12/3/24: Krystal Vs Cenk Uygur On Trump Populism

Krystal and Cenk debate if Trump will govern as a populist in his second term. 

 

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

 

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

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

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
So, Jank, you and I just started sort of talking
about the the they them add that Trump ran and
a bunch of other stuff, and the conversation just sort
of unfolded. So you're going to pick up here kind
of midstream with jenk and I already engaged in a
conversation about the future of the Democratic Party. So I
hope you enjoy.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
I don't want progressivism to be known as bane from
uh from you know Batman series. Yeah, you just we
let we're known as the guys who let all the
criminals go right, where's the justice in that.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
My So, my view, which is probably similar to yours,
is like, right, now, all the litmus tests, and this
largely comes down of like, actually the Hillary Clinton and
the neoliberal approach to politics, all the litmus tests are
around social issues. In the Democratic Party. You can be
pretty right wing on economic policy, it's not really a problem.
You know, you can be very pro corporate. I think
it should be the exact reverse. I think the litmus

(01:27):
test should be around economic.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Issues, goddamn right.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
And then you know, personally, I'm like pretty left on
almost every issue, but I have no problem with having
people in the tent who are pro life, who are
pro gun, who have different views on the border crime
than I do. But the litmus test has to be
like fuck the billionaires. That's basically my view of the party.
So where I get frustrated in the conversation is when

(01:52):
like the selth Moltens of the world are instantly like, well,
it's trans people, you know. It's like, well, you know,
if your only assessment from this is to like throw
trans people under the bus and you don't have that's
very convenient for the donor class. That's very convenient for
the powers that be in the Democratic Party that doesn't
acquire anything of them. So I'm not saying those issues aren't, like,

(02:15):
you know, challenging for the Democratic Party to deal with.
But if your only instinct is like to blame the
left yet again, when the left had nothing to do
with this campaign, like, I'm very suspicious of that.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
So I actually one hundred percent agree with you. Thank
you so much, Mack, thank you. But I don't want
us to live in non reality. And non reality is
saying that ad didn't hurt us when both sides said definitively,
according to our internal numbers, it was fucking devastating, right,
So like, that's not the number one reason, as I.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Said, right, I think the thing for me is you
have to ask the deeper question of like, Okay, why
do that AD hurt? Because why did that ad heart?
Because Bernie has the same position on transgender issues, but
that AD would not work against berniem okay, And the

(03:09):
reason is because he actually, like, people are not going
to be confused that Bernie Sanders' top priority is fighting
against rich people fighting for you. They're not going to
be confused about that. So you're right, if you're running
a Kamala Harris that AD's going to be a fucking
problem for her because she doesn't really stand for anything,
and so people can be very easily convinced that, like, oh,
she cares about a bunch of bullshit that I don't

(03:30):
support and I don't care about. But if you have
a candidate who has a story that can compete with
the Trump the left populist story and narrative and credibility
of actually fighting for those things, then you can carry
some cultural issues that, yeah, may not be that popular,
So you could.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
Do the a sound strategy if you uh, And that's
and I agreed with him, and that's what I would
have done. Yeah, if you have actual policies, like you're
that's right, because then you could say, hey, this is
a distraction from fifteen elementum wage and universal health care,
et cetera. But Kama couldn't say it's a distraction from
anything because she doesn't believe in anything that's right. Right.

(04:08):
So that's why I was saying the AD was a
perfect combination of what was wrong with the corporate Democrats
and the extreme left, because the corporate Democrats stripped her
of any real substance to run on right yeah, so
then all that was left was this was the extreme
left positions that she took on into twenty twenty. Right, Yeah,
so that's my opinion.

Speaker 2 (04:28):
Yeah, No, I totally agree with that. I totally agree
with it. I don't think you can say like that
didn't matter at all, But I think it's important to
understand why she was vulnerable to that ad and a
Bernie Sanders or an Andy Washer.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
But I'll tell you so, I agree with all that.
I will say that I think Bernie twenty twenty was
more susceptible to it, yes, than Bernie twenty sixteen.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Agreed, Agreed. So we've been talking here to jenk Yuger
obviously of TYT and many other wonderful distinctions as well.
But lucky to have you in studio today and we
you know, started talking and recording, so we'll just include
that front part in the conversation as well.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Great to have you, all right, great to be here.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
I'll give you the official welcome now. So you've been
making a lot.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Of waves I love to make.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Maybe you've been stirring the pot, sir.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
That's what I am almost sure.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
Yes, And I was telling you Kyle and I both
enjoyed Jinksgiving Thank you, and we're listening to it on
the way back from New York. One thing I wanted
to talk to you about is I want to get
into the stuff with you and Elon and Bernie's chimed
in there and your sort of general approach to the
Trump administration, which, tell me, if I'm wrong, feels different
than how you approach things in twenty sixteen. And we

(05:36):
can talk a little bit more about that and kind
of emblematic of that if you guys could put jenks
tweet up on the screen and we can use this
as a jumping off point. So you said, I've been
trying to figure out why I'm more optimistic now than
I was before the election, even though I was so
against the guy who won. I know now MAGA is
not my mortal enemy, and neither is the extreme left.
My mortal enemy is the establishment, and they have been defeated.

(05:59):
So there's a few pece of this that I have
some questions about. But I guess just off the top,
you know, I think you and I both think that
Trump is a fascist. In fact, I think we both
argued with our co hosts about this rather memorably what
makes you optimistic now that we have the fascists headed
back to the White House.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
Yeah, it's a couple of things. So number one, he
was a Why did I call him a fascist? I'm
very clear on this, right, because he did a fake
elector plant to overthrow the democratic elections in twenty twenty, right,
and he said to terminated the constitution afterwards. A lot
of right wingers don't know that, Like, when I read
him that quot they're like, no, really, and then they

(06:37):
read it and they can't believe it that he be
gets because he doesn't care about democracy, doesn't care about
the constitution, et cetera. Right, Right, So I have those
same exact concerns. Those concerns have not left. But the
one thing that happened in this election was that he
won the popular vote. And I noticed the right wingers
switching from oh, we're not a democracy, we're a republic.
Right yeah too, Like, yeah, let's.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Go democracy certainly free and elections exist, right yeah.

