceptions people have in their heat about China, but
I do know that most of the coverage from Western
media about the country of China is quite negative. So,

(41:58):
you know, having interface with just regular Chinese people and
being like, these are nice people. I like this person, like,
you know, they're just like me in a lot of ways.
I think that is a net positive. You know, for
the Chinese government. On the one hand, it's kind of
like tremendous soft power that they're you know, they're having
access to right now because they are the perception of

(42:20):
China and what the country is like and what the
people are like. Among young people in this country who
have been more willing than other generations. I mean, they're
just not locked in this like cold war mentality. They're
not locked in the mentality around Israel. They're not locked
into some of the previous preconceptions. So minds are a
bit more open to start with, you know, I think
that is I think the Chinese government probably sees that
as a tremendous asset boom. On the other hand, you know,

(42:43):
they want to control. They have exercised much more tight
control on their social media than we do, even from
the perspective of just like they don't like young people
in their country have the screen time that really have,
so they they see social media and in some ways
they're very correct about this, about some of the incredibly
proletarious effects of social media on our own young people,

(43:06):
and so they're more like sensitive to those concerns. And
then also they're obviously like censories in certain ways, and
there's certain topics they don't want to brusure whatsoever. So
it is an interesting this.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
Is what a friend of mine, Rush Doshi.

Speaker 2 (43:19):
But I've been loving it. But I would say bottom line,
i've been loving it. I've been enjoying the exchange, the character.

Speaker 3 (43:26):
If you think China is backwards, you're an idiot, Okay,
I mean Shenzen is probably one of the world's most
advanced cities. If I encourage I'm totally blanking on the
guy's name right now.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
He's a car reviewer. I think his name is Forrest.
I'm going to go with that.

Speaker 3 (43:40):
He does some of the best car reviews in the business,
and he does a ton of Chinese. EV's BYD will
lap a Tesla and any American made EV by a mile.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
There's a reason why we have to have protection as
absolutely because of you. EV's because they're kicking.

Speaker 1 (43:54):
Or I'm getting I'm forgetting.

Speaker 3 (43:55):
The guy's name Warren Buffer, Warren Buffett's billionaire partner who died,
Charlie's my Kiunger.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
Charlie Munger. Charlie Munger.

Speaker 3 (44:04):
I listened to the last interview he gave before he died,
and he said that the founder of BYD is the
single smartest person he ever met, the greatest inventor. He was,
like I would have put more money into him if
I possibly could have, just so people know, I have deep,
deep respect.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
For a lot of these people. I've also been to China.

Speaker 3 (44:19):
I was very young. I was like sixteen, seventeen or
whatever when I went. It's one of the most beautiful
places I've ever been. Specifically, the Great Wall of China
is one of the coolest, one of the coolest things
I've ever seen in my whole life.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
The Forbidden City, it's incredible. They have an amazing history.

Speaker 3 (44:34):
I have nothing but respect for these people, and in fact,
it's my respect which makes me fear them. But a
question here with Rush Doshi, let's put e four pleas
up on the screen, is Rush makes this point as
Americans flood Jean Jong Shu, which is what we're going with.
We're seeing a lot more direct online interaction between the
US and PRC citizens, but the PRC has not always

(44:57):
welcomed that, which is partly why it has banned foreign
social media. So the success of the app is a
major test for PRC authorities. He follows up candidly, I've
enjoyed seeing the interaction. It reminds me of an earlier,
more hopeful era of US China people to people interaction
on the Internet, which is twenty years old now, And

(45:18):
that's precisely why I would be nervous if I was
an executive of that company right now. Previously, we have
seen this Facebook nuked, Google nuked, and they nuked these
things early. And when I visited in two thousand and nine,
I want to say, that's when we were in high
school and we're very on Facebook.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
There was no Facebook.

