4/28/25: FBI Arrests Judge, Bernie Claps Back At CIA Dem, India Pakistan On Brink Of War, Trump Saves Canadian Liberals

Krystal and Ryan discuss FBI arrests judge after ICE raid, Bernie claps back at CIA Dem, India Pakistan on brink of war, Trump saves liberals in Canadian elections.

 

David Doel: https://www.youtube.com/@therationalnational

Siddharthya: https://x.com/siddharthyaroy?lang=en 

 

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.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
Become a member today and you'll get access to our.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
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 2 (00:33):
All right, let's go ahead and move over to some
of the latest things that are happening with regard to
immigration and deportations.

Speaker 3 (00:39):
We touched on the.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Increasing unpopularity of what Trump is doing and how he
really has already lost public trust with regard to his
immigration agenda. Let's go and put this latest event upon
the screen. So, a judge in Wisconsin was arrested by
the FBI after she had allegedly directed an an undocumented

(01:06):
immigrant out of a side door that is usually used
for jury members, and she was upset that ICE agents
had been coming to the courthouse, coming to you know,
her courtroom and waiting for immigrants to finish their hearings
and then sweeping them up and arresting them. She was
upset about that, reportedly, and so she directed this one

(01:28):
immigrant and his lawyer to go out a side door.
Now the side door apparently led into a public hallway,
and he was ultimately arrested anyway, But Ryan, they have
now arrested her and charged her for you know, their
claiming that she obstructed their ability to arrest this particular immigrant.

Speaker 4 (01:44):
Yeah, and this happened to come, or I don't think
I wouldn't say habit to come. It did come shortly
after another judge in New Mexico was also arrested, and
so it created this this feeling of like, okay, there's
a crackdown now on judges. The other one, though, was
a this this utterly bizarre case. This is a magistrate

(02:06):
judge who had actually stepped down because of this scandal
that he ended up getting arrested. For magistrate judge in
the county means like you're you're handling like very low
level disorderly conduct cases and stuff like this.

Speaker 5 (02:18):
This is not somebody who has you know.

Speaker 4 (02:20):
Is out there like stopping ice busses from deporting people.

Speaker 5 (02:23):
So it's completely separate.

Speaker 4 (02:25):
This guy's judge, Judge Jose luise Cano, and his bizarre
case was he had three guys living in his guesthouse
in Mexico who were like handymen, like he met him
as handymen for his his property and they late they
in February, there was a raid and it was claimed

(02:48):
that the three men and they say they have lots
of evidence beyond like oh, he was wearing a Chicago
Bulls cap, like actual evidence that they were Trend de
Aragua members, and so they were, and then they arrest
the guy and his wife for hiding these men that
Trump had, you know, declared a member of a group

(03:09):
that are now that Trump declared them a terror group
while he's in office, so like after they've kind of
moved into his little guest house. So his defense was
I had no idea, there's just handymen like okay, And
he even said, like I've got grandkids who come over
here and played with those guys. If I was told
that they were gang members, I wouldn't have let my

(03:30):
grandkids play with them.

Speaker 5 (03:34):
What they were arrested for was tampering with evidence.

Speaker 4 (03:38):
We don't know exactly what evidence they tampered with, you know,
judges and innocent till proven guilty. But in general, like
some people when they find themselves in trouble, they quickly
are like deleting all of their text messages or something,
and that's easy to see or whatever. You know, who
knows what if anything they did. But they didn't even
charge them. It seems like with like housing them. But anyway,

(04:02):
and then the second the first case, since you know,
we don't have soager emily here when you normally have
somebody trying to defend the case, let me try.

Speaker 5 (04:09):
Let me see if I can make the best case.

Speaker 4 (04:11):
The best argument for the fact that she committed a
crime is that she was quite hostile with the ICE agents.
Didn't absolutely did not like them in her courthouse, Yeah,
and was like whispering in the.

Speaker 5 (04:27):
Court room like hey, come here, make a murmory, like
go out this.

Speaker 4 (04:30):
Way in a way that suggests like some consciousness of
trying to like usher them out. Now your point like
that that that led to some that led to a
public hallway anyway, Like the argument would be she was
trying even if she didn't succeed, and there is a
federal law, whether that law should be constitutional or not,
I think is open to question. I don't think it

(04:52):
should be because I think you should be able to
I think if if like it's called basically it's like
a harboring and immigration fugitive. And I guess, you know,
on one level, if there's like if there's a murderer
running around and you're like hiding the murderer and you
know they're a murderer, Okay, I guess that should be
a crime. But you there's another case. I don't think
we have it in here. It's going on Tennessee. Did

(05:16):
you see this one where no, maybe it was in
Virginia actually in Charlottesville, Yes, yes, yes, yes, you want
to talk about that one where they're trying to prosecute
like a couple activists who are like, we just, oh,
we do have a deal because you've got these plane
closed kind of thugs who were just grabbing people, and
you have a prosecutor. And then you have a couple
of activists who are saying, let me see your warrant,

(05:37):
let me see some ID.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
Who are you, show me your badge right, because there's
I wish we had grabbed the video, but we showed
it previously. We played it because it's it's quite chilling.
I mean, there's no law that prevents ice from making
these arrusts in courthouses.

Speaker 3 (05:54):
But it used to be like.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
You don't do that, right, right, And now that has
been explicitly like there was I think a memo that
went out for the Trump administration like nope, you can
go to the schools, you can go to the courthouses,
you can go to the churches, et cetera. And so
you see these plane clothes individuals, one of them completely masked,
who come in and are kind of aggressively arresting this guy.
And yeah, I assume his lawyers and these activists are saying,

(06:17):
where's your warrant, where's your badge number?

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Who are you with?

Speaker 2 (06:20):
And they're just you know, being stonewalled on nearly all
of these questions. And so now they're charging these individuals
who were just saying, hey, what is going on?

Speaker 3 (06:31):
Like are you just kidnapping this words? Like what is
happening here?

Speaker 4 (06:33):
They haven't charged the activists yet, but they're investigating them.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
Right, Oh okay, yeah, yeah, so in any case, you know,
this is threatening to This comes amid also it's important
the context. You obviously have the Republicans constantly said we're
going to impeach the judges. What was Steven Miller, We
got to get these communists judges out of here, like
Trump asserting that, you know, he is effectively the personal

(06:57):
representative of the will of the people, and so if
core are disagreeing with his lawless actions, then they are
thwarting the will of the people and they are therefore illegitimate.
We see this administration obviously like outright defying court orders,
whether it's turning the planes around or refusing to facilitate
kill mar Abrego Garcia's return even though the Supreme Court
said you have to do that. So it's amidst that

(07:21):
climate that you now see this. You know, look, I'm
not a legal expert. I want to talk to Pisco
or someone else about the strength of this case, but
to my reading, the very weak case leading to the
arrest of this judge. And they also did it in
a very provocative public way where you know, I mean,
no one thinks this judge is like a threat to

(07:41):
public safety or whatever. You could have if you wanted
to charge her, you could have had her voluntarily surrender
and not have the images of the handcuffs and all
this sort of stuff.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
So there's no doubt.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
I think there is no doubt that this is an
intentional signal that is being sent to the judiciary, to
anyone who may try to defend the rights of immigrants.
I recall also Tom Homan going on TV and saying
they might charge AOC because she had done one of
these like know your Rights type of seminars, which is
something that other members of Congress you know, have done,

(08:14):
which is just about skating people. Pay Literally, here are
your rights, here's what you can do, and here's what
you can't do, et cetera. So I and Ken Clippenstein
has reported on how sab Gorka, who is the Counter
Terrors are as a significant position within the administration, saying
that he believes that people who protest the Trump deportation

(08:36):
policy may be aiding and embedding providing.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
Material support to a terrorist.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Group, which would also, you know, indicate criminal potential charges
against you know, activists or others who would resist the
direction that Trump administration has gone in.

