9/10/25: Dems Call For Gov Shutdown, Rand Paul Shreds JD On Venezuela, UFO Hearing, Tim Dillon Roasts AOC

Emily and Saagar discuss Dems call for government shutdown, Rand Paul shreds JD on Venezuela, explosive UFO hearing, Tim Dillon roasts AOC.

 

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

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:33):
With a government funding deadline coming up on September thirtieth,
shut down, brinksmanship now finds itself at the center of
populist politics once again. But of courseger we're not talking
about Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, although we'll get to
them in just a moment. We're talking about Ezra Cline.
We're talking about progressives in the House and in the
Senate who now face quite an interesting decision to fund

(00:56):
the government or not to fund the government, to cooperate
with Republicans, or to push for a shutdown and rally
the troops. Let's go ahead and put up on the
screen this Ezra Cline op ed, which was everywhere you've
probably already seen it. Actually, this is c one. Actually
we're we're gonna play a sot of Ezra Client talking
about the op ed he wrote in The New York Times.

(01:19):
The headline was stop acting like this is normal, and
towards the end of the piece, Ezra Cline says, I'm
not a political strategist. I hope somebody's better ideas than
I do. But it's been about six months, and Schumer
decided that it wasn't the time for a fight, referring
back to the brief moment where Democrats considered in March
a government shutdown that neither he Asra continues nor the

(01:41):
country was ready. Democratic leaders have had six months to
come up with a plan. If there's a better plan
than a shutdown, great, But if the plan is still nothing,
then Democrats need new leaders. So let's go ahead and
bring Ezra in himself. Via this sot from the New
York Times.

Speaker 4 (01:54):
We are no longer in the muzzle velocity stage of
this presidency, or Donald Trump is trying things and seeing
what sticks. We are in the authoritarian consolidation stage of
this presidency. I want to be very clear about what
I'm saying here. Donald Trump is corrupting the government. He's
using it to hound his enemies, to line his pockets,

(02:17):
and to entrench his own power. He is corrupting it
the way the mafia would corupt the industries it controlled.
You could still under mafia rule get the trash picked
up by cement, but the point of those industries had
become the preservation and expansion of the mafia's power and wealth.
This is what Donald Trump is doing to the government.

(02:38):
This is what Democrats cannot fund. I think the case
for a shutdown is this. A shutdown is an attentional event.
It's an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump's
corrupting the government into an acute crisis that the media
that the public will.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Pay attention to.

Speaker 5 (02:58):
Right now, Democrats have no power, so no one cares.

Speaker 4 (03:01):
What they have to say. A shutdown would make people listen.
But then Democrats would have to actually win the argument.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
They would need to.

Speaker 4 (03:09):
Have an argument. In my head, the argument is something
like this. Donald Trump won the election. He is the
legitimate president. His government should be funded so long as
it is acting the way the government is supposed to,
serving the people, being held accountable. But there are red
lines that cannot be crossed. ICE can conduct legitimate deportations,

(03:33):
but it can't be masked men roaming the streets refusing
to identify themselves or their authority.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Remember you're right to remain signed.

Speaker 4 (03:41):
The Trump family cannot be hoovering in money and investments
from the countries that depend on us and fear our
power and our sanctions. There have to be inspectors general
and jags and career prosecutors watching to make sure the
government is being run on behalf of the people rather
than on behalf of the Trump family. Democratic leaders have

(04:02):
had six months to come up with a plan. If
there is a better plan than a shutdown, great, But
if the plan is still nothing, act normal and hope
for the best, then Democrats need new leaders.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
So what Client is calling for there is Democrats to
use some of their votes in the Senate to say no, Trump,
you have to come to the table, or this is
a government shutdown. We are going to be okay with
this idea of taking the blame. We're going to get
into that in a moment, because it goes back deep
into Republican politics over the last ten plus years, because

(04:36):
it's worth it on our end to hope the messaging
that comes out of all of this is that, yes,
we want the blame for shutting down the government because
we're trying to have Donald Trump come to the table
unreasonable demands about very unpopular measures he has taken. So
maybe that involves ice, Maybe that involves making the issue

(04:56):
about some of these government agencies that have been defunded.
You could come up with a million different ways that
Democrats can message this, but they didn't want to do
it at all back in March. And Klein's argument is
the world has changed since then. What he's saying doesn't
apply now for Schumer's case is the judiciary has not
stopped a lot of Donald Trump's priorities. That's the Ezra

(05:20):
client case. But let's go to Capitol Hill where Mike
Johnson was addressing some questions about it just yesterday. HOWSE
Speaker Mike Johnson about a potential shutdown and the funding battle.

Speaker 6 (05:31):
This is c two House Republicans continue to work through
regular order to fund the government for f y twenty
six for the next fiscal year. We're working closely with
the White House and the Senate to ensure we meet
our deadlines, and Chairman Cole Tom Cole, the Appropriators continues
to diligently work towards getting all twelve bills out of committee,
and they're almost done with that. And as we get
closer to the funding deadline, though we recognize the shut

(05:52):
down chatter from the left is growing louder. Some of
these people seem to enjoy this. It seems Democrats may
take the path of maximum resistance and try to shut
the government down. Exit Democrats are willing to work with us.
We have our sleeves rolled up and we want to
do this in good faith. We just have to think
responsibly how to spend less money than we did last year.
And if they're willing to do that, and it's incumbent

(06:13):
upon all of us to do it with the high
national debt, we're open to that. But the ultimate question
of whether there's going to be a government shut down
at the end of the month is going to be
up to Congressional Democrats, and that's.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
Just the way it is.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
Was that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and John McCain
cirk at twenty fourteen or twenty thirteen that I was hearing. No,
of course, that was Mike Johnson saying Democrats are looking
like they want to choose the path of quote maximum resistance,
maximum resistance. Okay, now this came on the heels of
report from punch Bowl. So this is John Bresnahan. Next

(06:45):
element we can put up, he said, News House Democrats
had an angry caucus meeting this morning, so that was
yesterday over government funding and possible shutdown. Rank and file
Dems want party leaders, especially Schumer, to be willing to
shut down the government in order to get what they
want on Obamacare decade. That post in and of itself,
I mean, if you just reversed the parties and put

(07:05):
it up verbatim in twenty thirteen would be such a
such a parallel to what's happening right now. A number
of Democrats stood up to complain at the meeting. Most
of the anger was aimed at Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats,
but Residenthan reported, so let's then get in our time
machine and go back to twenty thirteen and listen to