Speaker 3 (45:37):
I it was the first time I ever went to
a country in my cante Facebook. Same with Google. It
was shocking. I remember even then. I mean what almost
fifteen years ago or so now, So that's the reality
of what life is like in China. All of their
actions around bike Dance have showed us this. Again, people
don't seem to understand this TikTok. It might be a
Chinese company, it's not what they use in China. They

(45:58):
have their own version. I think it's called deuyt and
Doyen has screen time restrictions one hour a day for
people who are teenagers. If you're an OnlyFans model, yeah
good luck, you're getting nuked. If you're like a little
influencer girl who's promoting consumerism, nuked. If you are promoting
transgenderism or gender ideology, nuked.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
If you are.

Speaker 3 (46:18):
Promoting hard work and filial piety to the Communist Party, oh,
all of a sudden, you're a nice little influencer there.
So just so people know, the difference between actual Chinese
social media and American social media.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
Is gigantic for what it actually shows.

Speaker 3 (46:34):
But in general, I have been really enjoying this American
cultural exchange. As people know, I don't like Europe. I
encourage people, if you're able to visit China, go for it.
I know a lot of people who did study of
broad programs there. They absolutely loved it. Immerse yourself in
the culture.

Speaker 1 (46:47):
It's cool.

Speaker 3 (46:48):
It's like an alien society because they do things totally differently.
Their evolution of tech is incredible. What they've decided. What
they did is because they skipped Facebook, Google.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
And everything on the MacBook. Everything in China is on
the phone.

Speaker 3 (47:02):
They pay for all of their stuff with their phones,
They all their social media, Uber everything. It's one of
the world's most like convenience societies now and has some
downside with.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
Social credit score.

Speaker 3 (47:14):
It also, if you piss off the government, your phone
stops working, Your payment sports stop working. You need, you know,
permits to be able to leave your village and like
to be able to go from one place to another.
You should ask them about that on Jieshong Shue. But yeah, look,
I'm enjoying people learning more.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
About the world, and I think it's a good thing.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Yeah, it's earnest and it's sweet, and I think anytime
we can break down those human to human barriers is
a good thing.

Speaker 5 (47:36):
This is also kind of funny.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
Apparently the interest in learning Mandarin has like skyrocketed. That's
a good duel lingo is you know, seizing on this
moment as well. I can put this up on this
courage is kind of funny to say, oh, so now
you're a learning Mandarin and they've been putting out a
bunch of tweets about And also I did see a
graph just showing the tremendous spike in people who are
trying to learn Mandarin, or at least the basics who've

(47:59):
had their interest spark by.

Speaker 5 (48:00):
This whole thing.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
So it's just sort of funny and ironic that the
attempt to ban TikTok over concerns about like Chinese influence
and infiltration whatever has led to this response of people
learning on a very visceral human to human basis, way
more about China than they ever had before.

Speaker 3 (48:17):
So caricatures if people are never accurate. China is a
country of what one point one billion. Even saying Chinese
people is insane, right, you have all of these different provinces,
there are so many different might yeah, which they.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
Don't like to talk about.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
Ask them about that too, you know, ask them about
Han Chinese domination.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
And how what they feel about that.

Speaker 3 (48:36):
You've got what multiple Well, actually they're on one time zone,
which is insane. Like people into better are the same
time zone is in Beijing and have to keep the
same time.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
But it's a vast country.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
They have everything from like I said, rural to multi
tech oligarch billionaires. They've got people who don't even drive
cars to people who take some of the world's most
advanced transportation.

Speaker 1 (49:00):
And that's why it's interesting.

Speaker 3 (49:01):
I encourage people to learn a ton about it, and
I think the more that you will learn, you will
understand exactly how they use their corporations and others to
try at the detriment, in my opinion of the United States,
of their competition of their ability to plan long term
baked in to their government and foreign policy since the
days of Deng Xiaoping. And I think the most interesting

(49:23):
thing about them is the duality of China. Like I said,
the rural and the urban, the communists and the capitalists,
like the oligarchy but the Communist party. It's a fascinating country.
And look, we're gonna have to live with them no
matter what. So it's great learn Mandarin. The more you
can learn. I wish I knew it. I wish I

(49:44):
could speak some of it. Learn Cantonese too. It's actually
one of the coolest sounding languages in my opinion. Hong
Kong that would be the next one on my list
if I was able to go.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
So we'll see.