Speaker 4 (08:50):
Yes, if you ever read any journalism or history about
any authoritarian government throughout history for hundreds of years. As
soon as the idea of terrorism became a thing, authoritarian
governments seized on terrorism as the reason that they were
cracking down on particular on their on their enemies and

(09:12):
right and saying, okay, this is, this is and so
here the case would be, okay, it's it's whether it's
trend awuagua or let's say Hamas, like, okay, you are
protesting Israel's genocide and Gaza that is supportive of Hamas. Therefore,
anybody involved in any of that can be surveilled. And
by the way, the Democrats deserve of an enormous amount

(09:33):
of criticism for this, for expanding surveillance authorities to which
allows uh, the NSA to basically collect information and communications
of people who were here on student visas or green
card green card holders.

Speaker 6 (09:49):
UH.

Speaker 4 (09:50):
And so they're they're they're basically able to surveil every
WhatsApp group, every you know, every you know. If this
is assuming they can get through whatever the encryption is
onto your phone, and then if their American city on there,
and then they're reading their stuff too, and they're all
and they're doing it all in the name of fighting terrorism. Yeah,
and it's exactly what Steve Miller said, We're gonna get
these terrorists off your off your streets, right when that's

(10:12):
not actually what how people understand uh immigration, even even
mass immigration or even mass deportation. They I think people
understand it as these people came here illegally and we're going.

Speaker 5 (10:25):
To deport them.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
Like those the supporters of Trump's immigration, they don't think
they're terrorists.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
One of the innovations of the Trump two point zero
campaign is previously even you know, I would say Trump
one point oh, there was a mixture of this, but
Trump two point zero was more of the pure embodiment. Previously,
the conversation about immigration was like they're taking your jobs
and Jade van Zutaro, they're causing the cost of housing

(10:51):
to go up, et cetera. Trump talks about immigrants almost
exclusively as criminals, right, and so you know, they really
sought to betray this group, even though we all know
the data that undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate
than the native born population, and documented immigrants have an
even lower crime rate than the native born population. But
he really sought to portray every immigrant and you see

(11:14):
this in this administration very clearly as a criminal and
a terrorist, and you know that is I think in
real time people are realizing that was not accurate, because
if that was accurate, you wouldn't have trouble.

Speaker 3 (11:26):
You wouldn't be having to round up.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
You know, andre the gay makeup artists who had a
mom and dad tattoo, or the autism awareness guy and
throw them in an El Salvador dungeon, hoping that no
one would be able to figure out who these people are,
and actually dig into the fact that they have no
criminal records, they are not gang members.

Speaker 3 (11:44):
They had They're the only thing.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
And some of them actually had followed the government process
and were in the midst of seeking asylument, had done
everything right that they were supposed to be doing in
that process. If there were you know, if we were
overrun with millions of minal gang member terrorists, it wouldn't
be so hard to find two hundred of them to
be able to ship off. And even though you know,

(12:07):
on a principal ground you should still not support anyone
even if they did have criminal charges, being sentenced with
no due process for life to this torture dungeon I'm
not under no illusion that the public would really object
too strenuously to that having been done. So, I think
it exposes the lie upon which they built this whole

(12:27):
anti immigrant hysteria. And you know, so in addition to
your point about the way that this is being used
to erode everyone's rights, and they really make no secret
of this, especially with Trump, make the connection to hey,
this has happening for immigrants. Now homegrowns quote unquote are next.
And the crackdown on universities that already directly impacts US

(12:49):
citizens their ability to pursue a degree, their ability to
marry the people that they want to marry without having
them shipped off or you know, arrested and kidnapped in
the middle of the night, or you know, on the
broad daylight with multiple ICE agents, et cetera. Put C
three up on the screen. It is this administration's position
that if an ICE agent believes that they are, you know,

(13:12):
they are pursuing a quote unquote alien enemy. So it
doesn't require any sort of process or anything like that.
If they believe they're pursuing an alien enemy, they can
go in your house without a warrant to look for migrants.
So that is an extraordine I think. I mean, to me,
it's blatantly unconstitutional. But as we all know, it takes
time for these challenges.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
To make their way through the courts, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
But you know, if you don't think that this applies
to everyone, then I would beg you to consider what
we've already learned about the way that they have gone
about this policy and the way that they will. You know,
they'll snatch up anyone what we've got, you know, US
citizen kids who are being deported now with little to
no due process, et cetera. Two, we can put this

(13:55):
up on the screen. One of them has cancer. Another
one judge is already saying, I think with the I
think with there was a four year old.

Speaker 3 (14:02):
The judges the four year old I think has cancer.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
The two year old, I think is the one that
dad was, you know, in the process of arguing no,
this child should stay here in the US and not
to be deported alongside her Honduran mother and sister. So
uh so, yeah, I mean this this has implications not
just for the immigrant population, which in my opinion, you
should care about, but certainly has implications for the entire

(14:26):
population here and I feel.

Speaker 4 (14:29):
Kind of just stupid, like saying like, is you know,
couldn't you do your like far right wing policy without
doing this?

Speaker 5 (14:38):
It's like, I guess you can't like this.

Speaker 4 (14:41):
It's kind of the you know, the the cliche during
Trump one was the cruelty is the point, and it's like,
you you can't if you can't do this mass deportation policy.
I it's not even mass actually, it's just spectacular deportation policy.
Because mass would you're not reaching anywhere near the numbers

(15:01):
like you've you've got dhs celebrating, you know, if they
get over like a few dozen deportations. If you can't
do it without deporting a four year old with cancer or.

Speaker 5 (15:16):
I don't I don't know the details if it was
the four year old or the mother or.

Speaker 4 (15:19):
Somebody like, but if you but if you can't, if
if this and if this makes up like a significant
portion of your deportations, right then.

Speaker 5 (15:29):
Then yeah, you sold it wrong. And that's and that's
the key point.

Speaker 4 (15:31):
Like he sold it based on a lie, which is
that these are all criminals, right therefore you have to
apply a kind of criminal justice standard to it. Yeah,
and it doesn't work, And so you have to then,
you know, put cuffs on a four.

Speaker 2 (15:46):
Year old, right and yeah, and vanish them before anyone
can have a chance to look into the veracity of
your claims.

Speaker 5 (15:53):
Right, Well, that's shame they're in Honduras.

Speaker 3 (15:56):
Now, yeah, there, what can you do, It's not in
our problem anymore.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Just to reiterate your point about the use of terrorism
designations to claim power and authoritarian regimes. I mean we
already see this with you know, multiple groups, not just
obviously immigrants. That's really clear cut, with supporters of Palestine
with the hands off protesters according to Ken Klippenstein reporting, also,

(16:21):
you know they're looking at hands off protesters. So basically,
any resistance to Trump as being you know, as being terrorist,
domestic terrorists. You're you know, the anyone who would oppose
the deportation policy, anyone who harbors ill feelings about Tesla,
anyone who's on there Luigi posting. These are all groups
that this administration is beginning to view as domestic terrorists.

