Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

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.

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.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

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

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

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Hello, everybody, welcome to Wednesday counter Breaking Points. What are we going to call it, Ryan, We'll just say brow show counter break, It's point break. Yeah, we'll go with that. It's the bro show virtue here, Yes, here's the pound.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Hello, everybody, welcome to Wednesday counter Breaking Points. What are we going to call it, Ryan, We'll just say brow show counter break, It's point break. Yeah, we'll go with that. It's the bro show virtue here, Yes, here's the pound.

There we go.

There we go.

It works out.

It works out.

I like it.

I like it.

People can feel the energy and the loves through the screen. So Ryan and I coming off of a hot State of the Union joint addressed to Congress by President Donald Trump is a fifth while occupying the Oval Office, longest one in the history books. An hour and forty minutes long, and we fell every second of that. Ryan didn't we uh wow, my.

People can feel the energy and the loves through the screen. So Ryan and I coming off of a hot State of the Union joint addressed to Congress by President Donald Trump is a fifth while occupying the Oval Office, longest one in the history books. An hour and forty minutes long, and we fell every second of that. Ryan didn't we uh wow, my.

Eyes were heavy when he started. Oh and they did. They did not get any lighter by the end. And man, it's still Democrats won't applaud for him. And it's so sad. Yeah, so sad.

Eyes were heavy when he started. Oh and they did. They did not get any lighter by the end. And man, it's still Democrats won't applaud for him. And it's so sad. Yeah, so sad.

That's right. Maybe they weren't applauding because they were tired. We can ignore the median agent there is seventy years old. I was exhausted when we were live at eleven, So I can't even imagine being my freaking grandfather having to sit through.

That's right. Maybe they weren't applauding because they were tired. We can ignore the median agent there is seventy years old. I was exhausted when we were live at eleven, So I can't even imagine being my freaking grandfather having to sit through.

All of the Yeah, if people miss that there was this riff that he did where he was just I've done this five times. I've done such amazing things, and it's just it's just so sad that the Democrats won't clap for me. It's so sad. It's real tragedy. Yeah, yeah, that's right.

All of the Yeah, if people miss that there was this riff that he did where he was just I've done this five times. I've done such amazing things, and it's just it's just so sad that the Democrats won't clap for me. It's so sad. It's real tragedy. Yeah, yeah, that's right.

I saw somebody saying yesterday they were like, man, this is wild. You know half the audience isn't clapping, And I was like, yeah, it's the state of you. It's called Unfortunately Ryan and I are in the business where we cover every single one of these things. People pay attention. We're not really sure why, but let's go ahead and start with the breaking news that has come out as of this morning. This is absolutely the most important thing now so far, and that is let's see, We're gonna go and put it up here on the screen. A decision from the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has upheld the lower court order forcing USAID and the State Department to immediately pay two billion dollars ode to contractors for work that they have already performed. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsich, and Cavanaugh in the dissent, meaning that two of the conservative justices, the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joining the majority. So what they say here is you could see in terms of the text the US District Court entering a temporary restraining order and joining the government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of Foreign Development Assistance Fund. They say the application is denied. So Ran, what do you make of this Supreme Court decision? You know, actually said here on the show. I was like, you know, you should always remember there are wild cards in terms of jurisprudence, people like Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Gorsich, Justice Roberts. Roberts cares about the legitimacy of the court, Amy Cony, Barrett, and Gorsic. There are wild cards in that they're a little bit more libertarian, same with Clarence Thomas, and you never really quite know which direction that they're going to go. But nonetheless, I mean it's significant because they deny the government saying that they want to put a pause on foreign eight spending approximately two billion dollars out the door, affirming effectively the governments affirming effectively not only the Constitution as it lays out explicitly in terms of Congresses right for the power of the purse, but also that the government must follow through on that regardless of whatever exactly whatever executive action that they might put into place. So it's an important legal theory. The Trump administration was trying to test and it was struck down by five to four.

I saw somebody saying yesterday they were like, man, this is wild. You know half the audience isn't clapping, And I was like, yeah, it's the state of you. It's called Unfortunately Ryan and I are in the business where we cover every single one of these things. People pay attention. We're not really sure why, but let's go ahead and start with the breaking news that has come out as of this morning. This is absolutely the most important thing now so far, and that is let's see, We're gonna go and put it up here on the screen. A decision from the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has upheld the lower court order forcing USAID and the State Department to immediately pay two billion dollars ode to contractors for work that they have already performed. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsich, and Cavanaugh in the dissent, meaning that two of the conservative justices, the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joining the majority. So what they say here is you could see in terms of the text the US District Court entering a temporary restraining order and joining the government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of Foreign Development Assistance Fund. They say the application is denied. So Ran, what do you make of this Supreme Court decision? You know, actually said here on the show. I was like, you know, you should always remember there are wild cards in terms of jurisprudence, people like Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Gorsich, Justice Roberts. Roberts cares about the legitimacy of the court, Amy Cony, Barrett, and Gorsic. There are wild cards in that they're a little bit more libertarian, same with Clarence Thomas, and you never really quite know which direction that they're going to go. But nonetheless, I mean it's significant because they deny the government saying that they want to put a pause on foreign eight spending approximately two billion dollars out the door, affirming effectively the governments affirming effectively not only the Constitution as it lays out explicitly in terms of Congresses right for the power of the purse, but also that the government must follow through on that regardless of whatever exactly whatever executive action that they might put into place. So it's an important legal theory. The Trump administration was trying to test and it was struck down by five to four.

Right the like the Founders, choosing the term executive is important, like exact they execute the laws that are passed by the people's House and the Senate like that. It's not it's not a new body that deliberates on behalf of the people. It is. Their job is to faithfully execute the laws and you know, USAAD is a separate question. You know, they do, in my opinion, a lot of important life saving work. They also use that important and life saving work as a cover for a lot of the soft power and sometimes even harder power you know, you know, moves on behalf of a destructive American empire. So not here to you know, necessarily defend everything USA Idea is doing. But on this narrow point, they are looking at, as you said, contracts where the work has already been done. This feels pretty basic. Like Congress passed the law saying here's amount of money to do this thing. The executive then hired somebody to carry out that function. Whatever they did. You know, they they distributed food and Nairobi, and now they sent the invoice for the thing that they were told to do by this contract, and the executive says, actually, we're not going to do that. It's it's pretty hard to see how you can justify that. It's one thing if you say, okay, we don't want to do this in the future, Okay, have that fight. They already did it and so you got to pay them. Is basically what the Supreme Court is saying. And for a bunch of my liberal friends who have worried for many years that Trump is going to become a dictator. One of the things that I've always reminded them is that the Supreme Court doesn't have any interest in Trump becoming a dictator. Yeah, they jealously guard their own power.

Right the like the Founders, choosing the term executive is important, like exact they execute the laws that are passed by the people's House and the Senate like that. It's not it's not a new body that deliberates on behalf of the people. It is. Their job is to faithfully execute the laws and you know, USAAD is a separate question. You know, they do, in my opinion, a lot of important life saving work. They also use that important and life saving work as a cover for a lot of the soft power and sometimes even harder power you know, you know, moves on behalf of a destructive American empire. So not here to you know, necessarily defend everything USA Idea is doing. But on this narrow point, they are looking at, as you said, contracts where the work has already been done. This feels pretty basic. Like Congress passed the law saying here's amount of money to do this thing. The executive then hired somebody to carry out that function. Whatever they did. You know, they they distributed food and Nairobi, and now they sent the invoice for the thing that they were told to do by this contract, and the executive says, actually, we're not going to do that. It's it's pretty hard to see how you can justify that. It's one thing if you say, okay, we don't want to do this in the future, Okay, have that fight. They already did it and so you got to pay them. Is basically what the Supreme Court is saying. And for a bunch of my liberal friends who have worried for many years that Trump is going to become a dictator. One of the things that I've always reminded them is that the Supreme Court doesn't have any interest in Trump becoming a dictator. Yeah, they jealously guard their own power.