Speaker 5 (49:52):
Yeah, I would love to go to China. That's definitely
on my list.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
All right, let's go ahead and get to Fashakir, who
has announced a run for DNC party chair. Very interesting
to hear what he has to say. That's next, So
you've got a bit of what it's maybe an exclusive,
I don't know, we're a little unclear on that, but
a potential first interview on a YouTube channel from fashion here.
Who you guys probably know was Bernie's twenty twenty campaign chief.

(50:18):
He's also executive director of more Perfect Union and doing
fantastic work over there. We rely on the content you
guys create a lot, so it's been really important.

Speaker 9 (50:26):
And you've been featured in a more Perfect video. That's true,
that a collaboration.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
I appreciated that and the reason in particular. There are
many reasons we may want to speak with you, but
today you've just announced that you are running for DNC chair.
So welcome fast, great.

Speaker 5 (50:40):
To see you.

Speaker 9 (50:41):
Thank you, Chris. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about
it with you.

Speaker 5 (50:43):
Yeah, of course.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
So what made you jump in? It's a little bit
late in the game. There's already a number of contenders.

Speaker 5 (50:48):
What are they vote?

Speaker 2 (50:49):
They're voting what like early February, so you got about
two weeks to make your case here. So what made
you jump in?

Speaker 9 (50:54):
Well, one of the reasons was that, first, I was
hesitant for a long period time. I've been doing a
thing with more Perfect Union on a daily basis. No,
I have no hunger and ambition for the title of
the job, you know, And I guess what motivated me
is watching a number of the candidates go out and
do conversations and be in forums and talk about, oh,
we're going to appeal to working class people. We need

(51:16):
to rebuild this party around working class ideas. I'm like, great, well,
rhetorically we're moving, So give me the next dance er.
What are you going to do differently? You want to
make a working class party, what are you going to difference?
And I just constantly felt let down that the ambition,
if you're talking sincerely with conviction of changing the party
to be a working class party, get me something that
I can believe and make me turn my head and say, oh,
that's different. And I just didn't see it. And I'm like, well,

(51:38):
I'm sitting here saying I think I have some ideas,
and I'm watching the clock run down on the fourth quarter.
You only live once, Crystal, So I'm like, I'll get in.
I will make my case. I will try to make
the argument that if you had a vision and conviction
around what a working class party of the DNC would
look like, I'll make it. And so that's the hope
and the opportunity here, and I'll hopefully present this case
to all the deligates, talking to all of them and say,

(51:59):
you know, I'm asking you to make a choice of
do you really want a working class party you can
get in the substance of it, of how you change it.
But that's the case.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
Yeah, So I've had a similar frustration. I talked to
Mary and Williamson last week, who also is running. I
think she'd acknowledge is you know, a pretty long shot
because she comes in as a as a total outsider,
and I think she has that larger vision. But the
top contenders, I agree with you, it feels like shifting
deck chairs around out the Titanic. So the rhetoric might
be good about it. We got to be a working
class party, and it's like, okay, well, how are you

(52:27):
going to do well? I think we should allocate a
little more money to this you know, this state or
that state or whatever. It's like, well, I don't think
that's really going to get the job done. So what
is your broader vision for how the Democratic Party turns
around what has come to be an utter catastrophe among
working class Americans?

Speaker 9 (52:44):
So you start with the problem. What is the problem
right now? We are losing alignment with working class people.
We saw an election and people setting out, So you say, okay,
well you need that. That is the north star. Everyone
acknowledged that's the north star. And so how do you
solve it? What's the problem? And I look at like
the grassroots nature of this party as having been dilapidated.