(16:45):
And we also have seen the way that they have
used basically emergency or national security powers to consolidate power
in the executive Alien Enemies Act. Perfect example of that.
You're supposed to be at war. Right, It's only been
used three times. All three were very clearly We're of
eighteen twelve, World War one, world War two. Those are
the three times the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked

(17:08):
prior to this.

Speaker 5 (17:08):
And we declared war then, yes, Congress declared war.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
Yes, And they're making this preposterous claim that we're at
war with Venezuela because they had trend to Arragua invade US.
I mean, it's I hope and expect that this will
likely eventually be shruck down by the courts. You never know,
with the Supreme Court, you know, stacked as it is,
but I expect that will be the case. But not
only that, the tariff powers are also claimed through a

(17:34):
national emergency. And you know, I think this is this
is the playbook for Trump two point zero, is that
they use these supposed terrorism or national security or national
emergency assertions, which courts have previously granted presidents broad discretion
to be able to invoke. They're using these assertions to

(17:56):
be able to circumvent due process, to be able to
grab powers for the executive that are really clearly delegating
the case of terrorists to Congress and be able to
sort of unilaterally effectuate their agendas. So that has been
the playbook for Trump two point zero, and it goes
far beyond you know what's happening with the immigration system.

Speaker 4 (18:18):
Senator Alyssa Slockin had told Bernie Sanders and AOC to
stop using the word oligarchy because they're confusing our simple,
little American public. Bernie Sanders was asked about that on
Meet the Press.

Speaker 5 (18:30):
Let's Roll.

Speaker 7 (18:31):
His response, Democrats should stop using the term oligarchy because
it's a phrase that doesn't resonate with all Americans. Are
you missing a chance to speak to a wider audience.

Speaker 8 (18:42):
Senator, Well, jeez, we had thirty six thousand people out
of Los Angeles, thirty four thousand people in Colorado. We
had thirty thousand people in Fulsome, California, which is kind
of a rural area. I think the American people are
not quite as dumb as Mislocked and thinks they are.

Speaker 9 (19:05):
Are.

Speaker 8 (19:05):
They they understand very well when the top one percent
owns more wealth than the bottom ninety percent, when big
money interests they're able to control both political parties, they
are living in an oligarchy. And these are precisely the
issues that have got to be talked about. Are you
living in a democracy when mister Musk can spend two
hundred and seventy million dollars to elect Trump and then

(19:28):
becomes the most important person in government or an apac
and other super PACs have enormous power over democratic candidates.
Those are issues that we have got to talk about.
That is the reality of American society today. The very
rich getting richer, working class people are struggling, eight hundred
thousand people sleeping out on the streets. If we don't

(19:49):
address that issue, the American people will continue to turn
their backs on democracy because they're looking around them and
they're saying, does anybody understand what I am going through?

Speaker 4 (20:00):
Response, and we can put up D two here was
simply to put up the dictionary definition of oligarchy for
anybody who.

Speaker 5 (20:05):
Needed although surveys showed that actually people don't need it.

Speaker 4 (20:09):
That people were asked if they could define it, and
they basically could.

Speaker 5 (20:13):
It's it's not that it's.

Speaker 4 (20:14):
Not that complicated word like a bunch of billionaires running
everything well.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
And Alyssa Slotkin many pointed out, had no problem using
the word oligarchy when she was applying it to Russia.
Oh yes, they were all sorts of opposed to her
talking about Russian oligarchs and oligarchy or whatever. It's only
when it's being applied here at home that the former
CIA spook has a problem.

Speaker 4 (20:36):
Yeah, so, yeah, you know, I'm always on the lookout
for the left of adopting some faculty lounge language that
might be that might be a kind of off putting.
I don't think that's what's happening here, but I'm curious
for your take. But for me, if it works in
two different ways, because it works for independents who you know,

(20:56):
feel like the system is rigged and is control old
by billionaires. It works for people on the left who
buy into the entire thing. But it also works with
kind of resistance libs who have been really energized around
defending democracy and the left and some others kind of
scoff at that this whole like, oh, democracy, that's not real.

(21:18):
It's a distraction from you know, fighting for the working
class and for improving people's material conditions. But oligarchy is
a frame that covers that. Right, Like, if you are
somebody who is worried about our democracy eroding, Yeah, who's
the one doing Who's the one eroding it, right, it's

(21:39):
the oligarchs. So you capture everybody under that's under that umbrella.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
I think that's really well put. And the proof is
in the pudding. Like we know who is turning up
to those Bernie AOC rallies. It's not just quote unquote
you know Bernie Brows from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
It is a lot and we talked to Dave Wigel
about this.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
It is a lot of normy Democrats, which is why
AOC is shooting up in the polls in terms of
who is the leader of the Democratic Party. And so yeah,
I think it's an incredibly helpful frame. As you said
when we were talking about this on Friday, I think
voters actually appreciate being treated as adults who are capable
of understanding concepts that like oligarchy, which I think we

(22:18):
are all getting a rapid lesson in how that takes
shape and what it means.

Speaker 3 (22:24):
For all of us.

Speaker 2 (22:26):
So, you know, political consultants have been trying to come
up with this like sort of focused, grouped language about
how do we connect the fight for democracy with like
people's you know, with the price of eggs, or whatever,
and usually that ends up in a very torture direction
where you're not really making a good case either about
the material circumstances or about the genuine threat to democracy.

(22:48):
And I think the framing of oligarchy really does serve
those ends incredibly effectively, incredibly effectively, Like you can see
the no one else in the Democratic Party has the level,
has garnered the level of energy, attention and excitement as
AOC and Bernie have you know, I would I guess next,
I would put like Chris van Holland taking a genuinely

(23:11):
I would say, courageous action going down to Solvador, like
actually doing something out in the real world. I will
say a lot of liberals are very excited about Corey
Booker's speech. That one didn't speak to me personally as much,
but I do want to say a lot of people
were really excited about.

Speaker 3 (23:24):
That because it at least showed some fight.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
But you know, viewing what is happening in the Trump
administration through this lens of oligarchy, I think really does
unify the left the liberals and creates this sort of
powerful coalition that is also somewhat oppositional to the like
think tank driven abundance conversation that Alyssa Slotkin. I don't know,
she like calls herself like an abundance person, but she

(23:46):
would be more in line with that. And the last
thing I'll say about it is AOC and you you
could speak to this better than anyone. She has really
positioned herself previously as being one to work within the
boundaries of the Democratic Party and not wanting to get
too crosswise with leadership, et cetera. The fact that she
and Bernie are both taking a much more directly adversarial

(24:09):
position vis a the Alyssa Slotkin firing back, I think
is also kind of a sign of the times and
the sign they feel that the public is on their side.

Speaker 4 (24:17):
Yeah, a lot of times in the past, the party
establishment or Slotkin types would fire at Bernie or AOC
people in the squad and they wouldn't even fire back,
That's right.

Speaker 5 (24:29):
They would just take the arrows yep as.

Speaker 4 (24:31):
And be like, we're being part of a team, not
as a kind of team is this it's just constantly
shooting at you. But now they're feeling better, like they're
feeling their oaths and they're ready to fire back on
that front. We have news out this morning that Justice
Democrats is making its first endorsement not just of the

(24:53):
twenty twenty six cycle, but even of the twenty twenty
four cycle.

