November 4, 2025 • 13 mins
In this episode we examine the growing possibility of a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, following a briefing by South Korea’s spy agency that Kim “has the intent to pursue dialogue” with the U.S. if conditions become favourable.
We explore what this means for U.S.–North Korea diplomacy, the significance of the upcoming joint U.S.–South Korea military drills in March, and how denuclearisation, Russian-Chinese influence and shifting regional security dynamics shape this moment.
What’s changed since the Trump-Kim summits in 2018-19? Why is North Korea recalibrating its tone now? What risks and opportunities does this summit represent — for the Korean peninsula, for U.S. foreign policy and for global geopolitics?
We’ll break down the key actors, motives, and scenarios — and ask: is this real diplomacy revival or strategic posturing?
Listen till the end for expert insights and what to watch next in U.S.–North Korea relations.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
We explore what this means for U.S.–North Korea diplomacy, the significance of the upcoming joint U.S.–South Korea military drills in March, and how denuclearisation, Russian-Chinese influence and shifting regional security dynamics shape this moment.
What’s changed since the Trump-Kim summits in 2018-19? Why is North Korea recalibrating its tone now? What risks and opportunities does this summit represent — for the Korean peninsula, for U.S. foreign policy and for global geopolitics?
We’ll break down the key actors, motives, and scenarios — and ask: is this real diplomacy revival or strategic posturing?
Listen till the end for expert insights and what to watch next in U.S.–North Korea relations.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. Today. We are diving into a
really volatile intersection of high stakes diplomacy and well strategic
hardening on the Korean peninsula. This tension has been triggered
by the recent assessment from South Korea's National Intelligence Service,
the NIS, which predicts a likely summit next year between
(00:23):
President Trump and Kim Jong un.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Yeah, and that's a potentially huge development, right, but it
lands directly in conflict with North Korea's very explicit recent statements.
Pyongyang just recently dismissed denuclearization as a pipe dream and
has been actively demanding acceptance as a nuclear power exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So this forces us to confront a pivotal question. Given
North Korea's well maximalist demands, does this NIS assessment, this
prediction of a high probability for renewed dialogue, does it
represent a realistic pathway toward diplomatic progress or is the
anticipated summit actually a strategic maneuver by Kim, a kind
(01:07):
of tactical trap designed purely to gain international legitimacy and
essential concessions.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The material really does present a genuine contradiction here, and
I think that's what we need to focus on today. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So I'll be arguing today that Kim's reported intent to
pursue dialogue, which the NIS seems to confirm, represents a
necessary though let's be clear, undoubtedly challenging opening. My view
is that ignoring this potential opportunity basically guarantees further escalation.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
And I hold the opposing view. I'll argue that North
Korea's recently strengthened strategic position and its explicitly stated red
lines make any potential summit frankly structurally flawed right from
the outset, I see it primarily serving as a tactical
maneuver for Kim to consolidate his gains.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Okay, I'll begin with the case for opportunity, then drawing
directly from that intelligence assessment. The NIS report is crucial
here because it suggests an internal, maybe political reality that's
distinct from the aggressive public rhetoric we're hearing. They report
that North Korea is quote preparing behind the scenes for
dialogue with the United States and critically that Kim has
(02:20):
the intent to pursue dialogue if conditions are favorable. Now,
this level of preparation, it suggests the calculated strategic flexibility,
doesn't it Moreover, this intelligence assessment seems to converge with
President Trump's consistent public desire to resume in person diplomacy.
He has repeatedly spoken about his great relationship with Kim
(02:42):
and his willingness to return to the table. That's a
critical factor in USDPRK dynamics personal diplomacy, it seems, remains viable.
