June 12, 2025 • 50 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss China mineral deal guillotine, Trump freaked over Elon 'burn book', Zohran takes lead over Cuomo in NYC.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
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 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. At the same time, we have some updates
on the US and China. So Trump says a deal
is done. The details are a little bit different. Let's
go and put this up there on the screen. Trump
said that the deal restoring a China trade truce is done.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's make this very clear.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
This is about a deal over the truce, not necessarily
a deal between the two countries, although that's originally kind
of the way that it was sold. So this was
after the update that we gave everybody on Tuesday. The
US and China met for the very second time on
their trade talk, after there was some indication that things
might fall apart. The impetus for those talks was China's
(01:05):
hold up of rare earth minerals, and that really is
the keystone of this entire deal. So what we see
right now is that the tariffs are alleged they're going
to stay at the current levels that were signed at
a deal in Switzerland about a month or so ago.
Trump said in his post that the US would set
a total of fifty five percent tariffs, which by the way,
is still pretty high as opposed to the thirty percent previously,
(01:27):
and then China would keep its current reciprocal where things
are right now. However, what we see right now is
that the framework would quote restore the pack they agreed
to in Switzerland, but increase and freeze for six months
the speed up of these rare earth minerals coming to
the United States. One of the reasons why the administration
was so desperate to get that rare earth mineral pipeline
(01:49):
back to US production is that we're so wholly reliant
on it. We did a thing yesterday about this mineral samarium,
which the US military needs for fighter jets, and was
cut off overnight on China.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
There were several others cover here.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
They have a one capacity. I mean, what's annoying about
the term rare earth? This is not rare it's it's
about refining capacity. That's really what it's all about. It's
not even necessarily where they're from. It's about the ability
to refine it and to make it usable in production.
So can we put the next please part on the screen?
This is the most important part, and we flagged at
the time. The tariffs itself, of course mattered, but the
(02:27):
cutoff of the minerals and the export licenses by China,
which was immediately put into place after the trade war
was announced, is the absolute like most impactful thing that
they did. And it's not as surprise as to why
Trump eventually folded on those China tariffs and why now
he has been granted this quote six month limit on
the ease of rare earth export licenses. But I mean,
(02:49):
it doesn't take a genius to see six months is
not a long time, Okay. Six months is basically like
a hovering guillotine over the US economy, the US production
for so many different critical things that basically makes it
so that they have an incredible amount of leverage at
this time, and this is part of the problem over
the lack of planning, and I would fold in the
(03:10):
build back better or sorry not build back the big
beautiful bill into this is there is not really one
ounce of serious investment to make sure that we're refining
you know, these minerals here, or to pump billions into production.
I mean, if anything, the criticism of the IRA that
it was all green energy, and I'm like, look, fine,
then pump it into whatever, like you know, for industrialization
(03:33):
and all these other plants and things that we want
to be able to compete or at least have autonomy
from the Chinese here.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
But instead it's really the opposite.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I mean, effectively, what they're saying here within these bills
is they're not only not investing, but the tariff negotiations
are actually ones where it seems to actually just extend.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Like a lot of the previous relationship.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
It's really not you know, trying to solve a lot
of the autonomy problems that we had previously. Like right now,
he's like, okay, well continue you know this thing for
six months. There's not even really a plan to like
try and bring t SMC here or anything like that.
So it is I think there's still big, big problems
going forward, and if anything, this could actually offset any
(04:16):
serious investment that was being made here.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
In the US.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I don't know if you said we covered this when
you were out, but some US automakers were looking at
manufacturing some auto parts in China. Yeah, yeah, so that
they could have access and also these you know, to
what they the materials that they need. In the context
of this, the export controls that again like this was
so thoroughly predictable, which again shows you how haphazard and
(04:43):
poorly thought out this entire quote unquote strategy. I don't
know if you can even like call it there that
is too favorable has been where you know, there's no okay,
these are the industries we need to reshore, and here's
the industrial policy that goes with it, and here's how
we're building a coalition to make sure that we can do.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
This and stand up to China in this way.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That no, none of that, all of it's by the
seat of the pants, and we have another indication of that.
So there are sort of conflicting statements coming out of
the Trump administration about this upcoming July deadline, in which
previously they've said, Okay, we're putting in place this ninety
day deadline, we're gonna have ninety deals and ninety days.
How is that going? And that ninety day deadline is
(05:23):
fast approaching. The new line out of the administration was Okay, well,
if we don't come to deals, we're just going to
unilaterally put in place tariffs. I don't know, we'll have
a new Liberation Day chart or.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
Something like that.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Bessant was asked yesterday and he said that Trump was
likely to extend the pause on the teriff's past that. However,
Trump yesterday said that he may actually move up the
timeline and just start sending out unilateral letters saying like
this is your new tariff. In any case, let's go
ahead and take a listen to what Scott Bessant had
to say yesterday.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Very few of the trade deals have been announced yet.
I think most people in Congress and around the world
who liked to know what's going on. Should America be
preparing for Liberation Day two point zero? Should we plan
what do we plan for January, July ninth, and July second?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
I would say, as I have repeatedly said that there
are eighteen important trading partners. We are working deal toward
deals on those and it is highly likely that those
countries that are negotiating or trading blocks is in the
case of the EU, who are negotiating in good faith,
we will roll the date forward to continue the good
(06:32):
faith negotiations. If someone is not negotiating, then we will
not so.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
In contrast to that, Trump said that he would set
unilateral terrrists in two weeks, so who the hell knows.
In addition, Scott bess Hint also revealed that there is
a new TDS. It's not Trump derangement syndrome now, it's
also teriff derangement sentroume.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Let's stay listen to that.
Speaker 6 (06:54):
I will say that I believe that the economic the
certainty because there is a duality between the critics of
this administration. All I hear is teriffs. It's like TDS
has become tariff derangement syndrome, and that all I hear
(07:16):
about is uncertainty from tariffs. Uncertainty from tariffs. But then
the same side wants to give us uncertainty on taxes.
So let's get this bill done and get the certainty
on taxes. We will have certainty on tariffs within some
window over the coming quarters a minute, then the US
(07:40):
economy can realize its full potential.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
So tariff derangement syndrome.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Maybe people are bringing that up to you a lot
because number one, you are the Treasury Secretary, and number
two because it's actually a real and major issue for
the economy, specifically for businesses trying to figure out what
the hell they're going to do and how to plan
and how to adjust it.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Look, everything right now for the administration is they both
want to waive a victory flag because, for example, let's
put this next one flees up on the screen. US
inflation rose only about point one percent in May from
the prior month, which was less than expected. But part
of the reason for that was a folding of unilateralism
on the tariffs. So they both want to say that
(08:19):
people are deranged about the tariffs. Part of the reason
why some of the economic data that's been coming in
so far is not catastrophic. It's specifically because they were
treated from their own policy, same with the S and P.
Five hundred, with inflation, with shortages. But I will say,
you know, look, I really don't think people have grappled
at the political level of what those tariffs really meant
(08:40):
for a lot of people. I mean, no matter what,
especially when in a white collar and you work in
any sort of business, planning, accounting, finance. I mean, this
was the story. It's very rare in this country to
have the government do something and it directly impacts your
business or it directly impacts your thinking.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Most people are like, yeah, whatever.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
In Charlotte, Okay, why do I care about what's going
on in Los Angeles? Maybe at a conceptual level, but
not like this is going to affect my business, right
And I think that the tariffs in particular at a
consumer finance level, you know, and broadly just like people working,
people worrying about things being able to buy. That's something
that really tapped into people. And we see it also
with kind of the absurdity around a lot of this planning.
(09:22):
We're not gonna be reliant on China anymore. It's like, Okay,
well we have the biggest tax bill every five years.
Where's the dollars to make sure that that's not gonna happen.
I don't see a single one, you know, right now.
Same with these rare mineral people do actually, I think
would support billions billions of dollars to be pumped into
making sure that these types of reliance on China would
not be there. But that's not broadly you know where
(09:44):
things are. And that's actually a biggest failure I see
with this whole strategy. What is this about, right, It's
because at the very beginning, if we just came off
of this, to me, it's about autonomy. It's about being
a real country, is one that's able to produce its
own weapons, produce its own food, produce its own energy,
and produce the things that it needs to function. Yes,
we can have trade, but in a time of war
(10:05):
and a time of crisis, we need to make sure
this hedge fund stuff that pumps our economy right now,
it's all bullshit. Same with AI, that's not what matters.
Go and ask Russia, as you can see happening for
them right now. Yes, they've you know, had sanctioned to death.
They're fine, and that's part of what you want to do.
That's what makes you, you know, anti fragile in a sense,
and we don't have that. And I think people really
(10:25):
you have a sense of that, but that's not what
you know, this fifty nine percent tariff or whatever on
the islands, or the tariffs on Vietnam, none of that
made any strategic sense.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So he really gave away a lot of that narrative.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
And in particular, you really see it with the approach
to these China talks, where arguably the area where we
need the most autonomy from China, it's rarest minerals, refining
critical minerals supply chains is exactly where we seem to
be giving up the most ground. And for what Like so,
soybeans are getting traded, fine, you know, like I said,
food is important, but that's that's not the headline about
(10:59):
what we're all actually concerned about here, vitamins, pharmaceuticals and so.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
I think it's almost like the classic Trump strategy of
like causing something and then fixing it and declaring victory.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
But you know, this is not a game. This is
very serious stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I talked yesterday about the drone attack by the Ukrainians
on the Russian forces. We are Russia, like that people
have We are Russia. We are the the over invested
in superpower, with this massive infrastructure empire across the world,
with the ultra exclusive guided missile destroyers and bombers and
(11:37):
all that. The who theis are able to withstand it? Uh,
we are Russia in that situation, and I don't think
people have really grappled with that. We don't have the
drone that do you know who has the drones?
Speaker 1 (11:46):
The Chinese.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
They have the best drone technology in the whole world.
They've been planning droneswarms for a decade and ninety drun course. Yep.
This is what people are not grappling with the asymmetry
of a lot of warfare and even in an economy
of where we are at now. And I'm really worried
about it because this is exactly where if you give
away something like this and something pops off, you have
no leverage anymore. You know, Trump famously like we have
(12:09):
all the cards. He's like, yeah, maybe with Ukraine, but
that's a tiny little nation that's nothing compared to China.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
About what we're talking about. This is serious stuff.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
I mean, yeah, the rare Earth thing alone, I know,
was enough to bring the Trump administration to their knees.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Yeah, And the Chinese reportedly like drove really hard bargain
on that, and like Zager said before, like, you can
have six months.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
You have six months, and then we'll see, you know.
I think broadly, part of what was so damaging to
Trump about the Liberation Day tariffs was it really was
kind of an emperor has no close moment. He's always
been very strong politically on the economy.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
I think that is the number.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
One reason he got reelected is because people felt like,
you know, when I think back to the first Trump administration,
I think I was doing a little better economically, and
there's all this, you know, decades of mythology about Trump
the great businessman and Trump the deal maker and all
these sorts of things, and so this has been a
real key to his political strength and power is that
people thought he was some sort of like economic genius.