Of course, from the very beginning of the Supreme Court and the invention.

Of course, from the very beginning of the Supreme Court and the invention.

Exactly of the Review. They they seized power in the very beginning.

Exactly of the Review. They they seized power in the very beginning.

See now you and I are cooking, Ryan, Now we're talking about invented powers of the Supreme Court.

See now you and I are cooking, Ryan, Now we're talking about invented powers of the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but they want to those invented powers. You're very right.

Yeah, but they want to those invented powers. You're very right.

I did want to put up Justice Alito's descent, which was joined on it says that today the power grab is blistering. He blasts the Court for hubris, self ingridizement, and what he calls a stunning and extreme refusal by the Supreme Court to obey the law and its own precedents. Justice Alito dissenting. A federal court has many tools to address a party supposed nonfeasance. Self aggrandizement of his jurisdiction is not one of them. I would charte a different path than the Court does today. So I must respectfully dissent. I guess so I read that this is a lot of legality and stuff going on here. Alito did not seem to disagree with the pretense of the order. It was more about the action of ordering the immediate disbursement of the funds from USAID. What he was saying is that there's an extraordinary amount of other options that we could have granted the government instead of deciding to do this. Now. I think what is probably happening, and I guess you could say this too, is that the court is coming out hot at least those who disagree on this, and not trying to give any wiggle room or benefit of the doubt for the future to set a precedent for some of the other future forts. Now it's important to note, and that's something that the legal analyst Kyle Cheney, who we had up there, He's like, some of this will still get litigated in a district court in terms of the timeline, the feasibility to turn this on, But the argument about whether they can turn it off entirely is the one that's effectively even quashier the court today.

I did want to put up Justice Alito's descent, which was joined on it says that today the power grab is blistering. He blasts the Court for hubris, self ingridizement, and what he calls a stunning and extreme refusal by the Supreme Court to obey the law and its own precedents. Justice Alito dissenting. A federal court has many tools to address a party supposed nonfeasance. Self aggrandizement of his jurisdiction is not one of them. I would charte a different path than the Court does today. So I must respectfully dissent. I guess so I read that this is a lot of legality and stuff going on here. Alito did not seem to disagree with the pretense of the order. It was more about the action of ordering the immediate disbursement of the funds from USAID. What he was saying is that there's an extraordinary amount of other options that we could have granted the government instead of deciding to do this. Now. I think what is probably happening, and I guess you could say this too, is that the court is coming out hot at least those who disagree on this, and not trying to give any wiggle room or benefit of the doubt for the future to set a precedent for some of the other future forts. Now it's important to note, and that's something that the legal analyst Kyle Cheney, who we had up there, He's like, some of this will still get litigated in a district court in terms of the timeline, the feasibility to turn this on, But the argument about whether they can turn it off entirely is the one that's effectively even quashier the court today.

Right, and that's why you've seen you know, this classic Trump you know, they they came in with a with an axe and just they just swung it and just hit everything. And then they're like, oh, by the way, hey, you can't do that. That's that's illegal. So they started sending notes to every single uh contractor saying, you know, we have individually decided that your particular contract, you know, there is a form letter, but they can tell the court that it's in This is an individual decision that the executive made. And so while it might be true that the executive has to broadly follow, you know, the congressional mandates, they obviously have some discretion within that mandate of how they carry out that as long as they're carrying it out faithfully. And so they tried to like, you know, do a do an end run around it by kind of you know, reorganizing it, you know, from the from the back end, saying well, this particular contract, we're not against in general doing things, but specifically this when we're shutting down, and this is the court coming in and now going one by one and being like, well, no, this two billion you have to spend it, which is kind of remarkable, like you can't. Obviously they're going through a crisis and this is a fight and they're going to work this out, but you couldn't actually govern this way, you know, Congress passing laws and then the executive shutting everything down, and then the Supreme Court individually signing off on various contracts that USA AID has cut with different contractors. Like that's that's obviously the right standle.

Right, and that's why you've seen you know, this classic Trump you know, they they came in with a with an axe and just they just swung it and just hit everything. And then they're like, oh, by the way, hey, you can't do that. That's that's illegal. So they started sending notes to every single uh contractor saying, you know, we have individually decided that your particular contract, you know, there is a form letter, but they can tell the court that it's in This is an individual decision that the executive made. And so while it might be true that the executive has to broadly follow, you know, the congressional mandates, they obviously have some discretion within that mandate of how they carry out that as long as they're carrying it out faithfully. And so they tried to like, you know, do a do an end run around it by kind of you know, reorganizing it, you know, from the from the back end, saying well, this particular contract, we're not against in general doing things, but specifically this when we're shutting down, and this is the court coming in and now going one by one and being like, well, no, this two billion you have to spend it, which is kind of remarkable, like you can't. Obviously they're going through a crisis and this is a fight and they're going to work this out, but you couldn't actually govern this way, you know, Congress passing laws and then the executive shutting everything down, and then the Supreme Court individually signing off on various contracts that USA AID has cut with different contractors. Like that's that's obviously the right standle.

You're talking just in terms of the process. So it does make sense. Yeah, right, especially if you're thinking justee, Justice Barrett and Roberts. They're like, okay, like we're just gonna nip this in the bud now, so we'll see what the fallout is. But it's definitely the most significant Supreme Court decision yet of the second Trumpet.

You're talking just in terms of the process. So it does make sense. Yeah, right, especially if you're thinking justee, Justice Barrett and Roberts. They're like, okay, like we're just gonna nip this in the bud now, so we'll see what the fallout is. But it's definitely the most significant Supreme Court decision yet of the second Trumpet.

Right, it shows they're going to be players here.

Right, it shows they're going to be players here.

That's right. And also it's going to be WHI We have not yet heard from a White House on this exit on the Supreme Court decision. The Press Secretary Caroline Levitt will be taking the podium later today, so we might be hearing some of that. In terms of other breaking news, I know people may have wanted a tariff update. Unfortunately Ryan are not able to offer us one right now. Right now, we're told that the White House. We'll be having an afternoon press conference on the tariffs, where Trump is expected to announce that at least some are going off, but it's still very very unclear. In terms of the overall markets. Let me see where things stand. As you and I are talking, S and P is basically flat, the taois flat as of yesterday, the futures and all of that. I mean, yeah, the market is open right now. As you and I are saying, people are basically just no wait and hold position to see what Trump ends up deciding. Okay, let's get over to the Supreme Sorry, the state of the Union and what we had there in terms of the reaction from the public. The first the top line, which I thought was the most interesting, was this from CBS News. Let's go ahead put that on the screen. So what we see here is in speech Trump was among speech watchers, seventy four percent say presidential, seventy four percent say entertaining, seventy one percent say inspiring, sixty two percent say unifying, forty six percent say divisive. So actually a pretty good reaction there from Donald Trump. The overall snap poll which we have here, views of Trump's speech amongst speech watchers was some seventy six percent approved, twenty three percent disapproved. Let me do give the caveat here, as I do with any and all polling. Apparently the polling was, you know, and this actually makes sense, is you literally have a you know, a Republican president who is giving the who is giving the State of the Union, so you may have more Republicans who are those watching? So I have it in front of me here, fifty one percent of the speech viewers polled identified as Republicans, twenty seven percent as independence, and some twenty percent as Democrats. We had a reaction, Yeah, twenty percent were Democrats, And I mean, maybe Ryan, that is indicative of the strategy that we saw from some of the Democrats who just kind of walked out, Yes, you know who walked out of the speech. And so maybe that was what Chrystal was saying, and she was like, I could see this going either way. We could have a situation where people are like, Okay, I've had too much of this guy, I don't even really want to watch, yeah, or people are tuning in. Definitely kind of seems to be the latter. People who don't like Trump are just not going to watch the speech. So what do you make of that?

