A Bit Fruity with Matt Bernstein - We All Deserve Better Than Gavin Newsom (with Emma Vigeland and Kat Blaque)

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

Gavin Newsom, the California governor who’s been seemingly anointed to the throne of the Democratic Party, thinks Democrats should be more “culturally normal.” He thinks we should spend less time talking about pronouns. He won’t tax billionaires, and he’s had approximately four different positions on Israel in the last six weeks. Yet two and half years out from the 2028 election, some inside the party are already demanding allegiance to the newest spineless, corporate candidate in a long line of spineless, corporate candidates. This week, Emma Vigeland, Kat Blaque and I air our grievances with a man who believes in nothing, and a party that touts democracy while practicing nothing of the sort. We all deserve better. Listen to bonus episodes on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/mattbernstein Thanks to today’s sponsors! Support a fairer future free from religious overreach at https://humanist.org/fruity Work smarter, not harder, with Factor meals ready in two minutes at https://www.factormeals.com/fruity50off Follow Emma on Instagram. Watch Emma on The Majority Report. Follow Kat on Instagram. Watch Kat on YouTube. Find me on Instagram. Find A Bit Fruity on Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did you guys see this morning that Gavin Newsom called Israel and apartheid state? Oh, okay. I guess he got some poll numbers back in. I can appreciate when a worm wriggles towards the light. I think you can appreciate it while also saying that that's not leadership. Hello, hello, and welcome back to A BitFrudy. I'm Matt Bernstein, and I got into some trouble on Twitter last week. And I need to tell you about it, because this is a little rough.

So this all started when Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, who's pretty openly preparing his run to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, didn't interview on CNN where he said that, quote, the Democratic Party needs to be more culturally normal. No doubt that the Democratic Party needs to be, dare I say, more culturally normal. And to stop spending what he thinks is a quote, disproportionate amount of time on pronouns. culturally normal.

Culturally normal. These words have been rattling around in my brain lately. I'm someone who is visibly outside of the cultural norm in America. You know, right-wingers online will often just post pictures of me with no added context, because to them, my culturally abnormal appearance is an insult in and of itself. So when I hear the potential supposedly left-wing option for president calling for a return to cultural normalcy. I anxiously want to know

what he means by that. Anyway, I tweeted sarcastically, we abandoned LGBT people in the 2024 election and lost. Here's why we need to do it again. And then I jokingly added that this could have been an article written by Ezra Klein.

I'm a snark. Sorry, the Ezra Klein lashings don't grow on trees. The reaction, not from right-winger's, but from liberals, was genuinely shocking to me. Hutch, a liberal YouTuber, accused me of being a Russian operative. Many liberals on a popular Reddit thread that someone sent to me also called me a Russian op. And deep in the replies of that thread on Reddit, one listener of this show stood up for me.

Sunny 790 wrote, Literally so bizarre to see people calling Matt B and effing Russian bot in this thread as a regular watcher, L.O.L. Sunny 790, if you're listening to this, wherever you are. Thank you. Josh Sorbet, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Democrats, said that my tweet was, quote, one of the dumbest things he's read this week and attached a statistic showing that LGBTQ people did mostly vote for Kamala Harris in 2024, which is nice. But that's not really responding to what I was saying about her campaign abandoning trans people.

We'll get to that. Many people pointed out to me that, did I know Gavin Newsom supported Gaines marriage in 2004 before it was cool? It was a long day, but we are so back. Today I want to talk about Gavin Newsom. Clearly, he's someone we're going to have to deal with for a little while, whether we like it or not. I want to do something I probably need a Xanax for, which is talk about Democrats and elections and assess the state of our democracy if two and a half years before the next election, it makes me a Russian up to criticize an apparently poor. reordained establishment Democrat who isn't even running yet.

To do that with me, I am so excited to be joined by two friends of the show. First of all, Emma Vigeland of The Majority Report, welcome back. Thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to be with you, my friend. And Cat Black veteran YouTuber, welcome back to the show. Thank you for having me. I'm hella happy to be here. Kat, I'm so excited that you're here because I adore you, but also because I know. based on what happened to me on Twitter last week that if I didn't get a Californian on this episode, people were going to be like, oh, but you're not in California.

You don't know how great Gavin Newsom has actually been. Yeah, I don't know very many people who like him personally, but maybe that's my circle, you know. I mean, is he even really running California right now? It seems like he's mostly focused on podcasting, which, hey, that's our bread and butter. Yep, but we also don't have states to run in fairness. Right, right. I am so excited for the three of us to be here together because despite occupying pretty different spaces online, kind of, I know there's going to be a specific portion of listeners of this episode who are like, wow, I'm a mad cat. But I know one thing that all three of us have in common is that we have been shitted on for criticizing this man.

So I want each of you to just give me your high level overview of how you're feeling on this topic. We're kind of seeing right now this effort to manufacture consent for Gavin Newsom being the best option possible for the Democratic Party right now. And he is engaging in much of the same playbook that was part of what the losing Kamala Harris campaign engaged in, which is a move to the center, to the right, throwing certain marginalized people under the bus and not addressing fundamental questions of. of class and incoming wealth inequality, which are the very factors that have led us to this moment of fascism. Yeah, I mean, to me, Gavin Newsom is like, obviously not a good choice. And I, and I feel a little crazy, honestly, because I've been talking about stuff like this for so long. And to me, Gavin Newsom, like, you know, the glamour photo shoot that he does, like tearing down homeless encampments, like the way that he's speaking about the trans community. To me, personally,

it obviously makes him a bad choice, not wanting to tax billionaires. Like, I don't understand why people are trying to make us choose him right now as the candidate because I think he would be the most obviously losing candidate. But maybe that's my bubble. I don't think it's your bubble. I think that it's one of the many tactics that we've seen as we're seeing an upswell of Democrats who vote in primaries holding these campaigns. holding these candidates accountable for corporate money that they're taking, for Zionist money that

they're taking, for crypto money that they're taking, for enabling Donald Trump, we have seen a very well-financed effort. And it's funny you mentioned as Reclin earlier, Matt. It's the abundance movement, which is this very top-down effort to make sure that the conversation around what is possible under a Democratic administration is extremely limited in scope and is largely about cutting regulations and red tape for more private housing. I mean, that's what they say their grand vision is, and it's funded by Reid Hoffman and other big donors in the Democratic Party. They're trying to make this a thing by advertising it as such, and I would say Gavin Newsom and the effort to elevate him preemptively and lock him in as the 2028 nominee is another example of

top-down efforts by Democrats to create a reality on the ground that is not actually organically occurring. And I wish they would listen. I really do. I want to start off that CNN clip. And I want to get into what he's trying to say there. So let's watch it. No doubt that the Democratic Party needs to be, dare I say, more culturally normal. I believe that. Less prone to spending disproportionate amount of time on pronouns, identity. politics, more focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter, the stacking of stress in terms of electricity bills and child care costs and health care and obviously housing costs. There's a lot to discuss here, and this is not nearly the point of anything, but table top issues.

Oh my gosh. Table top issues. What are we talking about? They're kitchen table issues. It's this table top issues. He's thinking about. about my, I need in my second home my marble countertop or my marble tabletop renovating. Tabletop, table top, table top, table top. Oh, right, I'm supposed to be appealing to people on like a broad affordability issues. And I, if you want me to just go off, I'll just go off here, Matt.

That is very much what the medium of podcasting is for. Okay. So table top issues aside, when he talks about being culturally normal and speaking about pronouns, He is calling queer people, calling non-binary people, calling trans people, not culturally normal. Now, he would try to split that difference and say, look, I was an early supporter of a marriage equality in California. That's what he hangs his hat on. We know that trans people's rights and LGBT and gay people's rights are indelibly linked when they come for trans people. It's a matter of time before they come for gay people more broadly. So that is a distinction. that he should not be able to get away with.