Speaker 5 (24:57):
Well, not that they didn't.

Speaker 4 (24:59):
Endorse anybody in the twenty twenty four cycle, but they
didn't recruit anybody to challenge sitting incumbents because they put
all of their energy into protecting the squad, four of
whom they you know, survived, two of whom, famously Corey
Bush and Jamal Bowman, after tens of millions were spent,
did not. So this is the first time that they're

(25:19):
going back on offense. And it's Donovan McKinney, who is
a state rep in Detroit who's running against Shri Thanadar,
who we'll talk about in a moment and is quite
a fun, fun guy.

Speaker 5 (25:32):
To his characters. He's he's quite quite a character.

Speaker 4 (25:37):
So this would give you two Justice Democrats in Detroit,
because Rashida Talib is there as well. He's a former
climate activist, grew up working class in Detroit, and he
talks about that in his biography, which let's let's roll
his launch video which is which is rolling out this morning,
just to get a sense of you know where kind

(25:58):
of the justice Democrats left is in in thinking about
their positioning again against an incombent Democrat.

Speaker 5 (26:06):
So let's roll this opening ad.

Speaker 10 (26:09):
People across this country and even the world, no Detroit,
or they think they do.

Speaker 6 (26:16):
They know our music, our sports, our struggling.

Speaker 10 (26:20):
But what people always forget as none of this is
possible without our people.

Speaker 6 (26:24):
This district is.

Speaker 10 (26:25):
One of the poorest places in America. But the ninety
thirteenth knows hard work better than anyone is the people
who clock in generation after generation, shift after shift that
get forgotten first. Somewhere along the way, we got convinced
we should settle for less from the people we elect
to represent. Us are running for Congress because we deserve better.

(26:47):
We deserve a Democratic party that leads the fight against
the billionaires robinus blocs, that stands up it's a corporate packs.
Our country and our children can afford nothing less. People
like our congressmen, Sita at our are the problems. A
long time millionaire who spent millions to Bia Sea to Conye,
who has more in common with Donald Trump and Eli

(27:08):
Munk than people like us. I was born next to smokestacks.
We moved thirteen times as a kid. Sometimes it was
an apartment, sometimes it was a family member's house. Sometimes
it was even our own car. But wherever it was,
my mom and Grandma made sure it felt like home.
I spent my life trying to give back to help
the place and.

Speaker 6 (27:27):
People I love.

Speaker 10 (27:29):
I've never forgotten my roots or the two purpose of
why I served, so always put the people first. When
things are darkest, it's when you fight the hardest. I'm
running for my wife, mother and grandmother and all women
who deserve Congress that fights for the rights. I'm running
for my baby boys because the block you live on
shouldn't determine how far you'll go. I'm running for you because,

(27:51):
like all of you, I know we deserve better. This
is my home, this is our community, this is our future,
and the choice is our I'm Donovan McKinney, and I'm
running for Congress to take back this seat for us,
always with the people.

Speaker 5 (28:06):
So what do you make of that messaging?

Speaker 4 (28:08):
I mean the touch, the vocabulary, new deal Medicare for all,
like that type of stuff that was stuck in twenty
eighteen wasn't really in there.

Speaker 5 (28:19):
But what do you think of the messaging, Yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (28:21):
A class raming. This guy's on a touch. She's in there.
He has more in touch with Donald Trump and Elon
Musk than he does with you and me. I'm going
to you know, I'm connected to this community and I'm
going to be the one who's there to actually.

Speaker 3 (28:32):
Fight for you.

Speaker 5 (28:33):
Now, the funny thing is who he's running against.

Speaker 4 (28:36):
You just can't make this guy up so well the
next elements. Zed Jalani busted this guy in absolutely hilarious
fashion in twenty eighteen when he was running for governor
of Michigan. He was actually the front runner for governor
ahead of Whitmer when Zed wrote this story, and the

(29:00):
story was that he met with a bunch of consultants
ahead of the race, both Republican and Democratic, and they
asked him like, tell us about yourself, like we're going
to if we're going to represent you, what what party
are you going to run? Ass Like are you a
republic your Demmer? He's like you tell me, oh my god,
it's like I want to be governor.

Speaker 5 (29:21):
Tell me what I need lane? What's the lane? And
tell me what I need to say? Like he was
like confused, Like wait a minute, I'm going to tell
you this. You're the consultant. Oh my god, you tell
me what I think.

Speaker 4 (29:31):
And the one thing that was consistent in his conversations
with these consultants was that he had a visceral disdain
for Bernie. But Bernie was hot then, so he ended
up running as Bernie. He was going to do Medicare
for all for Michigan, and like, he did a whole
Bernie campaign and was spending his own money and as
a result, was at the very top. And then this

(29:53):
came out as like and then other things like he
was just just a complete mess.

Speaker 5 (29:56):
So then in twenty twenty two.

Speaker 3 (29:59):
So the Bernie brand initially actually was, it was working, it.

Speaker 4 (30:01):
Was actually working for him, and then he faded and
Whittmer wins. Then in twenty twenty two he runs for
Congress and spends millions of his own money as a
leftist again. Oh first he I guess was twenty twenty.
He wons like a state rep seat or something, So
he buys a house in the legislature. Okay, then he
runs for Congress. When he was in the legislature, he

(30:24):
signed on to resolutions that called Israel an apartheid state
and said that it should not get any US funding.
So because it's a common popular position in Detroit, he
runs for Congress saying similar things. Apak spent like four
or five million dollars in twenty twenty two trying to

(30:46):
beat him, and he overcame it because he spent so
much of his own money. So he's then elected to Congress.
After he's elected to Congress, Apak takes him and his
family on a trip to Israel. He comes back, he's reformed,
does a complete one eighty, so that in twenty twenty four,
activists in Detroit recruit somebody to run against him, and

(31:11):
Apax spends millions defending Street then because now he's a
full on pro Israel guy.

Speaker 2 (31:19):
That's so funny though that he had already defeated them
and then completely it's like, you know, the move is
to be John Fetterman and just be like, I don't.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
Want you in my race. Let me.

Speaker 5 (31:30):
So Apak has now is it from the jump?

Speaker 4 (31:32):
They have now spent like ten million dollars on him,
half of it against him, half of it for him.
His opponent, her name was Mary Waters. She raised only
about two hundred thousand dollars, So what she didn't really run.

Speaker 5 (31:46):
She was serious, but she didn't have the money to compete, gotcha.

Speaker 2 (31:49):
So what you're telling me is Donovan is going to
be facing millions of dollars.

Speaker 5 (31:52):
In He's definitely gonna be facing millions. But he has already.

Speaker 4 (31:56):
The other thing that makes this a much different Justice
Democrats race is that he already has the support of
like a ton of like establishment Democrats. Interesting, just because
Street Thanner is just a ridiculous figure. Interesting, it's so
it's so weird to them, and it's just it does
not helpful to them to have a member of Congress
who you you can't you can't trust, you don't know

(32:17):
like what he's going to believe a week later.

Speaker 5 (32:19):
So even if you're just a machine politician, that's not
helpful for you.

Speaker 3 (32:22):
It's almost like the George Santos of the left.