That's right. And also it's going to be WHI We have not yet heard from a White House on this exit on the Supreme Court decision. The Press Secretary Caroline Levitt will be taking the podium later today, so we might be hearing some of that. In terms of other breaking news, I know people may have wanted a tariff update. Unfortunately Ryan are not able to offer us one right now. Right now, we're told that the White House. We'll be having an afternoon press conference on the tariffs, where Trump is expected to announce that at least some are going off, but it's still very very unclear. In terms of the overall markets. Let me see where things stand. As you and I are talking, S and P is basically flat, the taois flat as of yesterday, the futures and all of that. I mean, yeah, the market is open right now. As you and I are saying, people are basically just no wait and hold position to see what Trump ends up deciding. Okay, let's get over to the Supreme Sorry, the state of the Union and what we had there in terms of the reaction from the public. The first the top line, which I thought was the most interesting, was this from CBS News. Let's go ahead put that on the screen. So what we see here is in speech Trump was among speech watchers, seventy four percent say presidential, seventy four percent say entertaining, seventy one percent say inspiring, sixty two percent say unifying, forty six percent say divisive. So actually a pretty good reaction there from Donald Trump. The overall snap poll which we have here, views of Trump's speech amongst speech watchers was some seventy six percent approved, twenty three percent disapproved. Let me do give the caveat here, as I do with any and all polling. Apparently the polling was, you know, and this actually makes sense, is you literally have a you know, a Republican president who is giving the who is giving the State of the Union, so you may have more Republicans who are those watching? So I have it in front of me here, fifty one percent of the speech viewers polled identified as Republicans, twenty seven percent as independence, and some twenty percent as Democrats. We had a reaction, Yeah, twenty percent were Democrats, And I mean, maybe Ryan, that is indicative of the strategy that we saw from some of the Democrats who just kind of walked out, Yes, you know who walked out of the speech. And so maybe that was what Chrystal was saying, and she was like, I could see this going either way. We could have a situation where people are like, Okay, I've had too much of this guy, I don't even really want to watch, yeah, or people are tuning in. Definitely kind of seems to be the latter. People who don't like Trump are just not going to watch the speech. So what do you make of that?

If I think about all the Democrats in my life, almost none of them would watch this speech, Okay, like they just can't stomach the guy. And they you know, they will watch the clips on Colbert and they'll they'll catch the clips on the YouTube's surface and you can. And but as for sitting down for an hour and a half and hearing directly from the guy, just not going to subject themselves to that.

If I think about all the Democrats in my life, almost none of them would watch this speech, Okay, like they just can't stomach the guy. And they you know, they will watch the clips on Colbert and they'll they'll catch the clips on the YouTube's surface and you can. And but as for sitting down for an hour and a half and hearing directly from the guy, just not going to subject themselves to that.

I would twenty percent is on the democratic thing.

I would twenty percent is on the democratic thing.

Not at all, Yeah, because Republicans.

Not at all, Yeah, because Republicans.

Republicans do the same thing.

Republicans do the same thing.

You know, even some hate watch Yeah.

You know, even some hate watch Yeah.

Yeah, some some do. You're right. But the part of the problem is in our clip economy, our clip attention economy, is that this is how the vast majority of people consume everything. I mean, if I saw the ratings were down, I would be shocked, you know, I wouldn't be shocked at all, because that's basically how news consumption works these days.

Yeah, some some do. You're right. But the part of the problem is in our clip economy, our clip attention economy, is that this is how the vast majority of people consume everything. I mean, if I saw the ratings were down, I would be shocked, you know, I wouldn't be shocked at all, because that's basically how news consumption works these days.

Yeah, and you can easily see how you can get to seventy seventy five percent with if you know, half of them are Republicans and then thirty you know, twenty eight percent or independence and roughly half of those independence probably actually much more than that, like of those of that twenty eight percent plausible, let's say twenty percent or like Republican leaning independence. So you add them together, you you easily get to seventy five percent, which can then be misinterpreted to believe that, like, oh, well, Trump really brought the country together. How about that?

Yeah, and you can easily see how you can get to seventy seventy five percent with if you know, half of them are Republicans and then thirty you know, twenty eight percent or independence and roughly half of those independence probably actually much more than that, like of those of that twenty eight percent plausible, let's say twenty percent or like Republican leaning independence. So you add them together, you you easily get to seventy five percent, which can then be misinterpreted to believe that, like, oh, well, Trump really brought the country together. How about that?

I mean, yeah, listen, I don't know. So CNN here apparently did some polling reaction as well, snap a pull reaction. Let's take a listen to some of that.

I mean, yeah, listen, I don't know. So CNN here apparently did some polling reaction as well, snap a pull reaction. Let's take a listen to some of that.

And what we know is that people who tend to be fans or partisans with the president, no matter which party the presidents in, tend to tune in more on speeches like this. And that's the case in tonight's survey as well. Because we're twenty one percent Democrat, forty four percent Republican in this sample, thirty five percent independent. That's about fourteen points more Republican than the overall general population. So keep that in mind when you see these results of speech watchers. To the results, what was your reaction to Trump's speech? Forty four percent of speech watchers in our instant poll tonight say they had a very positive reaction to Trump's speech. Twenty five percent somewhat positive, thirty one percent negative. How does that stack up against Donald Trump's previous addresses to joint Sessions of Conquers or State of the Union addresses. Look here, for all the years we have data for for very positive reaction, is actually his low water mark in all our instant polls after his previous addresses.

And what we know is that people who tend to be fans or partisans with the president, no matter which party the presidents in, tend to tune in more on speeches like this. And that's the case in tonight's survey as well. Because we're twenty one percent Democrat, forty four percent Republican in this sample, thirty five percent independent. That's about fourteen points more Republican than the overall general population. So keep that in mind when you see these results of speech watchers. To the results, what was your reaction to Trump's speech? Forty four percent of speech watchers in our instant poll tonight say they had a very positive reaction to Trump's speech. Twenty five percent somewhat positive, thirty one percent negative. How does that stack up against Donald Trump's previous addresses to joint Sessions of Conquers or State of the Union addresses. Look here, for all the years we have data for for very positive reaction, is actually his low water mark in all our instant polls after his previous addresses.

