September 9, 2025 • 51 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Zohran dominates Cuomo on every issue, Israel strikes Hamas in Qatar, Gen Z gender divide explodes.
Jeremy Scahill: https://x.com/jeremyscahill
Dave Weigel: https://x.com/daveweigel
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 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
So we got a bunch of political topics to dig into,
and our friend Dave Weigel from Semaphore joins us. Now
we've got some new Zoron polling, and you were just
at two very interesting conferences.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So great to see you, Davi.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Y it's good to be all the conferences.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm sure. I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Let's go and put this polling New York Times pulling
on Zoron up on the screen because this is pretty interesting.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
So this is the you know.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
The four way race, which looks you can tell me
if this is wrong, but it looks like this is
going to be the field. Zoron with a commanding lead
forty six percent, Quoma twenty four, Curtis Leewah meeting Eric
Adams fifteen, and then nine percent for Adams. The Trump
administration reportedly was offering Adams the Saudi ambassadorship. He apparently
turned it down. Slee Was says he's in the race. Certainly,
(01:14):
Cuomas says he's in the race. So I think this
is what the field is going to be. They did
test the head to head just Soron versus Cuomo, and
Zorn still won, but it was a much It was
like by four points or something like that. Also interesting
if we put this next one up on the screen,
This was kind of fascinating. So they dug into these
different policy areas to see how New Yorkers felt about
(01:35):
these various candidates, and Zoran came out on top in everything.
So the one where he was closest was on crime,
where he just edged out Quoma. I'm sure it's like
a statistical tie there, but commanding lead on affordability, commanding
lead on housing, pretty solid lead on taxes and spending,
and his largest lead actually is on the Israeli Palestinian
(01:59):
conflict worth forty three percent say they think he would
do the best job on that issue. Of course, not
that central to the New York City mayor's race, but
in any case, his opponents tried to make it central
to it. Cuomo is second at sixteen percent, or actually
really second is don't know or did not say, at
twenty one percent. So Dave, what do you make of
these numbers? What sort of jumped out at you as
(02:21):
significant both of them had to head And then also
with the issues.
Speaker 5 (02:25):
Well, Zorn's personal popularity too, that's another piece of data
in this poll. He is more the only candidate who
most voters say they like. It's I think plus thirteen.
Everyone else is underwater. So everyone else is trying to
do the classic multi candidate field thing of dragging him,
dragging him below the water, but dragging themselves. They're dragging
each other below the water too. No one's getting advantage.
(02:47):
Cuomo tried after this about a three weeks ago, Tomo tried,
after reporting on the housing plans, to say that Zoron
was unfairly in a rent stabilized apartment. He'd some say control,
which is different and if Andrew Cuomo's elected, there's going
to be a reckoning with people with rent stabilized departments.
That's the first poll since then that didn't work at all.
(03:08):
That just wasn't affordability argument, that was a revenge argument.
And able yes, And it is remarkable that, knowing we
cover several months, though this is a discourse in the
entire Democratic Party, several months to see that Zoron captured
the affordability message. Are they competing on that, No, they're
very distracted by other issues, And even on the crime issue.
Zorn's been saying, for I'm not trying to raise campaign
(03:29):
brochure form, but since he got in the race he
renounced to fund the police. His answers on policing are
not I'm going to stop them from arresting anybody. Nobody
can really make that stick because they're still operating like
voters think he has the mindset of twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
No longer does. So you can't polygraph him, but he
no longer does.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Also, crime has come down in New York City, so
it's also potentially not an issue, not as much of
an issue as it was when Eric Adams was getting
elected for example, it was interesting to me too to
see there that Adams is quite poorly on the issue
of crime, even though you know he.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Was a police officer.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
He ran on that that was sort of like his
bread and butter, and crime has actually come down under
his tenure, and yet Zorin has much high approval day there.
The other one that is just fascinating to me is
the Israeli Palestinian conflict number.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And that was an issue.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You know, Zoran was not trying to make that central
to his campaign, but Cuomo and others in the Democratic
primary were really trying to tag him with this label
of oh, he's an anti semi and he just hates
Jewish people and he hates Israel. Won't even travel to
commit to traveling to Israel, he won't say that Israel's
has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
And you know, I.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Think it's pretty clear not only did that argument fail,
but it actually redounded to his benefit ultimately. You know,
for people care about that issue, he is receiving the
lion's share of the vote. And it also made them
look like they were focused on these other superfluous issues
while he was focused on affordability and issues that were
core to New Yorkers.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
Yeah, and you said there's an intensity gap. So the
voters who care most about this are not the Upper
East Side, the voters that everyone thought they were going after.
We're a little bit outdated. At the Democrats had a
view of the electorate that was very frozen in the
eighties in views of how Jewish voters think of Israel,
and they did not factor in two years of the
(05:10):
demolition of Israel image even with Jewish Americans, especially in
New York.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
And there's a dismissal you.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Find in the pro Israel political community of younger groups
that are on campus active or in public active, the
BDS movement, the Jewish members of that movement, but there
are a lot of them in New York, and so
Zorn has that entire vote. The pro Israel vote is
divided between other candidates. But you're right, this was not
the issue of the race. The other candidates thought they
(05:36):
would get that intensity gat they would get most Jewish voters,
that would be a block that would help Quomo over
the line. There are communities where that happened for Cuomo,
less so for Adams. Adams is literally running on the
stop anti semitism ballot line. What about LIESI got they
overrated how much of an issue this was. It does
sound like something they're here a lot from highly high
(05:57):
powered from donors, from high power Democrats, from people who
are worried in the Hampton's a real thing that the
time is running about, and that has just not been
the main intensity. Are there going to be voters who
get a mayor's oorn and are disappointed that he's few
doing that?
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Yaho were something? Possibly it's not their top issue.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
For everyone who does want a major figure in the
Democratic Party in their city to support in arms, embargo,
support changing Israel so that it's a secular state, as
Zorn does, it's the most exciting candidate of their lifetime.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
So of course they're intense about it.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, and I'm sure you saw Kirsten jill Brand saying
I think it was like a donor event that nine
of ten Democrats support Israel and is like, you need
to take a look at literally any poll. Yeah, to
you adjust your views of where this issue is. That's
a whole other sidetrack. We'll push that one to the
side from because I want to get to your coverage
of We'll talk about the Abundance conference and begin with
put C one up on the screen here. So what
(06:51):
were some of the things that they were grappling with?
And I know you were telling me before we started that. Actually,
Zorin was very sort of present at this conference in
terms of a subject feeds in how to deal with him,
because during the primary he really kind of extended Alli Brandon.
He embraces a lot of abundance style policies and you know,
sort of talk the talk, but they certainly don't see
(07:12):
him as being one of them.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
No, when I talked to Zoron before the primary, that
was one thing he emphasized. His vision, and the whole
campaign's vision is have a socialist mayor of New York
who makes the rest of the country say oh, this
could work for me in every respect, and that starts
with housing and affordability. So at the conference, some specific
examples where Raihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute,
and there's an overlap of the Bunnets, but that's not
(07:35):
the face of their movement. Somebody let in their room
he said, look, I'm my family of Bangladeshi immigrants. When
Zoron says, afford to live, afford to dream. That's thrilling
to us. That's the story that a lot of our
parents had where they could buy a house and the
kids could live in one of the extra rooms. Their
kids can't afford a house. That was motivating for us,
and he captured it nobody else did. There was a
(07:56):
session on polling and data and it covered that, yes,
affordability is the most powerful message in politics, that the
top priority for voters, I should say, And there was
a slide showing zoron and that slogan on one half
of the slide. The other half was Trump at McDonald's
saying that there are ways to be populist and capture
this affordability message, and those guys are pretty good at it.
(08:19):
And we in the Abundance Movement do not have the branding,
the power. We have reach, and we have a lot
of meetings and a lot of groups that are signing
up on our MBI agenda, but that we've not figured
out a populous way to sell this the way Zorn has,
or to a lesser extent, Donald Trump has.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Can you talk a little bit more about the like,
where did this abundance movement come from? Because I think
For a lot of people, the perception was, you know,
Derek Thompson as reclined write this book, and then suddenly
we've got abundance conferences and we've got abundance think tanks
and this is whole thing, like where did this come from?
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Yeah, they are key players in this, Thompson and Climber
writing up in twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three. At
the same time, there was a movement of liberals in
cities who wanted to build more and this came from
frustration really accelerating the Biden years. Biden's president. Money is
being shoveled out with the states. But you are a
legislator in California or in New York or even in Colorado,
(09:10):
and it's taking forever for you to build something. Because
there's a joke, there's a line they'd like to say
that there's no democratic Republican way to build a pothole. Well,
there is a democratic way to fill a pothole. I
should say it is to have a six month equity
study and make sure that the pothole filling company is
the minority owned, et cetera. So they were grappling, Okay,
this our Democratic party has no trade off agenda at all.
(09:33):
It just says everything to everybody. It takes every to build.
Biden presidency ends with so much money being clawed back
by Trump because they didn't spend it. So they're trying
to solve that national problem. But these two ideas sort
of come together with a lot of help from donors
with there are Silicon Valley donors, not just there, but
some of the people like John Arnold starts at Enron,
(09:55):
but now he's a bigger libertarian liberal philanthropist, and there
are a lot of people say, well, we don't want
the left to take over the Democratic Party. We do
like the idea where there are Democrats who want to
build things and spend things and deregulate. And this is
actually happening in some states. California. Scott Wiener, who's in
that slide in that picture, very progressive state senator, wants
(10:15):
to replace Pelosi when she retires, has a pretty good chance,
and he leads he's one of the leaders to scale
back the environmental law that was past the nineteen seventies
because every California's had experience with homeowners associations or energy
companies or just an angry boomer somewhere saying no, you
can't build that six unit apartment building on this vacant
(10:35):
lot because it'll block the view from my bungalow. So
it's a very local movement. Ezra, who's from California, is
big into this, and columnists and reporters talked to politicians,
talk to donors. It's not fully organic, but it was
just a couple of different ideas about the Democratic Party's
problems being i'd say elucidated the most I guess book
(11:01):
selling way by these two guys, and that's now the
brand of the movement. But they didn't fully start it.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Well and talk a little bit more about who's in
the movement, because you have liberals like Ezra and Derek,
and then you have these more libertarians. I mean at
its core, like this is an oversimplification, but a lot
of it is just kind of like deregulation, you know,
which obviously little libertarians have long loved. So are there
tensions in the movement between these various factions of how
(11:27):
to proceed?
Speaker 5 (11:28):
There are some so and the conference you can go
their website that donors include Stand Together, which is the
Coke organization specific Legal Foundation, which is a libertarian legal group.
They do have some different some differences. One of them,
I'll I draw a little bit in the article is
that what is where does immigration immigration fit into this?
Is there progressives who and libertarians who are very open
(11:50):
minded an immigration get as many people in the If
you need asylum, you can move to my city. If
you have high skills, even better. We need to streamline
the system. But there is a political worry from the
more democratic electability focus abundance people that if Democrats are
seen as the party that has no restrictions in immigration,
then the homeowner who says I want to vote for
(12:11):
the party that's going to make easier to fund to
build a home, to buy a home, is going to say, well,
that party is going to give everything away to these
new arrivals. I'm going to vote for the Republicans who
say that they're going to do mass breed deportation and
I can have a cheaper housing, cheaper goods for that reason.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
So that was one conflict.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
It was actually between the libertarians and the more progresses
on one side and the more electorally minded.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Liberals on another side.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
There are different views of what abundance means. Does it
mean those restrictions to make it necessary. Does it mean
just a deregulation where there are few trade offs. Part
of the conference was about debating this, and I was
at NATCON, the National Conservatives Conference too. They free themselves
against that. They said, well, we're having our fights. But
(12:54):
on the other side is the Trump administration that believes
in scarcity, that believes in deportation.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
We're not doing that.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
We're saying that we can the population of the country
could grow steadily, We could have more, we could have
big families. And they don't have an answer for them.