The NIS also noted that Kim is apparently calibrating his
rhetorical tone with possible talks in mind. Now, if Kim
were truly closed off, why bother with calibration and the
(03:02):
potential timeline. They suggest a summit after the US South
Korea military JOS in March. That also points to tactical
considerations rather than some absolute strategic rejection of engagement.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Okay, I appreciate the focus on the internal intent described
by the NIS, but I do worry we might be
reading too much into somewhat vague signals well perhaps ignoring
the really glaring structural shifts. The reality on the ground,
I think has fundamentally shifted since the twenty nineteen Hanoi
collapse over sanctions. North Korea is approaching any new dialogue
(03:34):
from a position of significantly greater leverage.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Okay, how has that leverage fundamentally changed the viability of
dialogue in your view beyond just the rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, the evidence is quite clear. Since twenty nineteen, Kim
has significantly advanced his nuclear and ballistic missile programs. That's
point one. More critically, he secured a robust and vital
security partnership with Russia. This partnership, which includes the documented
supply of artillery and possibly troops, provides a completely new
strategic buffer against the primary source of US pressure, economic sanctions. Right,
(04:08):
But the most immediate obstacle is Pyongyang's diplomatic positioning. They
have stated quite unequivocally that they are not willing to
negotiate unless Washington accepts them as a nuclear power. They
explicitly labeled denuclearization a pipe dream. So if the US
enters a summit where the single stated goal of the talks, denuclearization,
(04:29):
is already rejected by the opposing party, well, then the
US is negotiating terms of recognition, not disarmament.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And that leads us directly to our first point of
genuine disagreement. Here interpreting the NIS assessment of Kim's internal
intent against Pyongyang's very firm public demands. Now, while the
pipe dream rhetoric is aggressive, yes, the NIS focuses on
behind the scenes preparation. We've seen this kind of dual
(04:56):
track strategy before. Kim often uses these maxi simi list
public demands, like demanding acceptance as a nuclear power, to
elevate his starting point. This is classic hardball negotiation. If
he wasn't intending some flexibility, why would the NIS report
he is actively calibrating his tone. The calibration itself implies
(05:17):
there's an acceptable outcome he's positioning for.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm sorry, but I just have to challenge the premise
that the public demands are mere negotiation tactics. They sound
much more like the new operational baseline, and we must
also question perhaps the reliability or at least the framing
of the NIS assessment. In this context, South Korea has
a powerful incentive stability economic cooperation to promote the idea
(05:42):
of renewed dialogue. The intent to pursue dialogue that the
NIS reports, well, it may simply be Kim's readiness to
talk about sanctions, relief and legitimacy, which actually aligns perfectly
with his public demand. Not necessarily willingness to discuss the
verifiable abandonment of his nuclear arsenal. If the conditions for
diale favorable to Pyongyang, as the report states, those conditions
(06:04):
likely mean US tacit acceptance of their nuclear status.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
You raise a valid point about vested interests, of course,
but even a tactical opening, it still requires engagement, doesn't it.
And remember that Soul has already adjusted its strategic approach.
President Lee j Mung has publicly acknowledged that quote denuclearization
cannot be achieved in the short term and now seeks
a phased solution. This shift away from the all or
(06:29):
nothing demand that frankly doomed the twenty nineteen talks creates
the essential diplomatic space for the kind of incremental engagement
the NIS predicts. The goal isn't ammediate comprehensive disarmament, its
verifiable progress mm okay.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
However, that perspective brings us right to the second and
perhaps most profound contention, the structural impact of North Korea's
new strategic leverage. Regardless of any diplomatic softening in Soul,
the reality is that Kim enters this potential summit with
two major non negotiable assets, one an advanced nuclear stockpile,
(07:05):
and two the strategic buffer provided by Russia. Let's focus
on the mechanism of that buffer for a second. The
partnership with Russia is transactional, right the DPR case supplies
artillery for the war in Ukraine and in return receives
crucial resources, potentially including food, energy, maybe even sensitive military technology.