Interesting, you know, that actually kind of makes sense to me because it was just a much more partisan speech than traditionally he would normally give. It actually probably reflects more their theory of governance, and how not only theory of governance, their theory of winning. Previously, you know, there was at least some attempt I think, at least on the part of you know, the smart people in the room, the John Kellys and all supposedly those great figures to try and move him in a different direction, whereas this time, I mean it was a campaign speech. You know, basically the entire time I saw, like Brit Hume kind of on Fox News was kind of concern trolling's like females parts in State of the Union I've ever seen in my entire lifetime, you know, and these are all I mean, I think this is really just illustrative of Trump's role in our current system, Like he doesn't care about that, and in a lot of ways, the population doesn't care about that. A lot of the trappings and the norms, institutions and all of that, especially the Republican Party, but I think even a lot of the Democratic Party now at this point no longer has time for some of these older like theories of how you would present this. And I just think that this just shows you probably what it will always be from now on, you know, a Democrat or a Republican, just in terms of how you win an election, how you capture your own party. So overall, I mean, yeah, I mean, if we're Trump, I'd probably be pretty happy. Overall. It's what it's March fifth. He still got a decent amount of runway from the country. There's some troubling signs. We talked a lot about that yesterday, but you know, people generally, you're gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, the Democrats are mad, Independents kind of like, let's see, he's still funny. The entertaining thing is very important, big reason why I think he's always been able to deflect a lot of the major criticism against him, So any big thoughts, Ryan.

Interesting, you know, that actually kind of makes sense to me because it was just a much more partisan speech than traditionally he would normally give. It actually probably reflects more their theory of governance, and how not only theory of governance, their theory of winning. Previously, you know, there was at least some attempt I think, at least on the part of you know, the smart people in the room, the John Kellys and all supposedly those great figures to try and move him in a different direction, whereas this time, I mean it was a campaign speech. You know, basically the entire time I saw, like Brit Hume kind of on Fox News was kind of concern trolling's like females parts in State of the Union I've ever seen in my entire lifetime, you know, and these are all I mean, I think this is really just illustrative of Trump's role in our current system, Like he doesn't care about that, and in a lot of ways, the population doesn't care about that. A lot of the trappings and the norms, institutions and all of that, especially the Republican Party, but I think even a lot of the Democratic Party now at this point no longer has time for some of these older like theories of how you would present this. And I just think that this just shows you probably what it will always be from now on, you know, a Democrat or a Republican, just in terms of how you win an election, how you capture your own party. So overall, I mean, yeah, I mean, if we're Trump, I'd probably be pretty happy. Overall. It's what it's March fifth. He still got a decent amount of runway from the country. There's some troubling signs. We talked a lot about that yesterday, but you know, people generally, you're gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, the Democrats are mad, Independents kind of like, let's see, he's still funny. The entertaining thing is very important, big reason why I think he's always been able to deflect a lot of the major criticism against him, So any big thoughts, Ryan.

You're probably right that this will become more of the norm, the more partisan speech. But like to your point, there was a noticeable dip in how people felt about the speech. So it is still the case that people want, at least some significant portion of public want that the guy to play the role of the president up there, that there's something about that that that where we aspire to that that sort of thing in our democracy or our public whatever you whatever you want to call it. And you're right that in Trump's first term, he'd be mister chaos, you know, go, you know, rip roaring on Twitter all day long, and then when he would get to the State of the Union, he'd like be buttoned up and he would read off the teleprompter. And remember Van Jones famously infamously said he became president tonight, and the liberals were like, all right, thank you for at least for like an hour and an hour. I think that's important. There was only an hour in the past pretending that you are a president rather than that you're Trump who is occupying the role of the president. And now he's like, forget that, I'm just gonna be myself all the time. He doesn't have to run.

You're probably right that this will become more of the norm, the more partisan speech. But like to your point, there was a noticeable dip in how people felt about the speech. So it is still the case that people want, at least some significant portion of public want that the guy to play the role of the president up there, that there's something about that that that where we aspire to that that sort of thing in our democracy or our public whatever you whatever you want to call it. And you're right that in Trump's first term, he'd be mister chaos, you know, go, you know, rip roaring on Twitter all day long, and then when he would get to the State of the Union, he'd like be buttoned up and he would read off the teleprompter. And remember Van Jones famously infamously said he became president tonight, and the liberals were like, all right, thank you for at least for like an hour and an hour. I think that's important. There was only an hour in the past pretending that you are a president rather than that you're Trump who is occupying the role of the president. And now he's like, forget that, I'm just gonna be myself all the time. He doesn't have to run.

Yeah, so yeah, I mean Trump's Trump's.

Yeah, so yeah, I mean Trump's Trump's.

So if your Van Jones became unpresident last night, yeah, that's right. Actually selfish, did.

So if your Van Jones became unpresident last night, yeah, that's right. Actually selfish, did.

Do we know, teamed? Is there any good Van Jones reaction? I'm looking, I don't see anything good. He's usually got.

Do we know, teamed? Is there any good Van Jones reaction? I'm looking, I don't see anything good. He's usually got.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I mean, you know, when when Jeff Bezos gives you a hundred million dollars, you don't really need to work anymore, do you. But all right, let's move on interest. Yeah, that's right, just just the interest alone, that'll that'll work off. I'm not insinuating he was personally paid. Okay, it was to one of his fake justice nonprofits. But anyway, all right, let's get over to the democratic reaction. Ryan, you and I are turning over in our grave at this democratic action from Elissa Slotkin, and uh, let's go ahead and put this one up there on the screen. I'm gonna go ahead and make it big here, and let's take a listen. Alyssa Slotckin, if we all remember, the Democratic senator from Michigan barely won her seat, but significant because Trump did still win the state, so she wanted some Trump voter. She is a former CIA officer biadmission, biadmission, a literal former. Yeah yeah, she she outed herself. She outed herself for political benefit, and she loves to wear her CIA credentials on her sleeve.

I mean, you know, when when Jeff Bezos gives you a hundred million dollars, you don't really need to work anymore, do you. But all right, let's move on interest. Yeah, that's right, just just the interest alone, that'll that'll work off. I'm not insinuating he was personally paid. Okay, it was to one of his fake justice nonprofits. But anyway, all right, let's get over to the democratic reaction. Ryan, you and I are turning over in our grave at this democratic action from Elissa Slotkin, and uh, let's go ahead and put this one up there on the screen. I'm gonna go ahead and make it big here, and let's take a listen. Alyssa Slotckin, if we all remember, the Democratic senator from Michigan barely won her seat, but significant because Trump did still win the state, so she wanted some Trump voter. She is a former CIA officer biadmission, biadmission, a literal former. Yeah yeah, she she outed herself. She outed herself for political benefit, and she loves to wear her CIA credentials on her sleeve.

And here was her CIA. By the way.

And here was her CIA. By the way.

That's right, thank you. There is no such thing as former CIA, as you and I know. And here's what she had to say during her State of the Union reaction.

That's right, thank you. There is no such thing as former CIA, as you and I know. And here's what she had to say during her State of the Union reaction.

He believes in closing up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends with the Canadians in the teeth. He sees American leadership as nearly a series of real estate transactions. As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the nineteen eighties. Trump would have lost us the Cold War. Donald Trump's actions suggest that in his heart, he doesn't believe we're an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn't think we should lead the world. Look, America is not perfect, but I stand with the majority of Americans who believe we are still exceptional, unparalleled, And I would rather have American leadership over Chinese or Russian leader any day of the week.

He believes in closing up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends with the Canadians in the teeth. He sees American leadership as nearly a series of real estate transactions. As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the nineteen eighties. Trump would have lost us the Cold War. Donald Trump's actions suggest that in his heart, he doesn't believe we're an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn't think we should lead the world. Look, America is not perfect, but I stand with the majority of Americans who believe we are still exceptional, unparalleled, And I would rather have American leadership over Chinese or Russian leader any day of the week.

Woo, all right, there's so much there, and later she says, you know, I've watched as democracies have flickered out around the globe. It's like, well, that's a rather passive construction. How did some of these democracies flicker out? Let's ask the Indonesians, or the Brazilians, Argentina and Chileans, Guatemalans others. Did your democracy just flicker out? Or where there are some CIA operatives involved in pick it out? I've got some of that right there goes when it goes your we take a listen to it. Yeah, sure, all right, let's take a listen to it.