(13:11):
And when you look at that chart, if you thought
about it for five seconds, you were like, this makes
no sense. This is going to be incredibly destructive. It's chaotic,
there's no plan. They can't even tell us day to
day what these things are meant to achieve. I think
it was a real emperor has no closed moment that
(13:31):
hurt him in his key area of strength. Yes, immigration
has been important to him from the beginning and other
issues as well, But that has been the real promise
and the core brand of Trump is he's the deal maker,
he's the businessman. He'll make sure you're doing okay economically,
and people were over we're willing to overlook a lot
on that promise. So when you see something so insane,
(13:55):
so unjustifiable, where there's so few people who are willing
to go out and just full.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
Throated like, yes, this is a good idea and here's.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Where we're headed, I think that was, you know, a
blow to him politically that will be very difficult to
recover from because once you start seeing him as sort
of just like chaotic and wild and undisciplined and unplanned
on the economy, you don't really unsee that.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
After that happened totally.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And yeah, I mean it's also exposed just a lot
of things, like now we have we have this bond
problem right right with the US debt. And I was
arguing with several friends of mine because they were like
they were talking, we were talking about the debt and
we're like, oh.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
There's going to be a debat crisis.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
And I was like everybody in my entire lifetime and
told me's gonna be a deback crisis.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Was completely and totally wrong.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
So they're basically like Iraq, you know, Iraq, Saddam Hussein,
WMD people. In my mind, if you study US history,
every debt crisis is because of what it is, because
of a massive shift in geopolitical orientation and war.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
So we just talked about Iran.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
That's what would cause a debt crisis, just so everybody knows,
is an actual massive impact to the straits and war
moves supply chain and all the energy supply. JP Morgan
forecasted this morning we go to one hundred and twenty
dollars per barrel. That's what causes a goddamn deck crisis.
That's actually what we also see with the tariffs. The
reason why I as you remember, the bond markets are
(15:14):
what forced Trump's hands.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
That was not because of US spending.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
It was because of a loss of faith in the
US as the primary guaranter and world's reserve currency. So
by attacking that and the very foundations of the global
American Empire, which is both our force but is really
our financial system. Very much in the same way that
the British financial system was the backstop of the whole
Sun never sets. Mercantilism thing that is really the major
(15:40):
or like the major effect that he has had.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And so look deficits and all the people know my feelings.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I think it's all bullshit as long as the US
is at the top. But staying at the top is
the is the reason when you.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Fall, then okay, only you do have to worry about it,
that's all.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Look the world and nine, I mean reading the accounts
of like John Maynard Kane and of other British economists
in nineteen nineteen are terrifying because I see us in
those They came out of the world and they won,
you know, technically, but they really lost if you really,
you know, look at the overall destruction of their empire
and it's like they fall from the top of this
(16:18):
empire and great European power to millions dead on the
Somme and communism and socialism, fears at home and having
to pay all this debt from this war and all
that they never recovered from that. And we again, we're
the Brits in this scenario, and that's actually what worries
me the most about it. And you know, the tariffs
(16:38):
and all that. Look, it's not going to cause it
per se. But you know, these things like empires don't
just fall over a single thing. Nobody in nineteen nineteen
woke up and said the British Empire is over. As
we know, it took until the fifties for it to
fall apart, but in retrospect it's obvious, and a lot
of people saw it at the time.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Yeah too.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
So that's that's what I worry about, talk about our
foremost soligarch speaking of crumbling empires.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
So Elon and Trump, you guys know the backstory. They're
going at it.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Elon in particular, going very hard in the paint, accused
Trump of being peto, said that he bought the election
for him, said that he should be impeached, said accurately
that the tariff suck, and he projects that there will
be a recession in the in the next half of
the year. So I mean, going about as hard as
you possibly can in areas where Trump's ego is the
largest and the most fragile. So now, at three or
(17:31):
four am yesterday we get this tweet from mister Musk.
He says, I regret some of my posts about President
Trump last week.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
They went too far.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Now I have to say Kandas Owens actually had a
good tweet about this. She was like, so, did they
go too far because you were correct about him being
in the Epstein files and now you feel bad about it?
Or did they go too far because you were lying
about him being in Epstein files?
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Could you be a little more.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Specific about what exactly is going on here? Because I
don't know about you, but for me, if someone goes
out and accuses me of being a petop, that's going
to be a hard thing to take back. Especially listen,
the Epstein thing is, it's a real problem for Trump.
He was friends with Jeffrey Epstein. He was on that plane.
We know in the flight logs numerous times, there's pictures
of there's videos, et cetera. And now suddenly his administration
(18:22):
is very weird and really dodging and lying and spinning, etc.
When it comes to actually releasing the Epstein files. So
in any case, he has apparently a some sort of
a relationship mending situation is unfolding where Jade Vance and
Susie Wiles approached Elon in particular, and we're like, all right,
(18:44):
let's try to smooth the waters here, Calm the waters here.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
And Elon did.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Now we have the reporting. Also talked to Trump before
putting this post out. So that's kind of where things
stand at this point.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I really have I really just have no idea.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
We have some common here from the first sort of
the press secretary about the Elon rapprochma, let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
About Elon Musk.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Can you shoot an apology this morning?
Speaker 4 (19:10):
Has the President accepted the apology or does he think
it's too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
The President acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning,
and he is appreciative of it. And we are continuing
to focus on the business of the American people.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
We are appreciative of it.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Some of the background of this is actually kind of
interesting as well. So you know, this whole thing appears
to have been broken, Like you said by JD and
by Susie Wiles, Trump receives this phone call.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
We have the reporting. We can put that on the screen.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Late on Monday night, after days of Trump dodging Elon's calls.
It comes after he speaks privately with Susie Wiles and
with Jade Vance about a path to the truce. Wiles
told associates quote she had come to like working with
Musk and was one of his regular points of project.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
That is bullshit, that's not what definitely at all.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
But anyway, so what we kind of see inside of
all of this is there.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
I'll say this, Why they.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Want him back on side is interesting to me because
he's obviously a huge political problem. The money, yeah, it's good,
but what there's a dearth of rich billionaires like wanting
to give it. You know, come on, let's not kit
ourselves here. The air of what's the guy's name, Timothy Mellon,
the heir to the Carnegie Mellon fortune. He wired Trump
(20:32):
like fifty five million dollars you know during the campaign.
He actually would have been one of the biggest funders
if it weren't for Elon. So I don't think money
is the issue. I don't even really know what it is.
We had this story about people who are worried about
the Elon burn book, like the things that he might know.
I think that's very possible, right, So some of the
(20:53):
possible inside details about what he knows about the administration
d for please guys put that on the screen. But
I'm curious, what you like, why do they want him
back onside, like, he's not a political asset.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I think we all know that.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
No, he is not a political asset, which is part
of why I thought it was so weird people like
Rocana and others who were like, let's reach.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Out to Elan.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
I'm like, how did this go?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Like putting aside the principles which it should be important.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
How did this go for a republic? Has this been
great for the Trump administration?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
How did this go with that Wisconsin Supreme Court race?
Speaker 4 (21:25):
It was evil on a major asset there.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Did that really help them, you know, be able to
lose by double digits in that race? So, I mean,
I can only speculate, right, So from the beginning it
was weird to me.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
How well it was weird to me.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Throughout the Trump administration, how deferential he was to Elon.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
That was weird to begin with. Then when Elon.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Goes nuclear, when Elon goes total scorched earth with you're
a pedo and I won you in the election and
you should be impeached and JD.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Man should replace you.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
When that happened, and Trump responded in this very meek way,
like not at all characteristic of the way he usually goes,
so hard, and he'll invent stories. And he knows he's
got a gift for humiliation, right, he knows what he's
doing in that department.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
He didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
And in fact, Jade Vance was on with Theomon while
this was all unfolding. They were recording that interview, and
according to the reports, at least Trump counseled Jadie Vance
to be diplomatic in that conversation. In fact, before I
heard that report and I just listened to Jadie Vance
on with Theomon talking about this, I thought, I don't
know if Trump is going to feel like he went
(22:36):
strong enough.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
I thought the same for him.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
I don't know if he did enough here to like
really project his loyalty. But apparently he was following the
advice and the council of Trump and what he wanted
him to do. So I mean, I can only assume
that either he is worried about like whatever Elon knows
about the Epstein files, or perhaps he thinks Elon knows
something about the election, whether that's sure or not, that
(23:00):
he doesn't want to come out, or there is some other,
you know, unknown something or fear of some unknown something
that Elon could reveal that would be genuinely damaging and
a problem for him. Now, listen, there are things in
the public sphere. We know our karts that Elon holds.
Trump has way war. He's the president of the United States.
There's no doubt about that. Elon controls Twitter. Twitter's really
(23:22):
important to the right right now. That's very significant. You know,
that is like the backbone of Republican propaganda efforts is
on Twitter right now. So that is important and consequential.
Elon controls Starlink. Starlink is even more important and consequential
as communications backbone, which I think is you know, intentional
on Elon's part to have that kind of control. It's
worth remembering in the context of the Ukraine War. I mean,
(23:44):
first of all, Elon saying okay, you can use our
you know, starlink satellites for communications, extremely consequential for Ukraine,
and then he him as an individual being able to say,
you know, I don't want you to use it for crimea,
so we're going to take that offline.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
Whether you think that's the right decision or not.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Having one person with that kind of control running his
own foreign policy shows you how important Starlink truly, truly is.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
SpaceX.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
NASA is very dependent on SpaceX at this point, you know,
the International Space Station very dependent on SpaceX at this point.
This is a I think colossal indictment of the move
that has you know, occurred over successive administrations towards privatization,
not only if NASA, but of all sorts of government
you know, formerly government held capacity, and especially when you're
(24:33):
talking about into the hands of one specific individual. So
what was one of the first things that Elon said?
When Trump is like, I'm going, you know, I may
pull your contracts, Elon's like, okay, fine, we'll decommission the
particular spaceship that they use for the International Space Station.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
So these things are all known.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
But I still don't think that that is enough to
really account for the very meek way that Trump has
approached this and his willingness right away to sort of,
you know, extend a hand and try to calm the
waters here with Elon. So I have to I have
to assume because one last thing here, you know, to
get to the burn book piece. It's not that these
(25:12):
Republican aids are like, oh, I know he knows this
about us, and so I'm concerned. They're like he was
in all of our departments, like right exactly, Starlink was
put in the White House to suck up all kinds
of data. He's got his little minions, his little doge
minions who were loyal to him, about one hundred of
them is what I saw spread throughout agencies throughout the government.
(25:33):
So their fear is just like, we don't know what
he knows or what sort of tea he could spell,
or anyone will also just make some shut up too.
That's not beyond him either. So it could also be
one of those scenarios where Trump's just like, I don't know,
he could know some things that would be really damaging,
and that puts some fear into.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
You don't even need a conspiracy theory. It's like somebody
who's in the room. This happened so many times in
the first Trump administration. Somebody was in the room would
come out of the room and then they would denounce
Trump and they would tell us about all the things
that was going on. That's how the Woodward books happen,
That's how all this other stuff happened, right, and so here,
I really think that that might be one of the
more animating.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Ones for instances though, it's not like Trump was afraid
to go after that.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, but I am mean and I think we're looking
for to mend senses.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Well, Twitter though, is actually the one that you mentioned,
which is probably the most important, because Twitter is like
the beating heart. See you said republican propaganda. I really
don't think it's that it's about elite conversation like that
is what Twitter ultimately is, is the place where narratives
are set. Yes, you know, Republican and democratic, but like
it is the beating heart of politics as we know it.