But what is so frustrating is seeing how Zoramam Dhani's message of affordability is being co-opted by Democrats who have no interest in addressing it outside of saying the word affordability. Now, Bernie Sanders in 2016 was speaking about class and billionaires. And the Democratic Party at the time called him a sexist and a misogynist and said that it was a real problem that he went on the Joe Rogan podcast and all of that all that came with it. Now we have to appeal to young men. But within the context of affordability, Newsom isn't offering anything. In fact, he opposes the billionaire tax. So there's now this like belated understanding that yeah, it turns out people wanted the Democrats not to just talk about certain cultural issues

to avoid the issue of class. Oh, we have to be talking about the economy or not class, but affordability. as Zora and Mamdani did. But without any proposal... Without any of the policy. That would address affordability. So he thinks you can just say the word and that is sufficient while throwing trans people under the bus. Theories about political change involve building the broadest coalition possible. And the easiest way to do that is to say, we're the 99% first to 1%, and we're going to tax billionaires to make your life better.

But for Democrats that are involved in a very lucrative part of the party embedded in a consultant class with a lot of big money donors, they are tasked with avoiding that very conversation. And what that results in is saying this marginalized group has to go, Palestinians, Arab Americans have to go. Perhaps the Black Lives Matter movement was too divisive, trans people, what have you. And we are done with that because fundamentally, billionaires and the power that they've accrued financially, have become a threat to democracy and enablers of fascism. So it's not just fairness and equality in getting the economy to work for people. It's also an existential threat right now to the very nature of life in America. Yeah, it's, you know, we got to spend less time talking about trans people.

We need to, we need to sideline trans issues for tabletop issues like wealth inequality and also not do anything about that. Like, what are you offering? Anyway, Kat, your turn. I mean, so here's the thing. It's a distraction. And unfortunately, what they're banking on is that enough people will be ignorant about trans people that they will vote for them out of fear. Right.

And frankly, this is something that I have navigated around my entire life, right? This is something that is a big reason why I'm a full-time YouTuber. Do you know why? Because back before there were legal protections for trans people. against discrimination. It was one of the only things I could do, right? I've been a YouTuber since, you know, 2005. Trans people are being offered up right now as a scapegoat.

And unfortunately, I think for some people, it's going to work. All they have to do is talk about, you know, trans people being in sports with, you know, with women and things. And it's like, that's an incredibly small group of people. But there's a lot of people who are propagandized against trans people. And these Democrats are really, they're banking on those people. And you see, this is a great demonstration of like the problem with liberals. I mean, it's one of the many.

He is entertaining the right wing premise of this issue. Pronouns, look, I'm in a lot of like legitimate quas spaces where weirdos exist. Pronouns aren't even a big deal there. Legitibiqua. No one is like hyper fixating on pronouns. But really what's happening is people are assessing that. the civil rights protections that have existed for trans people only very recently may go away. And so there are some of us who are trying to fight to protect those things, right?

But people are treating that fight as like this unnecessary thing where from where I'm sitting, historically when we've seen stuff like this happen where, you know, stigma is created against a group of people. And then their rights are starting to see away. It's a clear pathline to genocide. And people need to recognize that. that they're not going to stop with trans people. They're going to justify the premise of it using trans people

because everyone can agree that the trannies are weird or whatever, right? But they're not going to stop there. And that's kind of why I am so frustrated with people embracing Gavin Newsom and saying that we need to vote for him and then yelling at me for not wanting to. Because when I hear Gavin Newsom say that, what I'm hearing is that when it is time for them to decide whether or not they're going to go through with their plans. There are a lot of Republicans right now talking about how they do want to genocide trans people, how certain mass shootings are evidence for why trans people should be rounded up,

put in asylums and roundly exterminated, right? It's a real serious thing. I've been trying to talk about it for a really long time. Before we got on the show, I was talking about how I've been disconnecting a little bit and enjoying my creative side. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that I kind of feel a little bit like they may be successful. And I need to kind of enjoy what I have

and disconnect and stop fighting as much as I historically have. So I get what people say when they say, harm reduction and yada, yada, yada, but we've actually had plenty of examples of this now. Has the harm been really reduced? I'm not entirely sure. you know, so sorry, that was my reaction. No, it's entirely valid.

And we will get into this, I'm sure. But I also am deeply, deeply skeptical about the electoral benefits of throwing trans people under the bus, even when the issue polls in a certain way. You can't take polling in a vacuum. Certain people vote on certain issues and are motivated to go out to vote based on issues of whether it's the economy or immigration. but trans issues, even if it polls negatively in terms of people's rights, it's not really motivating independence or anybody except an anti-trans bigot to go out and vote. This is something I've been thinking about a lot because whenever you say, like, I'm not going to vote for someone who throws trans people under the bus. And that's just one group of people,

by the way. We're going to talk about Gavin Newsom's record on LGBTQ rights. We're also going to talk about his position on Israel, which is dizzingly untethered, shall we say. But, you know, people will say, oh, well, you're people who say. Oh, well, you're people. security testing. You know, yeah, it sucks because you can't get a, you can't get a politician who says everything you want, but, you know, this is what we have to do to win. First of all, is it? These are the Democrats that the DNC has run for the presidential nominee for the past several elections. This was Kamala, this was Biden, this was Hillary. It is also, like, I find it morally unethical, but I also find it strategically stupid. Who is this voter in 2028 that you're

trying to win over who isn't already voting for Trump and whose holdout on voting Democrat is the 10 trans athletes. Like, is that a significant voting block that like Ezra Klein would like for us to believe that this is like who we have to cater elections to? So this is a voter that really does not exist. But you have had since 2016, Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party have reoriented their strategy to try to appeal to this voter. You, can look this up. I repeat this all the time. But Chuck Schumer was quoted in 2016, saying, for every blue-collar worker that we lose in rural X, Y, Z area, we're going to gain two in the suburbs of Philadelphia. And this was about pursuing affluent suburbanites who may have voted

Republican in the past and are very likely voters, but not necessarily the working class base that Democrats had traditionally kind of had the corner on in past election cycles. And this is because they wanted to micro-target specific voters, and this is motivated by donors, in swing states, and not do this like broad-based coalition of people coming together, volunteers, motivated to tax billionaires, but this specific pet constituency that has narrowed the Democratic coalition to such a degree that they keep losing elections. This fixation on trans people is also a part of that. It's about this small sliver of voters who they hope can turn out for Democrats, but don't really threaten the power structures here and also keep getting consultants rich because you can

micro-target them with ads as opposed to having a volunteer base of door knockers and things like that, the more Bernie-style grassroots politics. So this is about going for that specific voter base. But it's shown that it has caused electoral failures for the Democrats more broadly across the country because their message is so narrow and so muddled that it has no broad efficacy and doesn't turn out voters. So you look at trans issues. Yes, you'll see that, say, a majority of voters in this poll don't think that trans women should participate in sports. But the question is, do people go out and vote in mass on that issue? And the answer is no. In the same, in the same, in the same, in the same way that gun control polls extremely well for the Democrats. I mean, something like universal

background checks is a 90% issue. Well, if polling was all that determined how Democrats should run their campaigns, then that should be the top line on every single Democratic Party platform. Why is it not? Because it's not a motivating issue, even if it polls in their favor. The people that are motivated to vote on gun control are the crazies that want no regulations, and they're the ones that they're already voting Republican. And you can see that related to the trans issue as well and how Democrats have approached it. Now, you'll get pushback from Democratic Party consultants. Because when you look at the testing for the ads in 2024, the one that was most effective in focus groups was the Kamala is for they, them ad. Burned into the back of my brain. A year later in Virginia,

They tried this exact same playbook because they took that same data and said, well, transphobia was so electorally beneficial for us. Why don't we run on this in Virginia? Why don't we triple quadrupled down? And the Republican in that race lost to Abigail Spanberger when she ran just on transphobia, this Republican, by historic margins. It is incredibly unstrategic and like I think this is a moral. But even if you are, you know, I see online a lot of cisgender gay people who think that the right-wing attack, on trans people won't reach their doorstep. Ken Paxton is making a very threatening run right now for Texas Senate. Ken Paxton very openly wants to bring back sodomy laws that make consensual

gay sex illegal laws that were struck down in 2003. There is, and I want everyone to Google this right now, there is an extraordinarily well-funded, up-and-coming anti-gay marriage movement called greater than. I don't know if you guys have seen this. I cannot believe that the mainstream right-wing voices, including Lila Rose, the anti-abortion activist, who is good friends with Gwen Stefani, is one of the faces of this movement. It's saying children's needs are greater than your desire to get gay married. And their whole thing is like gay parents can't provide a stable future for children, et cetera, et cetera. It's all of the old arguments from 10, 20, 30 years ago. But they are absolutely coming for gay marriage. And,

And so I just think that when you continue to run these candidates who are willing to concede inch by inch by inch and they don't even fucking win. Well, now we have fascists who have made it so all of, you know, all of these other people are on the chopping block just in case you didn't even care about trans people. And that's what drives me crazy. Is it okay when I go in a rant? I don't know. You're the host. It's your divine right. You can do whatever you want.