Woo, all right, there's so much there, and later she says, you know, I've watched as democracies have flickered out around the globe. It's like, well, that's a rather passive construction. How did some of these democracies flicker out? Let's ask the Indonesians, or the Brazilians, Argentina and Chileans, Guatemalans others. Did your democracy just flicker out? Or where there are some CIA operatives involved in pick it out? I've got some of that right there goes when it goes your we take a listen to it. Yeah, sure, all right, let's take a listen to it.

I've lived and worked in many countries. I've seen democracies flicker out. I've seen what life is like when a government is rigged. You can't open a business without paying off a corrupt official. You can't criticize the guys in charge without getting a knock at the door in the middle of the night. So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don't for one moment fool yourself. The democracy isn't precious and worth saving.

I've lived and worked in many countries. I've seen democracies flicker out. I've seen what life is like when a government is rigged. You can't open a business without paying off a corrupt official. You can't criticize the guys in charge without getting a knock at the door in the middle of the night. So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don't for one moment fool yourself. The democracy isn't precious and worth saving.

So who is doing the knock in there?

So who is doing the knock in there?

Ryan?

Ryan?

You know, well, Hermit Roosese just watched Iran's democracy just flicker out and just shet a gentle tear.

You know, well, Hermit Roosese just watched Iran's democracy just flicker out and just shet a gentle tear.

At least you were the one knocking on the door.

At least you were the one knocking on the door.

You were the woman when she said that she lived when a CIA officer is like, I lived and worked in countries where they where the democracy flickered out. It's like, all right, we're going to round up the first suspect. That's you.

You were the woman when she said that she lived when a CIA officer is like, I lived and worked in countries where they where the democracy flickered out. It's like, all right, we're going to round up the first suspect. That's you.

Right, It's incredible, and I hate that you turning me like into Howard's in here. I actually do have some Howards in behind me, so people, I don't discriminate. I still read Howard and James Beard. I actually have assigned James Beard behind me, which is crazy. The thing is that people need to understand is that if you zoom out, I'm really curious to hear what you think about this is this is the actual debate, I think between neo conservatism and restraint, except in a similar framework today. That's not in the Cold War anymore. But back in Cold War times there was a very important debate between the Kissingerian worldview, which I know you disagree with, that's fine. But the Kissingerian worldview was we cannot get rid of the Soviet Union. We have to live with the Soviet Union. We have to accept bipolarity in terms of the system. We have to we will not be able to pursue a strategy of what was called roll back, which was a Reaganesque policy, where we're going to roll back the borders of the Soviet Union. We are going to pursue a policy of existence and of effectively dividing up the world. Now there's a ton of criticism of human rights and all of that, but the Kissingerian worldview was that democracy in and of itself under Nixon and all of that was not an end that should be pursued for the United States. Instead, the end that should be pursued is strategic interest, is economics, is balance, is peace, etc. And some of that was keeping communism out of let's say the Western hemisphere, but not necessarily because that comports with the Munroe doctrine, but not necessarily in Hungary, for example. The Reaganesque view, the one that I think Alyssa Slockin is saying there, is that no, we are endorsing rollback. Effectively, the communism itself is the evil empire. We cannot live in a world with the Soviet Empire and in our inability to live with that. The pursuit and the policy of the United States should always be to push back against these borders and to call it out completely. Now, the reason why I think that's important in this Putin Ukraine situation is the Biden previous view. Yeah, we got the cat doing some gymnastics behind me. The previous Biden policy Putin is a war criminal. We cannot deal with Putin. The Putin regime itself is illegitimate from Biden, which means that there is no settlement with Ukraine, that Ukraine itself is a front line of democracy. Verly, similarly in the way that Voice of America was consuming to push democracy right in Hungary or any of these so called Soviet occupied states. Well, the point here, I think is it comes down to then the Trump view of no, we're just gonna sit down and we're going to talk and pursue a peace deal. Now this view is now majorly in contention, but it's flipped where now you have the Democrats who are seeing to basically embody this previously neo conservative liberal world order view of the world, America the exceptional nation and all of that, Whereas now Trump at least not the whole Republican Party is pursuing, at least in this Ukraine instance, more of a realist foreign policy. So I actually think that while it was a small snippet, it does say a lot about your previous view of the Cold War of the United States conduct, but like, more importantly, how to think about conflict in the future as we approach more multipolarity in the system.

Right, It's incredible, and I hate that you turning me like into Howard's in here. I actually do have some Howards in behind me, so people, I don't discriminate. I still read Howard and James Beard. I actually have assigned James Beard behind me, which is crazy. The thing is that people need to understand is that if you zoom out, I'm really curious to hear what you think about this is this is the actual debate, I think between neo conservatism and restraint, except in a similar framework today. That's not in the Cold War anymore. But back in Cold War times there was a very important debate between the Kissingerian worldview, which I know you disagree with, that's fine. But the Kissingerian worldview was we cannot get rid of the Soviet Union. We have to live with the Soviet Union. We have to accept bipolarity in terms of the system. We have to we will not be able to pursue a strategy of what was called roll back, which was a Reaganesque policy, where we're going to roll back the borders of the Soviet Union. We are going to pursue a policy of existence and of effectively dividing up the world. Now there's a ton of criticism of human rights and all of that, but the Kissingerian worldview was that democracy in and of itself under Nixon and all of that was not an end that should be pursued for the United States. Instead, the end that should be pursued is strategic interest, is economics, is balance, is peace, etc. And some of that was keeping communism out of let's say the Western hemisphere, but not necessarily because that comports with the Munroe doctrine, but not necessarily in Hungary, for example. The Reaganesque view, the one that I think Alyssa Slockin is saying there, is that no, we are endorsing rollback. Effectively, the communism itself is the evil empire. We cannot live in a world with the Soviet Empire and in our inability to live with that. The pursuit and the policy of the United States should always be to push back against these borders and to call it out completely. Now, the reason why I think that's important in this Putin Ukraine situation is the Biden previous view. Yeah, we got the cat doing some gymnastics behind me. The previous Biden policy Putin is a war criminal. We cannot deal with Putin. The Putin regime itself is illegitimate from Biden, which means that there is no settlement with Ukraine, that Ukraine itself is a front line of democracy. Verly, similarly in the way that Voice of America was consuming to push democracy right in Hungary or any of these so called Soviet occupied states. Well, the point here, I think is it comes down to then the Trump view of no, we're just gonna sit down and we're going to talk and pursue a peace deal. Now this view is now majorly in contention, but it's flipped where now you have the Democrats who are seeing to basically embody this previously neo conservative liberal world order view of the world, America the exceptional nation and all of that, Whereas now Trump at least not the whole Republican Party is pursuing, at least in this Ukraine instance, more of a realist foreign policy. So I actually think that while it was a small snippet, it does say a lot about your previous view of the Cold War of the United States conduct, but like, more importantly, how to think about conflict in the future as we approach more multipolarity in the system.