(07:27):
the way some Republicans Mike Lee We're going to have
a clip from Mike Lee, and then we're going to
have a tweet from Ted Cruise that we're going to
put up on the screen. We just want to revisit
the tone that Republicans were taking back in those battles,
because what Democrats are actually talking about right now is
the potential substantive effect of a fight, but more than anything,
the effect that a fight would have on morale and

(07:50):
on Democrats' national messaging strategy, because we have covered here
poll after poll showing the Democratic Party's brand is absolutely
in the tank. It is a crisis level for national
Democrats and they need a better messaging strategy obviously. So
some of the argument from as reclined in others right
now is this is your opportunity to say what Democrats

(08:12):
are for in a way that actually puts the onus
on Donald Trump to do something. And that is what
has been debated for the last ten years because the
Washington establishment said all of these shutdown fights made Republicans
look like, you know, foolish obstructionists. And we remember how
the Jeffersons were treated on VEEP right. They called themselves

(08:32):
the Jefferson's That was part of the joke the like
Freedom Caucus group that was parodied on VIEP. You probably remember, well,
this was the cultural treatment of the Tea Party. There are,
you know, obstructionists who cared more about shutting down the
government than making the government work for people. And that's
a powerful argument as far as it goes. But at
the same time, Obamacare, we forget went through a very

(08:53):
unpopular phase around this time period in ways that Democrats
can reflect on now. So here's a little gift. This
is a flashback to Mike Lee during the twenty thirteen
shutdown battle.

Speaker 7 (09:05):
The position taken by the Democrats is not defensible. What
they're saying is unless you fund everything in government, including Obamacare,
we will not let you fund anything. That's crazy that
the American people know what's raising why President Obama said
he would he would be willing to negotiate if you
reopen government and if you raise the death ceiling. What

(09:27):
would you say to that, Well, I'd like to know
what it is that he's willing to negotiate on. I mean,
first of all, the fact that he's even willing to
negotiate at all is itself a welcome change. But it
is a change because so far, what he's been telling
us is you do it my way, you do it
exactly my way, or we will not do it at all.

(09:47):
You can't do that. He's not a dictator, he's not
a despot. He does have to deal with Congress. So
if he's willing to negotiate, that's great. I don't know
if this is back in early July was when I
saw that he was changing the law. When I saw
that the president himself was saying this law is not
ready to implement and he's not going to follow. What
I thought, well, Congress shouldn't fund it if it's not ready.

(10:09):
If he's not going to follow, he's.

Speaker 3 (10:11):
Not a dictator, he's not a desk But referring to
Barack Obama at the time, because mich Lee said he
has to work with Congress. So if Senate Democrats deprive
Republicans of the sixty votes that they need to pass
a bipartisan continuing resolution because this is the ridiculous way
that we fund our government, which by the way, Mike
Johnson was opposed to. But if that's what we are doing,

(10:33):
then Senate Democrats can force Donald Trump to come to
the table or I mean, the cost of forcing Trump
to come to the table is taking the blame for
shutting down the government. But Democrats can use that as
an opportunity to say, if Donald Trump wants to fund
the government, exactly what Michael is saying there to Barack Obama,

(10:54):
if Democrats want to fund the gar if Donald Trump
wants the government to reopen, he can actually see to
some reasonable popular demands about X, Y and Z. Maybe
it's a USAID, whatever it is. I don't think that
would be a popular demand, but just one example of
the many things that Donald Trump has changed. Not all
of them are popular. Some of them are, but not

(11:15):
all of them are. And so then Democrats have an
opportunity to make the fight about that and say Donald
Trump is not a dictator. He has to work with Congress.
We are Congress and we're asking for these things to
be done. So let's put this next element on the screen.
It's Ted Cruz. I went deep back into Ted Cruz's
Twitter history. This is twenty thirteen. Obama admin chose to

(11:35):
shut down government rather than defund, slash, delay Obamacare. Not
long ago. Get here we are, so listen to the
verbiage there. Obama admin chose to shut down the government
rather than defund, slash, delay Obamacare. Obviously, I mean, of
course we all knew at the time. I mean, even
in that Mike Lee clip we just ran the chiron
was Peter King. There's a flashback Republican Peter King referring

(11:57):
to them as the quote suicide caucus. That was the
eternal battle happening among establishment Republicans and Tea Party Republicans
at the time. And look at this c six. This
is from the Peter Sassnik memo that went super viral
always does whenever it comes out, when it was published
in Politico a couple of weeks ago. It's gallup data.
It goes back to January of two thousand and eight,

(12:18):
and it shows Republicans favorability with their own party and
Democrats favorability with their own party. The Democrat level right
now is at seventy three percent. Seventy three percent Democrats
favorable of their own party, ninety one percent Republicans currently
favorable with their own party. The only time either party
has had any level of favorability that low. Guess what

(12:40):
it is two thousand and nine. Republicans in two thousand
and nine, And if you argue that the Tea Party
wasn't a successful populist takeover of the Republican Party, You're wrong,
You're wrong. Donald Trump completely showed that. In fact, Donald
Trump learned from that. So if you are a popular
progressive Democrat right now, it is abundantly obvious, Sager. And

(13:04):
this was this block was your idea of the twenty
minutes right now I asked you to do. But it
is so obvious for Democrats that they have a golden
opportunity on a platter in front of them. And if
they are too that you asked.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
To take it, they definitely are. By the way, well,
I think there are a lot just they're just like
the Republican leadership of that time. The banners and the
others are like, look that along with it. That's true.
I mean eventually did kay. But you know, for I'm
trying to think about the original Republican leaders they're like, well,
that's not how we do think. John McCain, Brostusts and

(13:39):
we have the committees and they were like, Bro, you're
not listening. You're not understanding whack how angry people are
right now. But I mean it is an open question.
Did it work like what is the legacy of shutdown
politics for Republicans. I'm not sure it did. Like right,
the original what was the Big shotdown twenty thirteen that
was after twenty twelve, pre DACA, it kind of inspired

(14:00):
I'm do daka, so I would say a bit of
a backlash. But my point though is that I kind
of think Obama won. If you go back and you
look at some of the polling. Now, look, you could
make an argument in a long run, because in the
immediate term, remember Obama shut down the National Parks. People
freaked out, They blamed Republicans, they called it. I remember
Bayner's shutdown was trending. You know, the Democrats were very

(14:20):
sophisticated at that time, and also they had the media
on their side. I guess this time around, the media
probably would be on the Democrat side. But and it
would satisfy like the bloodlust for a lot of the
Democratic voters. But people get real mad whenever they don't
get paid or there's not basic government services. And I'm
not sure who they would blame. It's a different.