They want them to live on the AI generated farm
with the drad wife. You want them to live in
a single stare unit and maybe buy a bigger house
when they're older because we freed up the housing market.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
We've made it legal to build things.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
So it's a very optimistic movement, but also very aware
of all these political cross currents that may be hard
to win.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Let's talk a little bit about that National Conservative National
Conservatism Conference, right, and you know what it's called. Okay,
let's put this up on the screen. This is c
two guys, and you say nationalists consolidate the US right
with one small crack, and I'm sure it was interesting
to go, you know, back to back to these two
conferences because with the abundance people, you've got a group
(13:44):
of people who are like totally out of power in
terms of the federal conversation with the nationalists. They've got
their guy in the White House, and they've got Stephen Miller,
and they've got you know, a whole administration, and they
had time in the off season to like put together
what their policy plan was. They're steamrolling through the Supreme
word Zager and I covered that earlier. So, you know,
how are they feeling about how all of this is going.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
They're feeling great, you conveyed it.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
They feel that Donald Trump is not going to have
a problem leading this movement for another three years, that
it doesn't have a serious threat to power. The left
is in disarray, which I guess you just dealt with. Yeah,
and then the old right, they're saying the Conservative inc
Is the popular term for it, are discredited, but they're
going to try to take the party back over once
Trump is gone. And there are Bannons who say maybe
(14:28):
he'll never be gone, but most of the movement thing. Yeah,
in twenty twenty eight, when it's a Rubio vance primary.
The crack that was referring to the headline is younger
conservatives who are aligned with this, who agree with the
movement's goals, who agree with deportations. There is a strain
of America first foreign policy thinking that includes let's cut
off all funding to Israel, and even let's not support
(14:49):
the United States backing up Israel because they need our
B two bombers to finish something their army couldn't or
their air force couldn't do.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
So that was the crack.
Speaker 5 (14:57):
And so you're in MAZONI, the leader of the Conference
of Edinburgh Foundation, et cetera. He uses his speech to
say we're winning. However, I had no I was really
in denial about how many young people would have a
problem with Israel and how many of our commentators. He
didn't use the names, but it sounded like he meant
Tucker Carlson, how many of our commentators, how many people
are getting these new audiences and are critical of Israel.
(15:20):
At this point, was never criticized Israel. It was I thought,
after the Ran bombing happened in World War Three, didn't happen,
that would stop, and it didn't. It looks like there's
something very elemental here where people here in nationalism and
they think not just let's have the strongest military in
the world, but let's not be bailing out Ukraine or
Israel or anyone else, viewing them the way that we
view France. Nobody's saying, let's let they need our help
(15:43):
right now. This other nuclear power in Europe needs our
help and needs our military aid. So that was a
fairly hot debate. There was a debate where leaders of
the Heritage Foundation, EUROM, etc. Were listening as the American
Conservative and Max Abrams, I actually say, Kurt Mills, American
Conservative and Max Abrams a scholar in Northeastern we're debating this.
Abraham saying you guys are discredited and there is an
(16:04):
American role in defending Israel, and Mills saying, no, this
is this is going to ruin the entire movement and
we're anti interventionists and this doesn't fit in. So the
final thing I'll say about that is national conservatism. It
is rooted in a lot of politics in Israel in
Europe that are not necessarily the same politics we have here.
Europe has a different experience with mass immigration than we
(16:26):
do it has longer traditions of ethnic hmogeneity in their
countries that are changing.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
They have more of a sort of natural blood and
soil inclination.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
And in America, the country of manifest destiny and expanding
into the frontiers and talking about buying greenland, does that fit?
There was some tension there, but the main tension was, well,
should forgetting about whether we should have we have more
in common with Israel as a project. Why are we
funding any war there whatsoever? Why are we on the hook?
And isn't it going to discredit? This is one point
(16:57):
Mills made. Young people are learning that all of our
movement does is cut taxes and give money in.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
For foreign wars.
Speaker 5 (17:03):
That he was saying, this could all fall apart the
way the neocnservative fell apart if we don't fix this.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Yeah. Well, there's a lot of parallels there.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I mean, if you just described the agenda that way,
that is the Bush administration agenda. Let me just play
this one clip of Kurt Mills, because I thought I
was interested. He's an American conservative executive director. Also talking
about the hypocrisy around speech issues. Remember Jane Vance went
to Europe and lectured them about free speech. Continue to
hear these lecturers about European speech policies, and yet of
(17:30):
course there's been a major attack on free speech here,
especially when it comes to Israel Palestine. This is c
three guys, let's go and play this.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
On the home front.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
This dynamic is dementing. One could be forgiven for believing
the only people this administration is reliably deporting are supporters
of the Palestinian cause. After writing back into power on
the appeal of free speech enshrined in the first Amendment
of this country's constitution, If conserving that isn't conservatism, I
don't know what is. This administration has used this influence
(18:02):
to attempt and curb and intimidate speech on Middle East issues, particularly.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
The State Department.
Speaker 6 (18:08):
After assembling and potentially generationally realigning cohort of voters disgusted
with woke pieties and the suffocation of dialogue with incessant
accusations of racism, Republicans have all too eagerly embraced holding
the whip themselves, accusing countless on bigoting critics as anti
Semites instead of engaging on the issue.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
So Dave ho was this message received in the room in.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
That room very well. This is a room again, A
lot of people pack this room. Not everything the conference
was this crowded. There are people standing along the walls
and younger You could kind of tell if you were
doing a quick mitochondrial survey of the room. Younger people
in the room were laughing a lot more at his lines, the.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Sort of things going for that might have come at
this conference.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
But even if they agreed with Abrams, this idea that
we are giving up our sovereignty, if we're saying that
we always have Israel's back, even if they're even if
they're pursuing war aims that are not defensive. This is
I think where a lot of the space is opened
up for not just people like Mills, but critics of
Israel in the United States among the Democrats. Is not
the we want Israel to go away, we want me
(19:19):
to replace. But do they really need this? It feels
like they're safe. And who's talked about this the Munich
effect where people don't think see Israel as under assault.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
They oh, that's the country where.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
If you commit any crime against it, they're going to
hunt you to the end of the earth and then
bomb you. Why do they need our money. But what
he was saying that it was worrying to some people
in that room. And I talked to some more pro
Israel attendees who they organize on college campuses, and ninety
five percent of what they're saying lands. And then someone
in the crowd says, I don't want to die for
Israel or why should I be dying for Israel. That's
(19:50):
what Mills is talking about, is that those people who
came into the coalition, the younger men who are interested
in a lot of what Trump is doing, might get
off on that. And certainly some of the the influential
Rogan types, we're not attitudinally conservative. That has been a
breaking point for them as Wait a second, because we're
not allowed to preticize this country. Why did this guy
get deported? What he's talking about, he's trying to say,
(20:13):
lop that off because you have the potential to completely
re align the country. Now comes disagreed, say no, you
could re align the country while this is happening. But
they haven't figured No one has figured out the answer
on this question. To me, that's a pretty healthy movement.
This is unlike Democrats who bracket the conversation don't want
to talk about Israel at all in the twenty twenty
four election. Yeah, and are now splintered in fighting over it.
(20:35):
This I think was happening too, was we have the
space and the power to say, let's air this out
and figure this out before we start losing elections over it,
or we start going on campuses and getting yelled at
because of our positions.
Speaker 7 (20:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Interesting, And then contrast that with Schumer, Jeffreys, etc. Who
won't even endorse Zoron. I mean they won't say exactly why,
but certainly Israel is a part of thout calculus there
why they find it's so abhorrent. Where's the guy who
won the Democratic nomination by twelve points, Dave. Great to
have you, Thank you so much, as always for your insights.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
We've got a number of significant developments we are tracking
with regard to Israel and Gaza, and we are joined
this morning, fortunately by Jeremy ska Hill, of course, co
founder of drop site News, alongside our own Ryan Grim.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
Great to see Jeremy, Good to see you man, Good
to be with you, guys.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I wanted to start with these very nascent reports we're
getting of some type of an explosion in Doha. There's
some speculation it could have been at the Hamas offices there. So, Jeremy,
what can we say about the possibility of what's going.
Speaker 8 (21:36):
On here well without speculating on the particulars of it,
because at this point we don't know anything factually other
than there's reports of an explosion. Israel has made clear
for decades that it's willing to assassinate Palestinian political figures,
resistance leaders, et cetera.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
But in recent.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
Weeks, the chief of staff of the Israeli Army said
explicitly that if Hamas does not surrender, it's not only
going to obliterate and annihilate all of Gaza, but that
it is going to target for assassination Hamas leaders abroad. Now,
of course, most of the Hamas figures that are trying
(22:16):
to negotiate these ceasefire deals and are essentially running the
organization politically, are outside of Gaza, and you know many
of them are in Doha, in Qatar, and of course
Israel last summer assassinated the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Hania,
(22:36):
in a strike in Tehran, Iran. It also assassinated recently
or it's also assassinated much of the on the ground
leadership of the Kassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas,
as well as the political leader in Gaza of Hamas,
Yahya Sinhwar. So Israel has a long history of assassinating
(22:57):
Palestinian political figures. Many years ago, there was an incredible
story that happened where Khaled Mishal, one of the leaders
of Hamas, was in Jordan in the Middle East and
Israeli Mossad agents poisoned him and it caused a huge
diplomatic uproar between Jordan and Israel, and essentially a Masad
(23:20):
agent had to fly on a plane with the antidote
for this poison to resuscitate Khalin Mischal. So, you know,
something out of a movie, but that actually happened. So,
you know, we should be watching this very carefully because
Donald Trump is, you know, put forward this vague ceasefire
proposal that we're going to talk about, and it seems
like anytime there's the possibility of some form of negotiation,
(23:42):
the Israelis not only escalate on the ground in Gaza,
but then increase their threats like we're seeing now to
potentially assassinate external leadership of Hamas.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Right, I mean, Jeremy, we were talking a bit before
the break. But it's very important to note, you know,
there are hundreds of thousands of Americans present in Doha,
not to mention all of the truth that are there,
and it is of course been away station for a
lot of the diplomatic talks between the United States, between
the World, Hamas and Israel, and so of course it
would be sending a message just as previous Israel assassinations
(24:13):
like in Tehran and elsewhere did. We did want originally
to talk to you about this ceasefire proposal. We can
go ahead and put it up here on the screen
just so you can give us some insight. It's one
hundred word ceasefire proposal from Trump to Hamas. Can you
break it down for us the level of seriousness and
what exactly it means?
Speaker 8 (24:32):
Well, I think I think first it's important to look
at the broader context here. Right right now, Israel is
in the midst of a sort of final solution operation
in Gaza City where they're just systematically targeting these massive
high rise buildings where some of them have one hundred
or more apartments in them, and they Yahu said last
night that all of the residents, we're talking about a
(24:54):
million people of Gaza City need to leave immediately or
they're going to consider them hamas combatant. So that's the
backdrop of what's happening right now, is this intensification by Israel.