You know, I think that democrats and democratic elites in particular, as plus the Lindsay Grahams, though the more hawkish Republicans of the world, ye, were very energized by being on the right side of history after Russia invaded Ukraine, because it's good, that's what they did. They lined up troops on the border, they marched them in. You can talk about what happened before February twenty twenty two, so you're blue in the face, But the world and the American audience saw troops lining up on a border to and doing something they didn't think was happening anymore in this world, and Mark you know, marching it and you know, heading right for Kiev. And so they this was after fifty years of being the bad guys. Whether it was Vie, whether it was Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan getting you know, and and it came not long after the kind of ignoble and and kind of chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which good for Biden for doing it. Let me underscore that again. But it was embarrassing to the Lindsey Grahams and the Democratic hawks of the world. They were really loving finally having the ability to speak with moral force and and Democrats never then the Democratic base was along for that ride because they saw that, know, this is outrageous, how can you do this? There was never any allowed, any debate within the Democratic Party over how this war would end. And so even as the reality was you know, fundamentally changing on the ground and Ukraine's you know, second counter offensive is fizzling out and they're running out of men to throw at the front lines anymore, because of this lack of debate, they're the Democratic base is still in February twenty twenty two, like we need to defend Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy against the evil Putin and so the whiplash is just full force. To then see this the Republican Party, which has been having these debates about what land should be exchanged for peace, and what are the conditions that should be agreed to to see that happen, Like they're only they're only reactions. That must be a trader, and he must be a you know, an autocrat like Putin, must be loving Putin. And the whole time it's like Russia is not even that big a deal like China is. The other is the there are two global powers right now, the United States and China, and Democrats really seem very fixated on elevating Russia into that instead, like there's some like they have some block. I think this is where Russia them's in. Yeah, yeah, I think.

You know, I think that democrats and democratic elites in particular, as plus the Lindsay Grahams, though the more hawkish Republicans of the world, ye, were very energized by being on the right side of history after Russia invaded Ukraine, because it's good, that's what they did. They lined up troops on the border, they marched them in. You can talk about what happened before February twenty twenty two, so you're blue in the face, But the world and the American audience saw troops lining up on a border to and doing something they didn't think was happening anymore in this world, and Mark you know, marching it and you know, heading right for Kiev. And so they this was after fifty years of being the bad guys. Whether it was Vie, whether it was Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan getting you know, and and it came not long after the kind of ignoble and and kind of chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which good for Biden for doing it. Let me underscore that again. But it was embarrassing to the Lindsey Grahams and the Democratic hawks of the world. They were really loving finally having the ability to speak with moral force and and Democrats never then the Democratic base was along for that ride because they saw that, know, this is outrageous, how can you do this? There was never any allowed, any debate within the Democratic Party over how this war would end. And so even as the reality was you know, fundamentally changing on the ground and Ukraine's you know, second counter offensive is fizzling out and they're running out of men to throw at the front lines anymore, because of this lack of debate, they're the Democratic base is still in February twenty twenty two, like we need to defend Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy against the evil Putin and so the whiplash is just full force. To then see this the Republican Party, which has been having these debates about what land should be exchanged for peace, and what are the conditions that should be agreed to to see that happen, Like they're only they're only reactions. That must be a trader, and he must be a you know, an autocrat like Putin, must be loving Putin. And the whole time it's like Russia is not even that big a deal like China is. The other is the there are two global powers right now, the United States and China, and Democrats really seem very fixated on elevating Russia into that instead, like there's some like they have some block. I think this is where Russia them's in. Yeah, yeah, I think.

This is where Russia gay comes in. Is that you know, you went from a situation where Obama had the correct view of Ukraine. Everyone can go and read the Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Obama from twenty fifteen where he was like, if you want to make an argument that CRIMEA is a vital national security interest that's worth US troops, He's like, go for it. I don't agree with that, and I think that the Russians will always care way more about it than we do. He was right, right, He was right not to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. If anything, the worst thing that Trump did on Ukraine was not the perfect phone call. It was to ship javelins to the country to escalate the conflict and to increase even more of basically this like hawkish approach vice A v. Russia, which basically like builds things up to a powder keg and explodes in the Ukraine invasion.

This is where Russia gay comes in. Is that you know, you went from a situation where Obama had the correct view of Ukraine. Everyone can go and read the Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Obama from twenty fifteen where he was like, if you want to make an argument that CRIMEA is a vital national security interest that's worth US troops, He's like, go for it. I don't agree with that, and I think that the Russians will always care way more about it than we do. He was right, right, He was right not to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. If anything, the worst thing that Trump did on Ukraine was not the perfect phone call. It was to ship javelins to the country to escalate the conflict and to increase even more of basically this like hawkish approach vice A v. Russia, which basically like builds things up to a powder keg and explodes in the Ukraine invasion.

Then you ship the javelins in order to get Zelenski to like throw Hunter Biden under the bus.

Then you ship the javelins in order to get Zelenski to like throw Hunter Biden under the bus.

Wasn't that whole Yeah, So no, it was he was not shipping javelins, right because he wanted to hold up Javeliner. So this is the thing is there. It's baked into the lore of the United States. Actually, I remember, uh, I remember Crystal and I talking about it at the time because we covered that impeachment live and it was like, oh, did you know it's written in the constitutions that you have to send javelin missiles to Ukraine. Like it's like, this is an impeachable offense. What it's like, No, let's return to the Obama policy. I don't care about saying that it was the correct policy. So I do think there's a lot to be said about it and uh out look. I mean part of the problem is that negative polarization means that after that Trump is Zelenski interview, liberals who are already on board with the war in Ukraine, they're never coming back from full Ukrainian victory. Now Lensky is a hero for them because he stood up to Trump or whatever. It doesn't even matter. You can go watch our debate with me and Crystal yesterday about who was default. But negative polarization means like liberals are all in on this war. It is now a religion in the same way that Russia Gate was a religion. Is that any piece of any kind itself is unacceptable now, especially if you've got Michael McCall and you've got Chris Murphy and the MSNBC crowd just absolutely losing it the choice of Slotkin. I think it's very very important for people to see that, yes, while all of the rhetoric and all of that is posturing, there are very real world implications for policy that are right behind this. And I'm not saying, you know, Trump, Gaza and all of that isn't a very obvious departure from this. I'm only speaking very narrowly in the Ukraine context. The other telling thing to me Ryan was all of the democratic pundits, the professional pundits, being like, she knocked it out of the park ten out of ten in her response, the most perfect response that a person has ever given. And I was like, well, you know, there is that choice right now between how people are going to respond to Donald Trump. A slockin is someone who's like yesterday in her response, she's like, yeah, there's waste in the government, will help you cut it, but don't do it in such a chaotic way. And then you know she voted for the Lake and Riley Act, for example, she's been trying to be more hawkish on immigration. She's basically like radical centrism embodied in a candidate. It's all about institutions, it's all about norms. Whereas we also have this Bernie Sanders response, which was not, you know, a sanctioned one. It's kind of what he just decided to do on his own, but nonetheless very different in its tone. So let's take a listen to some of that.