Speaker 3 (14:38):
Except political workers right now despised Trump.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
That's true. Yeah, and so maybe they would eat it.
I'm not so sure. You take two paychecks away from somebody,
and that's a little dangerous. Trump did buckle to be
fair in the first shutdown under his administration. I covered
that extensively. It was like a seventeen day shutdown, and
he basically caved to Nancy Pelosi and to Chuck Schumer
because because he knew it was bad.

Speaker 3 (14:59):
He's uncomfortable for himself. And that's where I think Mike Johnson,
the thought of him, the sound that we played with
him earlier, saying we don't want to do this, we
don't want to do this, we want to work with Democrats.
It's actually interesting because he sounds sincere in that to me,
because I think he knows the President does not want
this battle.

Speaker 1 (15:13):
Yeah that's true. I mean, yeah, I don't know who
it would fall on, you know, at this point, but yeah,
I wonder. I do wonder if it's worth doing, just
purely politically for the Democrats, solely to show, yeah, we
can do something. We're not just going to give them
what you have to extract some pound of flesh. The
thing is, though, as you and I know, is when

(15:33):
the Republican leaders would eventually cave to Obama or they
would do some sort of deal where Obama supposedly caved
to them. It was never enough for the Tea Party
Caucus or any They were like, no, we can't go all.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
In because that wasn't the point, right right, The point
was radical.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
I'm saying though, ten years later, twelve years later, actually,
do you think it worked out for the Republicans like
in the legacy of shutdown politics?

Speaker 3 (15:54):
I think it worked out for the Republican politicians. So
a lot of people from that era have gone on
to be the heavy hitters in the Trump administration. I
don't think Republicans would look at this generational change of
the party with Trump without these shutdown fights, because what
they did was show national Republicans that the base, the

(16:15):
people are in the county party headquarters making the calls,
knocking on the doors, were so so, so very mad
at the party, and that was a lesson that I
think eventually is why Republicans gave way to Trump in
a way that Democrats didn't give way to Bernie to
their benefits. But that said, I think Republican voters continue

(16:38):
to lose because look at this administration. Is there an
actual populist will in the administration to do What Republican
voters really wanted with the Tea Party, which was not
all that different despite at the time people thinking it
was between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, was
the sense of injustice and unfairness, and that has not
been remedied, nor will it be remedied in the New

(16:59):
Yar future, even if Democrats. I mean, that's where this
could be a politically disastrous decision for Democrats because based
on their class bubble, they could end up picking the
absolute dumbest battles to shut down the government over. Like
I was joking earlier about USAID, right, Like, what are
they going to shut down the government to bring back USAID?
Don't put it past them. They actually are that stupid.
Are they going to shut down the government to protect

(17:23):
some of the like thirty year old single men who
are taking jobs away from poor Americans by being here
illegally or entering the border? I mean, there are some
things on deportations they could do that I think would
be popular, but watch them choose like the dumbest popular bat.

Speaker 1 (17:38):
Yeah, I don't know, I mean, yeah, I think that
they care more about process and all that stuff more
than anything. You're right there, we would not put a
USAID shutdown past them. I have no idea actually which
way they will go, but I enjoyed your trip down
memory lane. Thank you for updating us. All all right,
of course, let's go to you are the shutdown expert.
We always will. We'll keep you that and we'll keep
you that resident here at breaking points. Let's go to Venezuela,

(18:04):
shall we. So I've been wanting to cover this for
a while. I know it's a little bit dated, but
it is an important conversation. Let's go ahead and put
this up there on the screen. So there was a
big debate amongst Republicans about the strike by the United
States military on these purported drug dealers off the coast
of Venezuela after the designation of Trende Aragua, a gang

(18:25):
in Venezuela as a foreign terrorist organization for trafficking drugs.
So that was the justification for the strike, that it
was an imminent security threat to the people of the
United States. So jd Vance tweets quote killing cartel members
who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best
use of our military. Brian Crassenstein, who for some reason

(18:46):
is back on Twitter, says killing the citizens of another
nation who are civilians with any due process is called
war crime. JD responds, I don't give a shit what
you call it. So this kind of ignites a libertarian
versus republican civil war that erupted with Rand Paul entering
the fray. Let's go to the next part here, please,

(19:07):
Rand Paul responds, quote JD. I don't give a shit,
Vance says, killing people he accuses of a crime is
the highest and best use of the military. Did he
ever read to kill a mockingbird? I'll return to that, Rand,
We need some better references. Did he ever wonder what
might happen be accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?
What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify

(19:29):
killing someone without trial. He goes on and gives several
interviews expounding on this as to why he decided to
pick this fight. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 8 (19:39):
The reason we have trials, though, and we don't automatically
assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and
they happen to be people fleeing Venezuela, the Venezuelan dictator.
I think probably that you know we had the facts correct.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
I got bad people here. But that's the reason.

Speaker 8 (19:55):
Like off our coast, it isn't our policy just to
blow people up. And it's hard because obviously they're bad people,
so people like they want something bad to happen to them.
But typically even the worst people in our country, if
we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get
a trial.

Speaker 1 (20:08):
Basically, they get a lawyer, they get their day in corps.

Speaker 6 (20:11):
But if we're at war, you know what, we blow
up bad guys all the time.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
I think that's what they're saying.

Speaker 8 (20:16):
This the war, and our country wars the exception. So
when we have a war, it was intended that we
would declare war, be a big vote of our Congress,
and then at that point in time we say, if
that enemy, if we're at war, let's say with Venezuela,
then we say their ships are free to shoot them
anywhere they are at time, and so we kill them
off their coast, we kill them in their country, but

(20:38):
we've declared war on them. It's a little harder here
because this is a crime, and this is a criminal syndicate,
because it's not as simple as it may sound that well,
let's just kill drug dealers, because sometimes you have to figure.