Hamas three weeks ago, on August eighteenth, actually accepted what
Katari mediators said was ninety eight percent of the terms
of what was called the Whitcoff framework. This was the
(25:16):
deal that's being negotiated for months that would have been
a sixty day ceasefire where half of the Israeli living
captives and half of the deceased captives would have been
released in exchange for a large number of Palestinians held
by Israel. And Hamas made massive concessions and agreed to
this framework, and then Israel never responded to it. And
what happened is that the Trump administration and the Israeli
(25:38):
government said, oh, no, we don't want that deal anymore.
Speaker 9 (25:41):
We want now an all in deal.
Speaker 8 (25:43):
Where Hamas immediately releases all Israeli captives.
Speaker 9 (25:47):
Living in dead.
Speaker 8 (25:48):
And so what we obtained was a one hundred word
summary of what Donald Trump has communicated to Hamas, and
what it basically says is that within forty eight hours
of signing an agreement, would need to release every single
Israeli that it's holding captive, and that a certain number
of Palestinians. It doesn't specify how many, some of whom
(26:08):
are serving life sentences others who were snatched from Gaza
after October seventh, would be released. It says that there
would be a sixty day ceasefire and that Donald Trump
would take responsibility for ensuring that the ceasefire held while
negotiations to formally end the war took place. What it
also says is that there would need to be a
(26:29):
new government installed in Gaza in order to even discuss
Israeli true withdrawals. It does say that there will be
aid allowed into Gaza, but it doesn't specify how much aid,
who would distribute the aid. So, you know, talking privately
to officials from Hamas, they have compared this essentially to
a surrender document. They suspect that it was written by Israel.
(26:50):
The Arabic where the document was presented in Arabic was
clumsy Arabic, strange word choices, so Hamas is speculating that
it was written by Israel, and we know that that
has happened in the past with you proposals. But then
Amir Sadal, one of the top propagandists for Netan Yahoo
on Israeli public television, he himself came out and said
(27:10):
that this is an Israeli proposal wrapped in fancy American cellophane,
and he you know.
Speaker 9 (27:18):
So he said the quiet part out loud.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
So what I think we're seeing here is, you know, Trump,
I think genuinely wants to wrap this up, so to speak,
but he wants to do it on Israel's terms. So
essentially what they're doing is saying, listen, accept this surrender
order from Israel, and I'll see if I can do
something about maybe ending the genocide. And there's no guarantees
that Israel wouldn't just get its captives back and then
(27:40):
continue with the war of annihilation. So I think it's
extremely unlikely, if not flat out impossible, that Hamas would
agree to such a jeremy.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
While yeah talking, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We have an update from Barack Revied tweeted from senior
Israeli officials. Quote, the explosion in Doha is an assassination
operation against senior Hamas officials, So it would appear to
be confirmation of what you and others suspected was going
on there.
Speaker 8 (28:06):
Yeah, and again, I mean there was a very long
history of Israel assassinating Palestinian political figures, not just within
the borders of historic Palestine, but externally. And again, Israel
openly has said in recent days that if Hamas doesn't
surrender and demilitarize and give up its arms and release
(28:27):
the Israeli captives, that it was going to begin targeting
the external leadership of Hamas. And remember this presumably would
mean that they are also attempting to assassinate the very
people who would be negotiating a ceasefire. And Donald Trump
just days ago submitted what he said as a new
proposal for a ceasefire. So doing that and then turning
(28:49):
around and assassinating the negotiators while they're deliberating a proposal
from the president of the United States sends a message
that the US is backing Israel in just constantly choosing
to murder Palestinians instead of using diplomatic roads, when the
Palestinians have said repeatedly they're open to an agreement either
in phases to release half the Israeli captives within sixty
(29:12):
days and the other half once the Seaspires negotiated or
to do an all for all deal. And again Hamas
made major concessions, and I think it's worth pointing out
among the concessions they made was allowing the Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation to continue operating despite the fact that upwards of
two thousand Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May.
When they started, they backed off of their demand that
(29:33):
there'll be a clear timeline for withdrawal of Israeli forces
from the strategic Philadelphi Corridor. They reduced the number of
Palestinians that they were demanding be freed in return for
Israeli captives, and they also agreed to allow an Israeli
enforced buffer zone to encircle the entirety of the Gaza Strip,
at some points piercing one five hundred meters inside of Gaza,
(29:56):
and Israel and the United States never formally responded to
that offer. You know this, if this is true, then
what they're doing beyond the fact that they're conducting assassinations
on Katari soil, which also houses US sent Come, which
also is the lead mediator in these talks. They are
killing the very people that Donald Trump just sent an
(30:18):
offer to to try to reach a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Wow, Jeremy, is maybe a dumb question, but it's pretty
clear that Hamas or sor that Israel and the US
are just seeking unconditional surrender. The terms that you just
laid out effectively, I mean, would not only lead to
a quote unquote new government, but is really continued occupation
control of this so called buffer zone. What exactly does
(30:43):
Hamas see as the difference between that already you know,
pretty extraordinary concessions considering what they started out with as
opposed to unconditional surrender, Like why don't they just take
the unconditional surrender if they're effectively signing their own demise
and their own control anyways.
Speaker 9 (30:59):
Well, two things.
Speaker 8 (31:00):
One is, and Hamas leaders have said this to me privately,
they don't want to be in control of Gaza anymore.
You know, this is an albatross around the neck of
Hamas and it has been for many, many years. So
you know, they've said quite clearly they're willing to relinquish control.
The issue though, is that it's while we say Hamas,
it's not just Hamas. There are many Palestinian political groups,
(31:20):
including those opposed to Hamas or that are not allied
with Hamas, including those that have no armed factions but
are political parties that stand for elections, that also have
been part of these negotiations, And what they all have
said is that our right to bear arms in opposition
to an illegal occupation by a colonial apartheid state is
a legitimate right. And so while HAMAS could say, okay,
(31:43):
we step down from power, We're not going to exist
anymore in this format. They're not going to sign a
document that says we agree to demilitarize the Gaza Strip.
In fact, they've said we don't have the right to
do that. That that is a question for the Palestinian people,
and consistently in public opinions, Palestinians support the right to
armed resistance. I think, at the end of the day,
(32:04):
the direct answer to your question is that they view
that not as a surrender of Hamas as a political
entity or a movement, but that it would be them
taking the outrageous action of surrendering the Palestinian cause of liberation,
and whatever anyone thinks of HAMAS, I think that's a
true statement, given that Hamas is used as kind of
the catch all to describe Palestinian armed resistance right now.
(32:27):
The fact is that the struggle, the armed struggle, far
predates Hamas, And if Hamas surrenders itself and dismantles and
no longer exists, another group of Palestinians are going to
rise up under the same type of banner, with the
same aim to repel Israel's occupation and liberate Palestine by
any means necessary, including armed force. So you know, you
(32:49):
have to look at this not in the context of
October seventh, but in the context of seventy six years
of history, and I think that genuinely is how the
Hamas negotiators view this.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Jermy last question I have for you is do you
find it plausible that Israel could have gone forward with
this assassination operation without at least in some way having
been greenland by the US.
Speaker 8 (33:07):
You know, there were some reports that Donald Trump had
relayed to Hamas that that was an option on the table.
When I spoke to Hamas leaders over the past several days,
none of them said that that was true. They didn't
exactly say that it was false, but they said not
that I know of, not according to my information, it
(33:28):
would it would surprise me if there wasn't some form
of consultation with Donald Trump. And look, the guy, the
guy just greenlit this strike on the boat off of Venezuela. Right,
there's still questions about who the people were that they killed.
He green lit an assassination of Custom Solimani in his
first term, bombing him in a third country in Baghdad, Iraq.
Speaker 9 (33:46):
So you know, do I know that Donald Trump was
aware of this? No? Do I suspect it?
Speaker 1 (33:51):
Yes, me, Jeremy, as you laid out sent com, is
there nothing's flying in the airspace over there without us?
You know, at least my own personal speculation in just
in terms of pure deconfliction. Right for making sure that
you know US assets don't get confused. This is still
an extraordinary message. That's actually my last question. How is
(34:15):
the Gulf going to handle this? So, if you are
the UAE, if you're Saudi Arabia, and I know they
have complicated relations themselves with Katar obviously, but I mean
for them, the answer has to be you can house
US troops, you can buy hundreds of billions of dollars
in US arms, and you still may see basically, you know,
(34:36):
explosions and attacks by US ally on your soil. I mean,
doesn't it undermine a lot of their own security doctrine.
Speaker 8 (34:43):
I mean, first of all, you know, many Palestinians see
the United Arab Emirates as basically now a self declared
suburb of Israel. You know, it was the lead figure
in the Abraham Accords, but also is you know, constantly
taking Israel's side. But if you look at Katar, this
is a you know, a different equation. I mean, you
mentioned Sentcom being there, but you know, Trump also has
(35:05):
these huge business deals going on, not just you know,
officially in his capacity as president and getting his airplane
and all those things, but also his family businesses. So
there's you know, there's deep ties there. The cold, hard
fact at the end of the day is that what
the US and Israel have shown is that Israel can
do whatever it wants in that region and not a
single Arab country, particularly those in the in the Gulf,
(35:27):
are going to do a thing about it. So, you know,
Israel doesn't need these normalization agreements anymore. Israel has shown
that it can do whatever it wants, It can strike
wherever it wants, and not a single one of these
decrepit regimes are going to do a thing about it.
Speaker 9 (35:42):
And that's the cold fact at the end of the day.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Yeah, I think that's well said, Jeremy. Thank you so much.
Great to have your insights as always.
Speaker 9 (35:50):
Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
So some very interesting pulling results that we wanted to
dig into about gen Z and the gender divide and
the partisan divide in that particular generation. This comes courtesy
of NBC News, as tweeted out by Steve Krnaking. Put
this first one up on the screen. So the question
is how do you define success? What is your personal
(36:14):
definition of success? Which things here on this list are
most important that personal definition of success. So for gen
Z men who voted for Trump, number one is having children.
For gen Z women who voted for Harris, the very
bottom of the list is having children. Similarly, being married
(36:35):
comes in quite high. For gen Z men who voted
for Trump, twenty nine percent say that's important to their
personal definition of success. Gen Z women, being married is
at the bottom with children at just six percent. Let
me go through a few more of these because it's
interesting to just keep this up on the screen, so
you know, for both fulfilling job and career pretty close
(36:57):
to the top, like pretty important for gen Z men.
Financial independence, having money to do things you want, owning
your own home also, you know, pretty significant there, and
being grounded spiritually, making family community proud. Lower on the
list for gen Z men is having emotional stability, interesting
(37:18):
able to retire early, and using talents and resources to
help others. Those ones were more important in particularly the
using talents and resources to help others and having emotional
stability for gen Z women who vote for Harris. We
can go to the next one as well, which shows
the women who voted for Trump. Also for them, you know,
(37:38):
having children is not at the top of the list,
is kind of in the middle, and being married is
towards the bottom. So again, even among those who voted
for Trump, you see different views between men and women
on what their definition personal definition of success is. And
for men who vote for Harris, their list looks a
bit more like the women who voted for Harris, with
(38:00):
being married and having children more towards the bottom of
the list. So there's a lot that you could, you know,
pull out of the differences here. But what was kind
of your top line takeaway of what the significance is here.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Congratulations to Sheryl Sandberg, total lean in victory. You want.
Neoliberalism has officially won, and I think that the results
are disastrous. And look, you know, people can do what
they want to do. That's the point of the country.