Wasn't that whole Yeah, So no, it was he was not shipping javelins, right because he wanted to hold up Javeliner. So this is the thing is there. It's baked into the lore of the United States. Actually, I remember, uh, I remember Crystal and I talking about it at the time because we covered that impeachment live and it was like, oh, did you know it's written in the constitutions that you have to send javelin missiles to Ukraine. Like it's like, this is an impeachable offense. What it's like, No, let's return to the Obama policy. I don't care about saying that it was the correct policy. So I do think there's a lot to be said about it and uh out look. I mean part of the problem is that negative polarization means that after that Trump is Zelenski interview, liberals who are already on board with the war in Ukraine, they're never coming back from full Ukrainian victory. Now Lensky is a hero for them because he stood up to Trump or whatever. It doesn't even matter. You can go watch our debate with me and Crystal yesterday about who was default. But negative polarization means like liberals are all in on this war. It is now a religion in the same way that Russia Gate was a religion. Is that any piece of any kind itself is unacceptable now, especially if you've got Michael McCall and you've got Chris Murphy and the MSNBC crowd just absolutely losing it the choice of Slotkin. I think it's very very important for people to see that, yes, while all of the rhetoric and all of that is posturing, there are very real world implications for policy that are right behind this. And I'm not saying, you know, Trump, Gaza and all of that isn't a very obvious departure from this. I'm only speaking very narrowly in the Ukraine context. The other telling thing to me Ryan was all of the democratic pundits, the professional pundits, being like, she knocked it out of the park ten out of ten in her response, the most perfect response that a person has ever given. And I was like, well, you know, there is that choice right now between how people are going to respond to Donald Trump. A slockin is someone who's like yesterday in her response, she's like, yeah, there's waste in the government, will help you cut it, but don't do it in such a chaotic way. And then you know she voted for the Lake and Riley Act, for example, she's been trying to be more hawkish on immigration. She's basically like radical centrism embodied in a candidate. It's all about institutions, it's all about norms. Whereas we also have this Bernie Sanders response, which was not, you know, a sanctioned one. It's kind of what he just decided to do on his own, but nonetheless very different in its tone. So let's take a listen to some of that.

So let's be clear about that, well over ninety nine of socialist jurny checks are going out to people who earned those checks seventy million Americans. Nobody, nobody who was one hundred and fifty years old or two hundred years old or three hundred years old, just receiving social Jurney checks and on and on.

So let's be clear about that, well over ninety nine of socialist jurny checks are going out to people who earned those checks seventy million Americans. Nobody, nobody who was one hundred and fifty years old or two hundred years old or three hundred years old, just receiving social Jurney checks and on and on.

The lives goal.

The lives goal.

So Bernie is standing up there pretty hard for social security. And throughout a lot of his speech yesterday, in terms of at least the parts that I've seen that have gone out, you could see that there was a huge difference in the viewership. Actually, think one of our producers sent it, So let me go ahead and pull it up. Yeah, here we go. So slock in speech got four five hundred views at its height, which is insane. I have no like I could pick my nose and I could get more live viewers. I'd break the points. That ended up at sixty one thousand views, and apparently AOC had some twenty thousand on Instagram live in her response. So you know, look, it's not everything, but we did just come off an election, did we not of proving that podcasting and views and YouTube and all of that's pretty important. I would say it's pretty important the attention economy and all of that. So the only question is is is the democratic base going to demand something different, or if their leadership gets propelled in people like Slackins and all of them are going to try to take the reins and to try and to channel that into their view of how to respond to trump Ism.

So Bernie is standing up there pretty hard for social security. And throughout a lot of his speech yesterday, in terms of at least the parts that I've seen that have gone out, you could see that there was a huge difference in the viewership. Actually, think one of our producers sent it, So let me go ahead and pull it up. Yeah, here we go. So slock in speech got four five hundred views at its height, which is insane. I have no like I could pick my nose and I could get more live viewers. I'd break the points. That ended up at sixty one thousand views, and apparently AOC had some twenty thousand on Instagram live in her response. So you know, look, it's not everything, but we did just come off an election, did we not of proving that podcasting and views and YouTube and all of that's pretty important. I would say it's pretty important the attention economy and all of that. So the only question is is is the democratic base going to demand something different, or if their leadership gets propelled in people like Slackins and all of them are going to try to take the reins and to try and to channel that into their view of how to respond to trump Ism.

Yeah, there isn't much in the way of the material there for the party's kind of faithful opposition to rally against these party leaders. There's there's Bernie, you know, the squad is kind of disintegrated into their own thing, thrown individual things. In twenty twenty two and twenty twenty four, a pac and Democratic Majority for Israel spent so much money like beating back the progressive wing of the party that it really you know, nipped it in the PUD in a significant way. And so there's just like that, the the the conditions are ripe for an insurgency inside the Democratic Party. The insurgents just aren't there. And it's early. You know, there may be people who identify the opening and go for it. It may have to come from more of an independent, you know approach like you saw in Nebraska. I think there might be candidates trying that elsewhere around the country, coming in with a kind of Bernie style popularist populism coupled with being on immigration running as independence like that, you could see some of that. The party is right for getting toppled. Part of leaderships right for getting toppled. But you Nancy Pelosi used to say when she was running for speakership, you can't beat somebody with nobody. And you know, she she often didn't have serious bonus though.

Yeah, there isn't much in the way of the material there for the party's kind of faithful opposition to rally against these party leaders. There's there's Bernie, you know, the squad is kind of disintegrated into their own thing, thrown individual things. In twenty twenty two and twenty twenty four, a pac and Democratic Majority for Israel spent so much money like beating back the progressive wing of the party that it really you know, nipped it in the PUD in a significant way. And so there's just like that, the the the conditions are ripe for an insurgency inside the Democratic Party. The insurgents just aren't there. And it's early. You know, there may be people who identify the opening and go for it. It may have to come from more of an independent, you know approach like you saw in Nebraska. I think there might be candidates trying that elsewhere around the country, coming in with a kind of Bernie style popularist populism coupled with being on immigration running as independence like that, you could see some of that. The party is right for getting toppled. Part of leaderships right for getting toppled. But you Nancy Pelosi used to say when she was running for speakership, you can't beat somebody with nobody. And you know, she she often didn't have serious bonus though.

That's a very good point. You know, she never even though there were definitely times right where she could have easily faced at least some push.

That's a very good point. You know, she never even though there were definitely times right where she could have easily faced at least some push.

She always Joe Crowley would have been a serious, you know, challenger to her, But that's AOC took care of that. Yeah, yeah, I don't know. And that was the cycle where she was. That was her. That was literally her slogan to run again for leader. You can't beat somebody with nobody, Like can you can you concoct something less inspiring than that, Like you have nothing. You can't beat me because you have nothing.

She always Joe Crowley would have been a serious, you know, challenger to her, But that's AOC took care of that. Yeah, yeah, I don't know. And that was the cycle where she was. That was her. That was literally her slogan to run again for leader. You can't beat somebody with nobody, Like can you can you concoct something less inspiring than that, Like you have nothing. You can't beat me because you have nothing.

Respect it almost have to respect it because it's so naked. It's honestly just too. It's so open. Yeah, on this, on this grand theory, it is really interesting. I want to try and find some more Bernie Sanders reaction just because it is so striking to watch how different it is as opposed to the slock In universe of like respectability of the Cold War, of everything is about the chaos, which she's basically it's like a suburban strategy to try and win the suburban voters. But you know, the difference is is that Ryan, as you and I know, the suburban voters all voted Democrat. They were the faithful for Kamala. It was the working class voters who are the ones who abandoned them. I mean, what is it for the first time ever a Republican I voters under one hundred thousand and Democrats like you have the people who support this Reagan stuff. That's not who you need to win back right now, whereas it's you know, a very very different view. I think that would have to you would need to at least even compete from what we yes.

Respect it almost have to respect it because it's so naked. It's honestly just too. It's so open. Yeah, on this, on this grand theory, it is really interesting. I want to try and find some more Bernie Sanders reaction just because it is so striking to watch how different it is as opposed to the slock In universe of like respectability of the Cold War, of everything is about the chaos, which she's basically it's like a suburban strategy to try and win the suburban voters. But you know, the difference is is that Ryan, as you and I know, the suburban voters all voted Democrat. They were the faithful for Kamala. It was the working class voters who are the ones who abandoned them. I mean, what is it for the first time ever a Republican I voters under one hundred thousand and Democrats like you have the people who support this Reagan stuff. That's not who you need to win back right now, whereas it's you know, a very very different view. I think that would have to you would need to at least even compete from what we yes.