(53:05):
There's no conception of using organizing to say we need
to reconnect with people and make ourselves a healthy list,
a healthy convening body. How would you do that if
you really cared about working class people? Well, when Boeing
workers go on strike, Crystal, do you think the DNC
should play a role and letting people know that the DNC,
that the Boeing workers are out there, that we could
go and stand with them, that we could get pizza
to the strike line. When the UAW is organizing, do

(53:27):
you think the DNC could mobilize a community and say, hey,
we stand with you. When people are fighting intendant unions,
trying to advocate against evictions and trying to stop on
reasonable rate hikes, can we do something about that. It's
thinking substantively what you are, a working class person living
a life, you are struggling. I at the DNC have

(53:47):
some authority. I don't have full authority. I don't run
the world. But I have some ability to say I
stand with you, to do something to move the dial
on your behalf. That's a reconception not only of organizing
capacity in the state, capacity to stand with working class people.
But then I think you broaden that out to say, well,
people are not always thinking about politics, you and I
know Cristal, like they're thinking about let's say football. Could

(54:08):
we hold Super Bowl watch parties together, convene people together
as a place. Here's beer, and here's a nice place
to hang out. Come and come and hang out with
a Democratic Party to watch the super Bowl? Why not
tell me I'd love to hear any example. Why why
can we not do these things? It's just a lack
of ambition. If you spend some money and say this
is what I care about. Because the Democratic Party in

(54:30):
this day and age, where there's loneliness, there's more isolation,
more people not talking to each other. That heart, the
beating heart of being a party is that there's people
you are associated with, the working man and woman. You
are caring about their lives, and you want to be
in league with them. You want to be talking to
them on a constant basis. You know this to me

(54:50):
just bothers me because it's become a kind of this
clubby you know, top down approach to the DNC that
we talked about contracts and vendor contracts and you know
who sits on what coming where like no, no, no, no,
they're the people, Like especially this day and age where
the r Silicon Swamp is about to come in and
run the government, the biggest merger and acquisition in history.
They're going to by by the government. So what are

(55:11):
we doing in an age of great wealth and income
inequality to say, hey, we stand with people to fight
on their behalf.

Speaker 5 (55:16):
What does the DNC primarily do? Now? How does it
operate primarily?

Speaker 7 (55:21):
Now?

Speaker 2 (55:21):
For people who were I mean even I I'm not
sure I could fully answer that question.

Speaker 9 (55:24):
I worked at the DNC building. So you say, DNC
headquarters is my first political job actually as an opposition researcher.
And so you have departments who do a variety of
different things, communications, digital, party affairs, and so at the
headquarters you're kind of figuring out how to help, you know,
build state parties, give them some direction, but mostly letting.

(55:49):
I would say, you know, opposition to Republicans and opposition
to Trump. Right now, at this current moment guide the
daily you know, here's here's a message that we have
to send out and then stay parties are going to say, well,
we're mobilizing in Virginia for the upcoming elections. Can we
send some money over there to get the state party
some resources on the ground and build up some staff

(56:10):
that all is fine and good, right, and so in
that way, Ken Martin Ben Wickler, people who have been
running the state committees of Minnesota and Wisconsin successfully are
well positioned say hey, Boom, you know this is tactically
what you need to do to move money around, move
committee assignments, restructure. The problem in the challenge I see
is like, well, Donald Trump is president United States? Who

(56:34):
speaks for Democrats right now? Honestly, like Biden leaving, there's
no presumptive leader of a Democratic party. Youah Schumer and
Jefferies over there, minority, and I think you've got to
be more ambitious with the power. We don't have much power.
What are the places is the Democrat National Committee to
the chairperson needs to be a bold public messenger. But

(56:55):
what is the brand of this freaking party? What do
we stand for? That historically has not been a major role.
There were moments. You remember Howard Dean when he ran
it was kind of he's he had a bit of
a stature of being a national spokesperson for a brand.
But for the most part, you think of people most
people don't even know who a Democrat National Committee chairperson
or chairman is. I mean, you know, how many people

(57:16):
know who Jamie Harrison is or you know Tim Kaine
at one point was and Terry mccalliff.

Speaker 5 (57:20):
Back and then forgot to be honest with.

Speaker 9 (57:23):
You, Terry mccalliff back in the day.

Speaker 2 (57:25):
You know, McCalls was kind of a larger than life figure,
but maybe not necessarily a beneficial way.