Speaker 1 (07:01):
And suddenly they're in favor of democratic elections. So great,
wonderful because my number one concern is that he's not
going to leave office. I'm less concerned about that now. Okay,
so maybe I'm wrong about that, And if I'm naive
about that, then I I'll you know, own up to it,
et cetera.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
Let me just say though, So for me personally, yes,
I continue to be somewhat concerned he won't leave office.
But my issue with the fake Elector's plot and all
of the things that he tried to pull during that
time is that it was indicative of, you know, an
attitude and authoritarian approach to government. Yes, that doesn't just

(07:38):
apply when he's trying to leave office. So for example,
he wanted to shoot protesters famously in the leg during
the Black Lives Matter protests, and he at that time
had some you know, institutions around him, and I think
it was Mark Million particular, was like, you can't do that.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
My fear this time is he doesn't have those people
around him anymore. And each of the institututions that held
him back last time, Supreme Court, the Senate, the Department
of Justice, the Pentagon, all of those, there's been a
concerted effort to make sure that this time he is
able to indulge his worst and most fascistic impulses. So

(08:17):
that's why I almost feel like I've traveled like the
opposite journey as you were in twenty sixteen hours more like,
and maybe who knows what we're going to get out
of this this time. I'm actually more concerned, especially because
you have that Supreme Court immunity decision which really does
kind of give him carte blanche.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Okay, So I'm going to get to the irony here, right, Okay,
So why am I thinking the other way?

Speaker 2 (08:38):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (08:38):
Yeah, yeah, So but first let me double down on
what you're saying. Cash Betel's a disaster, Pete Hegsith is
a disaster. I actually thought Matt Gates was a mixed
back because he is actually anti war and anti corruption,
but of course he has a terrible person in life.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah right, so but him being a mess might have
actually been a good thing because he probably wouldn't have
been that effective. But anyway, Right, So.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
The Labor Secretary great, given the Trump administration, given the limitations. Yeah,
and then you've got the team Israel, Marco Rubio Staffhanic.
So I'm not in other than the Labor Secretary, I'm
not interested in any of this, right, So, and you're right,
the Supreme Court has allowed him to be above the
lung But on top of that, he has no accountability left.
What are they going to do? Impeach him? What are
they gonna do? Arrest them? Right, no accountability? The breaks

(09:20):
are all And I agree with you. The establishment was
a break in the car. Now that break has been
taken out. So what in the world am I thinking?
Being slightly optimistic? Well, there's two parts to it. One
is the establishment being defeated. We got to come back
to that because that's so important. But I'm Trump the
new break in the car. And this is this is
me out on a limb. Okay, is right wing populous?

(09:42):
So okay, I see.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
You was I mean, listen, I am you know the
show I do right and I love soccer, and but
I am also very skeptical that that movement has significant
sway or influence with Trump. Go ahead and make your case.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
Okay, So I think I I think that's wrong. So
number one is a different magabase than in twenty sixteen.
The twenty sixteen magabase was Trump is DEMI God. Whatever
Trump says is by definition brought down to us from
the heavens and will never be challenged. So I had
no interest in that base, right, and it was filled
with old school Republicans, some establishment guys but not that many,

(10:21):
but still they were hanging in there. Then they had
the religious guys who were like, yeah, let's go kill
everyone in the Middle East so Jesus can come back
and stuff. Yeah, but those guys have lost a lot
of power within that base. So now within the right wing.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
Base, petegsas sorry, I'll let you finish it. But Pete
Hegseth my Kakabee.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Like no, no, I know, like balts. But Crystal Huckaby
is team Miriam, right, so she's.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
The one time Okay, yeah.

Speaker 1 (10:47):
I know, I know. So Miriam Madelson got Marco Rubio,
Stefanic Huckabee and Walls in those are all neo Khan's
war hawks too. Yeah, and Hexath with kill all the Muslims.
I mean, I'm not unclear that, yeah, and I know
that that in a lot of ways, I'm in the crosshairs, right,
but you're But don't discount the bros. Okay, So the

(11:08):
bros have brought in a huge new part of his base.
And don't discount the moderates that are so sick of
the Democratic Party that they flipped over moderates independence to
Trump and they're not looking to deport every human being
in America. That isn't you know, evangelical Christian. They're not
looking The bros don't even agree on abortion with the

(11:31):
Republican Party, right, So like when you talk about Joe
Rogan and Portanoy and all those guys, we have our
disagreements with them, no question, right, Yeah, but those guys
are breaking the car if if let's say, uh, they
do what one of Trump's potential picks was threatening to do,
which is deport and denaturalize and arrest Mehdi Hassan. Right,

(11:54):
that's a specific threat that one of the potential appointees had, right,
I think Mike Davis. So he was being considered for
attorney general, and so, by the way, good news he
didn't pick him. But but you know, Cash Pttel says
things like that. He says things like that, I think
if they go to do that, and this is where
people can you got me on tape, You'll say, ha ha,
Jank was so naive. That's when I think the rogans

(12:16):
of the world will come out and go, what do
you what are you doing? Really? I thought we were
for against cancel culture. I thought we were for freedom
you don't agree with media Assam's position on Israel, So
we're going to denaturalize him a thing that doesn't even exist. No,
I think they're gonna say no, okay, And here here's
the absolutely mistest okay on Israel. So the team Israel,

(12:38):
team Miriam will drive him towards war. Today, Donald Trump
said that he's going in that direction. Yeah, he said
that there's going to be hell to pay for the
Palestinians and for the entire Middle East if the hostages
aren't returned. I don't know what more hell they could
live in, right, But that's Trump saying I will murder
anyone on behalf of Israel, okay, and it will start

(12:59):
any war on behalf of Israel. So am I right
or am I wrong? We might find out instantly because
for the moment being, they're saying the right wing populace,
Oh no, no, no, Trump will never do a war
in the Middle East, No way, no way. But he's
a tough guy, and he's gonna threaten them, and he's
gonna get the hostages back. But what I'm trying to
explain to them is, and I had this conversation with

(13:20):
Rudy Giuliania at the RNC, brother, when you say, oh,
he's threatening them, so that's good negotiation. But what if
somebody calls his bluff And in the case of the Palestinians,
they don't have a choice because what Trump is saying
is in order to get the hostages back, Israel wants
to ethnically cleanse and take half of Gaza. No Palacinian
will ever agree to that, right, right, So we're gonna

(13:42):
Trump is threatening a giant war in the Middle East.
If he does it, We're gonna find out if I'm
right or wrong because that at that point, I think
the right wing populist and the bros go, oh, brother,
I didn't elect you to be a worse Neocon than Biden.