I want to talk about my tweet that I made for a second, which people got very bad at me. for where I mocked Gavin Newsom's saying we should be culturally normal. And I referenced how Kamala Harris's campaign also abandoned trans people and look how that turned out. Now, many people took issue with my saying this. You listening right now might think Kamala Harris didn't abandon trans people. And, you know, there seems to be discrepancies in our collective memory about what Kamala Harris did and didn't say about LGBTQ rights in her 2024 campaign. Do you guys remember specifically what Kamala said about trans rights in her campaign? That she'll go by whatever the state says.

I was going to go with nothing. So yeah, not nothing. Kat's basically dead on. She said, with regard to trans rights in a clip that I will play for you in a moment, I would follow the law. But it's actually worse than that. Let me explain. So in Kamala Harris's short-lived run.

for president in 2020, she did actively support trans rights. She spoke about ensuring trans health care was available to incarcerated people. She talked about banning the gay and trans panic defenses. She talked about the need to tackle violence against trans women of color specifically. Now, during her 2024 campaign where the polling on trans issues had apparently shifted, she explicitly discussed trans people in that entire campaign one time. When Fox News host Brett Baer asked her if she still supported incarcerated people's access to gender-affirming care, to which she said this. So are you still in support of using taxpayer dollars to help prison inmates or detained illegal aliens to transition to another gender?

I will follow the law. And it's a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You're probably familiar with now it's a public report that under Donald Trump's administration, these surgeries were available to on a medical necessity basis to people in the federal prison system. And I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, you know, stones when you live in a glass house. The Trump aides say that he never advocated for that prison policy and no gender transition. Well, you know what? You've got to take responsible for what happened in your administration. Yeah, no surgeries happened in this presidency. So would you still advocate for using

taxpayer dollars for gender reassignment surgeries? I will follow the law, just as I think Trump would say he did. So not only taking basically no stance, I'll follow the law, you would be the president, but also saying, she's almost being like, actually Trump was the trans friendly one. I'm not trans, I'm not trans friendly. I'm not promising gender affirming care. That was Trump. Blame him. This was also the strategy on immigration. Yes. When they felt that they had some sort of disadvantage when looking at the polling, as opposed

to understanding that you can affect polling by using the bully pulpit, I mean, Trump has done that with immigration over and over again. He transformed the immigration debate almost single-handedly, fascistically in this country since coming down that escalator and speaking about how Mexicans are rapists and criminals. And some are, I assume, good people. From that point on, the Republican immigration debate was indelibly changed. The Democrats, like Kamala Harris and the consultants that ran that campaign, look at issues like that and they sprint away from it and they try to outflank the Republican from the right.

But if somebody is motivated by the issue of immigration, if somebody is purely motivated by the issue of transphobia, they are already voting Republican. You are not gaining any votes by acting like the diet version. of that. And it also creates a credibility problem for you because it makes it seem like you're obviously lying when you're trying to say that Trump is the real person giving away your taxpayer dollars to trans people. No one's believing that. That's why that question's being asked of you. It's because they think it's a liability for you. And so what a left-wing candidate, as opposed to a

liberal candidate like Kamala Harris, would say, would be, say Zoran Mamdani was in that position. He would say, I believe in a single-payer universal health care system that cuts out the rapacious middlemen of insurance companies that are constantly gouging you. And health care should be a right for everybody. And that includes you and your family or your health care costs too high. Well, I want to change that with Medicare for all. But that also is going to include people who are in prison because trans care is health care and they have a right to health care too. Period. But you know what you have?

You have a right to not go bankrupt. for cancer treatment or you have a right to not have to pay X, Y, and Z for your prescription drugs, and that's why I'm going to change that. Do you see how that immediately neutralizes that argument? But she's incapable of making that case because this is a consultant-focused campaign focused on appealing to suburban Republicans, the most narrow, narrow part of the electorate possible, and it's damaged at the Democratic Party, perhaps indelibly. Amen to that.

I think a lot of people have to understand that health care. for trans people, it is our life or death. And I think a lot of times when people put trans people in these scenarios, they are kind of aware of that. There is this thing that happens within prisons where trans women are housed with male inmates and sort of presented as like a way to calm down violent offenders. It's called V-coding, right? Trans women who are imprisoned experience a lot of abuse, a lot of assault. And people are really just trying to to have these conversations to create even more stigma against trans people who need access to care. Trans folks from the people that I've known in my life who do medically transition often have to

undergo immense debt just to gain access to the care that they need to keep themselves alive. That's a problem. That's a problem not just for trans people, but for a lot of us. I was very disappointed by what she said in that interview. And I know that right now, Kansas just closed down one of the only places where trans people in Kansas could get care. That may not seem like something that matters to people, but for a lot of trans people in Kansas, on top of the shit that just happened with their ID, that is going to be their life or death. And this is a strategy that Kamala did that is being replicated by Gavin Newsom. But you know what?

Like Emma, like you gave that perfect rhetorical. answer of like, okay, well, here's what you could say and always bring it back to affordability without selling anybody down the river, which is exactly what Zerun Mammani did. But Gavin Newsom can't do that because he's in the pocket of billionaires. Anyway, when I tweeted that Kamala Harris had sold trans people down the river, I think just because Trump during that election cycle talked endlessly as if Kamala was obsessed with trans people, that that's just sort of what is in people's cultural memory. It's like, oh, she would never shut up about pronouns. Never talked about pronouns a single time. Someone quote tweeted my quote to the tune of 12,000 likes, Kamala's entire campaign was gay.

This is a work of Trumpian fiction. It is insane to me that what Gavin Newsom thinks he has to do now to win is talk about trans people, even less than Kamala did, which is to say, not at all. I would like to take a quick break from the show to give a shout out to the American Humanist Association for sponsoring this episode. I was so grateful when the AHA reached out about sponsoring this podcast because their values organically aligns so well with my own. And if you're a frequent listener of this show, they'll probably line up with yours too. Humanism is about living ethically, fundamentally caring about people, and making decisions based on evidence instead of dogma. On a material and legal level, it means enacting laws that center our lived humanity, not religion. The AHA is a wonderful organization that is on the ground working to keep separate church and state.

Like recently, the American Humanist Association got involved in a case where, Virginia had allotted $5 million in taxpayer funds to go towards private religious charter schools in Ohio. The AHA challenged that funding through a legal system and it was ruled unconstitutional, preventing that taxpayer money from going towards religious education. I believe strongly that the laws that govern all of us should center our humanity and our reality and not certain people's religious practices. and the American Humanist Association does the work to make that possible. If that resonates with you, consider checking them out at humanist.org

slash fruity. That is humanist.org slash fruity. You can learn more about what they do. You can support them if you're able to. And just check them out. Great organization. Now, let's get back to the show. I want to talk more about Gavin Newsom's record on LGBTQ issues and how he arrived

here. First, I want to establish a little bit of his backstory so people who don't live in California can feel included. Because I think there are some important consistencies throughout his life, one being access to money. So Gavin Newsom is born in 1967 in San Francisco. He has many notable people in his family. The Newsom family has its own Wikipedia, which I'm like, when your last name has a Wikipedia page, like, that's serious. His, His dad was an attorney for Getty Oil and an administrator for the Getty Family Trust, which the Gettys of Getty Oil and the Getty Museum, et cetera, et cetera, billionaires were close family friends with Gavin's family.