Speaker 9 (57:30):
Gregary is that he was always a Gregary as a.

Speaker 5 (57:32):
Person, but large personality.

Speaker 9 (57:33):
There and a big fundraiser was well, that was his thing.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
And that's why I say, maybe this was not necessarily
advantageous to the Democratic Party brand. I mean, that is
one of the things that has been important to me
is that, listen, we can't change the whole landscape of
money in politics without probably you know, a Supreme Court decision.
But Democrats can run the way that they police their
own primaries, their own intra party contest. So is one

(57:58):
of the things that you would be looking at, getting
big money super pac money out of that intra party
democratic primary process, because right now the Democratic Party has
no credibility to say that we're any different from the
Republicans when it comes to the courting and the obsession
with big money politics.

Speaker 9 (58:14):
Well, that's an obvious that's a slam donka. The question
then is like to get money out of polics, how
do you wield power? And you know, I've heard a
lot of the canis and they say, well, you know,
there's not much she can do as Democratic National Committee chair. Now, Like,
it's true that legally, right we are in a different
legal regime and people can spend money and you can't

(58:36):
necessarily stop them. You could sanction, you know, state parties,
you could sanction use your bully pulpit, and I feel
like as a Democratic Party, we're not as comfortable using
the bully pulpit, right Just like, get out there and
make a stand and say something bold about your values.
If you look at there's just a certain muscularity of saying, hey,
that is wrong and maybe yeah, sure you could spend

(58:57):
money as a super pac diving into this race. We
as a state party as a Democrat National committee abhor
and reject influence and make you by using the bully
pulpit whatever scale you can't to uh attack outside spending.
You're also elevating the issue in the race. Yeah, you know,
and you have to make I think one of the
challenges we often face is sometimes voters in these districts

(59:20):
and elections may not always know of the great presence
of big money in the elections. They see TV ads,
they see APAC come in and spend whatever money, and
you know Quary's or Jamal's race, and it's not always
clear to the ton of voters you know who's doing this,
why the crypto people spending money here and there? They
might not always know. We could write like if you
spend some time using a national chairmanship in the brand

(59:41):
and say, hey, that what, here's what they're trying to do.
Here's what why it's wrong. Corporate purchase of this party
will not be allowed. It's not, it's not I'm not
going to tell you that you have the legal authority
to stop them, right right. But this is where Trump
to some degree has brought to the Republican Party successfully

(01:00:02):
is use your use your bully pulpit he gets in there.
I mean, if you look at the Middle East situation, right,
he says, all hell will break loose if this isn't
done by the first day in miamis And how many
times you get out you use his rhetoric to and
say with some conviction back by But people have to
kind of believe that it's it's consistent with your values
when you say this is wrong, this is upsetting. But

(01:00:24):
when for a democratic party, when we say things, sometimes
it's not always the case that it's backed by a conviction.
So if you say, oh, you know, dog, Trump is X,
Y and Z the worst, you know whatever, and then
you are going out there and want to be treating
him as if you know it's fine, then that that
conviction orientation say say what you mean and act like

(01:00:45):
you mean it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
Yeah, it's I mean, seems simple, but apparently apparently this
is difficult to do. I did want to get your
take on some of the election post mortem. You know,
there was the infamous Podsave America interview with the top
Kamala Aids. Did you watch that who were basically like, Oh,
we did everything right, it was fine. We just couldn't
have possibly won and you know, we checked the boxes

(01:01:08):
and we ran the data, and this was the best
possible campaign we could run, and.

Speaker 9 (01:01:11):
Then no one else could have won. Like basically that's
kind of the argument.

Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
Yeah, that was it was impossible. So it's not our fault.
So zero self reflection there. You've also had you know,
you've had some there were My sense, and I'm curious
of your sense, is that there was an initial shock,
Oh my god.

Speaker 5 (01:01:29):
This guy's going back to the White House. This is
a disaster.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
We are in the minority, both the House and the Senate.
Working class voters are fleeing us. So even though okay,
sure he only won the popular vote by a point
and a half or something like that.