(26:37):
And I think that it's because of that that they
see the power and they're worried about let's say, the
algorithm of fundraising and so much more and broadly, I
mean we shouldn't take this for granted either. I mean
they did buy a lot of their own bs. I
mean Elon was like deified into a god ever since
he bought Twitter amongst a lot of Republicans. So you know,
you don't necessarily want that person to turn against you,
(27:00):
and so for a lot of them, maybe not necessarily
the top of the White House. But let's say you know,
Republican congressman officials. Remember there's like a Doze caucus literally
in the House of Representatives. Like there's all kinds of
stuff that's happening inside of all of the party apparatus.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
I wouldn't be surprised either.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
You know, the RNC, they're probably deeply integrated with Elon,
So he does have leverage, you know, not of course,
not nearly as much as doll.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
The Epstein thing is real, but I mean, this administration
is acting so weird about that.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
I agree. I agree.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
And Epstein said Trump and him were buses for a decade.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
You had Pan BONDI say that we've got thousands of
hours of videos we're trying to go through and that's
why it's taken so long for anything to come out.
Then you have Cash Betel go on with Joe. We're
going to say there's no videos. These things do are
no That is nuts.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
I agree, Like they.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Don't go together.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Yeah, you had that crazy influencer boondoggle where they all
came out with their photo op with their binders of
information that was already widely public publicly available since twenty fifteen.
Actually Goger had released more than was even in those binders.
You had Cash Mitel and Dan Vongino go on Fox
and say, oh, no, no, we know, we know that
(28:09):
he killed himself. Like we can tell you definitely, Like
just trust us. Don't you think we would tell you
the truth? Just trust us. He definitely killed himself and
there's nothing to see here. You cash hotel tell Joe
Rogan that the uh, actually the cameras were on in
the cell, which that is the opposite of what we've
been told this whole entire time. Whenever Trump gets asked
about Epstein, he gets really weird. He you know, we
(28:31):
showed you the clip before he gets asked what about JFK.
He gets asked about something Elsey that yes, release the files, Yes,
release the files, and then when it's Epstein, it's yet, well,
I don't know, privacy and concerned maybe a little bit
less on that one, and that he always is liked
that with the Epstein things, So I mean, I yeah,
I don't put I do not put off.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
The table whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
That that also could be a core part of why
he is so reluctant to burn the bridge and go
completely scorched earth. Who had Elon in a way that
he has not been reluctant with literally anyone else who
has crossed him.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
It is weird.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
There's no question the Epstein thing is absolutely crazy. As
I still think it's the Israel connection. I really do,
just especially considering the Israel Firsters that are all in
the administration, because if I had to guess, the smoking
gun stuff on the Mosat in Israel must be insane
on Epstein, like the control, the money, the control, what
(29:23):
they were asking of him for, you know what exact
purpose you all had. So I think that that is
still yet the most unexplored and really the most underdiscussed
element of all this. You know, everyone's like, oh, the compromide.
I'm like, listen, I knew that was that was there.
I'm like, I want to know at.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
The highest levels, Yeah, of the governments, consequential for foreign policies,
for understanding the way that you know, this foreign government
has operated within our own country. And yes, I and
I was on with Pierce Morgan this week and we
were talking about all of this stuff and what the
Republican Roger Stone was on there and.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Oh what did Rogers say? I'm actually curious. Yeah, it's
not a great format for him.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah, right, it was not a great He needs a
one on one like, you know, I think older people too,
like I struggle in that kind of panel format. So
he honestly didn't have a lot to say. But basically,
Peers and the two Republicans on the panel, Clay Travis
and Roger Stone on the panel, were like, don't you
think if there was something in the Epstein files about
Trump that Democrats would have leaked it? And I didn't
(30:22):
have a chance to jump in, but my rejoinder would
be like, number one, we know they were Bill Clinton associations,
so they wouldn't want that pieced out. And you know,
unlike you, I'm not a hat so I'm willing to say,
you know, this is this is bipartisan situation here that
could be very embarrassing. But number two, the Israel piece, like, yeah, no,
American administration, which have been extraordinarily pro Israel and hardcore
(30:45):
Zionists are going to want to reveal his connections to
Masad and that he was very likely, you know, based
on what we know at this point, very likely an
intelligence asset for them and that's what he was up to.
So you know, to me, it's no mystery why this
stuff stays under wraps because it's both the whole intention,
the whole project, was creating material that was politically damning
(31:07):
for both parties to exercise control.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
And then you know the like the.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Reason for that is also politically damning, and you know,
something that no American administration will want to come out.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
So yeah, while I.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Was while I was on paternity leave, I somehow fell
down this YouTube rabbit hole at two am about spies, and.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
So I started listening. I knew a little bit about
the case.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
The Jonathan Pollard case is insane, really, and it reminds
me a lot of the whole Epstein thing. So Pollard
is this guy working I think it was at the NSSA,
and he's basically like a free for all, like he'll
spy for anybody because he wants money. And he ends
up hooking up with MOSAT and they pay him a
lot of money to basically steal an ssay or intelligence
documents and smuggle them out and it gets for it, Okay,
(31:52):
well it eventually he gets caught and he gets sentenced
to prison for I don't know, thirty some odd years
for espionage. In that time, Pollard basically transforms himself into
saying that because he was a Zionist jew that he
was spying for Israel because he believed they were not
getting enough intelligence. Benjamin Nettan Yahoo starts visiting Pollard in
prison here in Washington. The entire Israeli government grants, they
(32:16):
granted him citizenship. It became a point of diplomacy for
that government to demand his release. Multiple Jewish billionaires in
the United States petitioned President Clinton and other presidents since
then till his release to be released from prison and
be granted clemency because he had spied for an ally.
And I was like, this is crazy. This guy is
(32:37):
a straight up trader. Net and Yahoo visits in prison.
The moment he's off, Paroli flies to Israel and he
lives there now currently.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
I was like, off the point.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I could not believe the level of influence of their
government to have the audacity to basically beg hours every
successive president, attorney general and others to release him from prison.
I mean, look, if a US asset was caused, you know,
caught spying for Mosad or for spying for US in
(33:08):
in Tel Aviv and they put him in jail, the
Israelis would be outraged. If we were like, hey, you
got to release him, like, you know, this is these
are guys, you know, it's oh, we're all friends here
and all.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
I couldn't believe that.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
This was so out, all in the open.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
And what really reminded me of it is that people
like me who are saying all these things I am
right now in the nineties, in the two thousands were
branded what rabbit anti semits for bringing on and I
was like, man, this machine.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
And it worked for a long time.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
It worked, It worked so well.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
And if I know, this is bad and the level
of control and all that they have over our politics
is just immense.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
It's horrific.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
You know, I could I could never, I could never
even begin to like overstate what it is. But with
the Internet, you know, we have a chance to be
able to speak out.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
On some of this.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
And things are as hard as this to believe things
are still a lot better.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Well, that is actually a good transition to Zoran, who
they are trying to run the he's an anti semi
playbook against and you know what's we've played some of
the clips here that to me are just like mind blowing.
The clip from the debate where they're like, well, you know.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Lightning round where would you go first?
Speaker 2 (34:18):
Foreign trips mayor, which okay, why are you going to a
foreign triple whatever? And Zaraen's like, I'm gonna stay in
New York And they're like, well, but would you go
to Israel? Will you commit to going to Israel? In
a later response, he actually said, I'm not sure they
would let me in because I'm a supporter of the
BDS movement, which is again, so here's this guy who
a decade ago inconceivable that he would be in the
(34:40):
running for New York City, inconceivable that he would be
in the running for New York City mayor, and this,
you know, smearing him as an anti Semite would have worked.
Now let's go ahead and put a three up on
the screen and then I'm going to play some clips
from his appearance on The Breakfast Club. According to Newpole,
that's the only one we have like this, So you know,
Carson say all that.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Stuffe everyone take it for According.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
To a new poll from the Public Policy Polling Survey,
up four points over Andrew Cuomo among likely DEM primary voters.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
This was conducted last week.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
So this is also I think the first poll that
we have which is post debate and post AOC endorsement.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
New York City does rank choice voting.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
The polls not ranked choice, so this would be basically
like the first round the result in the first round.
It has never been the case. We've not seen any
poll before that has him number one in the first round.
And the dynamics of the race are such that, you know,
in all the polling we've seen that does simulate ranked
choice vote, he picks up votes as you go throughout
the round because other, you know, more progressive candidates basically
(35:44):
their voters fall out their second choices or on or
their third choices or on or whatever, and there's a concerted,
somewhat coordinated effort to not rank Cuomo on those ranked
choice ballots whatsoever. In addition, this was really quite significant
because the knock on him has been like, Okay, he's
doing good with like white progressives, but he hasn't been
able to expand his base. He's supposed to be this
(36:06):
democratic socialist running on freezing the red and public grocery
stores and free public buses and free childcare and all
those sorts of things. This should be he should want
this working class base, and he hasn't been able to
pull it together. Well, we now have some indications that
he is growing in some of those key demographic areas.
Could put this piece up on the screen, which was
really significant this E four guys, his support continues to
(36:27):
be strongest among white and Asian voters, but you now
have twenty seven percent of black voter surveyed supported him,
that second only to Cuomo, who is somewhere around forty
as did nearly one third of Hispanic voters, and indication
he's gaining multi racial support among New Yorkers. And in fact,
a previous poll that had come out before this that
had him losing to Cuomo after all of the rank
choice voting only by two had found that the demographics
(36:52):
where he was performing the most poorly were also the
demographics that knew the least about him, which to me
was an indication that potentially he had a lot room
to grow. He also, Sager had wildly higher favorability ratings
than Andrew Cuomo, of course, you know, had to leave
the Governor's office in disgrace, both over sexual harassment and
over his handling of COVID.
Speaker 4 (37:14):
He lied to Congress.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Over you know, with this report that they put together
that undercounted COVID debts in nursing homes because he was
trying to hide the deadly impact of some of his
COVID era policies.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
So he's got a lot of baggage.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
But he also has you know, Cuomo is the iconic
name in New York politics. He has really coalesced as
sort of like the establishment moderate figure in this race.
And whether or not this poll is fully accurate, you
can say at this point Zorn is certainly given him
a run for his money.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh, I mean, this guy has He has performed better
than anybody I have seen yet, right like, in terms
of and especially in terms of my expectations. Originally I
was like, I was like, look, no offense. I was like,
I think this guy's gonna lose pipe fifty points just
from a kind of a cynical assumption around how US
politics broadly, or New York City politics kind of has been.
(38:08):
They elected Bloomberg and di Blasio, for God's sake, right Like,
this is not really a city that has rewarded upstarts,
at least in the modern era. I will note, you know,
Bloomberg did endorse Andrew Cuomo, and there is like some
centrist energy around the guy. But in a way, Zorn
may have gotten very lucky in that the person that
(38:29):
they picked is this at least not unpopular, but it
scarred centrist figure of Couomo, who has the legacy of COVID,
who has the fallout. They're resigning me too. You know,
that stuff did a lot of damage to his brand
going into this, and so he's not untainted. And so
you have the rise of like online resistance energy to
(38:50):
Donald Trump. And then you have Couomo, who's not only
this establishment figure but just like a deeply gross figure
who has been so like tied with a New York machine.