This fundamentally bypasses the US economic pressure mechanism. So how
(07:29):
can a summit be productive when Pyongyang has effectively insulated
itself from the US's primary coercive tool. The sanctions regime
is simply less potent than it was during the first
Trump Kim summits.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
That analysis of the sanctions erosion is compelling. I grant
you that, But the existence of the Russia partnership, in
my view, actually makes direct engagement more crucial, not less.
If we refuse dialogue now, we essentially seed the field entire.
North Korea will just continue to advance its programs and
(08:03):
deepen this partnership without any check whatsoever. The strategic goal
of resuming dialogue, even if immediate denuclearization is off the
table for now, shifts to risk mitigation. We must engage
now to prevent that Russia DPRK axis from fully cementing
into a formal hostile defense pact, which would lock in
US vulnerability in Northeast Asia for potentially a generation. Dialogue
(08:29):
is really the only tool we have left to manage
the pace of their technological and strategic integration.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But that risk mitigation strategy it has a logical endpoint
that brings us to our third core contention, What is
the ultimate goal of the summit? If dialogue is meant
purely to mitigate risk by slowing the pace of development,
doesn't that inherently require the US to accept, at least
temporarily North Korea's status is a nuclear power. If we
(08:57):
settle for a phase solution and focused on incremental steps,
aren't we essentially validating the exact nuclear leverage Kim's work
so hard to achieve, we grant him the legitimacy the
photo op he craves just for temporarily freezing, not reversing
his programs.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, I'm not convinced that a phased solution necessarily equates
to de facto acceptance. It recognizes the complexity of the
moment while maintaining the long term goal. The twenty nineteen
failure was a result of immediate absolute demands. North Korea
wanted total sanctions relief for only partial nuclear concessions. A
(09:38):
phased approach allows for well, it allows for incremental trust
building and verifiable steps. For example, a first phase could
involve a verifiable shutdown of the Young beyond plutonium and
enriched uranium facilities, perhaps in exchange for targeted sanctions. Relief
may be in non military sectors like textiles or seafood exports.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
This is a concrete proposal, sure, but what good is
shutting down Young Biyun if North Korea continues to produce
advanced missile technology and crucially retains its existing stockpile. The
problem is that the phased solution, as you're proposing it
allows Kim to consolidate his gains. He keeps the full arsenal,
(10:20):
he secures economic relief, and he gains international stature from
a summit with the US president, all while only offering temporary,
potentially reversible freezes on future capacity. The strategic cost of
giving him that legitimacy just seems far too high for
such frankly tenuous concessions.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
But without that incremental step, what verifiable non military leverage
point do you propose, given Russia's clear role now in
circumventing existing economic pressure, if we refuse dialogue, we have
zero insight, zero control, and Pianyan has every single incentive
(10:59):
to accelerate its programs, fully secure the Russian partnership, and
potentially conduct another nuclear test. Those seem like guaranteed outcomes
of silence the ni's assessment, it offers an alternative pathway, however,
difficult to prevent the very acceleration you fear.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I disagree. The only way to prevent acceleration, in my view,
is to maintain pressure and clearly communicate that we will
not reward their nuclear status, rewarding preparatory dialogue that has
already rejected the core outcome of denuclearization is the tactical trap.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Okay. So, to summarize my position, despite the hardline rhetoric,
the South Korean ANDIS confirms genuine intent in preparation for
dialogue behind the scenes. This I believe presents a crucial
opening for pursuing a necessary phased solution. This approach recognizes
the current reality of North Korea's advanced capability and strategic
(11:52):
partnerships engagement, even incremental engagement is the only practical pathway
to mitigating risk and preventing further stetrategic hardening and escalation,
rather than just abandoning diplomacy entirely.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
In my position remains that North Korea has effectively solidified
its nuclear status and gained vital strategic leverage, particularly through
its deepening partnership with Russia. Entering a summit under these
specific conditions, and while Pyongyang openly rejects the core denuclearization
goal risks validating Kim's advances, it provides him with the
(12:28):
domestic and international legitimacy he desperately seeks without securing meaningful, irreversible,
long term concessions. Dialogue in this specific geopolitical context appears
primarily tactical, and I would argue, highly dangerous for US
long term strategic interests in the region.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
We have explored today the intense tension between the reported
diplomatic intent coming from the NIS and the hardening structural
reality of North korea stratiflegic position now back by Russia.