Speaker 2 (13:53):
Fair enough, and we'll see. But I'll tell you why.
I'm very skeptical because we already knew Trump's record from
his first term, like he was not anti war, and
he was extremely hawkish towards Iron and he was very
you know, pro Israel, and so this was already out there, right,
and you still have people like RFK Junior and Tulci

(14:14):
Gabbard who were claiming he was anti war, even though
they had said you know, both of them totally contradictory
things previously, and also claiming that he's anti censorship and
pro free speech. I mean, to me, that's just utterly preposterous.
This is someone who wants to tighten the libel laws,
who wants to criminalize flag burning. You know, the Republican
Party has launched a wave of bills across the country

(14:34):
to crack down protests, et cetera. And so even in
spite of all of that, they still continue to hold
him out as some you know, beacon of free speech
and beacon of anti war dubbishness. And so when I
see that, and I see there's already been this you know,
ability to erase all of the things that he's done
in the past and pretend he is something that he's not,
it's hard for me to imagine that dynamic changing. But well,

(14:58):
we can put a pin in that because we are
going to see, you know, soon enough, what the reaction
is going to. Because I do want to get to
this piece about the establishment, because the other part that
I have a question about here is you say the
establishment has been defeated, and I just say, like, even
in the Democratic Party, I think they have been delta blow.
I think you see that in MSNBC's cratering ratings. I

(15:18):
think that creates an opportunity, a possibility. But I don't
think they've been defeated. I think it's very possible we
end up with Peteon, Gavitt or Gavin you know, next
time around in the Democratic primary. These people are very resilient.
I think you have a lot of you know, affluent
liberals who will think that they could be the answer
to the problems, et cetera. They still have a lot
of money power. But on the Republican side too. You know,

(15:41):
for me, the ultimate like final boss establishment is the
billionaires who rig the rules for their own benefit. And
the billionaires have basically never been more blatantly in control
than right now. Elon Musk is a perfect example of this.
But we can actually put this next element up on
the screen. Guys. Trump is the wealthiest cabinet in history.
I think there are six billionaires so far that he's

(16:04):
picked to be part of his administration. And so you know,
to me, again, this is like the ultimate establishment, and
they are fully in control of what's going to happen
in the Trump administration.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
So I agree with you on all that. He's been
hypocritical on every one of those issues, censorship, and he
said about in this first term, I don't want poor
people in my cabinet. Yeah right, So he's been trying
to get into that elite club his whole life. So
the idea that he's against the elites is kind of funny.
He is, but only because he's jealous.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
He's against cultural elites, Hollywood, academia. He's not against.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
He's not that's not even true. He'd love to be
in a home.

Speaker 2 (16:49):
Oh that's true.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
Right, But that's how he started university. So but he
but is he was he perceived as against establishment? Yes? Right? Yeah,
so so that's when I so, when is it establishment annihilated? No,
of course not. Are they going to make a comeback?
Of course the Empire is going to strike back in
twenty twenty eight. But at the Empire is struck back
so many times. It's struck back in twenty sixteen, twenty twenty,

(17:12):
twenty twenty four, and so maybe twenty twenty eight is
to extend this needless analogy is the return of the Jedi? Right,
and so so I'm not under any illusion that the
establishment is gone, right, But did was Kamala Harris the
more establishment candidate. Yes, of course she was right, and
so did she lose. Yes, And as I explained in

(17:33):
another tweet in that thread, it's not just that Kamala
Harris lost a lot of some Hillary Clinton lost, right,
Biden nearly lost. So it's not that. It's that mainstream media,
which is the main weapon of the establishment, is now
greatly reduced in its influence. Before we could not get
past them in a democratic primary. Bernie almost had it

(17:54):
in sixteen, but certinly in twenty twenty twenty on the
first three states, and mainstream media defeated him with their
lies and propaganda. Right, Oh, he's going to execute people
in Central Park, He's a Nazi, et cetera. Yeah, So
the mainstream media guys are the worst liars in the world.
They lie way worse than even right wing media. There.
I don't know, Okay, we could have that discussion. I

(18:15):
think you cannot find two bigger liars in America than
Joe Scarborough and Whoopee Goldberg.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
I mean, but here you, I mean, I hear you.
But I also have been kind of black piled on
a lot of independent media because that tenant media situation
where you know, Timpoole and whoever else were taking random,
sketchy money to put out whatever propaganda they were told
to put out. I just, you know, I don't see
what has grown up on the right in the independent

(18:42):
media space as actually being better than the mainstream.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
Prop I disagree with you, well, I.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
While I feel like there, you know, what I agree
with you on is there is a possibility that exists
now that didn't before, and so I feel sort of
I guess what I relate to in your tweet, I
would say I feel energized because there is a possibility
that wasn't there that is there now. I think the
most likely outcome is that things continue to get worse.

(19:10):
That's why, that's why I don't feel like optimistic, because
what I see over the next four years is you're
probably going to have, you know, a lot of cruelty
towards immigrants. You're likely to have you know, another inflationary spiral.
If he does, you know, half of the tariffs he's
talking about, you could very easily have more chaos than
the Middle East. We're already seeing it more brutality in
the Middle East. That's almost certainly going to happen. You know,
you could have some like giant crypto bubble, as possible

(19:31):
avian flu. Like, there's all kinds of things that I
think could be horrible and brutal over the next four years,
and I can't look at that. I would love to
feel optimistic that you know something, there's going to be
a light at the end of the rainbow. And like
I said, I do feel energized, but optimistic is just
not you know, I would love to be there, but
I'm not.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
So let me agree and disagreeing part. So first all,
I agree with your facts. So when we're talking about
online media, are the Russians involved? Are there fracking billionaires
that are financing shows? Yeah, billionaire acts and billionaire y
And do some of those shows totally serve those interests.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
Yes, And they're reading the ads themselves, so there's not
even like, you know, the appearance of an arms length distance. Yeah,
get alargizers and the money.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
I get all that, and I grant all that. Okay,
So why then, given those facts and are more optimistic
about online media than mainstream media Because mainstream media is
a prison, and it's a prison you can't in the past,
you could not break out of there's guard rails. You
are not allowed to say things outside those guardrails. You
cannot talk about how the donors obviously control all the politicians. Obviously,

(20:37):
you cannot talk about how Israel obviously controls Washington and
Washington's occupied territory. It's so obvious. But if you say
you're fired, you're fired, You're fired. I hate that prison.
I despise that prison of lies. That is establishment media. Okay.
So now in online media, yeah, you got the Russians,
you got this, you got wild and wooly crazy stuff.

(20:58):
You got people I disagree with on the extream left,
on the extreme right. It's a mess in online media,
and I love it. Okay, that's the jungle, But Crystal,
that's our jungle. Okay. So if we started this jungle
at the young Turks and breaking points in the young
Turks are in that are in those same woods, right, Oh,
in the woods we have to fight off the right,

(21:19):
the left, the middle of the Russians, the Israelis, the Saudis,
et cetera. Yeah, that's the woods, baby, right, But we
were born in those woods.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
I mean, I I don't you jink. I just I've
seen too much I mean, you know what the incentives are, like,
the incentives are to feed the algorithm, and incentives are
to future audience whatever they want to hear. The incentives
are to be you know, ever more in your own bubble,
and a lot of the incentives are the same, like
access driven ones and corruption driven ones as the mainstream press.