Speaker 5 (20:49):
Out who people are before we kill them, right problem.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
All right, So, Emily, what do you think about these?
So you know, I've been I've been kind of rolling
over this, and I want to give rand credit because
the guy spoke up about the killing of an American
citizen who was drone struck by the Obama administration back
in twenty thirteen when it was not popular. He brought up,
by the way, that is by far one of the

(21:13):
craziest things is the rabbit because it was basically an
extra judicial killing of a US citizen abroad where they
gave him quote due process, like inside of the executive branch,
without ever bringing in to the judicial system. But he
talked about it broadly, and this is something that a
lot of libertarians and others have been talking about, you know,
with the original argument. I think what I find most

(21:35):
despicable about it is conflating that these cartels are the
ones who are killing Americans, because it's not even true.
In the case of Venezuela, that's what is like, you
are hijacking a legitimate sentiment. One hundred thousand people a
year dying from fentanyl. This is from the US government.
DEA figures ninety nine percent of all fentanyl that enters

(21:58):
the United States comes from Mexico and originally precursors come
from China. Ninety nine of all I think ninety three
percent of all cocaine which enters the United States, it's
from Colombia transited via Mexico through the border here into
the US, which is obviously also tainted with fentanyl. So
the cartels that are responsible for this are the Cinaloa cartel,

(22:20):
you know, whatever, the New Generation Cartel, all of these whatever.
There's various subgroups and others that exist inside of Mexico.
It's one thing to say those are the people, but
trend de Aragua. I mean this. We had one David
Rojas here on the show and he's like, guys like
these are engaged in human trafficking, which is a horrible,
despicable crime. But you know, to the extent that they're

(22:40):
doing drug dealing, it's street dealing. And to me, I said, it's.

Speaker 3 (22:44):
Not an industrial it's not an industrial like drug dealing fentanyl,
which they are.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
They literally are, but we're not doing anything presumably about that.
It's like, this seems cover to me. As this literally
just seems covered to me as as a regime change off.
We have a fifty million dollars boundary on Maduro's head
because he's engaged in drug trafficking.

Speaker 3 (23:06):
Again, and maspth did not rule that out right.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
Seven percent of all cocaine not from Colombia and Mexico
transits via all of these other countries, including Venezuela. So
this is like the even calling it tertiary is not
even fair. And we have this huge US military presence,
We have a fifty million dollar bounty on Maduro's head,
we struck this speedboat which allegedly was carrying cocaine whatever,

(23:30):
you know, we don't. We don't even know if any
of that.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
Is true because they will not say they will.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
I won't even say they won't to reduce the evidence.
So I'm like, well, you know, for me, and I
think Glenn Greenwell brought up a great point. It's like
this looks like a Noriega style regime change operation all
over again. And I think it would be a different
story if it was about the Mexican drug cartel. By
the way, you want to know why they haven't struck
the Mexican drug cartels because what is it, fifty percent

(23:55):
of trade, maybe forty percent of trade moves across the
US Mexico border, and they're not going to do anything
to jeopardize that because it would destroy the entire US
economy for Mexico and Canada. There's no way US military
strikes are going to happen in Mexico and they're not
going to shut the border down Shinebaum and others. It's
never gonna happen. And for them, what they allow basically
is like, you know, we have all this new cooperation.
It's a bullshit if you ask me. But my point

(24:17):
is just that the actual cartels that are doing this
are facing nothing like nothing. But then the side show
with Venezuela, all of a sudden they're cartels and they're poisoning.
It's like, guys, it's not even true about what's happening here.
And this is use of the United States military regime
change literally openly being crowd about by our current Secretary
of State in Venezuela. In Venezuela, which is like the

(24:40):
Neocon wet dream. Everything about this stinks too high heaven,
and that's taking it out of the first principles due
process type stuff. This is because you know, that's a
good argument too, is Hey, the US Coast Guard interceptcies
ships all day long. Yeah, proscy people, we have an
international agreements, et cetera. Why didn't you do that. It's
to send a message. It's like, okay, message to whom,

(25:01):
and send a message for what to the Maduro government,
who then overflew US military sites, and then Trump tells generals, oh,
you can go and shoot them down. Do we want
to be in a hot war with Venezuela again over
a country which zero percent of fentanyl enters the United
States of America from. But that's the problem. Nobody even
does enough cursory Google search to look at. Even the
mainstream media when they cover this, they're not giving you

(25:21):
the facts about them. It's there. They are involved in
drug trafficking, and you're like, well, what kind you know?
I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
I mean, technically the drug trafficking is accurate. But to
your point about.

Speaker 1 (25:35):
One day inside of Venezuela. By the way, I don't
give a shit who drills drugs in Venezuela. Definitely not
to the point of using the US military for to
do it.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
Yeah, it's so, I mean, and you get into these
process arguments, it sounds like from JD's perspective, Uh so
when you're talking like JD. Vance's here, I don't give
a shit, that is probably not that difficult to sell,
definitely to Republican voters. That's you know, I was going
to say, I mean, it's it's perfectly consistent from many

(26:04):
people in the Republican Party who never really changed their
mind on, for example, the AUO math. I went back
and looked to see what Matt Gates has said about this,
and he's tweeting his interview with Jade Vance and saying
no apologies American flag emoji, where Dvance is saying, if
you are engaged in war against the American people, you
at risk of having your entire operation literally blown to bits.

(26:25):
By the way, that can be perfectly true and also
not for example, well also for example not having the
Secretary of Defense slash war Pete Hexa. By the way,
I don't have any problem with the Secretary of Defense
changing the name to the Department of War because but anyway,

(26:46):
although it's to say this is like Matt Gates was
against the authorized use of military force being used in
Africa when he was a congressman, and all of that
for good reason. Now Pete Heiseth has recently said it's
no different than al Qaeda, right, did you see that
from him? Like, no different from al Keeda or the Taliban.

(27:06):
If you're in a boat, you're going to get struck.
And of course, again we haven't seen the evidence that
this is not a potential mistake, as rand Paul cited.
Maybe it's not. Maybe these were actual narco terrorists. Maybe
let's just say it was Sinaloa. Let's say it was
actually the people who are bringing fentanyl into the United States.