Do you know this background? A little bit. Yes. I did know that he came from money, but that he grew up primarily with his mother who didn't come for money. Exactly. His parents divorced early. Gavin was mostly raised by his mom who didn't have money, who worked.

multiple jobs. This is from his Wikipedia page, quote, Newsom wrote in a later memoir that the family would receive luxurious gifts from the Gettys, which he and his sister pretended not to like, so their mother could return them for store credit. Period. I love a scammer. Gavin Newsom struggled in school, which he attributes to his dyslexia. To this day, he says he prefers memorizing a speech over relying on a teleprompter, which fair enough. he graduated from Santa Clara University in 1989, majoring political science. Within a couple years of graduating from college, a then 25-year-old Gavin Newsom launches the Plump Jack group,

which is a really fascinating name for a business management company that launched over a dozen businesses, including wineries, restaurants, cafes, hotels, very Californian. Now, almost all of these businesses that Gavin Newsom now manages were funded by Gordon Gendon. who says he viewed Gavin like a son. And I just think it's notable not to be too thematic here, but Gavin Newsom didn't grow up with money, but he always grew up with access to money. And I think always had an intuitive understanding of how to appeal to people with money to further his own ends. Gavin Newsom became wealthy from his Getty funded businesses pretty quickly. He is now extremely wealthy. I think people might underestimate just how wealthy he is. In 2021, he sold his home in Marin County

for $6 million and in 2024 bought a new one for $9.1 million. He's just a relatable guy. Have you heard from him that he's an underdog because of the dyslexia? I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to be able-less in any way, but it's just amazing to me that he's clearly gotten some poll numbers back that his like greasy used car salesman thing isn't necessarily making him the most relatable. So we got to, we got to go with that. He's playing up the dyslexia as like his one human attribute.

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but that's kind of where I'm at. Now, it was through his business success that Newsom got into politics. A 29-year-old Gavin Newsom threw a fundraiser at one of his plump jack properties for Willie Brown, who would successfully become the mayor of San Francisco. Willie Brown, once a mayor of San Francisco, then installed Gavin into the board of supervisors for San Francisco. So do you think there's any meaningful conclusions to be drawn from this being his entry into politics, essentially like buying his way? I think that it's more indicative of the San Francisco machine. Nancy Pelosi came out of the San Francisco Democratic Party machine, as did Gavin Newsom, as did Kamala Harris. There were a lot of misogynistic jokes about her relationship with Willie Brown around this period as well.

So it's interesting that he comes up here. but it's also notable that many of the billionaires that are responsible for surveillance technology and the tech broligarchy that has populated the Trump administration also comes out of this area of the country. So Gavin was on the board of supervisors for a number of years before running for mayor himself and winning in 2003. He ran as a business-friendly centrist who promised to do something about homelessness. We have seen many iterations of that, including him doing a rating homeless encampment photo shoots,

obviously to little success. Gavin Newsom won again in 2007 for mayor, despite progressives in San Francisco trying to find an alternative. They couldn't. Now's our time, you guys. We finally have to find that alternative and stop this man in his tracks, I beg. Back to LGBTQ stuff. This is the A Bit Fruitie podcast.

In 2004, Gavin Newsom directed the Sanford. Francisco City County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which knew some supporters on Twitter in my replies will still hold up as evidence of his progressive views, especially around LGBT people. It's interesting that Kamala Harris also sort of touted that as well, but less so because she was quite self-conscious about being seen as a California liberal because of her race. and because of her gender. And I am sympathetic to the misogyny and the racism that was definitely a big part of

Kamala Harris's loss to Donald Trump, despite all of our many critiques of the campaign. But it is notable to me that he will elevate this part of his career, but is still willing to throw trans people under the bus in the present, even without having the issues that Harris had with trying to appear like a tough person or trying to. dispel the notion that she's some sort of California liberal because when you look at polling about her right now, she's almost up there in terms of public perception of liberalism with Zoran Mamdani. And that's not that has nothing to do with how she campaigned. These are all just California, black woman, liberal, boom. There are a lot of people that just turn their brain off

with that. And so it's not that it's excusable how she ran. It's just it makes more sense when you think about the issues that this country has with blackness and with women. With Gavin Newsom, it's even more egregious because he doesn't have any of those issues. He has the luxury of being brave with his identity and his whiteness and his cisness and all of that. And he still chooses to throw marginalized groups under the bus, even back to the homeless encampment thing. So the question here is, who does he stand up for? Because it doesn't seem to be anybody except the billionaires. Yeah. I will say that my impression, though, this could be wrong, is that I do, I do feel like Gavin Newsom is trying to come off as like not one of those Californians. I didn't

really realize this until I started traveling. And apparently I have an accent that comes obviously from California. And people were like, they had an, have an issue with California. Like people have a whole thing about California and L.A. specifically. And I know just, you know, because I see it on my feed, Republicans do think that Gavin Newsom, even after all of his sniveling, is like a crazy liberal, a crazy leftist extremist. Yes. They really do. So I get the vibe that's that like when he said that stuff about trans people, I did kind of feel like it was coming from a place of like, yeah, I'm on the left, but I'm not one of those like weird leftists to like, or not leftist. Let's not be crazy.

I'm not one of those weird liberals who believe like, you know, that men can be women or something. And it gives me that vibe. But it's also not effective. I mean, when Harris did that, she's still, the polls still show that she is considered just as, quote, liberal as Zoramondani. Yep. Who has the kind of political ideology that can overcome that Zoron? And that's the problem is, is that Newsom is perhaps using the exact same playbook, but when there's even less of an appetite for it within the country. Kat, what you're saying about people, I think especially like right of center, thinking that Gavin Newsom is like, a crazy leftist is so true.

I guess it's because he's like comes from California. I really think that that's it. But he really is. I was having a conversation with a gay guy at a party a few weeks ago. And neither of us really knew anyone at the party. So we just started talking to each other. He was like, what do you do? I said I do a podcast. It's mostly about politics. He said, oh, I listen to political podcasts all the time.

I said, oh, well, what do you listen to? He was like, oh, well, you know, I make sure I listen to everyone across the spectrum, you know, from like Ben Shapiro to like Gavin Newsome. So silly. But, but, you know, this is ultimately the information ecosystem we're up against. And I, and I do genuinely wonder, like, where that comes from. because even in his career infancy with San Francisco politics, he wasn't particularly left-wing there. It's because our politics in this country are more right-wing than people really like to see it, like as. They really don't understand that leftists have not had the power in this country,

and there is a huge effort towards silencing and deplatforming leftist people. I mean, and we're seeing it now in our media, like, in a very big way, you know, they are trying to really suppress leftism, right? So like most of the time when you guys see people's very well-produced, well-funded, fancy podcast a lot of times, a lot of times, it's because it's being propped up by people who have money to interest. You know, and at this point, thank you to the listeners of this podcast. I could afford to get new headphones, but I still have the same pair of headphones that I have when I started this show. And I'm getting an uptick in comments of people who are complaining about that this side, if you're watching the video

podcast, you'll see that this side is a, the ear cuff is peeling. Anyway, back to Gavin Newsom. I don't think Newsom in his podcast studio is experiencing that kind of, you know, putting stuff together with duct tape. So Gavin, as we know eventually in 2018, is elected governor of California. Back to his LGBTQ record. So he did have a while there. while it was culturally popular to support pro-LGB legislation.