(21:50):
There's a reason why you and I didn't get interviews
with Kamala Harris because she knows we would ask her
some tough questions. Of course, there's a reason.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
And gives it damn about getting in every book.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
I'm just saying, oh, I am coming a lot of people.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
I'm not interested in interviewing a corporate robot anyway.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
But Jake, my point is that a lot of people
do care about that, which is why, I mean, so
much of right wing media is just like, you know,
basically sucking off Trump and whatever he says and towing
the line because they want to maintain that access. They
want to maintain you know, their funding, funding and their money,
and they want to feed their audience whatever they want
to be fed. And so again there's a possibility here,
and I don't want to squash that. I think it's

(22:26):
really important and it excites me on the stay in
the same respects like I'm clear eyed about what assesspool.
A lot of independent media, frankly is at this point.
And so I there's I guess a caution that I
have about it.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
So nobody knows that better than me. Right, We've been doing.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
This for I know, I know, that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
So I so we started when the Internet was a
nice place. That's how old we are, so longest running,
showing internet history, first YouTube partner, you know all that. Yeah, yeah,
So my point is that I have gone through all
of those different things, and I'm perfectly aware of that.
I'm not at all naive about it, I know, Right,
But let me ask you a question back. You and

(23:07):
I both worked at MSNBC. So we've worked and establishment media,
we've worked online media. What do you prefer?

Speaker 2 (23:13):
Oh, definitely online media. Then I'll tell you, Jank, We've
made some very specific decisions here, which is we don't
do that. We will never talk to an advertiser, you know,
we don't do adreads. We you know, have tried to
intentionally create our business to avoid as much as possible,
and we're still human beings. But as much as possible

(23:34):
some of the you know, the pressures, the incentives, et cetera,
that I think have led to, you know, most of
the media ecosystem being not that great. And I think
you know that's you know, I know you guys have
made some of those choices in your own way. Is
not exactly the same ones that we have. But most
people like the money's green, and you know, they want

(23:56):
me to read this ad for like the Bald Coddlers
or whatever it is, and I'm going to do it,
and I'm not going to look into that product. And
if later down the road there's some problem with the product,
I'm not going to cover it because then I'm going
to have a problem with my funders. Like I think,
because we've made some specific decisions here, it has given
us a lot of freedom. But I don't necessarily see

(24:17):
those same incentives, you know, playing out across all of
independent media which is created. So as much as I
would love for us to be the model for everyone,
that's not the reality of most of what exists out there.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
Yeah, but so Crystal, I agree with you on all
of that. Again, stimulate to all the facts, right, But
at least we've got a fighter's chance at online media.
And what has our perseverance shown tyt as a network. Yeah,
it's shown that when you buck all the tides and
you don't take the obvious money, you don't serve those

(24:49):
corporate interests, and you get attacked by every side, imaginable, right, establishment,
right wing, left wing, everyone has attacked us. Yeah, and
yet we're still the largest. So now that's not to
just a brag or anything. There's a real point in there,
which is, yes, but the audience values the truth and
so as difficult as it is day to day, Oh,

(25:09):
somebody lined about you, you lost a part of your audience.
So someone else lined about you, you lost a part of
your audience. But you still keep going and going and going.
And those guys they all fall off, they all fall off.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
Daily Wire is way bigger than us, and they are
you know, they're propagandists.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Yeah, but Daily Wire has gotten an enormous amount of
money from corporate interests right now. But that's in the run.

Speaker 2 (25:35):
The new establishment media, you know, it's I mean, they're
not bucking the system, right, they're they're just a new
version on a different platform of effectively Fox News, I know.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
But Chrysal. I'm a business person, and I can see
that those models are unworkable in the long run. Basically,
what the right wing billionaires are doing is they have
a marketing budget, right, and their marketing budget goes to
things like other right wing media, right online, right wing media,
And I get it. And that's a big reservoir of
money that the left doesn't have at all, right, Right,

(26:08):
And so it's so ironic when they're like Soros controls everything.
Have you guys checked into how right media against financed? Okay,
let alone the fact that Soros hasn't helped us a dime, right,
as far as I don't know about you guys are
not definitely, and so I get all that, But they
don't have margins. It's not a real business. Okay, it's
not a real business if you have to rely on,

(26:29):
as Dennis Prager does, twenty three million dollars a year
from right wing billionaires, right, that's just a marketing, short
term marketing operation. Whereas building a real business where people
actually value what you're doing, value the truth, that is
sustainable in the long run. And we've proven that. Yeah,
So look last thing on Trump in terms of why then.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
I want to talk and then I want to talk
to them about elon.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
If you don't know, I don't mind at all, but
like on why I'm not despondent as I was in
twenty sixteen. Okay, okay, So there's the right wing base.
But there's one of the thing with Trump. He loves
being popular. So you got to get one decent person
in the room to show him how to be popular,
because I don't think he knows how. He's just grasping

(27:12):
a straws He's blind, right, he keeps doing ab testing.
He's like, okay, what's more popular, being pro immigrant or
anti immigrant? He did that, like back in twenty fifteen.
He went on a radio tour and he's like pro emigrant, No,
that's not anti immigrant. Oh yeah, okay, people like that, right. Yeah. So,
but paid family leave is popular, healthcare is popular, higher
wages as popular, and the right wing populist like all that.

(27:34):
Anti war, anti corruption, those are all popular, and the
right wing populist agree with the left wing populist. So
there is an area of possible agreement there that could
get something done that the establishment would never do. The
establishment would never be anti war, they would never be
anti corruption, they would be never anything positive. So like,
we've broken out of that prison, and that prison was

(27:56):
the worst place in the world and it was filled
with nothing but gas lighting about the American people's suck,
and the donors are the greatest. The politicians are honest.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
I just don't know who is going to be that
voice number one, because his administration has largely been filled with,
you know, almost with a few exclusions. You know, I
think the Labor Secretary is a notable one, but with
almost all like sort of right wing ideo logs. And
number two. I guess part of what I'm grappling with
as well is if you go down the list of issues,

(28:30):
I'm all for a horseshoe, and I think there are
some areas there, you know, to work with Josh Holly
or work with that used to be Marco Ruby actually
was kind of interesting on some of the economic stuff,
like Matt Gates also was interesting on the economics. All
for horseshoe, working with elected representatives, et cetera. But if
you go down the list, I think you and I
are mostly ideologically in the same place. I'm sure we
have some differences, but I think we're buying large ideologically

(28:52):
in the same place. If I go down a list,
I am on almost every issue closer to the common
Harris Democrat than I am to the Donald Trump Republican,
whether it's healthcare or wages or labor or any of
these things. And so that's what's kind of That's what's
a little bit like dissonant for me, is you know,

(29:13):
if we're caring about the policy outcomes, I think I'm
much more likely to get improvement, not the things we
would want, like Medicare for all, but much more likely
to get improvement on the policy outcomes that I would
want to see from a Kamala Harris. So react to that,
but also like, are you saying that you're actively happy
that Trump beat her at this point?