And you put those two things together and he kind
of do have a perfect storm.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
It's possible. We don't want to overstate it.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Like that said that pulls five hundred people, Okay, New
York City is a population of millions, And also ranked
choice screws everything up, because yes, he may be the
first choice in this poll. But you know, the New
York Times came out today and endorsed some guy I've
literally never even heard of, right, And apparently the New
York Times endorsement is quite impactful in the state or
(39:24):
in the city of New York.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Or at least it was last time around.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
At you know, I mean, look this sounds crazy, but
right we're talking about heights, or we're talking about low
turnout New York City liberal elections, like the New York
Times endorsement if I recalled her in the whole Andrew
Yang situation, like it eventually did have some impact. And
so I just have no idea how it is all
going to play out. I do think he's going to
(39:47):
do much better than we originally thought.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
At the very least.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
You know, the guy has gained himself a profile of
some kind, you know, going they land, Yeah, that's what
it is.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Okay, Yeah, I'm like, who is that?
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Well, I apologize in New York like get pretty progressive,
but not you know, democratic socialist level and progressive. Well,
I mean, here's the other thing that you have to
hand it to Zoran. I don't care where you're on
the political spectrum. He's run a fantastic campaign. You know,
he has this very consistent, clear cut messaging around we
are going to make New York affordable.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
New York should be for everyone.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
And he's got some you know, really digestible, concrete policy
proposals that he has relentlessly offered in order to marry
the message with the policy, and it's clearly working. I mean,
this guy, he There are many other figures in this
race who had a larger citywide profile than Zora, even
putting aside Cuomo brod Lander being one of them, Scott
(40:42):
Stringer being another one, Andrew Adrian Adams being another one,
who had citywide profiles and were established politicians and would
have been, if you were putting money down, much more
likely to sort of occupy the lane as the progressive
anti Quomo choice. And he has blown them out of
the water with the strength of his campaign, his social
(41:02):
media game, and he's very good. And I think you'll
see that now in some of these clips that we
can play you from the breakfast club. So he went on,
I think it was yesterday, and he gets asked, you know,
about Trump, and he gets asked about Democratic Party leadership
and you know how we need to move past that era,
and Charlon mine seems to be pretty sympathetic to him.
(41:23):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this first
part from Zorn about standing up to Trump.
Speaker 7 (41:28):
Well, and I saw you say that in the debate.
You know you would be Trump's worst nightmare. Well, once again,
why should that matter to anybody voting for you? Now,
big cut running against Donald Trump?
Speaker 8 (41:39):
No, you, but you are running against the authoritarianism that
he's bringing to the city. So you think than authoritarian, No,
I think that there's too many commonalities between him and
Donald Trump's record. And my point is that you don't
want to have a mayor who has to pick up
a phone call from someone who cut a two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars check to both him and Donald Trump.
(41:59):
You want to have a mayor who's willing to fight
for the city and have that that be the thing
that he's ultimately responsible for. And I think to your point,
we also have to be honest about how we lost
this presidential election. You know, New York is the state
that had the largest swing in the country towards Donald
Trump eleven and a half points. And it happened far
from the caricature of Trump voters. It happened in the
(42:21):
hearts of immigrant New York City. I went to Fordham
Road in the Bronx, I went to Hillside Avenue in
Queens and when I asked New Yorkers, there almost all
of whom were Democrats? Who did you vote for and why?
Many told me they didn't vote. Many told me they
voted for Trump. And they told me they voted for
him because they remembered having more money in their pocket
four years ago for their rent, for their childcare, for
their groceries, even for their metropolitan And as insincere and
(42:44):
ridiculous and horrific as we know Trump's policies to be,
that is how people felt. Those are the decisions that
they made. And when I asked these same New Yorkers
what would it take to bring you back to the
Democratic Party, they said, A relentless focus on an economic agenda.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
So, Sager, you see there how he turns this question
leng and question him about Trump, like why are you
focused on Trump? Into number one, you should care that
Cuomo's getting money from the same guys, And he used
these same sort of lines and the debate, I think
to great effect of like he's getting money from the
same billionaires as Trump, and that's something you should be
concerned about. And then he is immediately able to turn
it to his message about affordability, yes, and how he's
(43:18):
going to appeal to voters, and he goes right after
that party goes through as like you know, free childcare
and free bus fare and freezing the rent. He goes
through his list of policy priorities. So I mean he's skilled.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
He look, he's a good communicator. He also has He
was a podcast guy, he was the online guy.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
He really learned a lot from a lot of the
movement he you know, from a lot of the Bernie
Sanders wing.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
And look, you know, I've got a lot.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Of differences with mister Zoron, but I will say I
respect people who are underdogs, people who are able to
use the Internet and to use the new lessons of
politics to be able to overcome things. And regardless of
whether he wins or not, he is going to be
a fixture of some kind in New York City politics.
He could find himself running for Congress, you know, or
(44:04):
any other like this is a real star one of
those campaigns where whether you win or lose, like he
won something and you won something big.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Especially I don't.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Even know if he wants to necessarily remain just the
you know, the city of New York, like he could
easily find himself vaulted to you know, the member of
Congress or who knows. I mean, what AOC wants to do,
right if she decides to primary Chuck Schumer or Chuck
Schumer decides not to run, there's a lot of different
things that are on the table.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
Indeed, he also got asked about, you know, dumb leadership
and failures of dumb leadership in the context of challenging
Andrew Kuoma. I thought he responders to this, well, to
let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (44:40):
You do have to throw that old regime under the bus,
because it's not just that bus is going to be free, sure,
but it's not just Cuomo into democratic arity. It's a
lot of old leadership. List to Chuck Schumer's it's the bidens.
You got to throw all of that under the bus
and run it over. And people have to hear you
say that because I keep hearing y'all. You know, you
keep talking about Trump, Trump, Trump, John Trump.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
No, but what.
Speaker 7 (45:00):
Your body has been just as ineffective and just as
corrupt in a lot of ways.
Speaker 8 (45:03):
Trust me, I have I hear you because I've been
critical about the style of leadership that gave rise to
Donald Trump is also a style of leadership within the
Democratic Party, and I think for too long. It's been
a party that has valued insider politics, pay your dues,
the words and advice of consultants, over the people that
are Democrats themselves. And I do think it's time for
(45:25):
a new generation of leadership. You know, Cuomo would be
the oldest mayor elected in New York City. I would
represent a completely new generation. And I think it's important
for that because it's not just about age, it's not
just about vision. It's also about what has your record
been and who have you been fighting for and is
that distinct enough from what got us here.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
It's such a strength to be able to unequivocally like
bash Democratic leadership because they are so unpopular with the
entire country also at this point with the Democratic base,
and so that he feels no qualms about biling.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
Yeah, there are a lot of problems there. They're corrupt, they.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
Caused a lot of issues that's gonna be appealing outside
of just like a hardcore progressive base.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
So part of that Quinnipiac pole, which is making waves
yesterday again whether you believe it or not, is actually
the most unpopular thing in that poll was the Democratic Party.
Is the Democratic Party approval rating has just twenty one percent,
disapprove is seventy, So running against it, you're an idiot
and you're I've been a gas at the Democrats honestly,
Like we talked about the DNC, but I never thought
I'd be in a position to defend David Hogg.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
They destroyed this man for nothing.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
He said, I'm going to primary people who are like
not standing up for our values, and then they removed
him using some d I like gender component.
Speaker 4 (46:43):
It's like a cartoon, that's a character. What does he do?
Speaker 1 (46:45):
All this guy played ball every step of the way.
He defended Biden. You know this is He's not.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Some Bernie Sanders shit lib. And all he said was hey,
I think we need some new blood. And they cut
his head off. Yeah, they killed him.
Speaker 4 (46:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Politically, I mean I can't believe it.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
I can't believe they would do that to I really
do think if you're a young Democrat and out there,
you need to stand up for David Hawk, Like, it's
not right what they did.
Speaker 1 (47:09):
To They nuked him.
Speaker 3 (47:12):
Even James Carville said that he agreed with him, Yeah,
and they still took him out. I'm aghast, Yeah, honestly,
at the level of control that these people.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Have so uselessly unbelievable. It's truly unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
So for Zorn to be like, yeah, yes, that's to
be free, I mean he's you know, that's like that
is a strength. And I think one of the things
that we've been looking at to is the demographics where
he's strungest and if you're looking for someone who appeals
to the bros Zora and is really clean up in
that department. And I think part of it is because
of this orientation, because he's anti system, and I think,
(47:45):
you know, part of what's going on here is that
is actually more important than where.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
He is on the ideological spectrum.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
People feel like, oh, he's different, he's willing to criticize
his own party. Qualmo, let's put you five up on
the screw was the last piece here. Quomo's main argument
against him is that he's not experienced enough, that he
doesn't have enough governance experience, which you know, at the
mayor level, this is someone who actually has to do
a real job. Things need to happen for the city's residence.
(48:15):
The trash needs to be picked up, the snow needs
to be removed. Like there's contentious local governance issues, and
so he's trying to make the most of that that
he can.
Speaker 4 (48:24):
And Zoron is only thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Old, so that Cuomo is in effect running a very
sort of standard issue establishment playbook.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
I'm the one who has the experience. You can trust me.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
You may not love me, that's okay, But I'm the
one that you know and can trust, and I can
you handle the city, and I know what to do.
And oh, by the way, that guy's an anti Semite.
That's basically his playbook. And look, it may be enough.
It might be, but I think you have to if
you just look at the trajectory of the polls. Right now,
Zorn has all of the momentum. He sucked up all
(48:58):
of the oxygen in the room. The AOC endorsement, I
do think is actually going to be significant because Zorn
has has lagged in terms of appeal to women that
I think she could help in that department. She also
just gives him some legitimacy, you know, given that he
does have, you know, a small amount of experience and
(49:18):
is relatively young. Like having this AOC who's now a
titan of New York City politics, have her give her
blessing I think is significant as well. I think it's
pretty likely Bernie is going to come in for him
to last minute.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
It's a little bit last minute though, I mean it
is Saturday, so or sorry next Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
Yeah, it is a lot.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
He responded, like, stay tuned or so. So I think
that he probably is going to come in as well.
And I do think they start voting like this weekend,
so it is.
Speaker 3 (49:44):
Yor last between rank choice, early vote and then taking
like nine months to get their balance.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
We'll find out that the election results this year, next year,
this time, something like that. In any case, very interesting race,
and I think part of the reason to cover at
New York City obviously is consequential in and of itself,
but also for taking the temperature of where the democratic
base is I think is also significant here. Very different
(50:10):
than the dynamics set unfolded when Eric Adams was elected.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Very true.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
All right, thank you guys so much for watching. We
really appreciate it. Don't forget.
Speaker 1 (50:17):
We've got the free month trial going on right now.
Speaker 3 (50:19):
BP Free is the very last day you can take
advantage Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Go ahead and sign up and we will see you
all later.