Speaker 5 (01:01:41):
If you're on this trajectory, this is a trajectory of death.

Speaker 2 (01:01:45):
If this really realignment continues in this direction, you're talking
about permanent minority like small minority status, or just being
effectively subsumed into Trumpism, which is another direction that some
Democrats seem to be going in. And now I sort
of feel this life level of listlessness, Like I mean,
I feel like that's what you're kind of responding to,
jumping in this race of like, well, it wasn't that bad,

(01:02:06):
and we'll get them next time, and maybe our messaging
was a little bit off. We'll just tweak that and
we should be fine. And I find that sort of
I find it sort of insane not to mention obviously
incredibly frustrating, incredibly disturbing when we see the direction that
the Trump administration is going and we see this, you know,
obviously money and politics and nothing new, and it's a

(01:02:26):
bipartisan problem, but the level of consolidated oligarchy that we're
seeing under Trump and Elon Musk and these characters is
deeply disturbing. And I don't really see a Democratic Party
that is standing up to forcefully oppose that.

Speaker 9 (01:02:40):
Yeah, just to add to what you're saying, I'm not
going to dispute that certain people would say correctly that
there's a chance we'd get back the House in two years.
It's possible, right, But why, Crystal, I'll be if we
flesh that out for people. It's because, to your point,
the voting base of the Democratic Party is changing, and
so if you get into a midterm election where fewer
people vote higher educated, more college degree circuit, we might win,

(01:03:05):
and we might get back the House and I think
in that situation, if you back this out into twenty
twenty two, right where you Democrats kind of maintained better
than they thought some degree of the seats and that election,
John Ferriman wins, and you know Joshapiro and Gretchen Whitmer,
and you know, we defeated Kerry Lake in Arizona. There
were some successes, right right, Well, but I'm just saying

(01:03:27):
that the outcome demographs.

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
Yeah, yeah, Democrats.

Speaker 9 (01:03:29):
That's the point. So then you go into twenty twenty four,
where tons more people vote and with the Democratic brand
is losing steam and interaction with working class people. To
your point, could we get through the next two years
and find that we might get back the House to
probably maybe not the Senate, and then think, oh, well,
we're on a track to win back the presidency, only

(01:03:50):
to find that in twenty twenty eight jd Events or
whomever's on the ticket, and we lose even further because
we aren't having been challenged or learning the lessons of
where is our weakness? Where is the brand of the
Democratic Party hurting? And I mean, just that's a political analysis,
but you know what bothers me and I know bothers.
You is just a values orientation, like your party, like
your ft heart. What is it that defines you? It

(01:04:13):
is a fight for the common man woman. It has
always been the lineage. So it's fine, we can have
this local conversation, but it's supposed to be tied to values,
because when you come into office, you have a mandate
of saying, I'm going to do something in this Yeah.
I think that that is the goal in the mission
of saying, create a working class coalition so that they
compel us in the right direction for the policy changes

(01:04:34):
that we need.

Speaker 2 (01:04:34):
Yeah, I don't really care about the Democrats winning back
the House or winning back the presidency if they're not
going to do anything beneficial for working class people with
that power. Ultimately, the last thing I wanted to get
your thoughts on, Faz, because I've sort of complicated feelings
about it, is what have you made made of all
of the you know, James Carvill and David from some
of these characters.

Speaker 5 (01:04:54):
Now that Bernie.

Speaker 2 (01:04:55):
Sanders is never going to run for president again, Like
you know that Bernie Sanders guy, Well, he wasn't so bad.
He he kind of had a point.

Speaker 9 (01:05:03):
I would be lying to you if part of that
isn't what's driving me here, right, That's what I see
people saying and becoming more aware that, oh Bernie when
he ran in twenty fifteen, twenty sixty, maybe he was
onto something. Maybe we do need a grassroots party. Maybe
the oligarchs have too much power in American society. Maybe
we do need to talk about Manicare for all. Maybe

(01:05:25):
we do need to address a corporate corruption of our
campaign finance system. All of those things. Now, well, we're
coming around and you even watch on MSNBC in other places,
people like, we're railing against the oligarchs.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
And right, okay, well Joe Biden reallys holigarchs now.