Speaker 1 (29:30):
No, So this is what I was going to say,
is since I agree with you ideologically that I'm closer
to the theoretical Kamala Harris potations, right, That's why I
voted for Kamlaris donald Trump. And I'm worried to Donald Trump. Again.
Never called them a Nazi, never called him Hitler, but
fascist is another word for authoritarian, right, And so yeah,

(29:50):
I'm worried that Donald Trump's an authoritarian. So that's why
I vote and he said to terminate the consolation. Yeah,
that's why I voted for Kamala Harris. Okay, So now
having said that, now that he is one, right, I
would have preferred an actual populace instead of I you
to be a fake populist. Right, But now that he
is won, there is a tiny ray of hope that
did not exist in the establishment prison.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Okay, I hear that.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
So last thing on that is, I'll give you a
specific example paid family leaf. Is Trump likely to do it? No?
Of course not right? So and was Kamala Harris going
to do it? No? Of course not. Okay, No, there's
a chance with her that No, that I totally disagree.
That's where I disagree. The establishment never waivers. They will

(30:33):
do what corporate donors tell them. Not ninety nine percent
of the time, one hundred percent of not true, it
is one hundred anything.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
I'll give you some specific examples from the Biden administration,
which is anti trust. Lena Khan, right, the Lall Street
Journal hated him for that, The billionaires hated him for that.
I mean this is that was a big pressure campaign
they put on Kamala Harris to make sure she got
rid of Lena Khan has her so that he was
the most pro labor president we have had in our lifetimes.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
That is, of.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Course, but these are two areas where the donors did
not want this right and his National Labor Relations Board,
you know, the General Counsel Jennifer brusso genuinely sort of
revolutionary in her approach, and they ended captive audience meetings
for one example. A lot of the decisions she made
helped to enable this grassroots labor organizing search, and so

(31:31):
you know that was that was a break from neoliberalism.
Now he has destroyed any possible positive legacy with genocide
and Gaza and all kinds of other things besides and
being so arrogant and not getting out of the way,
et cetera. But he did break with what the billionaires
wanted and what the donors wanted in a few key areas,
and I think we are very like that is not

(31:52):
going to happen with Trump. Trump is already handed so
much government pound. This will help us transition into Elon
to Elon Musk with this doge thing. I mean, Elon
is not only the richest man on the planet, but
he also has massive multi billions of dollars in government contracts.
He's one of the Pentagon's largest contractors. And whether it's

(32:13):
Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or whoever,
I as a matter of principle, object to like rule
by billionaires, rule by unelected billionaires. And that is this
is like the most clear manifestation of that that I've
ever seen.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
So for Biden and Obama, what they do is a
release valve. Right, so they'll give you five to ten
percent change, sure, And I would argue that Biden at
his height, actually did fifteen percent of his agenda. So
for Democrats, that's like record break and we're only lying
eighty five percent of the time.

Speaker 2 (32:44):
No, I agree with Okay, So.

Speaker 1 (32:47):
They say, well, well, look, we gave you a little
release valve so you don't do a revolution. We gave
you Lena Khan, we gave you a decent National Labor
Relations Board. Now, of course we didn't give you the
pro Act. Don't be ridiculous. We're not going to actually
promise me.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
But how many supported the pro Act and how many Republicans? No?

Speaker 1 (33:02):
But that's my point, that's my point, Crystal. Those Democrats
are liars. They don't actually support the pro act. They
don't actually support any of those policy positions. Giant, enormous liars.
So you saw it on fifteen dollar minum wage. Oh,
we're for fifteen dollar minute wage. Joe Biden's like, get
it out of goddamn bill, right, he said in the
first interview in the Super Bowl, he said, Oh no,

(33:24):
we can't do fifteen domenu in wage. Why And I
remember talking to people in Congress saying, oh, Jang, what
are you worried about. It's guaranteed, it's guaranteed. Nancy PELUSI
told us it's guaranteed, right, And what did we do?
We forced a vote on it. And what happened? Eight
sellout Democratic senators voted against the fifteen dolarmeters, which including
the two Biden.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Senator How many Republicans voted? Again?

Speaker 1 (33:44):
No, no, But Crystal, I stipulate that the Republicans are
totally corrupt.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
But are you? Because it seems like you're saying that
you're more likely to get like something real out of
them than you are on of the Democrats. And look,
I'm clear eyed about the Democrats. You know, I've been
plenty critical of them in their many failings, but I
just don't think that's true. And you know, part of
it is that Democrats get significant funding from labor unions
and that's a part of their coalition, and so that's

(34:09):
part of why they're that's part of why that's part
of why they have been more. I mean they have
just the Biden administration in particular was pretty consistently pro labor,
and I think they deserve you know, I think they
deserve some credit for that.

Speaker 1 (34:23):
And dragged to the picone's like, oh my god, a
Democrat didn't like.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
The Democrats are perfect, but Donald Trump is a strike
breaker like he and was like, isn't that awesome how
you fired these striking workers? But he has been a
union buster his entire career. His first NLRB and lay
secretary work horrendous. So it kind of feels.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Like you are no, no, no, no, Look, let's so
let's be super clear about it. So if you say
to me, establishment Republicans suck, I agree. But the Republican
populace base that elected Trump did a revolution against Mitch McConnell,
did a revolution.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Against that Trump, not because of his like corporate whatever
trumps the.

Speaker 1 (35:09):
Biggest Nevertheless, Nevertheless, establishment Republicans are defeated and humiliated, and
I love it. Okay, they are.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
Marco Rubio is Secretary of State.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
But let's see what happens with the right wing base
when he goes to start that war. We're going to
find out. So no, here, I'll give you two specific examples.
Number one, on paid family leave. Neither one of them
is likely to do it. And and no, I'm not
thinking that everything is rainbows and sunshine and oh my god,
Trump's going to be amazing. No, he is more likely
to do what he has done in the past, and

(35:41):
what he has done in the past is bad, bad,
to terrible. Okay, yes, so I've got that at about
seventy five percent. Everyone else has it at ninety nine
or one hundred percent. That is on our side, right,
And I think that that is wrong. I think there's
a twenty five percent chance that that right wing base
and his desire for popularity makes a difference. I think

(36:01):
with corporate Democrats, you would have never ever gotten paid
family leave, even though it polls at eighty four percent.
They're enormous liars. All they have to do is introducing it.
It passes right. So the fact that they know that
they could just introduce it and have it pass, and
they won't do it anyway shows you they are hopeless.
They are one hundred percent donor driven. And every once
in a while, I release valve, release valve. Okay, so

(36:23):
on the pressure, but on the on the Republican side,
if you convince Donald Trump that paid family leave will
make him more popular, he'll do it overnight. He doesn't have.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
About Mitch McConnell wing ideologs around it. I mean, this
is the thing, But then what are you going to
do give up home? You just can't. You just can't know.