Speaker 4 (32:24):
He's he's yes, like it, and and there are allegations
of fraud which you can find like it.

Speaker 5 (32:30):
It's a real Santos of the left kind of situation.

Speaker 4 (32:33):
And so even regular Democrats, and I think sources in
Detroit say that this could be the first JD candidate
out of the gate to actually have like organized labor.

Speaker 5 (32:42):
Support, which is like that's the that's the coalition that
you need.

Speaker 4 (32:48):
You need the kind of DSA or whatever you call it,
you know, plus organized labor you know, get uh to
like actually take over the party.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
So how much offense is just as Democrats, it's in
a position to go on a cycle.

Speaker 5 (33:03):
Not a ton.

Speaker 4 (33:03):
And they've never pad their spots and they've never really
you know that the first year when they did AOC
and Corey Bush and set Leave Milanalm or all the
others they endorsed like one hundred plus people. They've never
done that since then because they couldn't. All they could
do is endorse right, they could only really go in
on a couple.

Speaker 5 (33:22):
So we'll we'll stay now.

Speaker 4 (33:24):
If they if they team up with our guy, what's
his name, the d n C vice president, Oh, David, Yeah,
David Hogg, who's you know talking about spending millions of
dollars going after.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
Bernie's recruiting candidates as well.

Speaker 4 (33:39):
Yeah, and if and if you know, they're threatened to
kick him out of the d NC for doing this,
which he's got to leave the DNC, right like if
you if he capitulates and walks back from that that's
the end.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Of him, right in my opinion, I guess it wouldn't
be The name of him is like, you know.

Speaker 4 (33:53):
Party functioning. It could be a party functionary that doesn't
seem to be.

Speaker 5 (33:56):
What he wants to be.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Yeah, and he has enough of his own profile he
doesn't need the DMC.

Speaker 5 (34:02):
Right, Yeah, that's what I would think as well, DNC
vice president vice chair. What is that done? Even gets
paid for that?

Speaker 3 (34:09):
I have no idea. Yeah, I have no idea.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
It gets you like, you know, you get into the
suites with the fancy corporate boxes and whatever.

Speaker 11 (34:16):
Yeah, I guess you.

Speaker 5 (34:16):
Get some boxes.

Speaker 6 (34:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (34:17):
So Donald McKinney taken on Street Danadar. It'd be interesting
if he knocks him off.

Speaker 4 (34:22):
But in some ways it would not be like when
AOC took out Joe Crowley.

Speaker 5 (34:27):
Yeah, that was a blow to the structure of the
Democratic Party.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
Now they replaced him as caucus chair with the King Jeffries,
so the structure restructured itself. But taking out Street danad
Art nice.

Speaker 5 (34:40):
But it's like.

Speaker 2 (34:42):
There's plenty of establishment Democrats who would be on board
with that as well. Gotcha, Okay, all right, we wanted
to make sure to cover what is unfolding in Indian Pakistan?
Because you know, these are two nuclear powers always at
odds with one another, but tension has ramped up significantly
after a horrific terrorist attack last week.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
So let's go ahead and get to our guest.

Speaker 4 (35:03):
Indian Pakistan continue to be at the break of all
out war, it feels like, and joining us to discuss
it is drop Site. New South Asia correspondent said, Darth
you Roy joining us from are you you?

Speaker 5 (35:16):
And Deli now said yep, I'm in Duddie. Well, thank
you so much for joining us.

Speaker 4 (35:20):
I want to start with this Donald Trump clip on
Air Force one where he was asked about the rising tensions.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
Let's roll this, well, any message for that?

Speaker 9 (35:31):
I mean, you're going to be talking today.

Speaker 12 (35:32):
The earth close to India and I'm very close to
Pakistan as you know. And they've had that fight for
a thousand years in Kashmir. Kashmir has been going on
for a thousand years, probably.

Speaker 9 (35:43):
Longer than that. And it was a bad one yesterday though,
that was a bad one.

Speaker 12 (35:49):
Over thirty people that you concerned, and there's now tensions
on the border between them that you concerned them?

Speaker 9 (35:55):
How are you concerned?

Speaker 13 (35:56):
You about one of their.

Speaker 12 (35:57):
Are pretensions on that border for one thousand, five hundred years,
so you know, the same as a spin.

Speaker 9 (36:07):
But they'll get it figured out one way or the other.
Appeture that is, I know both leaders.

Speaker 12 (36:14):
There's a great tension between Pakistan and India, but there
always has.

Speaker 4 (36:18):
Been, so not sure about Trump's history lesson there. But
the approximate cause of the tensions is a brutal terrorist
attack that was carried out last week which killed.

Speaker 5 (36:32):
I believe twenty five.

Speaker 4 (36:35):
Twenty twenty six, almost all Hindu tourists, aists, all Hindo tourists,
and the details of the attack are absolutely.

Speaker 5 (36:47):
Absolutely chilling.

Speaker 4 (36:49):
Gunmen going person to person asking are you know, basically
are you Muslim? Are you are you Hindu? And if
they find Muslim, just executing them on the spot, including
one Christian as well, who you know was killed after
some mention of Gaza apparently as well, like so absolutely horrific.

(37:11):
Being my understanding is in India they're talking about it
as kind of our October seventh and we know what
happened in Israel after October seventh. So you said from
you're saying, are we going to get war here?

Speaker 11 (37:26):
I hope not. I hope you're not.

Speaker 14 (37:30):
India Pakistan decided better than to go into war with
each other because these aren't This is not an Israt
Balasagin conflict. This is a conflict between two nations who
are pretty much armed to the teeth with nuclear stockpile.
So a war if it breaks out between these two countries,
the escalation will go to really bad places. But it's

(37:54):
not just hope that I'm counting on. It's also history,
it's also reality of today. A direct war doesn't really
help either the ruling dispensation of India or that of Pakistan.
These formats of attacks, you know, what they call proxy
war in these parts. This has been happening for quite

(38:15):
a while, and usually we see a pattern that there
is some terror attack as they call it. Then the
victim country, the leadership there, starts making big statements that
we're going to go to war, We're going to do this,
We're going to do that. Completely diverts or deflects attention

(38:36):
from the fact that there has been a massive intel failure,
a massive security failure on their site. And then it
goes through this dangerous greame of brinkmanship and they start
pulling out the piling up their forces and tanks and everything.
But we haven't really seen a full on escalation. And
may I mention here that India sent out its navy

(38:59):
towards it's big warship towards Pakistan day before yesterday, but
that ship is not back in the dogs. So no,
I don't think there is an immated chance of escalation.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
Let's go and put E three up on the screen. Guys,
you wrote an incredibly prescient piece for drop site saying
Mody's Hindu nationalist project in Jamu and Kashmir has become
a nightmare for Hindus, really sadly Prussian effectively predicting some
sort of horrific terrorist attack as the one that we
just witnessed last week.

Speaker 3 (39:32):
Perhaps you can explain a.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
Little bit of the recent if you want the longer
term history, you can give President Trump here a little
bit of an education on where the tensions actually originally
stem from, not one thousand or fifteen hundred years in
the past, as he seemed as he asserted there. But
what is the different approach that Mody has taken with
regard to this region and what have some of the
consequences been. Why were you able to predict that we

(39:55):
would see something as horrible as what we did just see.