(27:28):
The argument from a lot of conservatives who started to
rethink the neo conservative policies that got us into quagmires
in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually that the process is
really important, because when you start to paper over the process,
you give oligarchs essentially power to do regime change wars

(27:48):
without democratic buying, and in ways that end up being well,
let's use the word again, quagmires, because they were not
well thought out and they were based on crazy levels
of intelligence. I've been reading the Michael Isakoff, David Korn
book called Hubris about how we ended up getting to
a rock And it's funny that those are the two

(28:09):
authors who wrote that book about how we cooked up
the intelligence case. But when you then look at how
the Trump administration now is connecting trend de Arragua to
Cartel of the Suns to Maduro right and say that Madua.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
It's it's literally just like Iraq. It's the same, it's
the same shit it is it. Look, no one's claiming
here that hundreds of thousands troops are going to go
into Venezuela. Okay, I don't think they're that dumb. I hopefully,
but if there is.

Speaker 3 (28:36):
A military strike in Mexico, which I don't necessarily agree with,
you won't happen. I could see some type of precision
action or whatever. But if troops die, If American troops
die in Mexico.

Speaker 1 (28:44):
Right, yeah, people can freak out and they should it happens,
then well, okay, why do you think that the Mexico
thing would happen? I don't there's I just don't see.
If they were going to do it, they would have
done it. The Shinebaum government has made it entirely clear
nobody is setting foot on Mexican soil. We have the
greatest trump card of all literally card of all time,
which is the vast majority of the goods that you

(29:05):
rely on, you know, I mean could go on forever
in terms of the amount of stuff that the crosses
the US Mexico border on a daily basis. Is that
really going to be put into jeopard That's why I
don't think it's even happening. It's not even the conversation
they beat their drums hard about we're going to go
after the cartels, and it's all bullshit. You know, none
of not a single one of those things as materialized.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
I don't think you're wrong about that. But I think
what we're seeing with them building this cartel case, I
feel like part of it is that they're trying it
with Venezuela and trying to build a case potentially for
Mexico because I think Hexeth actually like they have all
these ideas about precision type strikes that they could do
in Sinaloa in a way that shine Bomb, for example,
might actually welcome, which she wouldn't right now because this
is like about Mexican sovereignty or whatever. But what happens

(29:47):
when they start turning the screws to the Mexican economy.
You're threatening to turn the screw to the Mexican economy
in a much more serious way. But also what worries
me most is like, what happens if a CIA guy
doing anti's narco terrorism stuff in San Luloa gets killed?
What happens when there is some type of like we've

(30:08):
already seen drone actions since Trump's come to office on
the border. What happens when there's, you know, in Rainosa,
some type of drone activity from CIA or DoD or whatever.
Do we get pulled into something? That possibility is what
does worry me definitely.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
And by the way, all of this is not exactly
out of the realm. I remember there's some crazy stuff
that went down with the US and Columbia back in
the nineties, and there's they even made movies about it.
Were clear and present danger. All right, let's go at.
Let's end with some words from Glenn Greenwall, who did
a great job of breaking this all down. Let's take
a listen.

Speaker 9 (30:42):
MAGA was supposedly a movement principally of younger people who
booked all these wars and said, why do we keep
bombing people all over the world. Why don't we, I think,
involved in these foreign conflicts. Why don't we focus on
our own country that's falling apart instead? And yet it's
been amazing for me to watch how easy it is
to convince most Trump supporters, not all, but most, to

(31:08):
just start cheering for the very words they said they
were against. You just tell them these are bad guys.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
I think it's right. I think people should have a
lot more scrutiny and not just take people's word for
it about Fenton al or any of this. It takes. Look,
go on chat, cheept, go on Google. I mean, do
we just sit here? Are we mindless drones? It's not
that difficult, you know. And I did this for all
of the remember, and anytime there was some striking Yemen
or any of this, they all fall apart like this

(31:36):
almost every single time. But you know, that's what policies.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
And by the way, you also end up killing civilians
and enraging their communities against the United States.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
That actually happened.

Speaker 10 (31:46):
You know.

Speaker 1 (31:46):
I used to think that was left leftist talking point.
I started looking into it, I was like, no, they're
actually right, and it's true. One hundred percent true.

Speaker 3 (31:52):
Well, great and gun and Gunn's in a position to
know that because over the last ten years he's talked
to many people on the right, including both of us,
who hopefully will be consistent on this, But he talked
to many people on the right. I'm probably thinking of
Matt Gates. I we'd have to ask Glenn if that's
someone who is in mind who made these cases to
him and with him right, that's right on the basis
of constitutional law.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
Very important point. Let's get to UFO. Christ's not here.
We can do uf I'm joking. She never holds Mom's away. Yeah,
she doesn't hold me up any time I want to
cover the story. There was a big UFO hearing yesterday. Again,
I'm very sorry that I could not attend. One of
the major headlines out of it is a new video

(32:32):
that was released ostensibly showing a UAP in which a
hell fire missile was fired and it seems to glance off. Now,
I'm gonna give you some countervailing evidence. I want to
be clear that shows that it could be a balloon,
but I do want to at least give it some
credit for the video being released. Let's go ahead and
put it up here on the screen, so you can

(32:54):
see here this is a twenty twenty four incident, allegedly
according to the congressman who released it, and you can
see the object moving over. Soon you're actually going to
see a hellfire missile com it glances off and you
can see that it continues basically dodging. So that is
the alleged evidence that was included there from the congressman.

(33:15):
There's a couple of other angles that you can see
from it. What's important, though, I think, is not just
the video that was released, but actually some of the testimony,
including here from US Air Force veteran Dylan Borland, who
testified on witnessing a quote silent one hundred foot equilateral
triangle that rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds

(33:39):
at Langley Air Force Base. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 11 (33:41):
From twenty eleven to twenty thirteen, I was stationed at
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, conducting twenty four hour operations
via MANDA non mandarial vehicles for Special Operations Forces in
the Global War on Terror. During the summer of twenty twelve,
my team was on standby for weather and I returned
to my barracks on base, and at approximately zero one
third I saw an approximately one hundred foot equilateral triangle

(34:04):
take off from near the NASA hangar on the base.
The crafts interfere with my telephone, did not have any sound,
and the material it was made of appeared fluid or dynamic.
I was under this triangular craft for a few minutes
and then it rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds,
displaying zero connectic disturbance, sound, or wind displacement. Some years

(34:26):
after that experience, I was further exposed to classified information
from the UAP legacy crash retrieval programs through a sensitive
position I held within a special access program. During this time,
intelligence officers approached me in fear for their own careers,
citing misconduct within these programs and similar retaliation that I
was already enduring at this time.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
That was followed up also with testimony from George Knapp,
who is one of the best journalists on the UFO
sabviakt Taspen for decades. Here and here was some of
the testimony that he offered.