I think, though, This really is downstream to me of
a lot of policy and also of culture and the
(38:33):
culture over the last fifteen years, particularly my generation, and
so you know, I guess gen Z as well, who've
been really inculcated in this, even more so than people
like me has been. If you work hard, you can
get what you want. You could do whatever you want
to do. And this is really driven by influencer culture
as well. You know, there's even a term for it,
(38:53):
like little treat culture, where people, because the big things
in life are so unaffordable, are constantly chasing little luxuries
like nice bags or a watch or any of this
other stuff. And there's nothing wrong with any of that
as long as you have your bigger basis covered. But
the bigger bases are so unattainable that they don't even
look or desire, or even consider as important any of
(39:16):
those things, and so they really focus a lot of
their stuff on hyper consumerism, travel, instagramification, et cetera. And
so yeah, I mean without even making it like a
political point, because I do think it's important to say.
You know, even gen Z women who voted for Trump,
having children is down there at the bottom. Being married
is only like twenty percent. Number one is still financial
independence and fulfilling job career. All I can think is, yeah,
(39:40):
it's just like total neo lib economic utility victory. And
I don't think it's how it should be, you know,
I don't. Again, I'm not gonna tell people how to live.
There's a lot of data. Basically it says if you
get married and have children, you're gonna be happier, are
going to live longer, You as an economic and family
unit are actually going to be more successful. You're gonna
make more money, You're gonna have a lot more fulfillment
throughout your life. Generally, that's what all of the data
(40:03):
tells us. But the kind of hyper individualism that we
have chased with consumerism as a society has driven us here.
I blame culture, but I really blame the economy as well,
because these are the things that are rewarded. Our debt
structures and we're turning into Japan. We're turning into Japan
where everyone is an individual worker. You know, having children
(40:24):
or being married is just very low on the totem pole.
A lot of women there, because of the hyper patriarchical society,
have no desire to be in a relationship because if
they are, they'll just be told to stay at home.
So they just don't get married. They don't want to
have children. They view it much more as a burden,
and that's how you end up a replacement rate of
one point two percent and stagnant growth, even though you're
one of the greatest, you know, civilizations in the history
(40:45):
of the world. So it's really sad to me, actually,
but there's a lot of people to blame for it.
I wish you were to turn around.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
I want to I want to temper your sadness a bit,
because I will say the way this is phrased, like,
is this important to your personal definition of six sess Right? Obviously,
I'm a mom three kids. They're the most important thing
in my life. If you were to ask me if,
like just the act of having kids is my definition
of quote unquote success, I'd say.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
No, right, having kids?
Speaker 2 (41:14):
That are you know, having my kids like happy and
thrive and doing well in the world, pursuing the things
that I consider it core to my personal definition of success.
That's not a choice on this list though, Like anyone
can get knocked up.
Speaker 3 (41:29):
It's not like, you know.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Congratulations, you're so successful if you do, and so I don't.
To me, is actually kind of weird to put having
kids as like your personal definition of success, like something
you have to accomplish. Now, maybe it's I don't know,
maybe the lens from a male perspective is a little different,
because having kids from a male perspective kind of entails like, Okay,
(41:53):
then I've got the marriage, I've got the you know,
financial stability to be able.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
To pull this off, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
So I saw to feel like just that gender distinction
is coming through here too in the way that this
is phrased. So i'd say that, I mean, listen, we've
covered before there's certainly a big part of like political
divide in the values and views of gen Z men
versus women, and comes through even more when you talk
(42:20):
about gen Z men who voted for Trump versus gen
Z women who voted for Harris. But I also feel
like some of that may be a bit overstated because
we're seeing you know, if you look across the generation,
you see a lot of commonalities in values, for example,
with regard to how they view Israel. You know, you
see a lot of commonalities with regard to it's just
(42:41):
kind of broad frustration discussed with the political system overall.
You've seen there was there was a lot of triumphalism
from the from you know, from the Trump world and
from the right about the number of gen z Men
who voted for Trump. Those are some of the groups
that have shifted the most dramatically away from him, and
you know where his approval rating has fallen the most dramatically,
(43:03):
off a cliff. So I feel like a lot of this, honestly,
is still kind of shaking out with this generation as
they're more searching for anything that is anyone who's going
to deliver for them, anything that's going to make sense,
anything that's going to shake up a status quo that
is truly truly stacked against them in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
That's a great point. And look, a lot of us
could be young bias too. I mean, if I'm being honest,
you know, when I was twenty two, when you asked
me what my definition of success was, it definitely would
not be you know, children, wouldn't have thing kids. Yeah,
I would be totally transparent.
Speaker 9 (43:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
It took a while to kind of get there, so
that's definitely part of it. I do think, I think broadly,
I still just see the forces of the economy behind
all of this, because it's like you said, you know,
if the ultimate, highest and best consideration of success is
having children, the vision that the vision that you have
in your world with that is like owning a home
(43:54):
and having a stable job, and like everything that confers
kind of with that, which is probably why that is
out there. And it also fits with what I know
a lot of these guys are watching, you know, on
social media and the hustle culture, you know, Alex Hormosey
and all of this, which I don't even think there's
necessarily anything bad with all of that. It's just a
(44:15):
lot of the downstream stuff that is supposed to support
you does not exist, and so that's what I spend
a lot of my time really worrying about. I do
actually think this is more of an interesting question for
millennials because once you're my age, in your thirties, these
become very urgent questions actually about children, about getting married,
(44:36):
and much more. I would be curious to see this
poll for millennial men who voted for Trump versus millennial
women and others, because you know, millennial women, at this point,
you're like twenty nine to thirty five, Like you're well
established into your career.
Speaker 4 (44:50):
It's like, is it work?
Speaker 1 (44:50):
It?
Speaker 4 (44:51):
Did it get what you want?
Speaker 1 (44:52):
You want? Like you can theoretically say you could achieve
a total amount of success when you're twenty twenty. When
I'm twenty two, If you'd ask me where I am
right now, I'd be like, oh my god, I made it.
Like it's done. You know, it's like everything you could
have possibly envisioned and wanted. Is that the most important
thing in your life? No, obviously I'm married now a child, right,
and so your priorities kind of become much more in view.
(45:15):
So I would be curious to see how this shakes.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
Out in a millennial view.
Speaker 3 (45:17):
Yeah, and now.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
That I'm talking to you, I don't know if it's
pulling a twenty two year old. Is there is the
right way? They literally your brains aren't even developed.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
True?
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Is an interesting snapchat though I mean I also would say,
like the language here it says fulfilling job or career.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
We're very lucky because we have that right.
Speaker 2 (45:33):
And I think the reality is in the system we
live in, you do spend most of your life at
your job. So for people to say, you know, that
is important in terms of my view of success. I
don't think that's so crazy because that is the structure
of society. I mean that kind of dovetails with your
point of like this is downstream of policy and the
economic structure that we have. Another piece, and this is
maybe a little bit more tangential, but it's been something
(45:55):
I'm thinking about with regard to you know, women who
not only have having children at the bottom of the list,
also have being married at the bottom of the list.
You have a lot of you have a whole ecosystem
of online influencers set up to tell you basically, like
you know, to treat women poorly and women suck and
don't be their friends and whatever.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
So there's some of.
Speaker 2 (46:15):
That messaging coming from men that's like okay, fine if
you hate me, like I don't need you. There's also
there's also an entire tech economy that is developing these
AI chatbots to convince everyone that they don't need anyone,
that you don't need human relationships. You can be best
friends with chat GPT, or you can be best friends
with GROC, or you can be best friends with you know,
(46:36):
metas ai chatbots, where you can invent them, create them,
and make them whatever you want. They're never going to
criticize you. They're not going to hurt your feelings. They're
never going to like steal your man. You know, They're
just going to be there to make you happy and
you don't need this messy world of human relations So
I think some of that is going on in the
background of all of this as well.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Absolutely, that's well said, and it's important, you know, at
a structural level, I believe if you build it, they
will come. So everything is downstream of availability. If the
house is not available, if the child, you know, if
it's too expensively. I think the average marriage in the
US costs like twenty five thousand dollars right now for
(47:19):
a wedding. I'm pretty sure that's right. I could be wrong.
I haven't looked at the statistics in quite a long time,
but you think about all the associated expert et cetera.
And you're just like, eh, you know, and if that's
going to be so wildly out of reach, then what
is available. It's like, Okay, we'll getting a job. Anyone
can get a job. Anyone can you know, hustle or
do anything, and that becomes more available. And so I
(47:42):
believe that, like the structure of what is available, also
determines the possibility of your imagination. And so that's what
I would like to fix more than anything.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
I think that's true.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
We do have an interesting Harry Enton thought about Trump
and his popularity and where he's losing ground with various groups.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
This is e four. Guys.
Speaker 7 (48:00):
Take a look at this, Look at the aggregat of
poles and look how long Donald Trump's net approval rating
has been negative. It has been every day since March twelfth,
and the average of polls, we're talking about one hundred
and eighty one days in a row in which Donald
Trump has been underwater, swimming with the fishes. There is
no good data for Donald Trump when looking at the
aggregate and looking overall, he has been negative for a
(48:23):
very long period of time. The vast majority of his
second presidens look at this.
Speaker 9 (48:28):
These are all the key issues.
Speaker 7 (48:30):
Donald Trump is underwater on all of them. Trade obviously,
tariffs have been a big thing. At the bottom of
your list minus seventeen points. The economy, which was the reason,
the reason he was elected to his second term to
fix the economy way underwater at minus fourteen points, Foreign
policy minus trump, and then I think mister John Berman
the key to issues at the top, because these have
been Donald Trump's strongest issues, crime and immigration. But get this,
(48:53):
he is now underwater on both of these issues, if barely,
but he's underwater on crime at minus two, immigration at
minus three. On all the key issues, he is again
swimming with the Fisher's consistency across the board. Two key
groups that were so important to getting Donald Trump a
second term, he did so much better than the traditional
Republican among those under the age of thirty and Hispanics.
Look at this in February among those under the age
(49:15):
of thirty, hasn't that approval rating corn of CBS News
plus two points. Look at where we are now negative
thirty points. That's a thirty two point move in the
wrong direction. And Hispanics, he was six points underwork. Look
at this minus thirty four points that's a twenty.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
Eight point move since February.
Speaker 7 (49:32):
No wonder Donald Trump's in trouble. He's steady across the board,
and since February, when he was least positive, he's only
gotten significantly worse among two very key groups for his
election back last year.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
I mean it, JEZI, Voters really are up for grabs.
The idea that people are just locked in and that's
that for some people. Yeah, there's a good per percentage
of the country for which that is true. But these
were really two of the key swing groups in this election,
and they are not happy with what they're seeing.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
I agree that is the most important look. Elections change.
They change all the time. It's one of the great lessons.
One of the most exciting parts about covering this, and
I try to drill it into people's heads every time
before an election, is just look ninety six to two thousand,
two thousand to two thousand and eight, two thousand and
eight to twenty sixteen, twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four.
(50:17):
Look at those radical changes that can all happen. By
the way, even twenty I think twenty sixteen to twenty
twenty was one of the crazies selections. If you'll remember
Christal when we were looking at some of those South
Texas numbers, I'll never forget it. Sitting at the desk
and looking at Larae. I was like, I've never in
my life could have imagined that, you know, South Texas
latinos or would be flipping fifty points to Donald Trump.
(50:40):
And it happened in three and a half years. Okay,
So this is something that just you know, all politicians
should notice, you should fight because you never know what
actually could happen. And I do think that we are
going to find that out big time in the midterm
elections this time.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Yeah, we will say, all right, guys, we're going to
skip Tim Dillan for today. Sager and Emily Will we'll
cover that click tomorrow because we talked too much about
other things as per usual. But thank you guys so
much for watching. Thank you for your support of the show.
If you can become a premium subscriber Breakingpoints dot com.