Understanding both the perhaps limited opportunity the intelligence describes and
the profound skepticism warranted by Kim's explicit demands for nuclear acceptance. Well,
(13:13):
it's essential for anyone analyzing the future prospects of US
North Korea relations. The specific mechanisms and crucially, the verifiable
nature of any proposed phased solution certainly require continued rigorous analysis.
Welcome to the debate. Today. We are diving into a
really volatile intersection of high stakes diplomacy and well strategic
hardening on the Korean peninsula. This tension has been triggered
by the recent assessment from South Korea's National Intelligence Service,
the NIS, which predicts a likely summit next year between
(00:23):
President Trump and Kim Jong un.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Yeah, and that's a potentially huge development, right, but it
lands directly in conflict with North Korea's very explicit recent statements.
Pyongyang just recently dismissed denuclearization as a pipe dream and
has been actively demanding acceptance as a nuclear power exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So this forces us to confront a pivotal question. Given
North Korea's well maximalist demands, does this NIS assessment, this
prediction of a high probability for renewed dialogue, does it
represent a realistic pathway toward diplomatic progress or is the
anticipated summit actually a strategic maneuver by Kim, a kind
(01:07):
of tactical trap designed purely to gain international legitimacy and
essential concessions.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The material really does present a genuine contradiction here, and
I think that's what we need to focus on today. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So I'll be arguing today that Kim's reported intent to
pursue dialogue, which the NIS seems to confirm, represents a
necessary though let's be clear, undoubtedly challenging opening. My view
is that ignoring this potential opportunity basically guarantees further escalation.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
And I hold the opposing view. I'll argue that North
Korea's recently strengthened strategic position and its explicitly stated red
lines make any potential summit frankly structurally flawed right from
the outset, I see it primarily serving as a tactical
maneuver for Kim to consolidate his gains.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Okay, I'll begin with the case for opportunity, then drawing
directly from that intelligence assessment. The NIS report is crucial
here because it suggests an internal, maybe political reality that's
distinct from the aggressive public rhetoric we're hearing. They report
that North Korea is quote preparing behind the scenes for
dialogue with the United States and critically that Kim has
(02:20):
the intent to pursue dialogue if conditions are favorable. Now,
this level of preparation, it suggests the calculated strategic flexibility,
doesn't it Moreover, this intelligence assessment seems to converge with
President Trump's consistent public desire to resume in person diplomacy.
He has repeatedly spoken about his great relationship with Kim
(02:42):
and his willingness to return to the table. That's a
critical factor in USDPRK dynamics personal diplomacy, it seems, remains viable.