Speaker 12 (34:55):
It's been widely reported and suspected that Lockheed Martin is
one of the contract the Defense contractors that has held
this stuff, stored it away in secrecy, and tried to
figure out how it works.

Speaker 13 (35:09):
I have confirmed on the record that Robert.

Speaker 12 (35:11):
Bigelow and a trusted colleague from OFFSAP met with and
negotiated with senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out
a deal wherein Bigelow's company, BASS would receive a quantity
of unusual material that had been stashed away and protected
at a facility in California.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
That material was not made here.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
That has long been part of some of the UFO
communities reporting is basically that defense contractors are used as
cutouts so that you can have plausible deniability. It also
goes to the fact that Pentagon pass an audit because
nobody knows where some of this black money and all
this other stuff goes. I do want to give some

(35:51):
credit to some of the people who are saying that
this video is not actually showing a UFO. Now again,
I will let you make up your mind for yourself,
but this actually comes from a guy who I very
much respect, Joe Mergia UFO. Joe, let's put it up
here on the screen. And so what he says is
that from one of the basically he looked into it.

(36:11):
They talk about the hell fire missile. What he says
specifically is that quote contact occurred with the missile passing through.
The apparent deflection was a guidance system searching for a
laser spot, again causing control services to thrash. The three
trailing objects aligned better with debris or internal components ignited
by electrical damage rather than missile fragments. Artifacts are possible
but unlikely. Let's go to the next part here, and

(36:34):
they say the overall conclusion is that the evidence is
most consistent with a slow moving or stationary balloon carrying
an electrical payloads, struck by a hell fire that failed
to detonate. Anomalies arise from fuse mechanics, etc. I will
let others determine the facts. But that was some of
the original kind of quote debunking that I saw on it.
You can make up your minds for yourself in terms

(36:54):
of what it comes from. It was representative Eric Burlson,
by the way, who is the person who vealed it.
And it's one of those where it was presented as
received from an independent from a whistleblower according to him.
But the circumstances are a bit weird. He said he
received it without any metadata or any of that, and
he says independent review is ongoing. So I do think
it's important to at least present the fact that some

(37:17):
analysts and others are saying that it could have been
a balloon, which they say about all of them, and so,
you know, to be I want to be totally fair
about That's part of the reason independent reviews very important,
part of the reason throwing to the experts, et cetera,
and actually taking this stuff seriously. But nonetheless, it was
great to see George Knapp and some of the others.
They're recounting some of their experiences. I do think some

(37:37):
of us are still getting very fed up with the
fact that it's still so slow moving. You know, I
tended the first UFO hearing, what two years ago, you
know at this point, yeah, this is the third one.
I'm saying, the very first one with Dave Grush, right,
I was there, you know, I was in the room.
I thought it was a big moment. I thought something
was coming. And then you know, the NDAA continues to
not have some of the UFO disclosure pieces, even though
it's been pushed by members of the overall usen So

(38:00):
we rely on Anna, Pauline Luna or other people are
making extraordinary accusations. I'm very willing to believe. But we
got to see more evidence. We got to see more
stuff come from the government.

Speaker 3 (38:08):
An interesting disagreement playing out on X right now between
UFO Joe and Lou Elizondo that's on News Nation last
night made a very interesting argument, which is that the
Hellfire missile UFO is evidence of quote technology that is
making our premier missile system completely useless. And if you're
wondering why, in relation to what Soccer just described about

(38:29):
the NDAA, why are our members of Congress and even
remember Marco Rubio as a senator.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, it was a larger That's right.

Speaker 3 (38:37):
Mainstream members of Congress interested in getting answers to questions
like these. Well, it's because they're seeing videos and hearing
analysis from people like Lou who worked at the Pentagon.
You can debate Alizondo whatever, but saying this is evidence
of technology that is making our premier missile system completely useless. Now,
UFO Joe disagrees. He says early on, I agreed right now,

(38:58):
I do not I retain the right to change in
my mind, to lie present any analysis or mentioned anybody
who has an analysis beside the stuff shared on here
by us. But that gets to what Zager was just saying,
which is that years into this Third Task Force meeting,
the bombshells are highly disputed.

Speaker 7 (39:13):
You know.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
It's not like this bombshell dropped yesterday and everybody was
like when that New York Times story originally dropped back
in what twenty seventeen.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
Oh, yeah, that's that's when. That's why I'm here. It
all broke into the Yeah, that's the only reason. That's
what got me in. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (39:27):
But we haven't had another moment like that.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
Really, it's been a while. Dave Grush was very important,
I think as well. But I think that's true, that's true.
I just got to see more. And you know, credit
to Jeremy Corbel and George Knapp and all these guys.
They're the ones who are at the vanguard. They're pushing
the conversation. They're singularly responsibly, they're getty responsibly ve and
I do. That's why I include all of the information.
You can make up your mind for yourself. I think

(39:51):
more scrutiny pressure on these you know, the democratic the
Democratic Republican establishment to get the stuff out there is
just so vitally important if you want to get to
the truth because at this point, you know, you have
congresswomen and others people making major accusations and which is
our allegations, which I'm totally willing to believe, but we
have to see more evidence in the future. That's the

(40:13):
number one important thing. So yeah, call your congressman, tell
them to our senator, get them to the make sure
the NDAA is going to have that. Watch it to them, right,
you know, to the UA. It's like so low on
their priority list that if even twenty people call about it,
maybe we'll do something. You never know, you truly never know.
All right, let's get to the Tim Dillon segment that
we have been we'd put off yesterday because we talked

(40:35):
too much. Luckily, Emily and I still did talk a lot,
but luckily we still do have a few minutes here
that we can go over it. Let's go ahead and
play this. It's Tim Dillon and Joe Rogan talking about
AOC and jd Vance quote not having it for president.
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 14 (40:50):
Now, why is AOC shutting her mouth about Israel Because
AOC's donors are big Israeli tech people. She's been silenced,
and she's trying to for president too.

Speaker 13 (41:01):
Really, yeah, she'll struggle.

Speaker 5 (41:05):
She's not gonna win. She's a goofball. She'd be making mohitos.
She's a goofball. She doesn't have it.