We take no dark money, guys, there's no dark money
packs funding us. We don't talk to advertisers. We really
(51:17):
do try to keep it as like pure as we
possibly can around here, and you guys enable that so
thank you so much and sober and Emily will see
you guys tomorrow
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 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
So we got a bunch of political topics to dig into,
and our friend Dave Weigel from Semaphore joins us. Now
we've got some new Zoron polling, and you were just
at two very interesting conferences.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So great to see you, Davi.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Y it's good to be all the conferences.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm sure. I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Let's go and put this polling New York Times pulling
on Zoron up on the screen because this is pretty interesting.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
So this is the you know.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
The four way race, which looks you can tell me
if this is wrong, but it looks like this is
going to be the field. Zoron with a commanding lead
forty six percent, Quoma twenty four, Curtis Leewah meeting Eric
Adams fifteen, and then nine percent for Adams. The Trump
administration reportedly was offering Adams the Saudi ambassadorship. He apparently
turned it down. Slee Was says he's in the race. Certainly,
(01:14):
Cuomas says he's in the race. So I think this
is what the field is going to be. They did
test the head to head just Soron versus Cuomo, and
Zorn still won, but it was a much It was
like by four points or something like that. Also interesting
if we put this next one up on the screen,
This was kind of fascinating. So they dug into these
different policy areas to see how New Yorkers felt about
(01:35):
these various candidates, and Zoran came out on top in everything.
So the one where he was closest was on crime,
where he just edged out Quoma. I'm sure it's like
a statistical tie there, but commanding lead on affordability, commanding
lead on housing, pretty solid lead on taxes and spending,
and his largest lead actually is on the Israeli Palestinian
(01:59):
conflict worth forty three percent say they think he would
do the best job on that issue. Of course, not
that central to the New York City mayor's race, but
in any case, his opponents tried to make it central
to it. Cuomo is second at sixteen percent, or actually
really second is don't know or did not say, at
twenty one percent. So Dave, what do you make of
these numbers? What sort of jumped out at you as
(02:21):
significant both of them had to head And then also
with the issues.
Speaker 5 (02:25):
Well, Zorn's personal popularity too, that's another piece of data
in this poll. He is more the only candidate who
most voters say they like. It's I think plus thirteen.
Everyone else is underwater. So everyone else is trying to
do the classic multi candidate field thing of dragging him,
dragging him below the water, but dragging themselves. They're dragging
each other below the water too. No one's getting advantage.
(02:47):
Cuomo tried after this about a three weeks ago, Tomo tried,
after reporting on the housing plans, to say that Zoron
was unfairly in a rent stabilized apartment. He'd some say control,
which is different and if Andrew Cuomo's elected, there's going
to be a reckoning with people with rent stabilized departments.
That's the first poll since then that didn't work at all.
(03:08):
That just wasn't affordability argument, that was a revenge argument.
And able yes, And it is remarkable that, knowing we
cover several months, though this is a discourse in the
entire Democratic Party, several months to see that Zoron captured
the affordability message. Are they competing on that, No, they're
very distracted by other issues, And even on the crime issue.
Zorn's been saying, for I'm not trying to raise campaign
(03:29):
brochure form, but since he got in the race he
renounced to fund the police. His answers on policing are
not I'm going to stop them from arresting anybody. Nobody
can really make that stick because they're still operating like
voters think he has the mindset of twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
No longer does. So you can't polygraph him, but he
no longer does.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Also, crime has come down in New York City, so
it's also potentially not an issue, not as much of
an issue as it was when Eric Adams was getting
elected for example, it was interesting to me too to
see there that Adams is quite poorly on the issue
of crime, even though you know he.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Was a police officer.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
He ran on that that was sort of like his
bread and butter, and crime has actually come down under
his tenure, and yet Zorin has much high approval day there.
The other one that is just fascinating to me is
the Israeli Palestinian conflict number.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And that was an issue.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You know, Zoran was not trying to make that central
to his campaign, but Cuomo and others in the Democratic
primary were really trying to tag him with this label
of oh, he's an anti semi and he just hates
Jewish people and he hates Israel. Won't even travel to
commit to traveling to Israel, he won't say that Israel's
has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
And you know, I.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Think it's pretty clear not only did that argument fail,
but it actually redounded to his benefit ultimately. You know,
for people care about that issue, he is receiving the
lion's share of the vote. And it also made them
look like they were focused on these other superfluous issues
while he was focused on affordability and issues that were
core to New Yorkers.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
Yeah, and you said there's an intensity gap. So the
voters who care most about this are not the Upper
East Side, the voters that everyone thought they were going after.
We're a little bit outdated. At the Democrats had a
view of the electorate that was very frozen in the
eighties in views of how Jewish voters think of Israel,
and they did not factor in two years of the
(05:10):
demolition of Israel image even with Jewish Americans, especially in
New York.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
And there's a dismissal you.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Find in the pro Israel political community of younger groups
that are on campus active or in public active, the
BDS movement, the Jewish members of that movement, but there
are a lot of them in New York, and so
Zorn has that entire vote. The pro Israel vote is
divided between other candidates. But you're right, this was not
the issue of the race. The other candidates thought they
(05:36):
would get that intensity gat they would get most Jewish voters,
that would be a block that would help Quomo over
the line. There are communities where that happened for Cuomo,
less so for Adams. Adams is literally running on the
stop anti semitism ballot line. What about LIESI got they
overrated how much of an issue this was. It does
sound like something they're here a lot from highly high
(05:57):
powered from donors, from high power Democrats, from people who
are worried in the Hampton's a real thing that the
time is running about, and that has just not been
the main intensity. Are there going to be voters who
get a mayor's oorn and are disappointed that he's few
doing that?
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Yaho were something? Possibly it's not their top issue.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
For everyone who does want a major figure in the
Democratic Party in their city to support in arms, embargo,
support changing Israel so that it's a secular state, as
Zorn does, it's the most exciting candidate of their lifetime.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
So of course they're intense about it.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, and I'm sure you saw Kirsten jill Brand saying
I think it was like a donor event that nine
of ten Democrats support Israel and is like, you need
to take a look at literally any poll. Yeah, to
you adjust your views of where this issue is. That's
a whole other sidetrack. We'll push that one to the
side from because I want to get to your coverage
of We'll talk about the Abundance conference and begin with
put C one up on the screen here. So what
(06:51):
were some of the things that they were grappling with?
And I know you were telling me before we started that. Actually,
Zorin was very sort of present at this conference in
terms of a subject feeds in how to deal with him,
because during the primary he really kind of extended Alli Brandon.
He embraces a lot of abundance style policies and you know,
sort of talk the talk, but they certainly don't see
(07:12):
him as being one of them.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
No, when I talked to Zoron before the primary, that
was one thing he emphasized. His vision, and the whole
campaign's vision is have a socialist mayor of New York
who makes the rest of the country say oh, this
could work for me in every respect, and that starts
with housing and affordability. So at the conference, some specific
examples where Raihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute,
and there's an overlap of the Bunnets, but that's not
(07:35):
the face of their movement. Somebody let in their room
he said, look, I'm my family of Bangladeshi immigrants. When
Zoron says, afford to live, afford to dream. That's thrilling
to us. That's the story that a lot of our
parents had where they could buy a house and the
kids could live in one of the extra rooms. Their
kids can't afford a house. That was motivating for us,
and he captured it nobody else did. There was a
(07:56):
session on polling and data and it covered that, yes,
affordability is the most powerful message in politics, that the
top priority for voters, I should say, And there was
a slide showing zoron and that slogan on one half
of the slide. The other half was Trump at McDonald's
saying that there are ways to be populist and capture
this affordability message, and those guys are pretty good at it.
(08:19):
And we in the Abundance Movement do not have the branding,
the power. We have reach, and we have a lot
of meetings and a lot of groups that are signing
up on our MBI agenda, but that we've not figured
out a populous way to sell this the way Zorn has,
or to a lesser extent, Donald Trump has.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Can you talk a little bit more about the like,
where did this abundance movement come from? Because I think
For a lot of people, the perception was, you know,
Derek Thompson as reclined write this book, and then suddenly
we've got abundance conferences and we've got abundance think tanks
and this is whole thing, like where did this come from?
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Yeah, they are key players in this, Thompson and Climber
writing up in twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three. At
the same time, there was a movement of liberals in
cities who wanted to build more and this came from
frustration really accelerating the Biden years. Biden's president. Money is
being shoveled out with the states. But you are a
legislator in California or in New York or even in Colorado,
(09:10):
and it's taking forever for you to build something. Because
there's a joke, there's a line they'd like to say
that there's no democratic Republican way to build a pothole. Well,
there is a democratic way to fill a pothole. I
should say it is to have a six month equity
study and make sure that the pothole filling company is
the minority owned, et cetera. So they were grappling, Okay,
this our Democratic party has no trade off agenda at all.
(09:33):
It just says everything to everybody. It takes every to build.
Biden presidency ends with so much money being clawed back
by Trump because they didn't spend it. So they're trying
to solve that national problem. But these two ideas sort
of come together with a lot of help from donors
with there are Silicon Valley donors, not just there, but
some of the people like John Arnold starts at Enron,
(09:55):
but now he's a bigger libertarian liberal philanthropist, and there
are a lot of people say, well, we don't want
the left to take over the Democratic Party. We do
like the idea where there are Democrats who want to
build things and spend things and deregulate. And this is
actually happening in some states. California. Scott Wiener, who's in
that slide in that picture, very progressive state senator, wants
(10:15):
to replace Pelosi when she retires, has a pretty good chance,
and he leads he's one of the leaders to scale
back the environmental law that was past the nineteen seventies
because every California's had experience with homeowners associations or energy
companies or just an angry boomer somewhere saying no, you
can't build that six unit apartment building on this vacant
(10:35):
lot because it'll block the view from my bungalow. So
it's a very local movement. Ezra, who's from California, is
big into this, and columnists and reporters talked to politicians,
talk to donors. It's not fully organic, but it was
just a couple of different ideas about the Democratic Party's
problems being i'd say elucidated the most I guess book
(11:01):
selling way by these two guys, and that's now the
brand of the movement. But they didn't fully start it.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Well and talk a little bit more about who's in
the movement, because you have liberals like Ezra and Derek,
and then you have these more libertarians. I mean at
its core, like this is an oversimplification, but a lot
of it is just kind of like deregulation, you know,
which obviously little libertarians have long loved. So are there
tensions in the movement between these various factions of how
(11:27):
to proceed?
Speaker 5 (11:28):
There are some so and the conference you can go
their website that donors include Stand Together, which is the
Coke organization specific Legal Foundation, which is a libertarian legal group.
They do have some different some differences. One of them,
I'll I draw a little bit in the article is
that what is where does immigration immigration fit into this?
Is there progressives who and libertarians who are very open
(11:50):
minded an immigration get as many people in the If
you need asylum, you can move to my city. If
you have high skills, even better. We need to streamline
the system. But there is a political worry from the
more democratic electability focus abundance people that if Democrats are
seen as the party that has no restrictions in immigration,
then the homeowner who says I want to vote for
(12:11):
the party that's going to make easier to fund to
build a home, to buy a home, is going to say, well,
that party is going to give everything away to these
new arrivals. I'm going to vote for the Republicans who
say that they're going to do mass breed deportation and
I can have a cheaper housing, cheaper goods for that reason.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
So that was one conflict.
Speaker 5 (12:27):
It was actually between the libertarians and the more progresses
on one side and the more electorally minded.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Liberals on another side.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
There are different views of what abundance means. Does it
mean those restrictions to make it necessary. Does it mean
just a deregulation where there are few trade offs. Part
of the conference was about debating this, and I was
at NATCON, the National Conservatives Conference too. They free themselves
against that. They said, well, we're having our fights. But
(12:54):
on the other side is the Trump administration that believes
in scarcity, that believes in deportation.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
We're not doing that.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
We're saying that we can the population of the country
could grow steadily, We could have more, we could have
big families. And they don't have an answer for them.