Speaker 9 (01:05:41):
And you're like, Okay, Rhetorically I appreciate it, I do.
I mean, the job of politics is persuasion. So we're
moving towards more awareness and understanding. And part of that, Crystal,
as you know, well, as we live in a society
a great income and wealth inequality, we're seeing the downstream
effects of it. When you're seeing the Great Musk and
David Sachs and a bunch of billion taking over the government,

(01:06:01):
we should rightly as the Democratic Party, be concerned and
express anger at what the hell is going on with
the purchase of our government, the looting and the great heist.
But the question at this point isn't just rhetorically. Can
you see the problem and understand the problem? Great? What
do you want to do of that wield some authority
and power? Tell me that you're thinking about the construction

(01:06:24):
of this party differently than you ever had before. Convince me,
because I don't think you can crubt me if I'm wrong.
I think most working class people have checked out, don't
believe in government, don't have faith in institutions. And I
would argue to those people if they're watching at the
end of the day, and I believe it's about unions,
I believe it's about a lot of institutions. This is
a representative democracy in a world of great wealth and inequality.

(01:06:45):
The way you challenge it is with some solidarity, where
you have people who lead people like you need someone
to lead institutions with authority, with power to do something
on behalf of all of us and the people at
the top. You know, we have to pick them who
have a gumption and a desire conviction to fight. But
there I understand people are getting concerned that the institutions
are fading and that, but I'm trusting them.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
And as that.

Speaker 9 (01:07:07):
Devolution occurs, right, power gets to spread out. You know
who wins billionaires because they can purchase into a devolution. Right,
They're like, okay, you don't have a party anymore. Well,
I got the super pack that I run, So your
party is weak. I can go run my own thing
with money. That's what happened to the And so I
would urge people, you know, you're trying to take on

(01:07:28):
power in a world of great wealth and inequality to
care about institutions, find people to run them with conviction
unions and Democratic national committees, you name them across the board. Obviously,
that's one of the reasons I started More Perfect Union.
You've got to have an institution that's that's starting to
build power for working people in order to take this on.

Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
All right, I let I do have one last question,
which is you got a shot in this thing? Because
you're getting in a little late. I know it's an
insider game. You know, as much as our audience or
others out there may want you to be, they don't
get a vote.

Speaker 5 (01:07:56):
So what does what does this look like? What does
the past to victory.

Speaker 9 (01:08:00):
Well, what I'm promising is I'm going to hustle and
do the things that you have to do internally. I mean,
when we leave this at I'm gonna I'm continuing to
call members and say give me a chance. I know
that some of them. I still think at this moment,
the plurality is undecided, uncommitted. You know, my sense is
Ken Martin is somebody who's been kind of involved running
this is probably a bit in the lead at the moment.

(01:08:23):
But I don't think everyone's made up their minds. And
I'll say right, because we haven't forced the question, So
I'll just just I'm not asking you to endorse. I'm
just asking you not to endorse. Right, Like, just let
let's play this out. Let me make a case. I
got two weeks here, just time left on the fourth quarter.
I don't believe on kneeling it down. Let's try to run.
Let's try to run this through, get to the vote

(01:08:44):
on February first, and make a judgment about what direction
of the Democratic Party can go and who can best
do it with some conviction and orientation and change what
change the way we operate.

Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
Well, I really appreciate you being out there making the
case and we, as I told you, really appreciated value
the work that you're doing.

Speaker 5 (01:09:01):
I'm more perfect unit.

Speaker 2 (01:09:02):
I think it has filled an incredibly important role in
the sort of journalists and cultural landscape.

Speaker 5 (01:09:08):
So FAZ always great to see you.

Speaker 9 (01:09:09):
I compliment from you, Christal, You've been doing it well
for a long period of time. So thank you, thanks.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.

Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
We will see you on Monday for our inaugural coverage
and so we'll see then.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Intentionally Disturbing

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Intentionally Disturbing

All Episodes

Dateline NBC