Speaker 14 (40:00):
Unlike Trump, who or for that matter, mister Modi or
General Laseimonair, some of US journalists actually spend time in
Kashmir and trying to understand what's happening on the ground.
That's why we are able to see certain patterns. The
principal thing that Modi did was he scrapped a very
important part of the Indian Constitution which granted a very

(40:25):
large amount of autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
When he scrapped that, he made a sweeping declaration that
there's scrapping of, as they call it, the apbrogation of
Article three seventy. It would usher in a need of
absolute peace and terrorism would finish once and for all,

(40:47):
very much like what we keep hearing President Trump saying
every once in a while. Instead, what happened is that
the abrogation led to the suspension of the elected civilian
government the state of German in Kashmir.

Speaker 12 (41:02):
And.

Speaker 14 (41:03):
It became completely controlled by New Delhi, which in turn
meant that the intel networks, the ground level human intelligence networks,
which actually worked to feed information preemptive measures were taken
basis that information.

Speaker 11 (41:22):
They died out slowly.

Speaker 14 (41:24):
Principle among them is it's not spoken about very widely,
but one of the biggest sources of intelligence for the
New Delhi government are the political parties who work on
the ground in Kashmir. When you have suspended elections, when
you have effectively debarred them, taken away their franchise, they
do not want to cooperate. And that's what happened here. Last,

(41:47):
but not the least, we have to understand what sort
of politics Mesumodi espouses. It's one which is unbriddled hatred
against the muslimp even if he may not say it
in as many words anymore. His teams are out there abusing, demeaning,

(42:10):
defaming Indian Muslims all the time. How does he expect
the local population to cooperate and give him intelligence of
these sorts. That's what we spoke about in our story,
in our investigation, and I wish it wasn't this way,
but yes, we did tell the world so.

Speaker 4 (42:30):
And can you talk a little bit about the group
that initially claimed credit for the attack but then very
oddly kind of backed off of that a few days later.
And what is understood in India to be the.

Speaker 5 (42:47):
Backing of this attack.

Speaker 14 (42:51):
So the group is called the Resistance Front. The Resistance
Front appears to be from all our sources, from government records,
nothing but a rebranding of the of the lashkar At
taiba one of the largest militant and terrorist organizations in
the world, which is based out of Pakistan primarily and

(43:12):
is focused on secessionist activities in Kashmir. What we saw
not only in this attack, even in the previous attack
which we've mentioned in our report rac I think it
was where the TRF claimed responsibility and then I.

Speaker 11 (43:28):
Don't know, it wasn't us.

Speaker 14 (43:30):
But that doesn't really matter that that that's not something
we need to look into too much because if the
TRF is merely the lashkar At Taibad, then they've been
around for a while. The Indians technically speaking, have not
given any proof on the table showing direct involvement of Pakistan,

(43:52):
but even a cursory history, a look at history of
how the LIT operates. I mean, the chief is sitting
and alive and under the project of the Pakistani government
though he's under several international sanctions. This is the all
roads kind of lead back to Pakistan, and the Indian
population is quite convinced, and interestingly enough, even the most

(44:15):
bitter opponents of Masumodi across parties, they have voiced their
anger and condemnation against Pakistan for enacting this attack, and
they've likened it to the twenty six to eleven attacks
in Mumbai.

Speaker 4 (44:29):
Yeah, it's it's an interesting dynamic because on the one hand,
like you said, there's no evidence that's been presented that
Pakistan had any.

Speaker 5 (44:38):
Direct role in this particular attack.

Speaker 4 (44:40):
But of course the fact that the organization exists, is armed,
and is so strong can't be separated from its relationship
with Pakistan.

Speaker 11 (44:50):
So I.

Speaker 4 (44:52):
Asked Wakasakman, who was drop sized Pakistan correspondent, you know,
for his take from the Pakistani side on what the
role of the Pakistan government was in this and he had,
I thought, a pretty nuanced and interesting response, and we
recorded this as a pre interview. So let me roll
a little bit of this and then get your response

(45:13):
to his analysis.

Speaker 15 (45:15):
So far, India has not presented any official evidence that
Pakistan may have backed this terror attack, but interestingly, the
Pakistani Interior Minister called for a neutral inquiry into this attack.
And the Pakistani Defense minister called on Russia, China or
a Western country to be a part of these investigations.
And that's not normal. Pakistan had actually been trying to

(45:35):
get closer to India for the.

Speaker 5 (45:37):
Past few years.

Speaker 15 (45:38):
Pakistan had been abiding by the ceasefire agreement broken by
General Bajwara in twenty twenty and as you also reported
that Pakistan had been looking the other way as Indian
intelligence carried out a string of assassinations inside Pakistan targeting
former Kashmiri militants and sick Acti activists. So it seems

(45:59):
unlike that Pakistani military will break the ceasefire for nothing.
That brings us to the more interesting question, why is
the Pakistani military the primary suspect whenever something happens in India?
And that's the core of this issue. There's this dynamic
that has existed between Pakistan and India for a long time.

(46:20):
India and Pakistan have used proxy war as a strategy
against each other, so automatically, whenever there's an attack in
one country, the other country is blamed. And this is
a knee jerk reaction at this point. So every time
this happens, there's a threat of escalation between these two countries.
The problem with this particular conflict is that the escalation

(46:42):
ladder goes as far up as nuclear. Hence, the only
way out of this issue, this threat, this danger to
the world is this long standing unresolved dynamic between these
two countries must be resolved. But with the far right,
borderline fascist go arnment in India, with Prime Minister Moodi
and this totalitarian military regime in Pakistan, it seems impossible

(47:07):
that either side has the will or the imagination to
resolve this issue once and for all.

Speaker 4 (47:13):
So said an interesting point there that on the one hand,
Pakistan doesn't immediately it kind of clashes with Pakistan's more
recent kind of conciliatory approach to India. Yet at the
same time they have been funding these proxy funding and
backing these proxy groups for many years. So of course
at the top suspect, what's your.

Speaker 5 (47:31):
Response to what you heard from Okas?

Speaker 6 (47:33):
There?

Speaker 14 (47:34):
workAs is absolutely on point in what he is saying
is and I agree that India has technically not put
any evidence.

Speaker 11 (47:41):
On the table.

Speaker 14 (47:43):
But if you note that the ministers from the Pakistan
side of Kashmid, the Pakistani occupied side of Kashmid. They
did a press conference right after the Pelgam incident and
in that you can hear the ministers are on record
saying that you can't be funding anti Pakistan activities in

(48:06):
Balotastan and then expect your civilians to be safe. For
every civilian you kill here, we will make sure we
kill Indian civilians. So this very well could be a
tit for tat and may I add here with due
question because this is only preliminary in both we are getting.
Two of our sources in Pakistan have mentioned that this

(48:30):
was this attack was in retaliation of the Jaafar Express
hijacking that had happened recently, just a couple of weeks
backs in Pakistan. So this is very much true that
this proxy war or tit for tat a thing between
India and Pakistan.

Speaker 4 (48:47):
Yeah, it's like they want to have it both both ways.

Speaker 5 (48:50):
Sid Roy, thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 4 (48:52):
I encourage O go read his piece for drops and
it's just Google drop site news and kind of cash
bere and I think his piece will come up and
you'll have a good sense and if you would have
read it when it came out, you would not be
surprised that this had just happened, said, thanks so much
for your reporting and for joining us.