They want them to live on the AI generated farm
with the drad wife. You want them to live in
a single stare unit and maybe buy a bigger house
when they're older because we freed up the housing market.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
We've made it legal to build things.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
So it's a very optimistic movement, but also very aware
of all these political cross currents that may be hard
to win.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Let's talk a little bit about that National Conservative National
Conservatism Conference, right, and you know what it's called. Okay,
let's put this up on the screen. This is c
two guys, and you say nationalists consolidate the US right
with one small crack, and I'm sure it was interesting
to go, you know, back to back to these two
conferences because with the abundance people, you've got a group
(13:44):
of people who are like totally out of power in
terms of the federal conversation with the nationalists. They've got
their guy in the White House, and they've got Stephen Miller,
and they've got you know, a whole administration, and they
had time in the off season to like put together
what their policy plan was. They're steamrolling through the Supreme
word Zager and I covered that earlier. So, you know,
how are they feeling about how all of this is going.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
They're feeling great, you conveyed it.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
They feel that Donald Trump is not going to have
a problem leading this movement for another three years, that
it doesn't have a serious threat to power. The left
is in disarray, which I guess you just dealt with. Yeah,
and then the old right, they're saying the Conservative inc
Is the popular term for it, are discredited, but they're
going to try to take the party back over once
Trump is gone. And there are Bannons who say maybe
(14:28):
he'll never be gone, but most of the movement thing. Yeah,
in twenty twenty eight, when it's a Rubio vance primary.
The crack that was referring to the headline is younger
conservatives who are aligned with this, who agree with the
movement's goals, who agree with deportations. There is a strain
of America first foreign policy thinking that includes let's cut
off all funding to Israel, and even let's not support
(14:49):
the United States backing up Israel because they need our
B two bombers to finish something their army couldn't or
their air force couldn't do.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
So that was the crack.
Speaker 5 (14:57):
And so you're in MAZONI, the leader of the Conference
of Edinburgh Foundation, et cetera. He uses his speech to
say we're winning. However, I had no I was really
in denial about how many young people would have a
problem with Israel and how many of our commentators. He
didn't use the names, but it sounded like he meant
Tucker Carlson, how many of our commentators, how many people
are getting these new audiences and are critical of Israel.
(15:20):
At this point, was never criticized Israel. It was I thought,
after the Ran bombing happened in World War Three, didn't happen,
that would stop, and it didn't. It looks like there's
something very elemental here where people here in nationalism and
they think not just let's have the strongest military in
the world, but let's not be bailing out Ukraine or
Israel or anyone else, viewing them the way that we
view France. Nobody's saying, let's let they need our help
(15:43):
right now. This other nuclear power in Europe needs our
help and needs our military aid. So that was a
fairly hot debate. There was a debate where leaders of
the Heritage Foundation, EUROM, etc. Were listening as the American
Conservative and Max Abrams, I actually say, Kurt Mills, American
Conservative and Max Abrams a scholar in Northeastern we're debating this.
Abraham saying you guys are discredited and there is an
(16:04):
American role in defending Israel, and Mills saying, no, this
is this is going to ruin the entire movement and
we're anti interventionists and this doesn't fit in. So the
final thing I'll say about that is national conservatism. It
is rooted in a lot of politics in Israel in
Europe that are not necessarily the same politics we have here.
Europe has a different experience with mass immigration than we
(16:26):
do it has longer traditions of ethnic hmogeneity in their
countries that are changing.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
They have more of a sort of natural blood and
soil inclination.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
And in America, the country of manifest destiny and expanding
into the frontiers and talking about buying greenland, does that fit?
There was some tension there, but the main tension was, well,
should forgetting about whether we should have we have more
in common with Israel as a project. Why are we
funding any war there whatsoever? Why are we on the hook?
And isn't it going to discredit? This is one point
(16:57):
Mills made. Young people are learning that all of our
movement does is cut taxes and give money in.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
For foreign wars.
Speaker 5 (17:03):
That he was saying, this could all fall apart the
way the neocnservative fell apart if we don't fix this.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Yeah. Well, there's a lot of parallels there.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I mean, if you just described the agenda that way,
that is the Bush administration agenda. Let me just play
this one clip of Kurt Mills, because I thought I
was interested. He's an American conservative executive director. Also talking
about the hypocrisy around speech issues. Remember Jane Vance went
to Europe and lectured them about free speech. Continue to
hear these lecturers about European speech policies, and yet of
(17:30):
course there's been a major attack on free speech here,
especially when it comes to Israel Palestine. This is c
three guys, let's go and play this.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
On the home front.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
This dynamic is dementing. One could be forgiven for believing
the only people this administration is reliably deporting are supporters
of the Palestinian cause. After writing back into power on
the appeal of free speech enshrined in the first Amendment
of this country's constitution, If conserving that isn't conservatism, I
don't know what is. This administration has used this influence
(18:02):
to attempt and curb and intimidate speech on Middle East issues, particularly.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
The State Department.
Speaker 6 (18:08):
After assembling and potentially generationally realigning cohort of voters disgusted
with woke pieties and the suffocation of dialogue with incessant
accusations of racism, Republicans have all too eagerly embraced holding
the whip themselves, accusing countless on bigoting critics as anti
Semites instead of engaging on the issue.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
So Dave ho was this message received in the room in.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
That room very well. This is a room again, A
lot of people pack this room. Not everything the conference
was this crowded. There are people standing along the walls
and younger You could kind of tell if you were
doing a quick mitochondrial survey of the room. Younger people
in the room were laughing a lot more at his lines, the.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Sort of things going for that might have come at
this conference.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
But even if they agreed with Abrams, this idea that
we are giving up our sovereignty, if we're saying that
we always have Israel's back, even if they're even if
they're pursuing war aims that are not defensive. This is
I think where a lot of the space is opened
up for not just people like Mills, but critics of
Israel in the United States among the Democrats. Is not
the we want Israel to go away, we want me
(19:19):
to replace. But do they really need this? It feels
like they're safe. And who's talked about this the Munich
effect where people don't think see Israel as under assault.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
They oh, that's the country where.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
If you commit any crime against it, they're going to
hunt you to the end of the earth and then
bomb you. Why do they need our money. But what
he was saying that it was worrying to some people
in that room. And I talked to some more pro
Israel attendees who they organize on college campuses, and ninety
five percent of what they're saying lands. And then someone
in the crowd says, I don't want to die for
Israel or why should I be dying for Israel. That's
(19:50):
what Mills is talking about, is that those people who
came into the coalition, the younger men who are interested
in a lot of what Trump is doing, might get
off on that. And certainly some of the the influential
Rogan types, we're not attitudinally conservative. That has been a
breaking point for them as Wait a second, because we're
not allowed to preticize this country. Why did this guy
get deported? What he's talking about, he's trying to say,
(20:13):
lop that off because you have the potential to completely
re align the country. Now comes disagreed, say no, you
could re align the country while this is happening. But
they haven't figured No one has figured out the answer
on this question. To me, that's a pretty healthy movement.
This is unlike Democrats who bracket the conversation don't want
to talk about Israel at all in the twenty twenty
four election. Yeah, and are now splintered in fighting over it.
(20:35):
This I think was happening too, was we have the
space and the power to say, let's air this out
and figure this out before we start losing elections over it,
or we start going on campuses and getting yelled at
because of our positions.
Speaker 7 (20:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Interesting, And then contrast that with Schumer, Jeffreys, etc. Who
won't even endorse Zoron. I mean they won't say exactly why,
but certainly Israel is a part of thout calculus there
why they find it's so abhorrent. Where's the guy who
won the Democratic nomination by twelve points, Dave. Great to
have you, Thank you so much, as always for your insights.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
We've got a number of significant developments we are tracking
with regard to Israel and Gaza, and we are joined
this morning, fortunately by Jeremy ska Hill, of course, co
founder of drop site News, alongside our own Ryan Grim.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
Great to see Jeremy, Good to see you man, Good
to be with you, guys.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I wanted to start with these very nascent reports we're
getting of some type of an explosion in Doha. There's
some speculation it could have been at the Hamas offices there. So, Jeremy,
what can we say about the possibility of what's going.
Speaker 8 (21:36):
On here well without speculating on the particulars of it,
because at this point we don't know anything factually other
than there's reports of an explosion. Israel has made clear
for decades that it's willing to assassinate Palestinian political figures,
resistance leaders, et cetera.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
But in recent.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
Weeks, the chief of staff of the Israeli Army said
explicitly that if Hamas does not surrender, it's not only
going to obliterate and annihilate all of Gaza, but that
it is going to target for assassination Hamas leaders abroad. Now,
of course, most of the Hamas figures that are trying
(22:16):
to negotiate these ceasefire deals and are essentially running the
organization politically, are outside of Gaza, and you know many
of them are in Doha, in Qatar, and of course
Israel last summer assassinated the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Hania,
(22:36):
in a strike in Tehran, Iran. It also assassinated recently
or it's also assassinated much of the on the ground
leadership of the Kassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas,
as well as the political leader in Gaza of Hamas,
Yahya Sinhwar. So Israel has a long history of assassinating
(22:57):
Palestinian political figures. Many years ago, there was an incredible
story that happened where Khaled Mishal, one of the leaders
of Hamas, was in Jordan in the Middle East and
Israeli Mossad agents poisoned him and it caused a huge
diplomatic uproar between Jordan and Israel, and essentially a Masad
(23:20):
agent had to fly on a plane with the antidote
for this poison to resuscitate Khalin Mischal. So, you know,
something out of a movie, but that actually happened. So,
you know, we should be watching this very carefully because
Donald Trump is, you know, put forward this vague ceasefire
proposal that we're going to talk about, and it seems
like anytime there's the possibility of some form of negotiation,
(23:42):
the Israelis not only escalate on the ground in Gaza,
but then increase their threats like we're seeing now to
potentially assassinate external leadership of Hamas.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Right, I mean, Jeremy, we were talking a bit before
the break. But it's very important to note, you know,
there are hundreds of thousands of Americans present in Doha,
not to mention all of the truth that are there,
and it is of course been away station for a
lot of the diplomatic talks between the United States, between
the World, Hamas and Israel, and so of course it
would be sending a message just as previous Israel assassinations
(24:13):
like in Tehran and elsewhere did. We did want originally
to talk to you about this ceasefire proposal. We can
go ahead and put it up here on the screen
just so you can give us some insight. It's one
hundred word ceasefire proposal from Trump to Hamas. Can you
break it down for us the level of seriousness and
what exactly it means?
Speaker 8 (24:32):
Well, I think I think first it's important to look
at the broader context here. Right right now, Israel is
in the midst of a sort of final solution operation
in Gaza City where they're just systematically targeting these massive
high rise buildings where some of them have one hundred
or more apartments in them, and they Yahu said last
night that all of the residents, we're talking about a
(24:54):
million people of Gaza City need to leave immediately or
they're going to consider them hamas combatant. So that's the
backdrop of what's happening right now, is this intensification by Israel.
Hamas three weeks ago, on August eighteenth, actually accepted what
Katari mediators said was ninety eight percent of the terms
of what was called the Whitcoff framework. This was the
(25:16):
deal that's being negotiated for months that would have been
a sixty day ceasefire where half of the Israeli living
captives and half of the deceased captives would have been
released in exchange for a large number of Palestinians held
by Israel. And Hamas made massive concessions and agreed to
this framework, and then Israel never responded to it. And
what happened is that the Trump administration and the Israeli
(25:38):
government said, oh, no, we don't want that deal anymore.