The NIS also noted that Kim is apparently calibrating his
rhetorical tone with possible talks in mind. Now, if Kim
were truly closed off, why bother with calibration and the
(03:02):
potential timeline. They suggest a summit after the US South
Korea military JOS in March. That also points to tactical
considerations rather than some absolute strategic rejection of engagement.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Okay, I appreciate the focus on the internal intent described
by the NIS, but I do worry we might be
reading too much into somewhat vague signals well perhaps ignoring
the really glaring structural shifts. The reality on the ground,
I think has fundamentally shifted since the twenty nineteen Hanoi
collapse over sanctions. North Korea is approaching any new dialogue
(03:34):
from a position of significantly greater leverage.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Okay, how has that leverage fundamentally changed the viability of
dialogue in your view beyond just the rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, the evidence is quite clear. Since twenty nineteen, Kim
has significantly advanced his nuclear and ballistic missile programs. That's
point one. More critically, he secured a robust and vital
security partnership with Russia. This partnership, which includes the documented
supply of artillery and possibly troops, provides a completely new
strategic buffer against the primary source of US pressure, economic sanctions. Right,
(04:08):
But the most immediate obstacle is Pyongyang's diplomatic positioning. They
have stated quite unequivocally that they are not willing to
negotiate unless Washington accepts them as a nuclear power. They
explicitly labeled denuclearization a pipe dream. So if the US
enters a summit where the single stated goal of the talks, denuclearization,
(04:29):
is already rejected by the opposing party, well, then the
US is negotiating terms of recognition, not disarmament.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And that leads us directly to our first point of
genuine disagreement. Here interpreting the NIS assessment of Kim's internal
intent against Pyongyang's very firm public demands. Now, while the
pipe dream rhetoric is aggressive, yes, the NIS focuses on
behind the scenes preparation. We've seen this kind of dual
(04:56):
track strategy before. Kim often uses these maxi simi list
public demands, like demanding acceptance as a nuclear power, to
elevate his starting point. This is classic hardball negotiation. If
he wasn't intending some flexibility, why would the NIS report
he is actively calibrating his tone. The calibration itself implies
(05:17):
there's an acceptable outcome he's positioning for.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm sorry, but I just have to challenge the premise
that the public demands are mere negotiation tactics. They sound
much more like the new operational baseline, and we must
also question perhaps the reliability or at least the framing
of the NIS assessment. In this context, South Korea has
a powerful incentive stability economic cooperation to promote the idea
(05:42):
of renewed dialogue. The intent to pursue dialogue that the
NIS reports, well, it may simply be Kim's readiness to
talk about sanctions, relief and legitimacy, which actually aligns perfectly
with his public demand. Not necessarily willingness to discuss the
verifiable abandonment of his nuclear arsenal. If the conditions for
diale favorable to Pyongyang, as the report states, those conditions
(06:04):
likely mean US tacit acceptance of their nuclear status.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
You raise a valid point about vested interests, of course,
but even a tactical opening, it still requires engagement, doesn't it.
And remember that Soul has already adjusted its strategic approach.
President Lee j Mung has publicly acknowledged that quote denuclearization
cannot be achieved in the short term and now seeks
a phased solution. This shift away from the all or
(06:29):
nothing demand that frankly doomed the twenty nineteen talks creates
the essential diplomatic space for the kind of incremental engagement
the NIS predicts. The goal isn't ammediate comprehensive disarmament, its
verifiable progress mm okay.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
However, that perspective brings us right to the second and
perhaps most profound contention, the structural impact of North Korea's
new strategic leverage. Regardless of any diplomatic softening in Soul,
the reality is that Kim enters this potential summit with
two major non negotiable assets, one an advanced nuclear stockpile,
(07:05):
and two the strategic buffer provided by Russia. Let's focus
on the mechanism of that buffer for a second. The
partnership with Russia is transactional, right the DPR case supplies
artillery for the war in Ukraine and in return receives
crucial resources, potentially including food, energy, maybe even sensitive military technology.
This fundamentally bypasses the US economic pressure mechanism. So how
(07:29):
can a summit be productive when Pyongyang has effectively insulated
itself from the US's primary coercive tool. The sanctions regime
is simply less potent than it was during the first
Trump Kim summits.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
That analysis of the sanctions erosion is compelling. I grant
you that, But the existence of the Russia partnership, in
my view, actually makes direct engagement more crucial, not less.
If we refuse dialogue now, we essentially seed the field entire.