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 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. At the same time, we have some updates
on the US and China. So Trump says a deal
is done. The details are a little bit different. Let's
go and put this up there on the screen. Trump
said that the deal restoring a China trade truce is done.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's make this very clear.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
This is about a deal over the truce, not necessarily
a deal between the two countries, although that's originally kind
of the way that it was sold. So this was
after the update that we gave everybody on Tuesday. The
US and China met for the very second time on
their trade talk, after there was some indication that things
might fall apart. The impetus for those talks was China's
(01:05):
hold up of rare earth minerals, and that really is
the keystone of this entire deal. So what we see
right now is that the tariffs are alleged they're going
to stay at the current levels that were signed at
a deal in Switzerland about a month or so ago.
Trump said in his post that the US would set
a total of fifty five percent tariffs, which by the way,
is still pretty high as opposed to the thirty percent previously,
(01:27):
and then China would keep its current reciprocal where things
are right now. However, what we see right now is
that the framework would quote restore the pack they agreed
to in Switzerland, but increase and freeze for six months
the speed up of these rare earth minerals coming to
the United States. One of the reasons why the administration
was so desperate to get that rare earth mineral pipeline
(01:49):
back to US production is that we're so wholly reliant
on it. We did a thing yesterday about this mineral samarium,
which the US military needs for fighter jets, and was
cut off overnight on China.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
There were several others cover here.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
They have a one capacity. I mean, what's annoying about
the term rare earth? This is not rare it's it's
about refining capacity. That's really what it's all about. It's
not even necessarily where they're from. It's about the ability
to refine it and to make it usable in production.
So can we put the next please part on the screen?
This is the most important part, and we flagged at
the time. The tariffs itself, of course mattered, but the
(02:27):
cutoff of the minerals and the export licenses by China,
which was immediately put into place after the trade war
was announced, is the absolute like most impactful thing that
they did. And it's not as surprise as to why
Trump eventually folded on those China tariffs and why now
he has been granted this quote six month limit on
the ease of rare earth export licenses. But I mean,
(02:49):
it doesn't take a genius to see six months is
not a long time, Okay. Six months is basically like
a hovering guillotine over the US economy, the US production
for so many different critical things that basically makes it
so that they have an incredible amount of leverage at
this time, and this is part of the problem over
the lack of planning, and I would fold in the
(03:10):
build back better or sorry not build back the big
beautiful bill into this is there is not really one
ounce of serious investment to make sure that we're refining
you know, these minerals here, or to pump billions into production.
I mean, if anything, the criticism of the IRA that
it was all green energy, and I'm like, look, fine,
then pump it into whatever, like you know, for industrialization
(03:33):
and all these other plants and things that we want
to be able to compete or at least have autonomy
from the Chinese here.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
But instead it's really the opposite.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I mean, effectively, what they're saying here within these bills
is they're not only not investing, but the tariff negotiations
are actually ones where it seems to actually just extend.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Like a lot of the previous relationship.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
It's really not you know, trying to solve a lot
of the autonomy problems that we had previously. Like right now,
he's like, okay, well continue you know this thing for
six months. There's not even really a plan to like
try and bring t SMC here or anything like that.
So it is I think there's still big, big problems
going forward, and if anything, this could actually offset any
(04:16):
serious investment that was being made here.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
In the US.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I don't know if you said we covered this when
you were out, but some US automakers were looking at
manufacturing some auto parts in China. Yeah, yeah, so that
they could have access and also these you know, to
what they the materials that they need. In the context
of this, the export controls that again like this was
so thoroughly predictable, which again shows you how haphazard and
(04:43):
poorly thought out this entire quote unquote strategy. I don't
know if you can even like call it there that
is too favorable has been where you know, there's no okay,
these are the industries we need to reshore, and here's
the industrial policy that goes with it, and here's how
we're building a coalition to make sure that we can do.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
This and stand up to China in this way.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That no, none of that, all of it's by the
seat of the pants, and we have another indication of that.
So there are sort of conflicting statements coming out of
the Trump administration about this upcoming July deadline, in which
previously they've said, Okay, we're putting in place this ninety
day deadline, we're gonna have ninety deals and ninety days.
How is that going? And that ninety day deadline is
(05:23):
fast approaching. The new line out of the administration was Okay, well,
if we don't come to deals, we're just going to
unilaterally put in place tariffs. I don't know, we'll have
a new Liberation Day chart or.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
Something like that.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Bessant was asked yesterday and he said that Trump was
likely to extend the pause on the teriff's past that. However,
Trump yesterday said that he may actually move up the
timeline and just start sending out unilateral letters saying like
this is your new tariff. In any case, let's go
ahead and take a listen to what Scott Bessant had
to say yesterday.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Very few of the trade deals have been announced yet.
I think most people in Congress and around the world
who liked to know what's going on. Should America be
preparing for Liberation Day two point zero? Should we plan
what do we plan for January, July ninth, and July second?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
I would say, as I have repeatedly said that there
are eighteen important trading partners. We are working deal toward
deals on those and it is highly likely that those
countries that are negotiating or trading blocks is in the
case of the EU, who are negotiating in good faith,
we will roll the date forward to continue the good
(06:32):
faith negotiations. If someone is not negotiating, then we will
not so.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
In contrast to that, Trump said that he would set
unilateral terrrists in two weeks, so who the hell knows.
In addition, Scott bess Hint also revealed that there is
a new TDS. It's not Trump derangement syndrome now, it's
also teriff derangement sentroume.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Let's stay listen to that.
Speaker 6 (06:54):
I will say that I believe that the economic the
certainty because there is a duality between the critics of
this administration. All I hear is teriffs. It's like TDS
has become tariff derangement syndrome, and that all I hear
(07:16):
about is uncertainty from tariffs. Uncertainty from tariffs. But then
the same side wants to give us uncertainty on taxes.
So let's get this bill done and get the certainty
on taxes. We will have certainty on tariffs within some
window over the coming quarters a minute, then the US
(07:40):
economy can realize its full potential.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
So tariff derangement syndrome.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Maybe people are bringing that up to you a lot
because number one, you are the Treasury Secretary, and number
two because it's actually a real and major issue for
the economy, specifically for businesses trying to figure out what
the hell they're going to do and how to plan
and how to adjust it.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Look, everything right now for the administration is they both
want to waive a victory flag because, for example, let's
put this next one flees up on the screen. US
inflation rose only about point one percent in May from
the prior month, which was less than expected. But part
of the reason for that was a folding of unilateralism
on the tariffs. So they both want to say that
(08:19):
people are deranged about the tariffs. Part of the reason
why some of the economic data that's been coming in
so far is not catastrophic. It's specifically because they were
treated from their own policy, same with the S and P.
Five hundred, with inflation, with shortages. But I will say,
you know, look, I really don't think people have grappled
at the political level of what those tariffs really meant
(08:40):
for a lot of people. I mean, no matter what,
especially when in a white collar and you work in
any sort of business, planning, accounting, finance. I mean, this
was the story. It's very rare in this country to
have the government do something and it directly impacts your
business or it directly impacts your thinking.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Most people are like, yeah, whatever.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
In Charlotte, Okay, why do I care about what's going
on in Los Angeles? Maybe at a conceptual level, but
not like this is going to affect my business, right
And I think that the tariffs in particular at a
consumer finance level, you know, and broadly just like people working,
people worrying about things being able to buy. That's something
that really tapped into people. And we see it also
with kind of the absurdity around a lot of this planning.
(09:22):
We're not gonna be reliant on China anymore. It's like, Okay,
well we have the biggest tax bill every five years.
Where's the dollars to make sure that that's not gonna happen.
I don't see a single one, you know, right now.
Same with these rare mineral people do actually, I think
would support billions billions of dollars to be pumped into
making sure that these types of reliance on China would
not be there. But that's not broadly you know where
(09:44):
things are. And that's actually a biggest failure I see
with this whole strategy. What is this about, right, It's
because at the very beginning, if we just came off
of this, to me, it's about autonomy. It's about being
a real country, is one that's able to produce its
own weapons, produce its own food, produce its own energy,
and produce the things that it needs to function. Yes,
we can have trade, but in a time of war
(10:05):
and a time of crisis, we need to make sure
this hedge fund stuff that pumps our economy right now,
it's all bullshit. Same with AI, that's not what matters.
Go and ask Russia, as you can see happening for
them right now. Yes, they've you know, had sanctioned to death.
They're fine, and that's part of what you want to do.
That's what makes you, you know, anti fragile in a sense,
and we don't have that. And I think people really
(10:25):
you have a sense of that, but that's not what
you know, this fifty nine percent tariff or whatever on
the islands, or the tariffs on Vietnam, none of that
made any strategic sense.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So he really gave away a lot of that narrative.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
And in particular, you really see it with the approach
to these China talks, where arguably the area where we
need the most autonomy from China, it's rarest minerals, refining
critical minerals supply chains is exactly where we seem to
be giving up the most ground. And for what Like so,
soybeans are getting traded, fine, you know, like I said,
food is important, but that's that's not the headline about
(10:59):
what we're all actually concerned about here, vitamins, pharmaceuticals and so.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
I think it's almost like the classic Trump strategy of
like causing something and then fixing it and declaring victory.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
But you know, this is not a game. This is
very serious stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I talked yesterday about the drone attack by the Ukrainians
on the Russian forces. We are Russia, like that people
have We are Russia. We are the the over invested
in superpower, with this massive infrastructure empire across the world,
with the ultra exclusive guided missile destroyers and bombers and
(11:37):
all that. The who theis are able to withstand it? Uh,
we are Russia in that situation, and I don't think
people have really grappled with that. We don't have the
drone that do you know who has the drones?
Speaker 1 (11:46):
The Chinese.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
They have the best drone technology in the whole world.
They've been planning droneswarms for a decade and ninety drun course. Yep.
This is what people are not grappling with the asymmetry
of a lot of warfare and even in an economy
of where we are at now. And I'm really worried
about it because this is exactly where if you give
away something like this and something pops off, you have
no leverage anymore. You know, Trump famously like we have
(12:09):
all the cards. He's like, yeah, maybe with Ukraine, but
that's a tiny little nation that's nothing compared to China.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
About what we're talking about. This is serious stuff.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
I mean, yeah, the rare Earth thing alone, I know,
was enough to bring the Trump administration to their knees.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Yeah, And the Chinese reportedly like drove really hard bargain
on that, and like Zager said before, like, you can
have six months.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
You have six months, and then we'll see, you know.
I think broadly, part of what was so damaging to
Trump about the Liberation Day tariffs was it really was
kind of an emperor has no close moment. He's always
been very strong politically on the economy.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
I think that is the number.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
One reason he got reelected is because people felt like,
you know, when I think back to the first Trump administration,
I think I was doing a little better economically, and
there's all this, you know, decades of mythology about Trump
the great businessman and Trump the deal maker and all
these sorts of things, and so this has been a
real key to his political strength and power is that
people thought he was some sort of like economic genius.