Speaker 9 (25:41):
We want now an all in deal.
Speaker 8 (25:43):
Where Hamas immediately releases all Israeli captives.
Speaker 9 (25:47):
Living in dead.
Speaker 8 (25:48):
And so what we obtained was a one hundred word
summary of what Donald Trump has communicated to Hamas, and
what it basically says is that within forty eight hours
of signing an agreement, would need to release every single
Israeli that it's holding captive, and that a certain number
of Palestinians. It doesn't specify how many, some of whom
(26:08):
are serving life sentences others who were snatched from Gaza
after October seventh, would be released. It says that there
would be a sixty day ceasefire and that Donald Trump
would take responsibility for ensuring that the ceasefire held while
negotiations to formally end the war took place. What it
also says is that there would need to be a
(26:29):
new government installed in Gaza in order to even discuss
Israeli true withdrawals. It does say that there will be
aid allowed into Gaza, but it doesn't specify how much aid,
who would distribute the aid. So, you know, talking privately
to officials from Hamas, they have compared this essentially to
a surrender document. They suspect that it was written by Israel.
(26:50):
The Arabic where the document was presented in Arabic was
clumsy Arabic, strange word choices, so Hamas is speculating that
it was written by Israel, and we know that that
has happened in the past with you proposals. But then
Amir Sadal, one of the top propagandists for Netan Yahoo
on Israeli public television, he himself came out and said
(27:10):
that this is an Israeli proposal wrapped in fancy American cellophane,
and he you know.
Speaker 9 (27:18):
So he said the quiet part out loud.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
So what I think we're seeing here is, you know, Trump,
I think genuinely wants to wrap this up, so to speak,
but he wants to do it on Israel's terms. So
essentially what they're doing is saying, listen, accept this surrender
order from Israel, and I'll see if I can do
something about maybe ending the genocide. And there's no guarantees
that Israel wouldn't just get its captives back and then
(27:40):
continue with the war of annihilation. So I think it's
extremely unlikely, if not flat out impossible, that Hamas would
agree to such a jeremy.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
While yeah talking, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We have an update from Barack Revied tweeted from senior
Israeli officials. Quote, the explosion in Doha is an assassination
operation against senior Hamas officials, So it would appear to
be confirmation of what you and others suspected was going
on there.
Speaker 8 (28:06):
Yeah, and again, I mean there was a very long
history of Israel assassinating Palestinian political figures, not just within
the borders of historic Palestine, but externally. And again, Israel
openly has said in recent days that if Hamas doesn't
surrender and demilitarize and give up its arms and release
(28:27):
the Israeli captives, that it was going to begin targeting
the external leadership of Hamas. And remember this presumably would
mean that they are also attempting to assassinate the very
people who would be negotiating a ceasefire. And Donald Trump
just days ago submitted what he said as a new
proposal for a ceasefire. So doing that and then turning
(28:49):
around and assassinating the negotiators while they're deliberating a proposal
from the president of the United States sends a message
that the US is backing Israel in just constantly choosing
to murder Palestinians instead of using diplomatic roads, when the
Palestinians have said repeatedly they're open to an agreement either
in phases to release half the Israeli captives within sixty
(29:12):
days and the other half once the Seaspires negotiated or
to do an all for all deal. And again Hamas
made major concessions, and I think it's worth pointing out
among the concessions they made was allowing the Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation to continue operating despite the fact that upwards of
two thousand Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May.
When they started, they backed off of their demand that
(29:33):
there'll be a clear timeline for withdrawal of Israeli forces
from the strategic Philadelphi Corridor. They reduced the number of
Palestinians that they were demanding be freed in return for
Israeli captives, and they also agreed to allow an Israeli
enforced buffer zone to encircle the entirety of the Gaza Strip,
at some points piercing one five hundred meters inside of Gaza,
(29:56):
and Israel and the United States never formally responded to
that offer. You know this, if this is true, then
what they're doing beyond the fact that they're conducting assassinations
on Katari soil, which also houses US sent Come, which
also is the lead mediator in these talks. They are
killing the very people that Donald Trump just sent an
(30:18):
offer to to try to reach a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Wow, Jeremy, is maybe a dumb question, but it's pretty
clear that Hamas or sor that Israel and the US
are just seeking unconditional surrender. The terms that you just
laid out effectively, I mean, would not only lead to
a quote unquote new government, but is really continued occupation
control of this so called buffer zone. What exactly does
(30:43):
Hamas see as the difference between that already you know,
pretty extraordinary concessions considering what they started out with as
opposed to unconditional surrender, Like why don't they just take
the unconditional surrender if they're effectively signing their own demise
and their own control anyways.
Speaker 9 (30:59):
Well, two things.
Speaker 8 (31:00):
One is, and Hamas leaders have said this to me privately,
they don't want to be in control of Gaza anymore.
You know, this is an albatross around the neck of
Hamas and it has been for many, many years. So
you know, they've said quite clearly they're willing to relinquish control.
The issue though, is that it's while we say Hamas,
it's not just Hamas. There are many Palestinian political groups,
(31:20):
including those opposed to Hamas or that are not allied
with Hamas, including those that have no armed factions but
are political parties that stand for elections, that also have
been part of these negotiations, And what they all have
said is that our right to bear arms in opposition
to an illegal occupation by a colonial apartheid state is
a legitimate right. And so while HAMAS could say, okay,
(31:43):
we step down from power, We're not going to exist
anymore in this format. They're not going to sign a
document that says we agree to demilitarize the Gaza Strip.
In fact, they've said we don't have the right to
do that. That that is a question for the Palestinian people,
and consistently in public opinions, Palestinians support the right to
armed resistance. I think, at the end of the day,
(32:04):
the direct answer to your question is that they view
that not as a surrender of Hamas as a political
entity or a movement, but that it would be them
taking the outrageous action of surrendering the Palestinian cause of liberation,
and whatever anyone thinks of HAMAS, I think that's a
true statement, given that Hamas is used as kind of
the catch all to describe Palestinian armed resistance right now.
(32:27):
The fact is that the struggle, the armed struggle, far
predates Hamas, And if Hamas surrenders itself and dismantles and
no longer exists, another group of Palestinians are going to
rise up under the same type of banner, with the
same aim to repel Israel's occupation and liberate Palestine by
any means necessary, including armed force. So you know, you
(32:49):
have to look at this not in the context of
October seventh, but in the context of seventy six years
of history, and I think that genuinely is how the
Hamas negotiators view this.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Jermy last question I have for you is do you
find it plausible that Israel could have gone forward with
this assassination operation without at least in some way having
been greenland by the US.
Speaker 8 (33:07):
You know, there were some reports that Donald Trump had
relayed to Hamas that that was an option on the table.
When I spoke to Hamas leaders over the past several days,
none of them said that that was true. They didn't
exactly say that it was false, but they said not
that I know of, not according to my information, it
(33:28):
would it would surprise me if there wasn't some form
of consultation with Donald Trump. And look, the guy, the
guy just greenlit this strike on the boat off of Venezuela. Right,
there's still questions about who the people were that they killed.
He green lit an assassination of Custom Solimani in his
first term, bombing him in a third country in Baghdad, Iraq.
Speaker 9 (33:46):
So you know, do I know that Donald Trump was
aware of this? No? Do I suspect it?
Speaker 1 (33:51):
Yes, me, Jeremy, as you laid out sent com, is
there nothing's flying in the airspace over there without us?
You know, at least my own personal speculation in just
in terms of pure deconfliction. Right for making sure that
you know US assets don't get confused. This is still
an extraordinary message. That's actually my last question. How is
(34:15):
the Gulf going to handle this? So, if you are
the UAE, if you're Saudi Arabia, and I know they
have complicated relations themselves with Katar obviously, but I mean
for them, the answer has to be you can house
US troops, you can buy hundreds of billions of dollars
in US arms, and you still may see basically, you know,
(34:36):
explosions and attacks by US ally on your soil. I mean,
doesn't it undermine a lot of their own security doctrine.
Speaker 8 (34:43):
I mean, first of all, you know, many Palestinians see
the United Arab Emirates as basically now a self declared
suburb of Israel. You know, it was the lead figure
in the Abraham Accords, but also is you know, constantly
taking Israel's side. But if you look at Katar, this
is a you know, a different equation. I mean, you
mentioned Sentcom being there, but you know, Trump also has
(35:05):
these huge business deals going on, not just you know,
officially in his capacity as president and getting his airplane
and all those things, but also his family businesses. So
there's you know, there's deep ties there. The cold, hard
fact at the end of the day is that what
the US and Israel have shown is that Israel can
do whatever it wants in that region and not a
single Arab country, particularly those in the in the Gulf,
(35:27):
are going to do a thing about it. So, you know,
Israel doesn't need these normalization agreements anymore. Israel has shown
that it can do whatever it wants, It can strike
wherever it wants, and not a single one of these
decrepit regimes are going to do a thing about it.
Speaker 9 (35:42):
And that's the cold fact at the end of the day.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Yeah, I think that's well said, Jeremy. Thank you so much.
Great to have your insights as always.
Speaker 9 (35:50):
Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
So some very interesting pulling results that we wanted to
dig into about gen Z and the gender divide and
the partisan divide in that particular generation. This comes courtesy
of NBC News, as tweeted out by Steve Krnaking. Put
this first one up on the screen. So the question
is how do you define success? What is your personal
(36:14):
definition of success? Which things here on this list are
most important that personal definition of success. So for gen
Z men who voted for Trump, number one is having children.
For gen Z women who voted for Harris, the very
bottom of the list is having children. Similarly, being married
(36:35):
comes in quite high. For gen Z men who voted
for Trump, twenty nine percent say that's important to their
personal definition of success. Gen Z women, being married is
at the bottom with children at just six percent. Let
me go through a few more of these because it's
interesting to just keep this up on the screen, so
you know, for both fulfilling job and career pretty close
(36:57):
to the top, like pretty important for gen Z men.
Financial independence, having money to do things you want, owning
your own home also, you know, pretty significant there, and
being grounded spiritually, making family community proud. Lower on the
list for gen Z men is having emotional stability, interesting
(37:18):
able to retire early, and using talents and resources to
help others. Those ones were more important in particularly the
using talents and resources to help others and having emotional
stability for gen Z women who vote for Harris. We
can go to the next one as well, which shows
the women who voted for Trump. Also for them, you know,
(37:38):
having children is not at the top of the list,
is kind of in the middle, and being married is
towards the bottom. So again, even among those who voted
for Trump, you see different views between men and women
on what their definition personal definition of success is. And
for men who vote for Harris, their list looks a
bit more like the women who voted for Harris, with
(38:00):
being married and having children more towards the bottom of
the list. So there's a lot that you could, you know,
pull out of the differences here. But what was kind
of your top line takeaway of what the significance is here.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Congratulations to Sheryl Sandberg, total lean in victory. You want.
Neoliberalism has officially won, and I think that the results
are disastrous. And look, you know, people can do what
they want to do. That's the point of the country.
I think, though, This really is downstream to me of
a lot of policy and also of culture and the
(38:33):
culture over the last fifteen years, particularly my generation, and
so you know, I guess gen Z as well, who've
been really inculcated in this, even more so than people
like me has been. If you work hard, you can
get what you want. You could do whatever you want
to do. And this is really driven by influencer culture
as well. You know, there's even a term for it,
(38:53):
like little treat culture, where people, because the big things
in life are so unaffordable, are constantly chasing little luxuries
like nice bags or a watch or any of this
other stuff. And there's nothing wrong with any of that
as long as you have your bigger basis covered. But
the bigger bases are so unattainable that they don't even
look or desire, or even consider as important any of
(39:16):
those things, and so they really focus a lot of
their stuff on hyper consumerism, travel, instagramification, et cetera. And
so yeah, I mean without even making it like a
political point, because I do think it's important to say.