It's like when when Republicans, you know, Katie Britt did that weird deer in the headlights, you know, kind of creepy response to buy those insane But but the the goal at least you could see was let's put up a suburban looking mom because we're good with the NASCAR crowd. Like, we don't need another We don't we don't need to like up our share with them, and we've got other ways to reach them. This is our national audience. Let's show that we have normal suburban people who are not chaos agents. You know. She she happened to like completely botch that that moment, but you could see at least the thinking like, try to put somebody normal up there. And so Democrats to the rever like, what they need is like somebody who's going to reach outside of their tent, and instead they got like the person from Central casting inside there.

It's like when when Republicans, you know, Katie Britt did that weird deer in the headlights, you know, kind of creepy response to buy those insane But but the the goal at least you could see was let's put up a suburban looking mom because we're good with the NASCAR crowd. Like, we don't need another We don't we don't need to like up our share with them, and we've got other ways to reach them. This is our national audience. Let's show that we have normal suburban people who are not chaos agents. You know. She she happened to like completely botch that that moment, but you could see at least the thinking like, try to put somebody normal up there. And so Democrats to the rever like, what they need is like somebody who's going to reach outside of their tent, and instead they got like the person from Central casting inside there.

It was very odd, all right. So I've got one here. Let's take a listen to some of Senator Sanders.

It was very odd, all right. So I've got one here. Let's take a listen to some of Senator Sanders.

Well, just give you a very few examples. Trump claimed that the twenty twenty election was stolen from him and that he won by a land I remember.

Well, just give you a very few examples. Trump claimed that the twenty twenty election was stolen from him and that he won by a land I remember.

That A lie.

That A lie.

Trump claimed that the January sixth insurrection was a day of love.

Trump claimed that the January sixth insurrection was a day of love.

A lie.

A lie.

Trump has claimed that millions of undocumented people voted and do vote in American elections. A lie. Trump has claimed that climate change is a hoax originating in China. A lie. Trump has claimed that Ukraine started the horrific war with Russia. A lie, and tonight, just tonight, Trump claimed that millions of dead people between the ages of one hundred and three hundred and sixty. I guess we're collecting social Security checks. And that is an outrageous light intended to lay the groundwork, but cuts the Social Security and dismantling the most successful and popular government program in history.

Trump has claimed that millions of undocumented people voted and do vote in American elections. A lie. Trump has claimed that climate change is a hoax originating in China. A lie. Trump has claimed that Ukraine started the horrific war with Russia. A lie, and tonight, just tonight, Trump claimed that millions of dead people between the ages of one hundred and three hundred and sixty. I guess we're collecting social Security checks. And that is an outrageous light intended to lay the groundwork, but cuts the Social Security and dismantling the most successful and popular government program in history.

So what I find fascinating about that response is it's a mix of the greatest hits from MSNBC coupled with a little bit of Social Security, which actually is a good way to describe progressive liberalism.

So what I find fascinating about that response is it's a mix of the greatest hits from MSNBC coupled with a little bit of Social Security, which actually is a good way to describe progressive liberalism.

No offense, but it's right. Yeah, they hate Trump as much as you do. Why do you hate them so much? Yeah?

No offense, but it's right. Yeah, they hate Trump as much as you do. Why do you hate them so much? Yeah?

Yeah, it's like, you know, they are just liberals in many spons.

Yeah, it's like, you know, they are just liberals in many spons.

Just really like social Security and they want you to be a little bit better off. Yeah, they want life to be a little less hard.

Just really like social Security and they want you to be a little bit better off. Yeah, they want life to be a little less hard.

I was I was fascinated by yeah, because I saw the summary here in the tweet, and I was like, huh. I was like, you know, in a way that can show you in a certain in a better sense for the Democrats. The reason why it would be more effective is you get all your MSNBC hits even mister Sanders is a huge Ukraine stand which is depressing for anybody who's been following for a long time. But you know, he's come full circle here for the A to Ukraine and all of that. So he's with you on a lot of the box checks. But he's a little bit better I think it conveying some of this, not that they will listen to him at all. All right, let's get to the Trump free speech, the free speech order or truth, whatever the hell that we're going to call it. It's pretty extraordinary, no matter what you have, no matter what you think, I'm gonna go ahead and load some of this up here. All right. So this is what we got here from Donald Trump, President of the United States, in a statement yesterday. All federal funding will stop for any college, school, or university that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned and or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. No masks, thank you for your attention to this matter. Our the organization Fire, who have great and deep respect for says here in reaction free speech on college campus is a proud American tradition on public campuses protected by the First Amendment. President Trump's message this morning, combined with other recent executive orders, is deeply chilling. Peaceful protests isn't illegal, and the government must follow the First Amendment. Misconduct is not free speech and must be punished. The president can't force institutions to expel students. Students are entitled to due process on public college campuses and almost universally on private ones too. As Fire knows too well from our work in defending student and faculty rights under the Obama Biden administration, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later. Today's message casts an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, paired with Trump's twenty nineteen executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti Semitism. So, I mean, let me say one of the craziest things that I mean.

I was I was fascinated by yeah, because I saw the summary here in the tweet, and I was like, huh. I was like, you know, in a way that can show you in a certain in a better sense for the Democrats. The reason why it would be more effective is you get all your MSNBC hits even mister Sanders is a huge Ukraine stand which is depressing for anybody who's been following for a long time. But you know, he's come full circle here for the A to Ukraine and all of that. So he's with you on a lot of the box checks. But he's a little bit better I think it conveying some of this, not that they will listen to him at all. All right, let's get to the Trump free speech, the free speech order or truth, whatever the hell that we're going to call it. It's pretty extraordinary, no matter what you have, no matter what you think, I'm gonna go ahead and load some of this up here. All right. So this is what we got here from Donald Trump, President of the United States, in a statement yesterday. All federal funding will stop for any college, school, or university that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned and or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. No masks, thank you for your attention to this matter. Our the organization Fire, who have great and deep respect for says here in reaction free speech on college campus is a proud American tradition on public campuses protected by the First Amendment. President Trump's message this morning, combined with other recent executive orders, is deeply chilling. Peaceful protests isn't illegal, and the government must follow the First Amendment. Misconduct is not free speech and must be punished. The president can't force institutions to expel students. Students are entitled to due process on public college campuses and almost universally on private ones too. As Fire knows too well from our work in defending student and faculty rights under the Obama Biden administration, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later. Today's message casts an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, paired with Trump's twenty nineteen executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti Semitism. So, I mean, let me say one of the craziest things that I mean.

Ye yeah, well you're on it. Let me add, at least to Phonic, who is now Trump's un representative. She says, she shared this and says under President Trump, colleges and universities will be held accountable. Anti Semitism and anti israel hate will not be tolerated on American campuses. Promises made, promises kept. And you know, she's in some ways going even even further than let's let's let's take the counter argument that I've seen a lot from supporters of this initiative. They say, look, universities are not entitled to federal funds, so it is it is up to the president if he wants to give So that is just a absolute, complete, fundamental miss understanding and really assault on the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwall was talking about this recently and he had a really good example that I think will help people understand why that's not the case, because and the First Amendment law is very clear a government doesn't have to offer universities funding, but if they decide to offer funding, they cannot punish individual universities exactly based on speech and a better way to understand. The example he came up with was let's say New York State has an unemployment policy. They are not required to give unemployment benefits to anybody, but if they do give unemployment benefits, it would be wildly unconstitutional for them to condition getting unemployment benefits on your support for the Democratic Party.