(13:11):
And when you look at that chart, if you thought
about it for five seconds, you were like, this makes
no sense. This is going to be incredibly destructive. It's chaotic,
there's no plan. They can't even tell us day to
day what these things are meant to achieve. I think
it was a real emperor has no closed moment that
(13:31):
hurt him in his key area of strength. Yes, immigration
has been important to him from the beginning and other
issues as well, But that has been the real promise
and the core brand of Trump is he's the deal maker,
he's the businessman. He'll make sure you're doing okay economically,
and people were over we're willing to overlook a lot
on that promise. So when you see something so insane,
(13:55):
so unjustifiable, where there's so few people who are willing
to go out and just full.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
Throated like, yes, this is a good idea and here's.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Where we're headed, I think that was, you know, a
blow to him politically that will be very difficult to
recover from because once you start seeing him as sort
of just like chaotic and wild and undisciplined and unplanned
on the economy, you don't really unsee that.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
After that happened totally.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And yeah, I mean it's also exposed just a lot
of things, like now we have we have this bond
problem right right with the US debt. And I was
arguing with several friends of mine because they were like
they were talking, we were talking about the debt and
we're like, oh.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
There's going to be a debat crisis.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
And I was like everybody in my entire lifetime and
told me's gonna be a deback crisis.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Was completely and totally wrong.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
So they're basically like Iraq, you know, Iraq, Saddam Hussein,
WMD people. In my mind, if you study US history,
every debt crisis is because of what it is, because
of a massive shift in geopolitical orientation and war.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
So we just talked about Iran.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
That's what would cause a debt crisis, just so everybody knows,
is an actual massive impact to the straits and war
moves supply chain and all the energy supply. JP Morgan
forecasted this morning we go to one hundred and twenty
dollars per barrel. That's what causes a goddamn deck crisis.
That's actually what we also see with the tariffs. The
reason why I as you remember, the bond markets are
(15:14):
what forced Trump's hands.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
That was not because of US spending.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
It was because of a loss of faith in the
US as the primary guaranter and world's reserve currency. So
by attacking that and the very foundations of the global
American Empire, which is both our force but is really
our financial system. Very much in the same way that
the British financial system was the backstop of the whole
Sun never sets. Mercantilism thing that is really the major
(15:40):
or like the major effect that he has had.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And so look deficits and all the people know my feelings.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I think it's all bullshit as long as the US
is at the top. But staying at the top is
the is the reason when you.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Fall, then okay, only you do have to worry about it,
that's all.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Look the world and nine, I mean reading the accounts
of like John Maynard Kane and of other British economists
in nineteen nineteen are terrifying because I see us in
those They came out of the world and they won,
you know, technically, but they really lost if you really,
you know, look at the overall destruction of their empire
and it's like they fall from the top of this
(16:18):
empire and great European power to millions dead on the
Somme and communism and socialism, fears at home and having
to pay all this debt from this war and all
that they never recovered from that. And we again, we're
the Brits in this scenario, and that's actually what worries
me the most about it. And you know, the tariffs
(16:38):
and all that. Look, it's not going to cause it
per se. But you know, these things like empires don't
just fall over a single thing. Nobody in nineteen nineteen
woke up and said the British Empire is over. As
we know, it took until the fifties for it to
fall apart, but in retrospect it's obvious, and a lot
of people saw it at the time.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Yeah too.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
So that's that's what I worry about, talk about our
foremost soligarch speaking of crumbling empires.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
So Elon and Trump, you guys know the backstory. They're
going at it.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Elon in particular, going very hard in the paint, accused
Trump of being peto, said that he bought the election
for him, said that he should be impeached, said accurately
that the tariff suck, and he projects that there will
be a recession in the in the next half of
the year. So I mean, going about as hard as
you possibly can in areas where Trump's ego is the
largest and the most fragile. So now, at three or
(17:31):
four am yesterday we get this tweet from mister Musk.
He says, I regret some of my posts about President
Trump last week.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
They went too far.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Now I have to say Kandas Owens actually had a
good tweet about this. She was like, so, did they
go too far because you were correct about him being
in the Epstein files and now you feel bad about it?
Or did they go too far because you were lying
about him being in Epstein files?
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Could you be a little more.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Specific about what exactly is going on here? Because I
don't know about you, but for me, if someone goes
out and accuses me of being a petop, that's going
to be a hard thing to take back. Especially listen,
the Epstein thing is, it's a real problem for Trump.
He was friends with Jeffrey Epstein. He was on that plane.
We know in the flight logs numerous times, there's pictures
of there's videos, et cetera. And now suddenly his administration
(18:22):
is very weird and really dodging and lying and spinning, etc.
When it comes to actually releasing the Epstein files. So
in any case, he has apparently a some sort of
a relationship mending situation is unfolding where Jade Vance and
Susie Wiles approached Elon in particular, and we're like, all right,
(18:44):
let's try to smooth the waters here, Calm the waters here.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
And Elon did.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Now we have the reporting. Also talked to Trump before
putting this post out. So that's kind of where things
stand at this point.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I really have I really just have no idea.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
We have some common here from the first sort of
the press secretary about the Elon rapprochma, let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
About Elon Musk.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Can you shoot an apology this morning?
Speaker 4 (19:10):
Has the President accepted the apology or does he think
it's too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
The President acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning,
and he is appreciative of it. And we are continuing
to focus on the business of the American people.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
We are appreciative of it.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Some of the background of this is actually kind of
interesting as well. So you know, this whole thing appears
to have been broken, Like you said by JD and
by Susie Wiles, Trump receives this phone call.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
We have the reporting. We can put that on the screen.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Late on Monday night, after days of Trump dodging Elon's calls.
It comes after he speaks privately with Susie Wiles and
with Jade Vance about a path to the truce. Wiles
told associates quote she had come to like working with
Musk and was one of his regular points of project.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
That is bullshit, that's not what definitely at all.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
But anyway, so what we kind of see inside of
all of this is there.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
I'll say this, Why they.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Want him back on side is interesting to me because
he's obviously a huge political problem. The money, yeah, it's good,
but what there's a dearth of rich billionaires like wanting
to give it. You know, come on, let's not kit
ourselves here. The air of what's the guy's name, Timothy Mellon,
the heir to the Carnegie Mellon fortune. He wired Trump
(20:32):
like fifty five million dollars you know during the campaign.
He actually would have been one of the biggest funders
if it weren't for Elon. So I don't think money
is the issue. I don't even really know what it is.
We had this story about people who are worried about
the Elon burn book, like the things that he might know.
I think that's very possible, right, So some of the
(20:53):
possible inside details about what he knows about the administration
d for please guys put that on the screen. But
I'm curious, what you like, why do they want him
back onside, like, he's not a political asset.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I think we all know that.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
No, he is not a political asset, which is part
of why I thought it was so weird people like
Rocana and others who were like, let's reach.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Out to Elan.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
I'm like, how did this go?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Like putting aside the principles which it should be important.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
How did this go for a republic? Has this been
great for the Trump administration?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
How did this go with that Wisconsin Supreme Court race?
Speaker 4 (21:25):
It was evil on a major asset there.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Did that really help them, you know, be able to
lose by double digits in that race? So, I mean,
I can only speculate, right, So from the beginning it
was weird to me.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
How well it was weird to me.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Throughout the Trump administration, how deferential he was to Elon.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
That was weird to begin with. Then when Elon.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Goes nuclear, when Elon goes total scorched earth with you're
a pedo and I won you in the election and
you should be impeached and JD.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Man should replace you.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
When that happened, and Trump responded in this very meek way,
like not at all characteristic of the way he usually goes,
so hard, and he'll invent stories. And he knows he's
got a gift for humiliation, right, he knows what he's
doing in that department.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
He didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
And in fact, Jade Vance was on with Theomon while
this was all unfolding. They were recording that interview, and
according to the reports, at least Trump counseled Jadie Vance
to be diplomatic in that conversation. In fact, before I
heard that report and I just listened to Jadie Vance
on with Theomon talking about this, I thought, I don't
know if Trump is going to feel like he went
(22:36):
strong enough.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
I thought the same for him.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
I don't know if he did enough here to like
really project his loyalty. But apparently he was following the
advice and the council of Trump and what he wanted
him to do. So I mean, I can only assume
that either he is worried about like whatever Elon knows
about the Epstein files, or perhaps he thinks Elon knows
something about the election, whether that's sure or not, that
(23:00):
he doesn't want to come out, or there is some other,
you know, unknown something or fear of some unknown something
that Elon could reveal that would be genuinely damaging and
a problem for him. Now, listen, there are things in
the public sphere. We know our karts that Elon holds.
Trump has way war. He's the president of the United States.
There's no doubt about that. Elon controls Twitter. Twitter's really
(23:22):
important to the right right now. That's very significant. You know,
that is like the backbone of Republican propaganda efforts is
on Twitter right now. So that is important and consequential.
Elon controls Starlink. Starlink is even more important and consequential
as communications backbone, which I think is you know, intentional
on Elon's part to have that kind of control. It's
worth remembering in the context of the Ukraine War. I mean,
(23:44):
first of all, Elon saying okay, you can use our
you know, starlink satellites for communications, extremely consequential for Ukraine,
and then he him as an individual being able to say,
you know, I don't want you to use it for crimea,
so we're going to take that offline.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
Whether you think that's the right decision or not.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Having one person with that kind of control running his
own foreign policy shows you how important Starlink truly, truly is.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
SpaceX.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
NASA is very dependent on SpaceX at this point, you know,
the International Space Station very dependent on SpaceX at this point.
This is a I think colossal indictment of the move
that has you know, occurred over successive administrations towards privatization,
not only if NASA, but of all sorts of government
you know, formerly government held capacity, and especially when you're
(24:33):
talking about into the hands of one specific individual. So
what was one of the first things that Elon said?
When Trump is like, I'm going, you know, I may
pull your contracts, Elon's like, okay, fine, we'll decommission the
particular spaceship that they use for the International Space Station.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
So these things are all known.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
But I still don't think that that is enough to
really account for the very meek way that Trump has
approached this and his willingness right away to sort of,
you know, extend a hand and try to calm the
waters here with Elon. So I have to I have
to assume because one last thing here, you know, to
get to the burn book piece. It's not that these
(25:12):
Republican aids are like, oh, I know he knows this
about us, and so I'm concerned. They're like he was
in all of our departments, like right exactly, Starlink was
put in the White House to suck up all kinds
of data. He's got his little minions, his little doge
minions who were loyal to him, about one hundred of
them is what I saw spread throughout agencies throughout the government.
(25:33):
So their fear is just like, we don't know what
he knows or what sort of tea he could spell,
or anyone will also just make some shut up too.
That's not beyond him either. So it could also be
one of those scenarios where Trump's just like, I don't know,
he could know some things that would be really damaging,
and that puts some fear into.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
You don't even need a conspiracy theory. It's like somebody
who's in the room. This happened so many times in
the first Trump administration. Somebody was in the room would
come out of the room and then they would denounce
Trump and they would tell us about all the things
that was going on. That's how the Woodward books happen,
That's how all this other stuff happened, right, and so here,
I really think that that might be one of the
more animating.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Ones for instances though, it's not like Trump was afraid
to go after that.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, but I am mean and I think we're looking
for to mend senses.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Well, Twitter though, is actually the one that you mentioned,
which is probably the most important, because Twitter is like
the beating heart. See you said republican propaganda. I really
don't think it's that it's about elite conversation like that
is what Twitter ultimately is, is the place where narratives
are set. Yes, you know, Republican and democratic, but like
it is the beating heart of politics as we know it.