You know, even gen Z women who voted for Trump,
having children is down there at the bottom. Being married
is only like twenty percent. Number one is still financial
independence and fulfilling job career. All I can think is, yeah,
(39:40):
it's just like total neo lib economic utility victory. And
I don't think it's how it should be, you know,
I don't. Again, I'm not gonna tell people how to live.
There's a lot of data. Basically it says if you
get married and have children, you're gonna be happier, are
going to live longer, You as an economic and family
unit are actually going to be more successful. You're gonna
make more money, You're gonna have a lot more fulfillment
throughout your life. Generally, that's what all of the data
(40:03):
tells us. But the kind of hyper individualism that we
have chased with consumerism as a society has driven us here.
I blame culture, but I really blame the economy as well,
because these are the things that are rewarded. Our debt
structures and we're turning into Japan. We're turning into Japan
where everyone is an individual worker. You know, having children
(40:24):
or being married is just very low on the totem pole.
A lot of women there, because of the hyper patriarchical society,
have no desire to be in a relationship because if
they are, they'll just be told to stay at home.
So they just don't get married. They don't want to
have children. They view it much more as a burden,
and that's how you end up a replacement rate of
one point two percent and stagnant growth, even though you're
one of the greatest, you know, civilizations in the history
(40:45):
of the world. So it's really sad to me, actually,
but there's a lot of people to blame for it.
I wish you were to turn around.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
I want to I want to temper your sadness a bit,
because I will say the way this is phrased, like,
is this important to your personal definition of six sess Right? Obviously,
I'm a mom three kids. They're the most important thing
in my life. If you were to ask me if,
like just the act of having kids is my definition
of quote unquote success, I'd say.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
No, right, having kids?
Speaker 2 (41:14):
That are you know, having my kids like happy and
thrive and doing well in the world, pursuing the things
that I consider it core to my personal definition of success.
That's not a choice on this list though, Like anyone
can get knocked up.
Speaker 3 (41:29):
It's not like, you know.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Congratulations, you're so successful if you do, and so I don't.
To me, is actually kind of weird to put having
kids as like your personal definition of success, like something
you have to accomplish. Now, maybe it's I don't know,
maybe the lens from a male perspective is a little different,
because having kids from a male perspective kind of entails like, Okay,
(41:53):
then I've got the marriage, I've got the you know,
financial stability to be able.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
To pull this off, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
So I saw to feel like just that gender distinction
is coming through here too in the way that this
is phrased. So i'd say that, I mean, listen, we've
covered before there's certainly a big part of like political
divide in the values and views of gen Z men
versus women, and comes through even more when you talk
(42:20):
about gen Z men who voted for Trump versus gen
Z women who voted for Harris. But I also feel
like some of that may be a bit overstated because
we're seeing you know, if you look across the generation,
you see a lot of commonalities in values, for example,
with regard to how they view Israel. You know, you
see a lot of commonalities with regard to it's just
(42:41):
kind of broad frustration discussed with the political system overall.
You've seen there was there was a lot of triumphalism
from the from you know, from the Trump world and
from the right about the number of gen z Men
who voted for Trump. Those are some of the groups
that have shifted the most dramatically away from him, and
you know where his approval rating has fallen the most dramatically,
(43:03):
off a cliff. So I feel like a lot of this, honestly,
is still kind of shaking out with this generation as
they're more searching for anything that is anyone who's going
to deliver for them, anything that's going to make sense,
anything that's going to shake up a status quo that
is truly truly stacked against them in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
That's a great point. And look, a lot of us
could be young bias too. I mean, if I'm being honest,
you know, when I was twenty two, when you asked
me what my definition of success was, it definitely would
not be you know, children, wouldn't have thing kids. Yeah,
I would be totally transparent.
Speaker 9 (43:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
It took a while to kind of get there, so
that's definitely part of it. I do think, I think broadly,
I still just see the forces of the economy behind
all of this, because it's like you said, you know,
if the ultimate, highest and best consideration of success is
having children, the vision that the vision that you have
in your world with that is like owning a home
(43:54):
and having a stable job, and like everything that confers
kind of with that, which is probably why that is
out there. And it also fits with what I know
a lot of these guys are watching, you know, on
social media and the hustle culture, you know, Alex Hormosey
and all of this, which I don't even think there's
necessarily anything bad with all of that. It's just a
(44:15):
lot of the downstream stuff that is supposed to support
you does not exist, and so that's what I spend
a lot of my time really worrying about. I do
actually think this is more of an interesting question for
millennials because once you're my age, in your thirties, these
become very urgent questions actually about children, about getting married,
(44:36):
and much more. I would be curious to see this
poll for millennial men who voted for Trump versus millennial
women and others, because you know, millennial women, at this point,
you're like twenty nine to thirty five, Like you're well
established into your career.
Speaker 4 (44:50):
It's like, is it work?
Speaker 1 (44:50):
It?
Speaker 4 (44:51):
Did it get what you want?
Speaker 1 (44:52):
You want? Like you can theoretically say you could achieve
a total amount of success when you're twenty twenty. When
I'm twenty two, If you'd ask me where I am
right now, I'd be like, oh my god, I made it.
Like it's done. You know, it's like everything you could
have possibly envisioned and wanted. Is that the most important
thing in your life? No, obviously I'm married now a child, right,
and so your priorities kind of become much more in view.
(45:15):
So I would be curious to see how this shakes.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
Out in a millennial view.
Speaker 3 (45:17):
Yeah, and now.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
That I'm talking to you, I don't know if it's
pulling a twenty two year old. Is there is the
right way? They literally your brains aren't even developed.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
True?
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Is an interesting snapchat though I mean I also would say,
like the language here it says fulfilling job or career.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
We're very lucky because we have that right.
Speaker 2 (45:33):
And I think the reality is in the system we
live in, you do spend most of your life at
your job. So for people to say, you know, that
is important in terms of my view of success. I
don't think that's so crazy because that is the structure
of society. I mean that kind of dovetails with your
point of like this is downstream of policy and the
economic structure that we have. Another piece, and this is
maybe a little bit more tangential, but it's been something
(45:55):
I'm thinking about with regard to you know, women who
not only have having children at the bottom of the list,
also have being married at the bottom of the list.
You have a lot of you have a whole ecosystem
of online influencers set up to tell you basically, like
you know, to treat women poorly and women suck and
don't be their friends and whatever.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
So there's some of.
Speaker 2 (46:15):
That messaging coming from men that's like okay, fine if
you hate me, like I don't need you. There's also
there's also an entire tech economy that is developing these
AI chatbots to convince everyone that they don't need anyone,
that you don't need human relationships. You can be best
friends with chat GPT, or you can be best friends
with GROC, or you can be best friends with you know,
(46:36):
metas ai chatbots, where you can invent them, create them,
and make them whatever you want. They're never going to
criticize you. They're not going to hurt your feelings. They're
never going to like steal your man. You know, They're
just going to be there to make you happy and
you don't need this messy world of human relations So
I think some of that is going on in the
background of all of this as well.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Absolutely, that's well said, and it's important, you know, at
a structural level, I believe if you build it, they
will come. So everything is downstream of availability. If the
house is not available, if the child, you know, if
it's too expensively. I think the average marriage in the
US costs like twenty five thousand dollars right now for
(47:19):
a wedding. I'm pretty sure that's right. I could be wrong.
I haven't looked at the statistics in quite a long time,
but you think about all the associated expert et cetera.
And you're just like, eh, you know, and if that's
going to be so wildly out of reach, then what
is available. It's like, Okay, we'll getting a job. Anyone
can get a job. Anyone can you know, hustle or
do anything, and that becomes more available. And so I
(47:42):
believe that, like the structure of what is available, also
determines the possibility of your imagination. And so that's what
I would like to fix more than anything.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
I think that's true.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
We do have an interesting Harry Enton thought about Trump
and his popularity and where he's losing ground with various groups.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
This is e four. Guys.
Speaker 7 (48:00):
Take a look at this, Look at the aggregat of
poles and look how long Donald Trump's net approval rating
has been negative. It has been every day since March twelfth,
and the average of polls, we're talking about one hundred
and eighty one days in a row in which Donald
Trump has been underwater, swimming with the fishes. There is
no good data for Donald Trump when looking at the
aggregate and looking overall, he has been negative for a
(48:23):
very long period of time. The vast majority of his
second presidens look at this.
Speaker 9 (48:28):
These are all the key issues.
Speaker 7 (48:30):
Donald Trump is underwater on all of them. Trade obviously,
tariffs have been a big thing. At the bottom of
your list minus seventeen points. The economy, which was the reason,
the reason he was elected to his second term to
fix the economy way underwater at minus fourteen points, Foreign
policy minus trump, and then I think mister John Berman
the key to issues at the top, because these have
been Donald Trump's strongest issues, crime and immigration. But get this,
(48:53):
he is now underwater on both of these issues, if barely,
but he's underwater on crime at minus two, immigration at
minus three. On all the key issues, he is again
swimming with the Fisher's consistency across the board. Two key
groups that were so important to getting Donald Trump a
second term, he did so much better than the traditional
Republican among those under the age of thirty and Hispanics.
Look at this in February among those under the age
(49:15):
of thirty, hasn't that approval rating corn of CBS News
plus two points. Look at where we are now negative
thirty points. That's a thirty two point move in the
wrong direction. And Hispanics, he was six points underwork. Look
at this minus thirty four points that's a twenty.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
Eight point move since February.
Speaker 7 (49:32):
No wonder Donald Trump's in trouble. He's steady across the board,
and since February, when he was least positive, he's only
gotten significantly worse among two very key groups for his
election back last year.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
I mean it, JEZI, Voters really are up for grabs.
The idea that people are just locked in and that's
that for some people. Yeah, there's a good per percentage
of the country for which that is true. But these
were really two of the key swing groups in this election,
and they are not happy with what they're seeing.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
I agree that is the most important look. Elections change.
They change all the time. It's one of the great lessons.
One of the most exciting parts about covering this, and
I try to drill it into people's heads every time
before an election, is just look ninety six to two thousand,
two thousand to two thousand and eight, two thousand and
eight to twenty sixteen, twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four.
(50:17):
Look at those radical changes that can all happen. By
the way, even twenty I think twenty sixteen to twenty
twenty was one of the crazies selections. If you'll remember
Christal when we were looking at some of those South
Texas numbers, I'll never forget it. Sitting at the desk
and looking at Larae. I was like, I've never in
my life could have imagined that, you know, South Texas
latinos or would be flipping fifty points to Donald Trump.
(50:40):
And it happened in three and a half years. Okay,
So this is something that just you know, all politicians
should notice, you should fight because you never know what
actually could happen. And I do think that we are
going to find that out big time in the midterm
elections this time.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Yeah, we will say, all right, guys, we're going to
skip Tim Dillan for today. Sager and Emily Will we'll
cover that click tomorrow because we talked too much about
other things as per usual. But thank you guys so
much for watching. Thank you for your support of the show.
If you can become a premium subscriber Breakingpoints dot com.
We take no dark money, guys, there's no dark money
packs funding us. We don't talk to advertisers. We really
(51:17):
do try to keep it as like pure as we
possibly can around here, and you guys enable that so
thank you so much and sober and Emily will see
you guys tomorrow
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.