Speaker 11 (49:07):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
Canadians are headed to the polls today and what has
turned out to be an absolutely extraordinary election, which has
a lot to do with our own president and his
trade war and what's going on there. So to break
it all down for us, very happy to be joined
by David Dole, who is host of The Rational National.
His YouTube channel is absolutely blowing up and it's great
to see you, David.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 6 (49:29):
Great to be here.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
Thanks, Yeah, of course.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
So let's go and throw this first element up on
the screen that just shows the polling trends between the
Conservative and Liberal party.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
Here you can see the Liberals really.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
Were down and out and then suddenly Trump launches this
insane trade war and their fortunes changed significantly. So now
they go into an election day at least somewhat as
the favorite. Here, just break down for us the contours,
who's running, what are the dynamics, what accounts for this
dramatic shift.

Speaker 16 (49:58):
Yeah, So the Liberals have been in power since twenty
fifteen under Trudeau's Liberals overtaking a Conservative government at the time,
came in with a majority government have been in power
for nine years and then up until you know, a
couple of years ago, Poling really began to shift post
COVID due to the affordability crisis and I think largely

(50:21):
as well due to people just being tired of having
the same people in power seeing Trudeau every day. And
then it got to a point where in December it
was like they were down and out, and Christia Freelan,
essentially Trudeau's second in command, decided to come out against
him and resign from her post as there was about
to be a cabinet shuffle and she didn't want to
change her position, so that was sort of the first

(50:44):
thing to drop. And then after the new year, Trudeau
decided to step down and have a leadership race, So
there was a race between Christian Freelan, Mark Carney, and
a few others. Kartie ended up winning that and ever since.
So it was a combination of both Trudeau stepping down
and people being tired of him, as well as Trump
and just the ongoing threats, the threats of annexation, the

(51:07):
fifty first state governor, Trudeau, all this garbage. So that
combination led to this dramatic shift which you know, I'm
reading the analysis of the history of Canada and these
sorts of elections. There has never been a shift like
this this quickly in our history.

Speaker 4 (51:24):
And how much of this is the trade war and
how much of this is Trump's fifty first state barbs?

Speaker 5 (51:29):
Where at first you're like.

Speaker 4 (51:30):
Ha ha, that's kind of funny, right, you're joking, right,
this is this is a gag, and it's like, oh, wait,
I'm not so sure this is a joke anymore. Like so, yeah,
because if you look at that polling collapse, it predates
him even being sworn in. It dates back to him
making all of his fifty first state jabs.

Speaker 5 (51:51):
So what's been the response there?

Speaker 4 (51:53):
And if you had to wait the two things the tariff,
the tariffs in the trade war and the fifty first
state stuff, which is kind of more significant, and obviously
they blend together in some.

Speaker 16 (52:04):
Ways, it's really more of the fifty first state stuff,
the annexation stuff that, like the trade war is an issue,
but I don't think people are really necessarily feeling it
right now.

Speaker 6 (52:14):
Essentially.

Speaker 16 (52:14):
I mean, you know, there's been so much back and
forth on the tariff that it's hard to even know
where things currently stand with that, but it's the threats
for sure that where it was just like, you know,
even people that didn't already or didn't like Trump already
were sort of surprised, myself included, like, there wasn't a
whole lot of talk of Canada in the US election
that prior to Trump whitting and all of a sudden,

(52:35):
you know, there was I think there was a comment
or two about potential tariffs, but there wasn't much about
you know, fifty first state Governor Trudeau any of this stuff.
So that I think really led to this sort of
defense mechanism in Canadians where there's all this national pride
that we didn't know we had before that has come
out and we're sort of banding together and deciding that no,

(52:58):
we don't want this and we want somebody in power
who's going to be stable. You know, Pierre Poliev the
leader of the Conservative Party. For the past two years,
as he's been leader, he's been running essentially against Trudeau,
and once Trudeau left, he was sort of left scrambling
to try to apply his prior arguments against Mark Karney,
who's a completely different person, isn't even currently an MP,

(53:20):
and it's hard to make the same arguments against him
when they when Trudeau and Carney are different leaders. So
Pierre Pouliev's inability to really find a coherent message, in
addition to the fact that he has like he is,
you know, far right in terms of Canada, has been
endorsed by people like Elon Musk. So when you have
those sorts of connections to a Trump administration that is

(53:41):
so deeply disliked, it hasn't helped this case.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
Yeah, I'm sure you get the Elon Musk endorsement. At
this point, you're like, thanks, Mark. To that point, I
pulled a Carney ad and I pulled a Poliev ad.
Let's go ahead and start with the Poliev ad. What
was no about this is that he actually doesn't appear
in it. So I want to get your reaction to
that and the way that he has had to quickly

(54:07):
scramble and reorient himself in his campaign. This is f
three guys, Go ahead and play it.

Speaker 13 (54:12):
How's your son, David, Well.

Speaker 11 (54:14):
It's been a tough few years for him.

Speaker 10 (54:16):
It just can't seem to get ahead.

Speaker 13 (54:17):
Yeah, we had to pay for Sarah's down payment last year.
Things are tough for her too.

Speaker 5 (54:22):
You know what Mark Karney says.

Speaker 13 (54:23):
Come on, do you already think that a fourth Liberal
term is going to change anything?

Speaker 9 (54:27):
You know, I've been thinking the same thing.

Speaker 13 (54:29):
Are we really going to give these clowns a fourth term?
I'm voting at servative.

Speaker 9 (54:35):
There you go, Yeah, for a.

Speaker 3 (54:37):
Change your reaction to that particular ad.

Speaker 16 (54:43):
They have purposely taken Pierre Polyev out of their ads.
So this is you know, not often explored, but even
while Trudeau was unpopular, even while the Liberals really really unpopular,
if you look at Pier Polyev's actual numbers, just the
approval of him and power people, how people felt about him,
they were not he was not doing well. He was

(55:03):
still underwater. So the the the Liberal the lack of
Liberal support before Karne came in was largely really due
to the combination of the affordability crisis and people being
tired of Trudeau. It wasn't because people loved Peer Polyev.
So when that became even more clear during this election, uh,
you know, essential the last week, last couple weeks of

(55:23):
the election, the Conservatives have put out three new ads,
all of them not featuring Peer Polyev either his face
or his voice. So that's the one ad you saw
there with the golfing. Another one is former Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, you know, saying I worked with both Karne
and Pierre Polyev, and I support Pierre Poulyev, which of
course he is. He's the former prime minister as a Conservative,
so like that. And then another one's you know, a

(55:45):
few people discussing how how how terrible things are, but
Peer Polyev was so unliked that they had to completely
remove him from their advertising. And it's just like, it
goes to how how inauthentic Peer Polyev is. This is
an other element that people often you know, aren't attuned to,
is just the fact that Mark Carney is oddly authentic

(56:09):
even you know, he's former governor of the Bank of Canada.
He's a central banker, but he's authentic to that. He's
not pretending to be anybody else. He's running as.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
Like technocratic liberal, yes banker.

Speaker 16 (56:20):
He's running as a guy that led Canada through the
o White financial crisis and then went to the UK
to help the UK through breaks it. He's running as
that guy. Whereas Peer Polyev has a twenty year record
in parliament. He's been a parliament for twenty years, twenty
year record of fighting against the working class, fighting against labor,
and now he's coming out to pretend that he cares
about the working class and he's going to make life

(56:41):
more affordable, Like where were you.