North Korea will just continue to advance its programs and
(08:03):
deepen this partnership without any check whatsoever. The strategic goal
of resuming dialogue, even if immediate denuclearization is off the
table for now, shifts to risk mitigation. We must engage
now to prevent that Russia DPRK axis from fully cementing
into a formal hostile defense pact, which would lock in
US vulnerability in Northeast Asia for potentially a generation. Dialogue
(08:29):
is really the only tool we have left to manage
the pace of their technological and strategic integration.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But that risk mitigation strategy it has a logical endpoint
that brings us to our third core contention, What is
the ultimate goal of the summit? If dialogue is meant
purely to mitigate risk by slowing the pace of development,
doesn't that inherently require the US to accept, at least
temporarily North Korea's status is a nuclear power. If we
(08:57):
settle for a phase solution and focused on incremental steps,
aren't we essentially validating the exact nuclear leverage Kim's work
so hard to achieve, we grant him the legitimacy the
photo op he craves just for temporarily freezing, not reversing
his programs.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well, I'm not convinced that a phased solution necessarily equates
to de facto acceptance. It recognizes the complexity of the
moment while maintaining the long term goal. The twenty nineteen
failure was a result of immediate absolute demands. North Korea
wanted total sanctions relief for only partial nuclear concessions. A
(09:38):
phased approach allows for well, it allows for incremental trust
building and verifiable steps. For example, a first phase could
involve a verifiable shutdown of the Young beyond plutonium and
enriched uranium facilities, perhaps in exchange for targeted sanctions. Relief
may be in non military sectors like textiles or seafood exports.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
This is a concrete proposal, sure, but what good is
shutting down Young Biyun if North Korea continues to produce
advanced missile technology and crucially retains its existing stockpile. The
problem is that the phased solution, as you're proposing it
allows Kim to consolidate his gains. He keeps the full arsenal,
(10:20):
he secures economic relief, and he gains international stature from
a summit with the US president, all while only offering temporary,
potentially reversible freezes on future capacity. The strategic cost of
giving him that legitimacy just seems far too high for
such frankly tenuous concessions.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
But without that incremental step, what verifiable non military leverage
point do you propose, given Russia's clear role now in
circumventing existing economic pressure, if we refuse dialogue, we have
zero insight, zero control, and Pianyan has every single incentive
(10:59):
to accelerate its programs, fully secure the Russian partnership, and
potentially conduct another nuclear test. Those seem like guaranteed outcomes
of silence the ni's assessment, it offers an alternative pathway, however,
difficult to prevent the very acceleration you fear.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I disagree. The only way to prevent acceleration, in my view,
is to maintain pressure and clearly communicate that we will
not reward their nuclear status, rewarding preparatory dialogue that has
already rejected the core outcome of denuclearization is the tactical trap.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Okay. So, to summarize my position, despite the hardline rhetoric,
the South Korean ANDIS confirms genuine intent in preparation for
dialogue behind the scenes. This I believe presents a crucial
opening for pursuing a necessary phased solution. This approach recognizes
the current reality of North Korea's advanced capability and strategic
(11:52):
partnerships engagement, even incremental engagement is the only practical pathway
to mitigating risk and preventing further stetrategic hardening and escalation,
rather than just abandoning diplomacy entirely.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
In my position remains that North Korea has effectively solidified
its nuclear status and gained vital strategic leverage, particularly through
its deepening partnership with Russia. Entering a summit under these
specific conditions, and while Pyongyang openly rejects the core denuclearization
goal risks validating Kim's advances, it provides him with the
(12:28):
domestic and international legitimacy he desperately seeks without securing meaningful, irreversible,
long term concessions. Dialogue in this specific geopolitical context appears
primarily tactical, and I would argue, highly dangerous for US
long term strategic interests in the region.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
We have explored today the intense tension between the reported
diplomatic intent coming from the NIS and the hardening structural
reality of North korea stratiflegic position now back by Russia.
Understanding both the perhaps limited opportunity the intelligence describes and
the profound skepticism warranted by Kim's explicit demands for nuclear acceptance. Well,
(13:13):
it's essential for anyone analyzing the future prospects of US
North Korea relations. The specific mechanisms and crucially, the verifiable
nature of any proposed phased solution certainly require continued rigorous analysis.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.