(26:37):
And I think that it's because of that that they
see the power and they're worried about let's say, the
algorithm of fundraising and so much more and broadly, I
mean we shouldn't take this for granted either. I mean
they did buy a lot of their own bs. I
mean Elon was like deified into a god ever since
he bought Twitter amongst a lot of Republicans. So you know,
you don't necessarily want that person to turn against you,
(27:00):
and so for a lot of them, maybe not necessarily
the top of the White House. But let's say you know,
Republican congressman officials. Remember there's like a Doze caucus literally
in the House of Representatives. Like there's all kinds of
stuff that's happening inside of all of the party apparatus.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
I wouldn't be surprised either.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
You know, the RNC, they're probably deeply integrated with Elon,
So he does have leverage, you know, not of course,
not nearly as much as doll.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
The Epstein thing is real, but I mean, this administration
is acting so weird about that.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
I agree. I agree.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
And Epstein said Trump and him were buses for a decade.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
You had Pan BONDI say that we've got thousands of
hours of videos we're trying to go through and that's
why it's taken so long for anything to come out.
Then you have Cash Betel go on with Joe. We're
going to say there's no videos. These things do are
no That is nuts.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
I agree, Like they.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Don't go together.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Yeah, you had that crazy influencer boondoggle where they all
came out with their photo op with their binders of
information that was already widely public publicly available since twenty fifteen.
Actually Goger had released more than was even in those binders.
You had Cash Mitel and Dan Vongino go on Fox
and say, oh, no, no, we know, we know that
(28:09):
he killed himself. Like we can tell you definitely, Like
just trust us. Don't you think we would tell you
the truth? Just trust us. He definitely killed himself and
there's nothing to see here. You cash hotel tell Joe
Rogan that the uh, actually the cameras were on in
the cell, which that is the opposite of what we've
been told this whole entire time. Whenever Trump gets asked
about Epstein, he gets really weird. He you know, we
(28:31):
showed you the clip before he gets asked what about JFK.
He gets asked about something Elsey that yes, release the files, Yes,
release the files, and then when it's Epstein, it's yet, well,
I don't know, privacy and concerned maybe a little bit
less on that one, and that he always is liked
that with the Epstein things, So I mean, I yeah,
I don't put I do not put off.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
The table whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
That that also could be a core part of why
he is so reluctant to burn the bridge and go
completely scorched earth. Who had Elon in a way that
he has not been reluctant with literally anyone else who
has crossed him.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
It is weird.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
There's no question the Epstein thing is absolutely crazy. As
I still think it's the Israel connection. I really do,
just especially considering the Israel Firsters that are all in
the administration, because if I had to guess, the smoking
gun stuff on the Mosat in Israel must be insane
on Epstein, like the control, the money, the control, what
(29:23):
they were asking of him for, you know what exact
purpose you all had. So I think that that is
still yet the most unexplored and really the most underdiscussed
element of all this. You know, everyone's like, oh, the compromide.
I'm like, listen, I knew that was that was there.
I'm like, I want to know at.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
The highest levels, Yeah, of the governments, consequential for foreign policies,
for understanding the way that you know, this foreign government
has operated within our own country. And yes, I and
I was on with Pierce Morgan this week and we
were talking about all of this stuff and what the
Republican Roger Stone was on there and.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Oh what did Rogers say? I'm actually curious. Yeah, it's
not a great format for him.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah, right, it was not a great He needs a
one on one like, you know, I think older people too,
like I struggle in that kind of panel format. So
he honestly didn't have a lot to say. But basically,
Peers and the two Republicans on the panel, Clay Travis
and Roger Stone on the panel, were like, don't you
think if there was something in the Epstein files about
Trump that Democrats would have leaked it? And I didn't
(30:22):
have a chance to jump in, but my rejoinder would
be like, number one, we know they were Bill Clinton associations,
so they wouldn't want that pieced out. And you know,
unlike you, I'm not a hat so I'm willing to say,
you know, this is this is bipartisan situation here that
could be very embarrassing. But number two, the Israel piece, like, yeah, no,
American administration, which have been extraordinarily pro Israel and hardcore
(30:45):
Zionists are going to want to reveal his connections to
Masad and that he was very likely, you know, based
on what we know at this point, very likely an
intelligence asset for them and that's what he was up to.
So you know, to me, it's no mystery why this
stuff stays under wraps because it's both the whole intention,
the whole project, was creating material that was politically damning
(31:07):
for both parties to exercise control.
Speaker 4 (31:10):
And then you know the like the.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Reason for that is also politically damning, and you know,
something that no American administration will want to come out.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
So yeah, while I.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Was while I was on paternity leave, I somehow fell
down this YouTube rabbit hole at two am about spies, and.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
So I started listening. I knew a little bit about
the case.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
The Jonathan Pollard case is insane, really, and it reminds
me a lot of the whole Epstein thing. So Pollard
is this guy working I think it was at the NSSA,
and he's basically like a free for all, like he'll
spy for anybody because he wants money. And he ends
up hooking up with MOSAT and they pay him a
lot of money to basically steal an ssay or intelligence
documents and smuggle them out and it gets for it, Okay,
(31:52):
well it eventually he gets caught and he gets sentenced
to prison for I don't know, thirty some odd years
for espionage. In that time, Pollard basically transforms himself into
saying that because he was a Zionist jew that he
was spying for Israel because he believed they were not
getting enough intelligence. Benjamin Nettan Yahoo starts visiting Pollard in
prison here in Washington. The entire Israeli government grants, they
(32:16):
granted him citizenship. It became a point of diplomacy for
that government to demand his release. Multiple Jewish billionaires in
the United States petitioned President Clinton and other presidents since
then till his release to be released from prison and
be granted clemency because he had spied for an ally.
And I was like, this is crazy. This guy is
(32:37):
a straight up trader. Net and Yahoo visits in prison.
The moment he's off, Paroli flies to Israel and he
lives there now currently.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
I was like, off the point.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I could not believe the level of influence of their
government to have the audacity to basically beg hours every
successive president, attorney general and others to release him from prison.
I mean, look, if a US asset was caused, you know,
caught spying for Mosad or for spying for US in
(33:08):
in Tel Aviv and they put him in jail, the
Israelis would be outraged. If we were like, hey, you
got to release him, like, you know, this is these
are guys, you know, it's oh, we're all friends here
and all.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
I couldn't believe that.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
This was so out, all in the open.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
And what really reminded me of it is that people
like me who are saying all these things I am
right now in the nineties, in the two thousands were
branded what rabbit anti semits for bringing on and I
was like, man, this machine.
Speaker 4 (33:34):
And it worked for a long time.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
It worked, It worked so well.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
And if I know, this is bad and the level
of control and all that they have over our politics
is just immense.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
It's horrific.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
You know, I could I could never, I could never
even begin to like overstate what it is. But with
the Internet, you know, we have a chance to be
able to speak out.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
On some of this.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
And things are as hard as this to believe things
are still a lot better.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Well, that is actually a good transition to Zoran, who
they are trying to run the he's an anti semi
playbook against and you know what's we've played some of
the clips here that to me are just like mind blowing.
The clip from the debate where they're like, well, you know.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Lightning round where would you go first?
Speaker 2 (34:18):
Foreign trips mayor, which okay, why are you going to a
foreign triple whatever? And Zaraen's like, I'm gonna stay in
New York And they're like, well, but would you go
to Israel? Will you commit to going to Israel? In
a later response, he actually said, I'm not sure they
would let me in because I'm a supporter of the
BDS movement, which is again, so here's this guy who
a decade ago inconceivable that he would be in the
(34:40):
running for New York City, inconceivable that he would be
in the running for New York City mayor, and this,
you know, smearing him as an anti Semite would have worked.
Now let's go ahead and put a three up on
the screen and then I'm going to play some clips
from his appearance on The Breakfast Club. According to Newpole,
that's the only one we have like this, So you know,
Carson say all that.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Stuffe everyone take it for According.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
To a new poll from the Public Policy Polling Survey,
up four points over Andrew Cuomo among likely DEM primary voters.
Speaker 4 (35:11):
This was conducted last week.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
So this is also I think the first poll that
we have which is post debate and post AOC endorsement.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
New York City does rank choice voting.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
The polls not ranked choice, so this would be basically
like the first round the result in the first round.
It has never been the case. We've not seen any
poll before that has him number one in the first round.
And the dynamics of the race are such that, you know,
in all the polling we've seen that does simulate ranked
choice vote, he picks up votes as you go throughout
the round because other, you know, more progressive candidates basically
(35:44):
their voters fall out their second choices or on or
their third choices or on or whatever, and there's a concerted,
somewhat coordinated effort to not rank Cuomo on those ranked
choice ballots whatsoever. In addition, this was really quite significant
because the knock on him has been like, Okay, he's
doing good with like white progressives, but he hasn't been
able to expand his base. He's supposed to be this
(36:06):
democratic socialist running on freezing the red and public grocery
stores and free public buses and free childcare and all
those sorts of things. This should be he should want
this working class base, and he hasn't been able to
pull it together. Well, we now have some indications that
he is growing in some of those key demographic areas.
Could put this piece up on the screen, which was
really significant this E four guys, his support continues to
(36:27):
be strongest among white and Asian voters, but you now
have twenty seven percent of black voter surveyed supported him,
that second only to Cuomo, who is somewhere around forty
as did nearly one third of Hispanic voters, and indication
he's gaining multi racial support among New Yorkers. And in fact,
a previous poll that had come out before this that
had him losing to Cuomo after all of the rank
choice voting only by two had found that the demographics
(36:52):
where he was performing the most poorly were also the
demographics that knew the least about him, which to me
was an indication that potentially he had a lot room
to grow. He also, Sager had wildly higher favorability ratings
than Andrew Cuomo, of course, you know, had to leave
the Governor's office in disgrace, both over sexual harassment and
over his handling of COVID.
Speaker 4 (37:14):
He lied to Congress.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Over you know, with this report that they put together
that undercounted COVID debts in nursing homes because he was
trying to hide the deadly impact of some of his
COVID era policies.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
So he's got a lot of baggage.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
But he also has you know, Cuomo is the iconic
name in New York politics. He has really coalesced as
sort of like the establishment moderate figure in this race.
And whether or not this poll is fully accurate, you
can say at this point Zorn is certainly given him
a run for his money.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Oh, I mean, this guy has He has performed better
than anybody I have seen yet, right like, in terms
of and especially in terms of my expectations. Originally I
was like, I was like, look, no offense. I was like,
I think this guy's gonna lose pipe fifty points just
from a kind of a cynical assumption around how US
politics broadly, or New York City politics kind of has been.
(38:08):
They elected Bloomberg and di Blasio, for God's sake, right Like,
this is not really a city that has rewarded upstarts,
at least in the modern era. I will note, you know,
Bloomberg did endorse Andrew Cuomo, and there is like some
centrist energy around the guy. But in a way, Zorn
may have gotten very lucky in that the person that
(38:29):
they picked is this at least not unpopular, but it
scarred centrist figure of Couomo, who has the legacy of COVID,
who has the fallout. They're resigning me too. You know,
that stuff did a lot of damage to his brand
going into this, and so he's not untainted. And so
you have the rise of like online resistance energy to
(38:50):
Donald Trump. And then you have Couomo, who's not only
this establishment figure but just like a deeply gross figure
who has been so like tied with a New York machine.