Speaker 1 (36:41):
But you then let's talk about the Pentagon.

Speaker 2 (36:43):
No, but you, let's talk about the Pentagon, because I
do think that's an interesting point of conversation. If I
look at how many Democrats support the Proact and how
many Republicans. If I look at how many Democrats support
paid family leave and how many Republicans, I'm not saying
the Democrats are great, but I am saying that that
release valve is vastly superior to you know, with Trump,

(37:03):
you're going to get some level of extremely cruel border
policy which is going to cause unbelievable pain to a
number of people. You are going to probably get West
Bank annexation and more brutality in the Middle East, and
so I just can't sort of you know, while yeah,
you know, I'll have a hope in a prayer that

(37:25):
maybe something positive will come out somewhere, Like I'm just
clear eyed about I think there's going to be a
lot of pain and cruelty and unnecessary suffering caused by
this administration. So that's why it's hard for me to
relate to like a sense of optimism about the possibility,
even as again I'm all for a good horseshoe if
there's an issue. You know, Bernie Sanders has done this
also working with I think Josh Holly on stimulus check.

(37:46):
We like, do it great, get what you can. But also,
like like I said before, I think what's likely to happen,
the most likely outcome is just things are going to
get overall worse than That's yeah.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
Where I am looking like a repeat it before people
believe me. I know Donald Trump has done terrible things
in the past. That's why I fought tooth and nail
against them in all of the elections. Yeah, I know
what is more likely. I know how awful the Republicans
have been in the past, right, Okay. The only point
of disagreement is I think some of those right wing

(38:19):
voters are not as horrific as you think they are.

Speaker 2 (38:21):
Oh, I don't think the voters are horrific. I don't
think that at all. I think that they there is
no track record of them, you know, constraining Donald Trump,
holding him to account. He has become the central figure
in the Republican Party. And you know, however, he wants
to spend things, whatever case he wants to make. What

(38:41):
I have seen is people consistently, even in this era,
even with new parts of the coalition, et cetera, I
have seen them fall in line. And that's where the
RFK Junior and the Tulsi example, I get it.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
So if I said to you, who is more likely
to cut the Pentagon Joe Biden, Kama harris Er, Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (38:58):
None, Okay, I mean Donald Donald Trump increased the defense
budget every year that he was in.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
There, of course, and he bragged about it. Okay, So
I agree that none of them are likely to cut it.
But with Trump, because of his right wing base and
his desire for popularity, I have it at possible. With
Biden and Harris, it had a zero percent chance because
they work for the goddamn donors. They would never cut

(39:23):
the military.

Speaker 2 (39:24):
Yeah, I mean he went to oil, Give me a
billion dollars, whatever you want me to do, Crypto, you
know he.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
Was going to be a disaster. You don't have to
convince me of that. But here's let me see if
I could break through one last time. So if Biden said,
if Kamala Harris had won and she developed a conscience,
which is nearly impossible, and said, you know what, this
Pentagon is bloated. Look at all this fraud and abuse.
They can't find four hundred million dollars. That said, I'm
cutting two hundred billion dollars from the Pentagon. Even if

(39:56):
she had done that, which you had a zero percent chance,
the Democrats would have, not just the Republicans, but the
Democrats would have found a way to stop her and
not allow her to cut the Pentagon. So there was
no hope at all, black hole of hope. Okay, with Trump,
if the Republicans go to stop him, if he goes
to cut the Pentagon, they won't be able to. If
Mitch mcconnoughll goes and Rick cargles, you won't cut the Pentagon.

(40:19):
Trump like, what did you say, bitch? Okay, I mean
Mitch okay, right, and Mitch Mcca. I'm so sorry. I'm
so sorry. We're cutting the Pagan everybody, We're cutting the
Pentagon because Trump has them bullied. That is another advantage
of Trump that he could bully the establishment, his grotesque
establishment authoritarian tendencies.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
Jiu jitsu move jiu jitsu end up being a benefit.
Take your position. I do want to just quickly, because
we've already gone on a long time. I don't want
to keep you too long, but I do want to
talk a little bit about the Elon thing, and we
can put up the Bernie Sanders tweet you had done.
You would like reach out to Elon like, hey, you know,
I'll help you cut the Pentagon budget if series about this.

(41:00):
Bernie Sanders says something similar. Elon Musk is right, the
Pentagon just failed as haven't thought it. That must change,
blah blah blah. Obviously I would like to see the
Pentagon's budget cut. I will tell you, like I said,
I am all for working for the with the elected representatives,
as Bernie has done in the past with Josh Holly
and others on areas of agreement, totally fine with my
problem maybe my core litmus tests. And you and I

(41:22):
were talking about this before, like if I was to
design the Democratic Party from scratch, the litmus test would
all be around economics and there would be a larger
tent around cultural issues, even as I know personally have
mostly lefty issues on positions on cultural issues. But pretty
core litmus test for me is we shouldn't be allowing
unelected billionaires to effectively run the government, and so on

(41:44):
this particular issue, I do come down in a different
place than you because I think this project of giving
Elon Musk, richest man on the planet, one of the
Pentagon's largest contractors, who's in Brown all sorts of regulatory
disputes around labor violations and environmental degcorty and SEC violations,
giving him carte blanche to remake the government. However he

(42:05):
wants to like just down a principle, I think that's
a project overall that should be a post.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
Yeah. So totally agree, but that's not where we are.
So let's talk about the agreement and then let's talk
about what to do going forward. Okay, So this is
what I told the Republicans and the right wing voters
and the independence before the election. Look, Donald Trump openly
brags about his corruption. He goes, I used to be
against electric vehicles, but then Elon gave me a very
strong endorsement.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
Right now here we are. Yeah, I'm like, you.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Just admitted that you are the swamp right and so,
and he brags about, oh, Sheldon Aedelson gave me a
strong endorsement back in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. That
means one hundred million dollars in both races, right, So
he said, so I moved the embassy for you just
admitted that you gave us foreign policy to a donor.
And he's now done that with Miriam Adolson. You know,

(42:55):
he's saying, oh, yeah, I'll start any war Israel wants,
because Miriam gave me one hundred and thirty seven million
dollars on TikTok. He was even more brazen. He was like,
I was against TikTok, try to get a band, but
Jeff Yas give me a strong.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
Endorsement Crypto the same deal.