Speaker 14 (41:11):
She's a goof But here's the reality. She's shutting her
mouth about Israel. Is AOC out there about Israel? No, No,
because she's a fraud. But the smelly gross an Arco
Communists in Brooklyn, to their credit, no, she's a fraud.
They know she's a fraud. In between their you know whatever,

(41:35):
open mic nights and whatever. They figured out poetry, slams
and dog walking. They figured out that this bitch is
a fraud, big time.

Speaker 13 (41:45):
Yeah. I don't think she was when she first started.

Speaker 5 (41:47):
She wasn't, but she got she was. Probably she's realized
she has.

Speaker 14 (41:52):
She's ambitious, she likes nice bags. She likes nice bags.
She's ambitious. She wants to be the president.

Speaker 13 (41:57):
You realize that job can get you hundreds of millions dollars.

Speaker 5 (42:00):
Look what happened?

Speaker 14 (42:01):
Can you get up who her donors are Jimmie These
Israeli tech people.

Speaker 5 (42:04):
It's kind of interesting because this actually just kind of
came out.

Speaker 10 (42:09):
It's really start up entrepreneurs played roles in the rise
of Alexandria Cassio Coorte. She pulled out of an event
commemorating Rabine. Some concluded that AOC doesn't like Israelis, but
two were instrumental in the lawmaker's early career.

Speaker 5 (42:24):
Oh that's where it gets weird.

Speaker 13 (42:25):
They find you when you're young.

Speaker 5 (42:27):
They find you when you're making mohe does.

Speaker 13 (42:28):
They find you when you're young and promising, like JD.

Speaker 14 (42:33):
Well, that's the thing JD is gonna have to if
you want to be the president, he's gonna have to say,
Peter Tele I'm not He's gonna have to say, Peter
teal a is Satan.

Speaker 5 (42:40):
And here's why that's good. JD has to get out.

Speaker 14 (42:46):
There and go wouldn't you rather know who Satan is
and be friends with him and have dinner with him
than have it be like who's Satan?

Speaker 12 (42:53):
Right?

Speaker 5 (42:53):
So he's got to get out there and say, I
happen to be friends with Satan, and I want that
to be misunderstod. I wanted to be destigmatized.

Speaker 13 (43:02):
Right, if Satan could go on the Milk Boys, maybe
they could straighten it out.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
That's right, the dog Boys. That was good. So what
do you what do you think of Tim's And I mean,
we got to be a little Look, I'm on the
business of defending AOC, But like I wouldn't say that
she shut her mouth about Israel. I mean she said genocide.

Speaker 13 (43:18):
Right.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
You know, the one thing that we've hit her for
here on the show with Ryan is about her vote
to fund the Iron Dome, because I mean her she
had this whole convoluted explanation and the defensive Yeah, exactly. Look,
I mean the part about her how she was legit
in the beginning and has become a tool of democratic exception.
I think it's totally fair. I don't think it's totally

(43:40):
fair to say it's about Israel, no, per se, that's
my only thing. And I mean I don't think he's wrong.
I don't think she could be president either. Specifically for
those types of reasons. Is that she did basically get
co opted. And remember she wanted to be the oversight
chairman and she played ball. She shut her mouth about
all kinds stuff. They still wouldn't give it to her.

Speaker 3 (43:56):
Entire tenure. Those are all fair criticisms of AOC as is.
I mean, basically, at any point, if at any point
in your career you have you rely on donors from
the American donor class, you were going to end up
coming into contact with people who have close ties to Israel.
That's just how it works.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
Well, so that points out the worst thing she did
at the DNC was saying that Kamala was working tirelessly,
versy smart. That's pretty fair because that was insane. Well,
you know, now maybe the Israel thing is making sense
to me because when it came Yeah, she put out
the words, but she actively worked for Kamala to get
elected and gave her cover on Gaza, which she did

(44:36):
not have to do. Right, And you and I were there.
We were at the DNC. You remember all those activists.
We met some of them while they were treated horribly
and they were kicked out. And it's still pretty crazy
in retrospect to have experienced that. Ryan and I interviewed
a couple of them on the street and who literally
were kicked out, like not joking.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
It's a great memory of by the way, just you
and Ryan with microphones, falling at likes complying the hippies
around the DN. We had a passive blest.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Maybe we'll do it again. But the point is just
that that's a fair criticism. But to say that she's
been bought off or whatever, I'm not entirely sure that
is accurate. On the JD point though. Here's what's interesting.
JD had dinner with Tim very recently, by Tim's own admission,
and Tim seems to be truly like captured by the
pallenteer teal. He spent a long time going off on

(45:24):
the anti Christ lecture. He's like, why do you need
four lectures? One wasn't it was good, it was funny.
I guess I'm just I'm curious for him. I'm like,
so what, like who is the good politician?

Speaker 5 (45:36):
You know?

Speaker 1 (45:37):
And he said some nice things about Marjorie Taylor Green,
which you know, I mean, okay, I mean I like
some of the things MPG says. Definitely, I think she's
very courageous in standing up on Israel and a few
other issues. But you know, with presidential material, I guess
the reason why I thought it was important to cover
is like, where does this podcast thing go?

Speaker 7 (45:56):
Right right.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
Last Trump was the perfect vehicle for them because he's entertaining,
fun to talk to, good stories. You could project whatever
you want onto him, even though he's literally been the
president before, and you can be like, no, but he's different.
You know this timmer, But where does it go from here?
Like to me, it just seems like pretty nihilistic, but
I really have no idea.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
Well, yeah, this question of who has it or who
doesn't is the reason we're asking it in a way
that's not like, oh, allegory is very charming. Is because
we've entered a new chapter in media history, which is,
if you're in gen Z, you grew up expecting politics
to look like reality television through no fault of your own,

(46:35):
but because politics started to merge with iPhone, smartphone and
social media in a way that it's hard if you're
younger to trust people who don't come across well on
the popular mediums and smartphone smartphone world. So if you
can't have a normal conversation, right, it used to be
to sit down at a bar test right, but now

(46:57):
it's more like sit down on an Instagram live way.
AOC does a lot of Instagram lives and others don't.
But that's just because there's something about speaking contemporary or
speaking in real time in a way that feels authentic
to people. I think that's really what Tim Dylan is
talking about with Marjorie Taylor Green or Thomas Massey is

(47:17):
another example who you know, Massy had success on THEO
von like, that's gotten tons and tons of views. I
think the reason is to sound authentic right now, you
have to absolutely flame the donor class. You have to
be willing in ways that Gavin Newsom is not, in
ways that Hakim Jeffreys or these other guys are not.