In September 2022, he signed a lawmaking California the first sanctuary state for transgender youth. In 2024, he signed the Safety Act, which prevented educators from outing queer students to their parents. This was really in response to all of these bills that started cropping up, I think inspired by Rhonda Santas' Don't Say Gay Bill, and then the many bills that followed that would like allow and sometimes require educators to out queer students to their family at home, you know, supported by parents who think of their children as property. Then late 2024 Trump wins. And we all know we were talking about this, the way that people were talking about that election and somehow blaming Kamala's loss on her

support for trans people, which I guess I just must have missed it. It couldn't have been the genocide. Couldn't have been that. Joe Biden's hanging in the race for way too long, shutting out any primary challenge, despite having very historically low approval ratings. All that stuff. All that stuff mattered not at all. It was trans people.

Who she was too vocally supportive of when none of us were listening. Then, in March 2025, Gavin Newsom, who at this point has a podcast, naturally invites Charlie Kirk to be on his podcast. The whole vibe of Gavin Newsom's podcast is very, like, it has kind of a Bill Maher syndrome to it where he's like, I'm a real lefty and I'm going to have all these conservatives on and just kind of agree with them on everything. This is a very, very, very lucrative part of media, by the way. And you can go to Dave Rubin, you can go to whatever Anna Kasparian is doing right now. You can go back and see all of these people who have supposedly left the left for some really well-funded media venture where you have right-winger that want to hear why the left is so damn crazy. And then suddenly you're making millions. It's nuts.

I remember when that shift started happening. I was like, wow, we've lost the plot. But then people started making money. And here we are. Yeah, yeah, 100%. So Gavin Newsom has Charlie Kirk on his podcast. and says this about trans girls in sports. So, like, you right now should come out and be like, you know what, the young man who's about to win the state championship and the long jump in female sports, that shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out and say no. No, and I appreciate.

But, like, would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports? Well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. So that's easy to call out the unfairness of that. It's easy to call out the unfairness of that. How about the unfairness of our economic system where we have income and wealth inequality that has surpassed the gilded age, where people have hit a record of credit card debt month and month over and over again, where we continuously over the past year and plus are hitting records of subprime auto delinquencies because people can't make their car payments, where you have the top 10% responsible for 50% of consumer spending? You know, these are the kinds of things where you could talk about fairness in ways that actually impact people in a broad way in their day-to-day life.

Or you could zero in on a right-wing talking point about some volleyball team in some part of California and give that idea oxygen instead of redirecting it towards the actual nerve centers of power that need to be challenged. Gavin Newsom's a coward in addition to being somebody who's not right for this moment. politically. Yeah, in that podcast, it's all just about chumming up to these guys. Like, that's what it is. Like, yeah, I'm sure that, you know, they go back and forth here and there. But like, it's just about being like, hey, you know, like, we may have our disagreements, but like, there's a lot that we agree on. And like, we can all do, like, drink beers together. And like, that's all this is. Yes. And it's, that's like a terrible metric for who you should vote for as the fucking president. And I hate this whole, I want to be able to get beers with my president kind of shit.

You know, I want a president who actually is about that crap. You know, I don't want a fucking performative president who's going to change his mind once it's politically inconvenient. And I think people have really lost sight of the fact that these motherfuckers work for us. It's not the other way around. I have had so many people say to me, even today, with regard to Gavin's evolving, shall we say, stance on the Israeli genocide, which we'll talk about in a second. people are like, well, isn't it better to have an opportunist than a staunch Zionist or a staunch transphobe? And I'm like, I guess. But can't we do better than an opportunist?

We're not even in the election season right now that we're talking about. This election is two and a half years away. And I already have to go for the opportunist because that's the best I can do. If we do not have a president that comes in and acts with the urgency, that Trump has to repair our institutions, our systems, and to actually prosecute the criminals that are in this administration right now, we are on a complete downward trajectory into like a failed kind of democracy territory. We need somebody who isn't just going to put their finger to the wind and decide what polling says and then make a determination from there.

The danger that we're in right now requires actual leadership. Yeah, it's real shit. People think, oh, we want a perfect candidate. I don't need a perfect candidate. I don't think that exists. I've always said that if you ever see me supporting a presidential candidate, like really with a law, gusto, that's not me. That's a sylon. I've been replaced. I want a very short list of things right now.

I feel I want someone who's willing to disentangle their relationship from Israel. I want someone who's willing to tax these billionaires, someone who wants to place restrictions on AI and someone who wants to codify our civil rights. And if I get that list, which to me isn't a very exhaustive list, that'll be probably for the first time in my life a person that I'm eager to vote for. People are being sold like supremacy shit. Like if all of these immigrants are deported where we're finally going to be able to own homes.

No, you can't own a home because private equity has bought all of them. That's the actual problem. And those people are paying to tell you. that trans people are the biggest issue. It's distraction. It is distraction. I don't want perfection. I want someone who's actually offering something that's going to do something.

And everything that you just listed, like, those are majority popular positions in the Democratic base. The center Democratic voter right now is so wildly further to the left than like DNC strategists and consultants. and their refusal to acknowledge what people want out of our public servants is insane. And then we are made to be the crazy ones when we say two and a half years in advance that we won't vote for someone who doesn't provide those very basic necessities because we're just supposed to settle for like another corrupt asshole in the pockets of health insurance billionaires. I don't know.

I feel like I'm going a little bit insane. And I don't mean to yell and I know my tone on this podcast, which is why some people listen to it is like a little bit chilled out. But I get so much heat for this online. I know all three of us have. It's just crazy to me that two and a half years out, I am told, I am like browbeaten into accepting that the best we can do is someone who has a nine million dollar home and whose highest personal ambition, his most important belief is that like he wants. He wants to be a nine million dollar home. He's, wants to be able to sit at the table with, like, other powerful white men and chum it up. Donald Trump's politics come largely from the same place.

We have plenty of time. We have plenty of time. Ma'am, should we talk about Israel? I always am down to talk about Israel. I know you are, Emma Vigalind. I know you are. I'm very passionate about Palestinian rights and the genocide in Gaza. And so that is one thing that obviously I'm ready to tea. off against Gavin Newsom about teoff on him. I guess that's the right way to say. Table top issues, baby. Table top. You got to tabletop them.

So I want to begin on October 20th, 2023. A couple weeks after October 7th, immediately after which the genocide on Gaza is launched in its current iteration. By October 20th, 20th, 2023, thousands of Palestinians have already been killed by Israeli bombs. And it is on this day that Gavin Newsom travels to Israel. He writes on Twitter, I'm on my way to Israel. I'll be meaning with those impacted by the horrific terrorist attacks and offering California's support.

What does I even mean? I'll be offering California's support. Anyway, I just added here that Jorts, the Twitter famous cat Jorts, wrote in response, Oh, for fuck's sake. Is there anything to say about Gavin Newsom traveling to Israel? I'm not surprised. His record on Israel is not going to be as direct as if he were in a federal office, because obviously APAC is more focused, and the Israel lobby, we should say,

it's not just APAC, is more focused on retaining the endless supply of weapons and billions of dollars of funding that they get from the federal government. And so those voting records are a little bit more clear. But we do know that Gavin Newsom is a staunch of opposer of boycott divestment and sanctions in the state of California. And so I'm not surprised that he went to Israel after October 7. Yeah. And in 2024, amidst Gaza encampment protests at universities across the U.S., Newsom signed pro-Israel legislation that required California college students to take, like, courses or training modules or whatever on protesting with civility, whatever that means,

and have anti-Semitism training, which just, you know, as a Jewish person opposed to, genocide drives me insane because all of that legislation about like, we must do anti-Semitism training for pro-Palestine protesters. Well, a lot of those protesters are Jewish. And so, you know, it's just tying the protest to Judaism, which they were not about Judaism. This legislation that Newsom signed was opposed by the ACLU, which said that it served to, quote, chill the speech of students. So the first time I heard Gavin Newsom talk about APAC was when he was on the higher learning podcast and the host, Van Lathen, said that he would not vote for a candidate that took APAC money. That was one of his disqualifiers.

Gavin Newsom said this. And this video, really, I say this sometimes about some things that we look at on this podcast. It was like, my body was like levitating off the ground. I was like, are we all okay? Interesting, you're like the first to bring up APEC in yours, which is interesting. I will not vote for a candidate that takes $1 from APEC. It's interesting. I mean, it's interesting.