And you put those two things together and he kind
of do have a perfect storm.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
It's possible. We don't want to overstate it.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Like that said that pulls five hundred people, Okay, New
York City is a population of millions, And also ranked
choice screws everything up, because yes, he may be the
first choice in this poll. But you know, the New
York Times came out today and endorsed some guy I've
literally never even heard of, right, And apparently the New
York Times endorsement is quite impactful in the state or
(39:24):
in the city of New York.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Or at least it was last time around.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
At you know, I mean, look this sounds crazy, but
right we're talking about heights, or we're talking about low
turnout New York City liberal elections, like the New York
Times endorsement if I recalled her in the whole Andrew
Yang situation, like it eventually did have some impact. And
so I just have no idea how it is all
going to play out. I do think he's going to
(39:47):
do much better than we originally thought.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
At the very least.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
You know, the guy has gained himself a profile of
some kind, you know, going they land, Yeah, that's what
it is.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Okay, Yeah, I'm like, who is that?
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Well, I apologize in New York like get pretty progressive,
but not you know, democratic socialist level and progressive. Well,
I mean, here's the other thing that you have to
hand it to Zoran. I don't care where you're on
the political spectrum. He's run a fantastic campaign. You know,
he has this very consistent, clear cut messaging around we
are going to make New York affordable.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
New York should be for everyone.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
And he's got some you know, really digestible, concrete policy
proposals that he has relentlessly offered in order to marry
the message with the policy, and it's clearly working. I mean,
this guy, he There are many other figures in this
race who had a larger citywide profile than Zora, even
putting aside Cuomo brod Lander being one of them, Scott
(40:42):
Stringer being another one, Andrew Adrian Adams being another one,
who had citywide profiles and were established politicians and would
have been, if you were putting money down, much more
likely to sort of occupy the lane as the progressive
anti Quomo choice. And he has blown them out of
the water with the strength of his campaign, his social
(41:02):
media game, and he's very good. And I think you'll
see that now in some of these clips that we
can play you from the breakfast club. So he went on,
I think it was yesterday, and he gets asked, you know,
about Trump, and he gets asked about Democratic Party leadership
and you know how we need to move past that era,
and Charlon mine seems to be pretty sympathetic to him.
(41:23):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this first
part from Zorn about standing up to Trump.
Speaker 7 (41:28):
Well, and I saw you say that in the debate.
You know you would be Trump's worst nightmare. Well, once again,
why should that matter to anybody voting for you? Now,
big cut running against Donald Trump?
Speaker 8 (41:39):
No, you, but you are running against the authoritarianism that
he's bringing to the city. So you think than authoritarian, No,
I think that there's too many commonalities between him and
Donald Trump's record. And my point is that you don't
want to have a mayor who has to pick up
a phone call from someone who cut a two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars check to both him and Donald Trump.
(41:59):
You want to have a mayor who's willing to fight
for the city and have that that be the thing
that he's ultimately responsible for. And I think to your point,
we also have to be honest about how we lost
this presidential election. You know, New York is the state
that had the largest swing in the country towards Donald
Trump eleven and a half points. And it happened far
from the caricature of Trump voters. It happened in the
(42:21):
hearts of immigrant New York City. I went to Fordham
Road in the Bronx, I went to Hillside Avenue in
Queens and when I asked New Yorkers, there almost all
of whom were Democrats? Who did you vote for and why?
Many told me they didn't vote. Many told me they
voted for Trump. And they told me they voted for
him because they remembered having more money in their pocket
four years ago for their rent, for their childcare, for
their groceries, even for their metropolitan And as insincere and
(42:44):
ridiculous and horrific as we know Trump's policies to be,
that is how people felt. Those are the decisions that
they made. And when I asked these same New Yorkers
what would it take to bring you back to the
Democratic Party, they said, A relentless focus on an economic agenda.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
So, Sager, you see there how he turns this question
leng and question him about Trump, like why are you
focused on Trump? Into number one, you should care that
Cuomo's getting money from the same guys, And he used
these same sort of lines and the debate, I think
to great effect of like he's getting money from the
same billionaires as Trump, and that's something you should be
concerned about. And then he is immediately able to turn
it to his message about affordability, yes, and how he's
(43:18):
going to appeal to voters, and he goes right after
that party goes through as like you know, free childcare
and free bus fare and freezing the rent. He goes
through his list of policy priorities. So I mean he's skilled.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
He look, he's a good communicator. He also has He
was a podcast guy, he was the online guy.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
He really learned a lot from a lot of the
movement he you know, from a lot of the Bernie
Sanders wing.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
And look, you know, I've got a lot.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Of differences with mister Zoron, but I will say I
respect people who are underdogs, people who are able to
use the Internet and to use the new lessons of
politics to be able to overcome things. And regardless of
whether he wins or not, he is going to be
a fixture of some kind in New York City politics.
He could find himself running for Congress, you know, or
(44:04):
any other like this is a real star one of
those campaigns where whether you win or lose, like he
won something and you won something big.
Speaker 1 (44:11):
Especially I don't.
Speaker 3 (44:12):
Even know if he wants to necessarily remain just the
you know, the city of New York, like he could
easily find himself vaulted to you know, the member of
Congress or who knows. I mean, what AOC wants to do,
right if she decides to primary Chuck Schumer or Chuck
Schumer decides not to run, there's a lot of different
things that are on the table.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
Indeed, he also got asked about, you know, dumb leadership
and failures of dumb leadership in the context of challenging
Andrew Kuoma. I thought he responders to this, well, to
let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (44:40):
You do have to throw that old regime under the bus,
because it's not just that bus is going to be free, sure,
but it's not just Cuomo into democratic arity. It's a
lot of old leadership. List to Chuck Schumer's it's the bidens.
You got to throw all of that under the bus
and run it over. And people have to hear you
say that because I keep hearing y'all. You know, you
keep talking about Trump, Trump, Trump, John Trump.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
No, but what.
Speaker 7 (45:00):
Your body has been just as ineffective and just as
corrupt in a lot of ways.
Speaker 8 (45:03):
Trust me, I have I hear you because I've been
critical about the style of leadership that gave rise to
Donald Trump is also a style of leadership within the
Democratic Party, and I think for too long. It's been
a party that has valued insider politics, pay your dues,
the words and advice of consultants, over the people that
are Democrats themselves. And I do think it's time for
(45:25):
a new generation of leadership. You know, Cuomo would be
the oldest mayor elected in New York City. I would
represent a completely new generation. And I think it's important
for that because it's not just about age, it's not
just about vision. It's also about what has your record
been and who have you been fighting for and is
that distinct enough from what got us here.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
It's such a strength to be able to unequivocally like
bash Democratic leadership because they are so unpopular with the
entire country also at this point with the Democratic base,
and so that he feels no qualms about biling.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
Yeah, there are a lot of problems there. They're corrupt, they.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
Caused a lot of issues that's gonna be appealing outside
of just like a hardcore progressive base.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
So part of that Quinnipiac pole, which is making waves
yesterday again whether you believe it or not, is actually
the most unpopular thing in that poll was the Democratic Party.
Is the Democratic Party approval rating has just twenty one percent,
disapprove is seventy, So running against it, you're an idiot
and you're I've been a gas at the Democrats honestly,
Like we talked about the DNC, but I never thought
I'd be in a position to defend David Hogg.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
They destroyed this man for nothing.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
He said, I'm going to primary people who are like
not standing up for our values, and then they removed
him using some d I like gender component.
Speaker 4 (46:43):
It's like a cartoon, that's a character. What does he do?
Speaker 1 (46:45):
All this guy played ball every step of the way.
He defended Biden. You know this is He's not.
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Some Bernie Sanders shit lib. And all he said was hey,
I think we need some new blood. And they cut
his head off. Yeah, they killed him.
Speaker 4 (46:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Politically, I mean I can't believe it.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
I can't believe they would do that to I really
do think if you're a young Democrat and out there,
you need to stand up for David Hawk, Like, it's
not right what they did.
Speaker 1 (47:09):
To They nuked him.
Speaker 3 (47:12):
Even James Carville said that he agreed with him, Yeah,
and they still took him out. I'm aghast, Yeah, honestly,
at the level of control that these people.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Have so uselessly unbelievable. It's truly unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
So for Zorn to be like, yeah, yes, that's to
be free, I mean he's you know, that's like that
is a strength. And I think one of the things
that we've been looking at to is the demographics where
he's strungest and if you're looking for someone who appeals
to the bros Zora and is really clean up in
that department. And I think part of it is because
of this orientation, because he's anti system, and I think,
(47:45):
you know, part of what's going on here is that
is actually more important than where.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
He is on the ideological spectrum.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
People feel like, oh, he's different, he's willing to criticize
his own party. Qualmo, let's put you five up on
the screw was the last piece here. Quomo's main argument
against him is that he's not experienced enough, that he
doesn't have enough governance experience, which you know, at the
mayor level, this is someone who actually has to do
a real job. Things need to happen for the city's residence.
(48:15):
The trash needs to be picked up, the snow needs
to be removed. Like there's contentious local governance issues, and
so he's trying to make the most of that that
he can.
Speaker 4 (48:24):
And Zoron is only thirty three years.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Old, so that Cuomo is in effect running a very
sort of standard issue establishment playbook.
Speaker 4 (48:34):
I'm the one who has the experience. You can trust me.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
You may not love me, that's okay, But I'm the
one that you know and can trust, and I can
you handle the city, and I know what to do.
And oh, by the way, that guy's an anti Semite.
That's basically his playbook. And look, it may be enough.
It might be, but I think you have to if
you just look at the trajectory of the polls. Right now,
Zorn has all of the momentum. He sucked up all
(48:58):
of the oxygen in the room. The AOC endorsement, I
do think is actually going to be significant because Zorn
has has lagged in terms of appeal to women that
I think she could help in that department. She also
just gives him some legitimacy, you know, given that he
does have, you know, a small amount of experience and
(49:18):
is relatively young. Like having this AOC who's now a
titan of New York City politics, have her give her
blessing I think is significant as well. I think it's
pretty likely Bernie is going to come in for him
to last minute.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
It's a little bit last minute though, I mean it
is Saturday, so or sorry next Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
Yeah, it is a lot.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
He responded, like, stay tuned or so. So I think
that he probably is going to come in as well.
And I do think they start voting like this weekend,
so it is.
Speaker 3 (49:44):
Yor last between rank choice, early vote and then taking
like nine months to get their balance.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
We'll find out that the election results this year, next year,
this time, something like that. In any case, very interesting race,
and I think part of the reason to cover at
New York City obviously is consequential in and of itself,
but also for taking the temperature of where the democratic
base is I think is also significant here. Very different
(50:10):
than the dynamics set unfolded when Eric Adams was elected.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Very true.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
All right, thank you guys so much for watching. We
really appreciate it. Don't forget.
Speaker 1 (50:17):
We've got the free month trial going on right now.
Speaker 3 (50:19):
BP Free is the very last day you can take
advantage Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Go ahead and sign up and we will see you
all later.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.