Speaker 1 (43:08):
Yeah, and so now I'm for TikTok. Right. So he
admits his corruption in spectacular fashion. It's unbelievable. Would I
allow Elon Musk, in an ideal world to basically have
power over at least half the government just because he's
one of the top donors to Donald Trump? No, I

(43:29):
don't want billionaire donors in charge of the government, right,
So that is clear and obvious. And I hope one
day right wing populace finally realize, oh, maybe billionaire donors
aren't our friends, maybe that they're ringing the rules not
to our benefit but to their benefit. Right, So I
understand and stipulate to all that. But nevertheless, Trump won,

(43:52):
and here's Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami. Who are going
to be in charge of this Yeah, who are going
to be in charge of this department? Whatever the hell
this department is, which is really the whole government, right, right?
And so I say half the government, but it's not,
it's the whole government. And so how do I make
the best of it? Well, we've always wanted to cut

(44:13):
the Pentagon, right, So if they're looking to make cuts,
I suggest the idea of cutting the Pentagon. Now, normally
that's where it would end, especially with if I said
that to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, they'd be like, get
out of here, you loser, online media populous losers.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
No way, right, Biden doesn't know how to log into Twitter.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
Yeah. So so they'd be like, no way. They'd go
and you know, give a general a handy, that's you know,
and be like, oh no, don't don't worry, don't worry.
Joe Biden's here to protect you. Right, and so would
Mitch McConnell's. So would every dirt bag Republican. Right. So,
but here Elon Musk and Donald Trump Junior said maybe
maybe maybe we do that, right, maybe we do. Then
I suggested a conflict of interest rule where the generals

(44:52):
can't be go work for defense contractors afterwards. Right, And
why did Elon This is the important part I'm trying
to get through to you. Yeah, why did Elon and
Donald Trump Junior go all right, Jank ada boy? Not
a thing they would normally say.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
Because they like saying even lefty Jank Huger no agrees
the Department of Government efficiency. That's why.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
And so Crystal, I totally get that, Yeah, and I
understand that that's part of their motivation. Yeah, But the
main motivation was not that the main motivation is because
on X they could see all of their base going yes, yes, yes, yes,
yes yes.

Speaker 2 (45:25):
Because they're based Also like even Jank, you Lefty Jank
Huger is on board with the Department Government efficiency, Like
I understand where I'm coming from. I understand where Bernie's
coming from. Of like, listen, this is the world and
we have to deal with it, and we're going to
get what we can get. If you're talking about elective
representative I am one hundred percent on board with all
of that. With this specific project, I think it's dangerous

(45:47):
to normal normalize giving billionaires this level of control over
the government. And you're, you know, your willingness to engage
with it, which again I understand where you're coming from.
I'm not saying like you're bad or evil or like
whatever for doing it, but I think this level of
engagement gives this project of total billionaire control over the

(46:09):
federal government a sense of bipartisan legitimacy and creates the
appearance that genuinely beneficial things are going to come out
of it, when I do not think that genuinely beneficial
things are going to come out of it overall, even
if there are things that they cut that you and
I both be like, Okay, that's fine that they cut that,
because look, Elon Musk, he is himself one of the
largest Pentagon contractors. He has all of these massive conflicts

(46:32):
of interest. This is a project, like any normal like
Koch Brothers type right wing project, to strip the capability
of the government so it's less able to regulate and
constrain Robert barons like Elon Musk or any other of
the billionaire class that has rigged the economy. And so
that's why, in this specific instance, I think it's more

(46:53):
important to just oppose the project outright and try to
explain to people why this is a really perditious development
in our nation's history, versus giving it some credibility by
being like, oh, look, they might do some good things
and they might work with me on this or that proposal.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
So totally agree, totally disagree, Okay, the part I agree
on is, yeah, it's a pernacious project. I don't want
to validate billionaires running the government, donors running the government.
That was the problem with the establishment in the first place. Yeah, right,
And yes, Elon Musk has enormous conflicts of interest, not
just with the Pentagon. He wants to get rid of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why because they're the cops.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
On Wall Street and the NLRB.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
And why do they want to get rid of that
because it serves as billionaire interests. Right. So I'm trying
to I hope to god. I know it's a tough,
tough task. Yeah, but get the right wing populace to
realize he's another donor. Wake up, wake up, he's a
donor and he wants to get rid of the cops
that are regulating him, right, and so he wants.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
To defund the police, just the white collar police.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
That's literally the analogy I use. He wants to defund
the police on Wall Street, right, and so so and
then some people online thinking, oh, jag, are you going
to call them out on the Consumer Financial Protection Buah?
Of course, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau saves twenty dollars for
every dollar we spend on it. They get back twenty
billion dollars for every one billion we spend. But not
only that, the twenty billion is money that the bankers

(48:15):
stole from us, right, And they admit that they stolen,
and that's why they pay those fines et cetera. So
it's actually the best part of the government. I agree
with all of that, but they are in charge. We
did lose, so like on immigration, I agree with you,
they're going to do some awful things on immigration that
I don't agree with.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
Yeah, but the.

Speaker 1 (48:36):
Voters did kind of vote for that, Okay, and we
have to be cognizant of them. Right, But the voters
didn't want vote for a giant war in the Middle East.
They didn't. They voted against that, not for that, right,
The voters did vote against corruption at large. Yeah, maybe
they got misdirected by Trump, right, but they still hate
corruption at their core. So if you can make them

(48:57):
see the corruption now in the midst of all of that. Though,
if you say me, Rocanna and Bernie Sanders shouldn't legitimize
this and instead should go, hey, you know what, cut
Medicare and Medicaid first, don't worry about the Pentagon, don't
worry about the conflicts of interest, don't worrybout cutting the Pentagon.
Cut the best parts of the budget first. No.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
No, I guess where you and I disagree is I
just do not believe that they actually are serious about
like any positive intel, like I don't believe they're going
to cut the Pentagon, period, and so that I think
that maybe partly why come down in a different place.
But also my position really is that with this particular project,
because it is so pernicious to just give carte blanche

(49:39):
to a group of billionaires with massive conflicts of interest,
like some of the largest conflicts of interests you can imagine,
I think to me, the most important approach to that
is just to oppose it. But I understand where you're going.
I get where you're coming from.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
Toy, and I want to address something to those Yes,
can I sure this is my camera here? Okay? Yeah?
So right wing populous, it is now your job to
prove Chris wrong.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
Go out and do it, y'all.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
So she doesn't believe you. And by the way, almost
no one on the left other than me and Anna
believe you guys that you actually want to cut the
Pentagon and that you could pressure Elon Musk and Donald
Trump to cut the Pentagon. So are you going to
prove the left wrong? Or are you going to prove
them spectacularly? Right? Am? I gonna have to come on
here and apologize to Crystal forever believing in any right

(50:22):
wing populist and say, oh, I was a sucker. Those
guys are liars. They all they want to do was
increase the Pentagon, have more wars, more corruption, and they
never held Trump accountable. We waited four long years for
them to hold them accountable, and all they did was
kiss his ass and show that they don't really believe
in freedom. They said all this stuff about freedom, but
they never meant it. They said all this stuff about

(50:43):
drain the swamp, but they never meant it. They said
all this anti war stuff, but they never meant it.
We're gonna come back on here in one year, two years,
four years, and we're gonna keep doing a check. So
if right wing populists are frauds, I'm gonna say, Crystal,
you were right. There were frauds all along. Okay, let
me but I don't think so. I think they are.