I haven't thought about APEC. And it's interesting, you're like the first to bring up APEC in yours, which is interesting. Why? I say that. Not relevant to my day-to-day life. Okay. Which is just interesting. Listen.

It's interesting. you say that. J-PAC, perhaps more, but A-PAC less and less. Okay. Better. Which is just interesting. What's interesting about it? That it's just interesting. As you bring up A-PAC, that it hasn't been part of, I'm just reflecting quite openly and honestly, hasn't been part of the day-to-day.

Did he mention it's interesting? You know what he was trying to imply there was that Vang was anti-Semitic for asking that question. Say more. That's what I got. That's definitely what I got. It's interesting. Hmm. Hmm.

How dare you? It's interesting. It's interesting that you would. bring up the Israel lobby as opposed to these other issues. I mean, it's the slimy way that every Zionist plant, the politician who's been corrupted by Zionist money, tries to get out of answering these questions. And it's hilarious that he tries to say that, oh, this APAC conversation, I haven't heard about that in years. Really? Because it's currently probably the most toxic acronym possible within the context of Democratic Party politics, where you have candidates all across the country

distancing themselves from past APEC support because it's when they're branding with it by track APEC or by their opponents, they're losing their primaries across the country because of their association with this genocidal, settler, colonial, ethno state. Yeah, I don't get when politicians act surprised by this question. I don't. And this keeps happening where they're like, huh, APEC. Never thought about that. To me, he was, like, when I watched that video, I saw, you know, a politician. trying to buy time to think about what they want to say, which like every politician does that when they start their answers with like, let me just tell you this. You know, it's like they're thinking,

but he just never got to an answer. Interestingly, just last week, Gavin Newsom said that he would not take APEC money, that he said never have, never will. However, I want to complicate that a little bit though, because I think sometimes what gets lost in the conversation about A PAC and you guys can tell me what you think about this is like voters demanding that politicians stop taking money from APEC It's like twofold. One is just saying no to lobbying more generally. Stop taking corporate money. Stop letting people buy your votes, essentially. And then the other is like stop supporting Israel. But there are politicians who support Israel without necessarily taking money from APEC. Some of them do it for the love of the game. I was thinking about Joe Biden not being in the Epstein files at all, for example. And you just realize like, oh, he just really, really enjoyed killing Palestinians.

You know, I think it's interesting too because as APAC is becoming this politically toxic entity, the people who fund APAC are realizing we have to funnel this money to politicians in different ways. That just happened with this primary race in, I believe, North Carolina with Valerie Vichet. Yes. So unfortunately, Nita Alam, who was the insurgent progressive candidate who was challenging Valerie Fouchei, did lose by around one percentage point as of the current count, but was up against a ton of money from this incumbent who had previously taken APAC money, then because it became so politically toxic, Fouche distanced herself from that. And then there was some reporting by sludge showing that

Hakeem Jeffries had been secretly funneling APAC-aligned money in a different manner to this race to support her regardless. I just bring this up to say that, like, APAC is ultimately a vessel for moneyed interest to pay politicians to support the continuation of a genocide. But like that money can move around and call itself different things. Yes. You know, it's great that we've created this environment where politicians, if they want to run for a Democratic seat, feel forced to say, I will not take APAC money. But that doesn't mean in and of itself that they won't find another way to either accept money to support Israel or to support Israel just because they think they have to. I want to be cautious about that. And I also want to talk about Gavin Newsom appearing about six weeks ago on Ben

Shapiro. Actually, it was Ben Shapiro appearing on Gavin Newsom's podcast because, of course, these are the people that he invites on. Here is a clip where Ben Shapiro is sort of talking at Gavin Newsom and saying that it is not a genocide, what Israel is doing. Democrats have now been dragged into this conversation, some drag, some run with, you know, Flagged waving. Into the conversation. This notion of genocide. Yes.

Yeah. I mean, look, Israel did not commit a genocide in Gaza. There is no standard by which Israel committed a genocide in Gaza just on a factual level. Just as a legal and factual level. Yes. Yeah. What is your opinion of this? My opinion is I understand the tendency for people to make that, to assert that.

Why? On the basis of the images and the proportionality. as it relates to genocide. No, no, and by the way, I agree with you. And international and proportionality doesn't mean that if you kill my child and I then kill seven criminals that I've been disproportionate. I'm not disagreeing with you. But I think the, but I understand that tendency on the basis of trying to reconcile the proportionate nature of how the war was ultimately conducted and the devastation. I have a question, why do you, why do you feel the need to create a permission?

structure for that sort of stuff. I mean, meaning it's not true. Why not just say it's not true? Yeah, look, I don't know the definition or I don't know the legal threshold. That's not my opinion. So I don't share that opinion as it relates to genocide. I do not agree with that notion. Hey, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, I get me so mad. It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. I can't stand this out of his voice. Oh, my God. Everything Ben Shapiro was saying here is categorically false. It is dehumanizing anti-Palestinian racism. Bullshit.

Every major human rights organization in the world has ruled this a genocide. I cannot believe we are still even talking about this. Any person with two functioning brain cells at this point knows that it's a genocide. Nonetheless, Ben Shapiro is absolutely steamrolling him here because Gavin believes in nothing and he can't articulate for a belief because he doesn't have one. There's no difference between Holocaust denialists and those two men right there. In fact, I would say that being a Holocaust denialist is potentially less damaging in this current moment than being a denialist about the active genocide in Gaza

because there's still an opportunity to prevent the worst things from happening there. I'm being a bit inflammatory with that statement, but I do think that moral courage in the face of a current genocide is even more important because we are supposed to have learned the lessons from the past to prevent what happened to. millions and millions of Jews as well as other Roma, gay people, trans people, what have you, under the Nazi regime, that it compels us to stand up against this current genocide in this moment. That display of a lack of moral courage as he gets steamrolled by Ben Shapiro in that instance is why he has no capacity to actually deal with fascism on a really systemic level.

And when, to bolster your point, Matt, Betzelum, the Israeli human rights group has called this of genocide, as has human rights watch, as has Amnesty International, as has the UN special rapporteur. You can go to the genocide conventions and look at what constitutes a genocide based on article two, and I'll just go through it really quickly, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Now, you just have to meet the criteria for one of those threshold that I just listed to constitute a genocide and to have an active claim on that front.

Killing members of the group clearly, causing serious bodily or mental harm clearly, deliberately inflicting the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. They have dropped the equivalent of multiple nuclear weapons on Gaza. There are hundreds of thousands of people stuck to death, screaming to death, suffocated to death under rubble, who are not accounted for. right now. They've destroyed the hospital system. They've destroyed all education systems in that in Gaza. And in a 141 square mile area, that is what they have done, dropping bomb after bomb. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. We spoke to a doctor on our program who saw babies rotting in NICUs, their corpses because of the Israeli genocide, because they've cut off access to health care. So that's preventing births within the group. And five,

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. We know how many children in both the West Bank and in Gaza have been kidnapped and tortured in Israeli prisons. That is literally all five planks of what constituted genocide is met by just me listing it off right there off the top of my head. The one question is, is this a Holocaust? That's the only question that we're talking about right now. Anyway. Yeah, and I think that it's important for us to keep pushing candidates to withdraw their support from Israel. And I hate the fact that people think that that's like purity testing. Like, oh my gosh. And like, I know that I know that they support it. But like, because it's, it's actually to me, this is what drives me and saying, to me, it's like a great metric. Because if you

continue to believe that what's happening in Palestine isn't genocide and that we should continue to send money to them, I think that that actually does say more than people are giving it credit for. You have to keep in mind that Israel is so in bed with all of the surveillance bullshit that we're that we're struggling with right now. Like all of the stuff, all of the anxieties we have with billionaires right now, it's connected directly to Israel. And Israel, our engagement in it is because of capitalism, right? That's literally the primary reason. Like I said earlier, I don't need a perfect candidate, but for me, and it really is, in my mind, a big. baseline. I want to vote for a candidate who at least believes in disentangling our relationship

with Israel because I think that on its own even is more massive than people I think are willing to acknowledge. Israel has so many of the things that we would like to have over here and we give our money so that they can have it over there. And, you know, there are so many angles to come at it from. But at the end of the day, they are funding genocide. And that should actually put you off enough to not want to support a candidate who even kind of sort of believes that maybe they should keep doing it. But but he also believes in the concept of an ethno state of Israel needing to maintain its security or its national character by having a massive demographic majority of one group. And this is why Zionism is incompatible with democracy and incompatible with

any anti-fascist movement is because inherently it believes that there should be a nation state that is defined by someone's religious or ethnic character and that that needs to be maintained by force and domination. And when you talk about what all of the surveillance technology that is oppressing us here at home and you have this imperial blowback that we're experiencing in the United States, people should read the Palestine Laboratory by Anthony Lowenstein, which literally speaks about how in Gaza, and this is prior to October 7th, this book was written, they are testing AI weapons surveillance technology on the Palestinians like their are lab rats. And so it is all a part of this overarching problem with capitalism, as you say,