(47:39):
And that's a lesson for AOC too. You know, that's
how she that's she She used Instagram and ex successfully
to take a seat away from Joe Crowley when nobody
thought it was possible. So my mom Donnie did the
exact same thing, And it's just about leveraging those mediums
in a way that resonates. And that's what I think
Tim is saying when he's like, can Dad do that?

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Well? No, And I think part of the reason why
is Trump is the Republican establishment. So how can you
exact the Republican establishment. You can't be anti establishment and
speak out.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
Of the Republican establishment.

Speaker 1 (48:08):
Well, it's not. It's I really I think the teal
thing is a proxy for Whenever he was on Theo
Vaughn's podcast and Jad gave it, he's like, well, I
take money from a lot of people. A THEO came
out and he's like, yeah, I just thought that was
like some typical political bullshit, and I was like, yeah,
I mean it is kind of a problem. Like I
do get like, you know, you don't want to talk
badly or whatever about friends or people who donated you,

(48:28):
but you know it makes you look bad or and
look personal loyalty and all that stuff is important, and
it is hard. You know, I can even speak from experience.
You have to cover people who you literally personally know.
It's weird. But at a certain point, like you have
a higher and calling to your job right and just
say kind of what you think that is seems to
be the issue and part of the reason I think

(48:49):
Republicans are really going to struggle post Trump, because you
can't say anything that's bad about Trump if he's still alive.
It's not possible in the age of all.

Speaker 3 (48:56):
Maybe especially if he's not still alive and he's a martyr.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
Right, Yeah, well, I don't know what's harder. I actually
think if he's not alive, it's much harder. But or sorry,
if he's alive, it is it's harder because he could
literally sit there from lay if he wants to. He's
never going to leave the political stage. Whereas Democrats, they
have no sacred cows anymore. Kamala is done. Her book
excerpt just came out and she's trashing Biden. Right, it's over.

(49:19):
You know that all the Obama Kamala Biden worship, et cetera.
This is permission to say I wish more of them
would go weapons free flame them. You need to Oh yeah,
some people want to.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
See exactly, that's what people want to see. And this
is the question about I actually thought JD did fine
and that theo vone interviewed. But the problem is the clips. Right,
if there's a clip that comes out of you, it
doesn't matter if the two hours, I mean it does
matter if the two hours is great, but it.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Can be sort of have to be fawn all the time.

Speaker 3 (49:44):
Yeah, exactly, And I thought, and that means you have
to be now, that means you have to be basically
like doing reality TV honesty at all time. And that's
what politicians need to get used to, is saying stuff
like listen, I'm just friends with Peter too. Right, That's right,
that's the way you have to handle it. But all
that is to say, we're also in a transition period, right,
you know, so there are still people boomers whomever, voting,

(50:04):
probably some elder millennials for example, who grew up in
a different time than zoomers and are deeply uncomfortable with
voting based on who's good. On a podcast, somebody like
mom Donnie, and don't you know that's mom, Donnie's pulling
out what he's amazing, pulling levels for the politics that
he brings to the table. But he's still under like
fifty percent.

Speaker 5 (50:22):
Right, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
People somebody asked me, They're like, do you think politics
will ever go back to normal?

Speaker 13 (50:26):
And I was like, I don't.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
I really don't know there, because look, we did try
it under Biden. A lot of people were like, exhale
of fresh, fresh air, let's gut Biden in there. He's normal,
but there was a disaster because normal is bad. I've
been trying to tell people that my entire political career,
normal is actually way worse than not normal. We need
to be very very not normal. To the extent Trump
is bad, it's because he's not normal. Is too normal. Actually,

(50:49):
he's too normal of a normal Republican, like acting like
George W. Bush while he's in office, but just with
mean tweets or whatever. So what comes next? I don't know.
I mean I could see easy return to I could
see a fighter under Gavin who rhetorically is just like Trump, right,
rhetorically a fighter policy level like very similar. Yeah, yeah,
I could see that happen easily. I mean, I believe

(51:11):
he's one of the top polls. The alternative is is
a Trump style figure who comes in and just knocks
everything over. I hope forty figure or Bernie Maybe, I'm
not sure if that's imed possible anymore. I would like
I'd like to think so, I'm not sure.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
But Bernie is actually really good in new media, which
people like. He really crushed the Oban because he's generally
honest and he doesn't cover for donors.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
He doesn't just think he's one of one. I don't
see any Trump, Yeah, I do not see. And that's
why I was like, maybe we'll go back to normal.
Because nobody is as talented as I think.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
That's an absolute possibility, right, and again, like it will
always be a tug of war between the Marjorie Taylor
Greens and now the Marjorie Taylor Greens, and maybe like
the ilhan omar Is on the left and then the
traditional politicians. You know, even if the presidency kind of
goes back to normal and Washington feels like, you know,
it's nineteen eighty nine again, if that happens, it'll still

(52:01):
there'll still be a tug of war in the background
between the new media stars.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
That's true, and the old one. Well, in a way,
it's still downstream of our circumstances. We can't go back
to nineteen ninety nine politics because it's not nineteen ninety nine.
Ninety nine was a great year s and P five
hundred was booming.

Speaker 14 (52:15):
No.

Speaker 1 (52:16):
Nine to eleven, We had the early days. So the optimism, man,
I mean, I was so young. I wish I could
have been an adult in the year nineteen ninet nine
with my Nokia phone. I mean, I've just been cruising
like a beeper. Maybe what a world to live in?
And to think about the what a world to live in?
And to think about where things could go, and then

(52:36):
it just all comes crashing down dot com and nine
to eleven. I guess that was part of the point,
That was part of the part of the price that
you pay for that moment. But it must have been
awesome to live through. I'm genuinely envious you.

Speaker 3 (52:46):
And I showed the exact same theory. I think it's
possible that civilization peaked in nineteen ninet nine or two thousand.

Speaker 1 (52:52):
Oh absolutely, yeah. I think that an America specific, the
peak of the American Empire was nineteen ninety nine. There
you go. We've given you all of our thoughts, Emily,
thank you very much for having me on your show.
I appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (53:05):
Uh that was yeah, No, it's wonderful. But we haven't
given you all of our thoughts because we will still
give you.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
To We're doing the AMA don't worry. Yeah, don't worry.
Stick around for that. Thank you guys so much for watching.
I'll be on tomorrow with Crystal. We'll see that