Speaker 6 (56:43):
The past twenty years?

Speaker 16 (56:44):
It comes off as so fake that people, even if
they don't realize what peer Polypf's record is, you can
feel it in his speeches and the way he comes
up that he's not an authentic individual, whereas Mark Karney
is who he.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
Is, does Gulf code different in Canada, Like I can't
imagine who's trying to like position themselves this pro working
class being like you know where I need to go
the driving room.

Speaker 5 (57:05):
Semp who love golf, wouldn't put that in his head.

Speaker 6 (57:08):
Yeah, it's it is odd like that.

Speaker 16 (57:11):
I think that message there is they're they're afraid of
losing the older vote, which they are. Like what's kind
of been surprising with the election is if you look
at the breakdown by age sixty five plus is well
in support of the Liberals, like it's not even really close,
whereas it's really under thirty five that has that where
the Conservatives have a slight edge. And again that's really

(57:31):
I think due to last ten years of affordability and
millennials and gen Z really being hit by that and
not really knowing where to put the blame there, But
everybody over thirty five big support for the Liberals. So
the attempt there, I think was really to connect to
older voters who have kids who are struggling and people
that you know can relate to that and think that yeah,
we need change, but like good change or what sort

(57:55):
of change will be talking about here, becausef we're looking
at actual platforms. Mark Carney has the I would argue,
the best housing platform out of all of the parties,
even to the NDP, which you know are have no
chance at all of forming government. But Mark Karney has
has a plan to make or build five hundred thousand
homes per year, essentially start a Crown Corp to overlook

(58:21):
all of the the building of the housing, and and
doing it in a way where he is focusing on
both affordability and prefab housing to essentially be able to
build houses at a faster rate, also focusing on you know,
Canadian lumber and Canadian jobs. So there has been a
real focus on investment from the Liberals, which I think

(58:45):
benefits them in terms of the NDP vote. As the
NDP the floor has completely dropped out of the NDP
and a lot of those voters have moved to the Liberals,
seeing as both a rejection of the Conservatives but also
a you know, supporting what Mark Karney is arguing. In
addition to the fact that I think Mark Carney comes
up as somebody who is a stable leader as opposed
to you know here.

Speaker 4 (59:04):
And it's an interesting point because if a central banker
told me that he's got a plan to build five
hundred thousand no houses a year, and here he's going
to do it.

Speaker 5 (59:12):
Here's the labor supply, here's the wood supply.

Speaker 4 (59:14):
And here he's sketched out of be like, okay, actually,
you know, I trust you could actually probably pull that off.

Speaker 5 (59:19):
This is you're not trying.

Speaker 4 (59:20):
To like do something like that that out of the ordinary.
Here it's like building houses, and you should be able
to do it. On the authenticity point, the funniest thing
I think I saw in this race was Pierre Poliev
getting out and having a press conference right after Trump
started going after us a I d he Ald.

Speaker 5 (59:38):
I don't know if you remember this.

Speaker 4 (59:38):
He held a press Conference saying that he was going
to end all of Canada's foreign aid. It's like, come on, you,
Like the US is barely doing anything when it comes
to foreign aid relative to our spending.

Speaker 5 (59:51):
Canada stop and now it's half.

Speaker 16 (59:55):
I guess he's cut that to now we're going to
cut half of US or half of aid, which is like, again,
there's so many cues from Republicans that Peer Polyeff has
taken that you know, have added up to the point
where it doesn't it hasn't benefited him. Like if nothing
had changed in terms of the in terms of the
liberal leadership and Trudeau was still running, I think it's

(01:00:16):
very likely you'd be looking at still a conservative majority,
maybe at worst a conservative minority. But you have a
like a situation where Peer pauliev has has spent years
aligning himself to MAGA and now you know, the chickens
are coming home to roost, and you have a situation
where people really do not want Trump style politics in

(01:00:39):
Canada and he is the face of it. So it's
it's not worked out well for him.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
Yeah, I would have to think at this point, with
the trade war being so important too, the fact that
he's a central banker, and you know, has some deep
understanding of the bond markets and their impact is affirmative
benefit for him as well. But I mean, how do
you handicap the race? D I saw the polls have
titaned some coming down the stretch, you know, giving Conservatives

(01:01:04):
some hope that they may be able to prevail. How
what do you think is going to play on or
what are the odds of what's going to play on?

Speaker 16 (01:01:11):
Based on everything I'm reading, it's it's really appearing to
be a liberal majority at worst a liberal minority. And
it's important to note that even if the Conservatives had
a slight lead in the overall vote in polling, they
still likely would not be able to win a minority
government just the way that the seats play out and
how the Conservative vote tends to be concentrated. So the

(01:01:32):
consent would really need, you know, several point advantage in
polls to be able to be in a situation where
they're going to form government, and they're just not anywhere
near that right now. Now, of course, we've seen polling
be a little off in the past, but Canadian polling
tends to be fairly accurate, so I'm really it'll be
curious to see how it holds up this time. As

(01:01:53):
you know, you could argue maybe there's sort of this
hidden conservative vote that we've seen in the US, and
maybe that's going to come out, you know, this time
in Canada.

Speaker 6 (01:02:01):
But the way things look right now.

Speaker 16 (01:02:02):
It's liberals should be pretty confident that they're going to
be able to form government.

Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
Let's finish with a Mark Carneiyad to see, you know,
kind of what his message is.

Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
Let's roll that here.

Speaker 17 (01:02:11):
No people are anxious right now. President Trump has created
a crisis.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
He news from walls, pressures, react to the sweeping tariffs.

Speaker 17 (01:02:19):
Well, I've led people through crises my entire career. I've
worked with prime minister from both parties to solve big
problems for Canadians, and right now we're facing the biggest
crisis of our lifetimes and we need serious leadership and
a real plan.

Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
Is that pretty representative of what his approach has been
throughout this short campaign.

Speaker 6 (01:02:42):
Yeah, stability leadership.

Speaker 16 (01:02:44):
And he's been benefited as well by you know, people
like Premier Doug Ford in Ontario, who is a is
a conservative, I mean he's head of the Progressive Conservatives.
I know that's a confusing term for Americans to hear.
But he is a conservve and you know Calvis scandals.
I've done many videos about how terrible Doug Ford is.

(01:03:04):
But he's somebody who is able to read the room. Yeah,
and has been very forward and being very you know
against Trump. It's been on all you know, US networks
discussed here. Yeah, yeah, his approach. So he's not endorsed Polyev.
He's kind of stayed out of the race. He's he's
somebody who you know, Him and Polyp don't really have
much of a relationship. So the fact that Ontario is

(01:03:27):
so important in the election and he doesn't have the
support of Doug Ford in any capacity, I think has
hurt him as well.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
Interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
All right, David Dole, Everybody go subscribe to David's channel
and I'm sure you'll be covering whatever happens with the
Canadian elections today. So thanks so much for breaking it
all down for us.

Speaker 6 (01:03:42):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:03:43):
All right, guys, thank you so much for watching.

Speaker 2 (01:03:45):
We are going to do an AMA Live for premium subscriber,
So if you want to be part of that Breakingpoints
dot com If you cannot subscribe me, tocome a premium
member right now. Just make sure like, share, subscribe, All
those things really really help us out a lot. Thank
you guys so much for watching. We'll see you back here,
but with the bud Pat