CAD, where the whole world could be Gaza, as far as I am concerned, because everything about the systemic problems of capitalism, anti-democracy, kleptocracy, climate change, militarism, American imperialism, it's all there in the heart of this 141 square mile place. And so if you can't stand up for the Palestinians. You won't stand up for trans people, certainly, and you're not going to stand up for people at home who are facing the brunt of this from the Trump administration. I keep saying to people in my life, like, this is the everything issue. And we saw this with the 2024 election and the fact that we're seeing it now and we're not even in the presidential election cycle drives me crazy because people say, oh, you're a single issue. You're a single

issue. I'm like, this is not a single issue. It is all of the issues that you've just listed. It is it, it is indicative that you can't stand on the side of justice and humanity on any of those issues. And also, a new Gallup poll just came out that said for the first time in America, across all the political parties, this is not specific to Democrats, American sympathy lies more with Palestinians than it does with Israelis. Now, the fact that this is the first time that that has been true is pretty remarkable to me, but it's true. And that is, that includes. Republicans. That was a broad swath of Americans that answered that question. And so on top of everything else, AI surveillance technology that's being tested in Gaza so that it can be exported to

America, on top of genocide being a moral issue, on top of this being a lobbying issue with you being in bed with big money that forces you to support Israel against the will of the people, on top of all of that. If you run as a Democrat, as a pro-Israel candidate, when there is so much polling. The one thing that these people care about is polling. And there's so much polling that that is by far an unpopular position with your own base. You're showing us that you won't even listen to us. These people, I mean, these people, oh, God, like, I really hope I don't come across as, like, ranting and raving, but someone like Gavin Newsom, like, they hate us. Well, they also think we're stupid. I think that they think that they can manipulate the public on pet issues.

that don't actually address anything systemically. And they can still stay in power. And that's why trans people are the first to go. It's a small minority of the population. And so that's the easiest thing to do. Yeah. And that's why it's so important to pay attention to how people challenge other groups civil rights

because it really is, it's just gonna keep expanding more and more and more. You know, they said, oh, we're just targeting trans people. You know, like we're targeting trans people, but actually they're targeting women in a lot of ways. You have to pay attention to the things that are actually happening. When you argue that the government has the ability to tell me what I'm doing with my body, that it's totally okay for the government to say, you know what, you can't transition. Yes.

That has bigger repercussions than people even recognize it does. And it genuinely frustrates me because, you know, I don't want to, I don't know how this is going to sound. But like when I said earlier, like, to me, Gavin Newsom is like the obviously bad choice. It's because to me it's just so obvious that Gavin doesn't give a fuck about us. Like when you watch him tear apart homeless encampments and keeping in mind where our economy is going, right? Keeping in mind how AI is replacing workers right now. Keeping in mind that many people are just one paycheck away from being unhoused.

What the fuck do you think is going to happen when you end up in that position? you're going to immediately become the disposable person that you for so long thought homeless people were. And that's why you should give a fuck about it. But so many people have this illness of supremacy in this country where they think if trans people are being beaten down, if immigrants are being beaten down, if black people are being beaten down, then things are just going to get better for me. But in reality, these billionaires target these groups, knowing that they can do it to you eventually. you know so even from your own like self you know survival perspective people should should give a little bit

of a fuck about how they're treating other groups what's happening in Palestine right now is just a great example of it you they define certain people's you know ethnic background as inherently radical they say well you know we have to do this because that's just how they are and da da da da da they spend decades dehumanizing them. And so the loss of a life is suddenly now not that big of a deal because, you know, they're, you know, they just happen to belong to this ethnic group. People are like those brown people over there, yeah, you know, they're weird and they don't live like us, so it's okay. And it's not. It's not because you are really fooling yourself if you think they don't want to do it to you.

You really are. And it aggravates me quite a bit. I would like to take a quick break from the show to give a shout out two-factor for sponsoring this episode. In the year 2026, I have been trying to evolve on a personal level away from work in a few different ways. One of them being that I'm trying to put together more outfits. I'm trying to dress myself more in the morning and stop relying on the gay guy uniform of a white tank top, which if you watch the video version of this podcast, you are very well familiar with. Like, I started wearing sleeves.

That's got to count for something. Cheer me on, please. Anyway, what does this have to do with Factor? Well, one of the things that I am not changing in 2026 is that I don't really love cooking. I don't really love setting aside time for cooking. I don't really love going grocery shopping. Maybe you think that's embarrassing. Fortunately, there are some ways around it, one of which is Factor.

Factor is a meal delivery service with chef-made gourmet meals that make eating well easy, and everything is ready to heat and eat in two minutes. Factor has a rotating menu of over 100 different meal options every single week, and there are plenty of different menus you can try from. I've always said that I like the protein plus and the smoothies. There is a new menu called Muscle Pro for my gym girlies out there who want to avoid repetitive and bland meal prepers. You can make eating well a more varied and less laborious experience with Factor.

If you would like to try it, you can get 50% off your first box and a year of free breakfast at FactorMeals.com slash fruity 50 off with the code Fruity 50 off. That is FactorMeals.com slash fruity 50 off. Thanks so much to Factor for sponsoring this episode and now let's get back to it. I also want to reference that in the same Ben Shapiro podcast interview, Ben Shapiro brings up how Gavin Newsom's office had previously called the state-sponsored ICE murder of Renee Good, state-sponsored terrorism. And let's see how Gavin reacts when Ben Shapiro brings that up. Your press office tweeted out that it was state-sponsored terrorism, which, I mean, Governor rights to ask you about that. That sort of thing makes our politics worse. Yeah. And it does.

And our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists. Yeah. A tragic situation is not state-sponsored terrorism. Yeah, I think that's fair. Ah. Someone commented in the YouTube comment section of this podcast interview, take a shot every time Gavin challenges Ben is a drinking game you can legally play while driving. Literally, literally.

You know, like with Renee Good, René Good was kind of a good example of some of the stuff I was talking about. Like what a lot of people didn't understand like the core of the Black Lives Matter movement was actually about was like that you shouldn't be able to just shoot someone because you suspect them of a crime. Right. And now we're seeing what they've done knowing that the populace is going to say, well, maybe if the cops are there, you know, there's probably a reason for it. And like, you know, we should just trust the police because when have they ever let us astray, you know? It's, it's a. Yeah. And this is what I mean when it's like people will say, well, isn't it better to have like an opportunity? than an ideological Zionist, for example. And I'm like, well, the problem with an opportunist is that Gavin Newsom can come and say some of the things that he said this week, which we're about to look at. But then tomorrow he could sit down with Ben Shapiro again and say, yeah, it's not a genocide. Because he wants to make happy whoever is sitting in front of him. And that's not what a, that's not leadership. Like, definitionally, that's not leadership.