Speaker 2 (51:01):
Saying, let me just say we we already have some examples,
so I'll give you one and then we can we
can wrap things. I'll give you the final word and
we can wrap things up here. But you know, r
K Junior put in at HHS or nominated to be
put in at HHS, talking a big game about getting
bad stuff out of the food system. Migree you agree
with that, you know, taking on big Ag et cetera.

(51:23):
Trump just put in at the FDA for the USDA,
and at the f DA the A Brooke Rawlins, who
is a total like corporate you know, big egg shall
be ag secretary, Big AG shill. Now RFK had come
with a list of like, here's who I want to
help me in my project, and he's like, now I'm
gonna go with the lady who's going to be friendly

(51:43):
to like big ag interest. Have you heard a word?
Have you heard our K Junior come out? Have you
heard any of his followers come out and be like,
oh my god, like they're going back on Maha already.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
No.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
And so that's why I am highly skeptical that you're
going to see any level of like expectant, like consistent
adherence to principle and holding of account of Donald Trump,
because I just have never never seen that before. I remember,
in the before he ran in twenty sixty, he said
he was going to give everybody health care and then

(52:15):
he didn't, and everyone was just like, yeah, that's fine.
So I just I see no indication that it will
be at all different this time around, and I see
a lot of indications that will actually be worse because
he will be more unchained and given more freedom to
pursue his absolute worst and most authoritarian instincts thanks to
the Supreme Court's decision. And you know, the effort that

(52:37):
was engaged in in the off season to get the
most ideological sickophants put into positions of power and to
bring everybody to heal.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
This time around, yeah, I see the same indication as
you do of the bad impulses. Yeah, but I see
an indication of good impulses from the right wing voters
that you do not see. So, for example, on Team Israel,
Rubio stuff, like, I just think they're you.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
Know, they're busy, and they've decided to trust this guy,
and they're just gonna trust this guy.

Speaker 1 (53:04):
Okay, that's what I'm saying. I think you're wrong. What
I have seen is they don't like Team Israel because
Team Israel is team war, team Neocon, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (53:13):
That's just not what the polling se So most Republicans
are Team Israel.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
Okay, all right, Republican base, we're going to find out.

Speaker 2 (53:20):
If you look at the polling Democrats overwhelmingly were in
favor of a ceasefire and in favor of an arms embargo.
Republicans are, I think, in favor of a ceaspire, but
they are not in favor of an arms embargo. They
are much more favorable as a group, there are some exceptions,
but as a group towards Israel. And so I'm anyway,
I you know, I don't want to belabor that point

(53:41):
in particular because I know you're making a broader point
about a variety of issues.

Speaker 1 (53:44):
And on besent the Treasury Secretary, I've seen pushback on that.
I've seen pushback on some candidate, on some nominees that
I've never seen among Republicans before. So you know, maybe
that pushback is a mirage and so, and I'm not
expecting it right out of the gate. Don't get me wrong.
I'm not expecting right wing populist to rise up and

(54:06):
go cash. Betel's a lunatic and we're not. Yeah, they
love him, Yeah, I get it. I get that. So
those are the bad impulses, I see it. I'm not
unaware of it. But I'm also seeing actual anti corruption,
anti war impulses, and I would rather feed those good
impulses than to say we hate you all. I never

(54:27):
want to talk to you guys. I don't trust you
and I think you're only going to do evil in
the world. I don't think that's productive. I just want
to I don't think it's true.

Speaker 2 (54:34):
I just want to say, just to make it really clear,
when I'm being critical, I'm being critical of the elites,
the Trump's, the Elon Musk, the vag Ramaswami's. This is
not meant to slime you know, everybody who voted for
And that's something I've really tried to be consistent about
throughout the Trump era. And you know something Sober and
I have really tried to engage with. I'm just you know,

(54:56):
I think what we've seen in the past is likely
to be what we see in the future.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
So let's see if the right wing bros, the right
wing populist, the you know, the rogans of the world,
if they have any integrity at all. We're going to
find out, right and are they going to hold Trump
accountable or are you right and the rest of the
left right that they're not going to hold them accountable
at all, and they're going to let him be a
runaway freight.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
Rogan is supposedly going to go do some shows in
mar A Lago. So we'll see if he asks any
challenging questions the principles there so, but we may find
out pretty quickly or jank.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
Okay, So last thing I'll say on the Democrats. Yes,
so you're right, the establishment is going to strike back. Right.
So if there's one takeaway from this, it's not from
this whole conversation, it's not about Trump, it's not about
the right wing populace. It's that for Democrats, do not
let your guard down. They're going to bring back Avenusom

(55:49):
and Pete Blutagig and all the corporate robots. Absolutely, okay,
we need the only thing that could defeat right wing
populism is left wing populism, okay. Or we joined forces
on some issues, great, wonderful, right, But if you go
back to the establishment route, that is a dead end.
It has no forget whether you're progressive or you're more

(56:10):
conservative Democrat or more corporate demographer, forget. Put that aside.
They have no chance of winning. It's over. It's over.
They're going to run into that brick wall one hundred times.
The Scarborough and the viewer going to lie to you
every time. Oh, you got to pick the corporate guy.
The corporate guy is the one who's the only one
who can win, right, Do not let them lie to
you in that twenty twenty eight primary. It is imperative

(56:33):
that we pick a populous left winger in twenty twenty eight.
Otherwise we have no chance of retaking the White House.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
Yeah, well, and not even just no chance of retaking
the White House, but no chance of really delivering for people.
And ultimately, I don't give a shit whether the Democratic
Party wins or loses. That's you know. I think what
you and I where we find common ground is I
actually want to make life easier and better for people
in this country. So Jank, love you brother. Always great
to see you. Glad to see you in town here,

(57:01):
although I do feel bad for you. What is LA
is probably like in the seventies right now? As fucking
cold as hell here right now, So I don't know
what you're thinking about.

Speaker 1 (57:08):
I'm going to Florida next to do Patrick Bedday. All right,
all right there, I'm going to get I'm going to
relax for two days before heading back to LA. But
it's freezing out here, but I'm warmed by our conversation
and the love industry.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
All right, thank you Jank, and thank you guys so
much for watching, and I will see you. Counterpoints will
be in tomorrow and we'll see you back here on Thursday.