So this week, obviously we're now at war with Iran for reasons that. genuinely we can only speculate about because nobody fucking knows. And after the U.S. and Israeli bombs killed, I believe, 150 school girls at a school in Iran, Gavin Newsom said this. We have to reconcile why our bombs were used or Israeli bombs were used to kill children, young girls at a school. And what the imminent threat was. It hasn't been described. We have to, we have to reconcile? Process. It's the same argument you're going to hear from Czech Schumer, which is is that Trump didn't come to Congress and ask us and give us sufficient explanation. There's no critique of it on its merits. Yeah, and I hate how he's acting like he doesn't know why they

targeted a school. I mean, they targeted a school of girls for a reason. The Israelis were involved. You think that targeting schools isn't in their playbook? I've got news for you, buddy. Israel has been targeting schools every week for the last two years in Gaza. But you know what? Even just not to over-analyze, but like I do think if someone is going to run for president, we can over-analyze because we need to reconcile why our bombs were used to kill children. What do you mean we? You're the leader. What he's doing there rhetorically is trying to get a lay of the land with the people he's talking to to see what opinion he should have about it. we need to reconcile what happened here.

You need to tell us what you think so that we can decide whether or not to support what you think. But he doesn't believe anything. That's a really important point, Matt, because Zoran would never do something like that. Just in terms of who we're looking at with like the strongest messenger right now in politics on our side, he would never just say, hey, it's up for grabs. And once I get the poll testing in, I'm going to determine whether or not. I can ride the fence on this kind of situation. Polling is not static.

The consultant class in the Democratic Party wants you to think that because they have sold a bill of goods to a bunch of corrupt Democrats that they can give you a package of data and you can win elections that way. We've seen it's fleeting. We've seen it's cynical. We've seen that it's completely lost voter trust. If you are a politician, it is your duty to use the bully pulpit to change public opinion on issues of human rights and of income inequality and what have you.

And what the old class of liberals does is they are reactive. And it's definitionally poor leadership. It's why that even like there were some good things that the Biden administration did on antitrust, right? Or on even the inflation reduction act. But I still think he's one of the worst presidents in the history of the country because he's such a horrible leader. And plus the genocide in Gaza, he didn't use the bully pulpit to sell anything to the American public. We had an absence of leadership for around four years about what the vision for this country. should look like outside of restoring these crumbling institutions and patching them together in

between two Trump terms. That is also the responsibility of the president, is to give a vision for where the country can go. And even where, like, I might prefer Biden's domestic policy to what Obama offered, for example, I'm still going to say Obama was a better president because he actually took the issue of, like, being a leader a little bit seriously and a statesman. And that means trying to push the conversation in a way that benefits your political movement. I disagree with Obama's political movement more broadly. But you get exactly what I'm saying here. Being so reactive is genuinely a threat to all of us because they're not providing an alternative vision as the Republicans are providing a very clear and scary one.

Yeah, that's the thing is that like a lot of times these people think if we do a little bit of right leading shit, like maybe we'll get some people. but like the people who feel like that are just going to vote for the Republican. Yes. Like they're just going to vote for the Republican. So then last night, I'm so glad we're doing this today because this morning, I woke up to new Gavin Newsom Israel statements. He's on a book tour right now, which I think in many ways is serving as the soft launch for his 2028 campaign.

Yep. He'll officially launch in January 27 right after the midterms. But he wants to get into the public consciousness right now in early 2020. every playbook ever for an establishment democratic politician. He's doing it by the calendar. Right. And he was being interviewed about his book by, I believe it was the POD Save America guys.

And they raised the issue of continuing to arm Israel. And here's what Gavin Newsom says. And a lot of Democrats have looked at the Netanyahu regime and felt like, you know what, we don't like the trajectory he's on. it's time to rethink the U.S. relationship with Israel, especially military support. Where do you stay? He's making that easy right now. Let's talk about that. But the issue of BB is interesting, because he's got his own domestic issues. He's trying to stay out of jail. He's got an election

coming up. He's potentially on the ropes. He's got folks the hard line that want to annex the West Bank. I mean, Freeman and others are talking about it appropriately. It's sort of an apartheid state. Thomas Friedman is talking about it. That's who he's taking his cues from now? Wait, I'm not done. I'm sorry. Do you think looking down the road that the United States should consider maybe, you know, rethinking our military support for Israel?

It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path, where I don't think you have a choice but that consideration. No, I, what do you think about it? We have no choice. The Israelis have dragged me to my position that I didn't actually want to take. He's also lying. This is going to be the shorthand for people that are listening to this. Pay attention to the Democrats that just blame Benjamin Netanyahu.

They are lying to you. They are lying about the polling within Israel, which is they have, it's a population that is incredibly radicalized. And that's because it's ethnically and religiously homogeneous by design, an overwhelming majority support the genocide in Gaza. The opposition leader, the so-called center left opposition leader in Israel, the the leader of the opposition to Netanyahu just came out in support of the greater Israel proposal by Mike Huckabee. The only thing that's going to change this situation is for the United States

to cut off diplomatic support, but most importantly, arms. And Netanyahu has been the leader of that country for nearly 30 years with a small respite. He is as representative of their politics as a leader could possibly be. And the Democrats need to reckon with this and actually, deal with the problem of the apartheid and not just like signal about it and actually talk about it outside of just Netanyahu equals Trump, which is what they're going to try to get away with. 100%. And I mean, obviously, I think he's invoking like, oh, maybe it's an apartheid state because clearly his consultants have given him like the go on, okay, we poll tested apartheid. And you can say apartheid now. But you know, they ask him, should we cut off weapons? And he says, well, it's

heartbreak. First of all, what does that even mean? It's heartbreaking. It's the heartbreaking aspect of this is that maybe we should cut off arms to Israel that's been committing a genocide. But also these phrases of like, that's a real conversation that we should have. It's so Kamala S. It's corporate speech. People are sick of it. People are really sick of it. Like people are tired of the non-answers. I wish people would recognize that like one of the reasons why people really enjoyed Mom Dani is because he like actually stuck to his point and was like, this is what I'm going to do. This is why I feel. And it's not wishy-washy here and there. Like when I listen to him answer that, I don't hear anything. It's why Trump has his appeal. Let's be real. He's lying,

but he speaks off the cuff. It's it's an authenticity or a performance of authenticity that people are craving. Mom Dani authentically has it. Trump is just a liar, but he's also impulsive. And so it looks like authenticity. And you know what? I just want to return. to this question of like, well, isn't an opportunist better than a Zionist ideologue? Because people were like celebrating this. And the element of this that I think is worth celebrating is the fact that he's using the word apartheid. The fact that he's entertaining the conversation. And I can't believe we're still in the stage of entertaining a conversation about cutting off arms to Israel. But the fact that he's doing it, this extraordinarily buttoned up man who the only things he says

are what have been, you know, battle tested and approved by his pollsters. So the fact that he's saying it indicates that it is, and we already knew this, broadly popular, things like cutting off weapons, things like highlighting the reality that this is in apartheid state. That's nice to know. But I'm not celebrating, and people can disagree with this, but I'm not celebrating Gavin Newsom's answer here beyond that it reflects what we already know, which is that as popular. because like I said, this man has proven again and again that he believes in nothing.

He could sit down with Mike Huckabee and say, well, yeah, you make some points about the Greater Israel Project. Am I crazy? Absolutely not. Hey, y'all, it's Matt from the future editing this episode, and how grateful am I to be able to let you know that by the end of the day that we recorded this episode on, Gavin Newsom's spokesman had already walked back his recognition of Israeli apartheid. from the New York Times, quote, asked to clarify the comments, Izzy Garden, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, said that the governor believes in Israel's right to exist, and its right to defend itself, period. And that's showbiz, baby.

So I want to round out this episode, Act 3, if you will, by talking about what it means to live in a supposed democracy where, like, apparently we already have to commit to voting for this person who's not even running yet. And I want to explain that through a controversy that recently took place online with a one Hassan Piker. Who? Listen, I try not to center, you know, straight men on this podcast, but, you know, he's at the heart of this one. No, he's an exception. I joke. Hassan's a friend and I love whenever I see him trending because I'm like, oh, someone else is taking the heat who has a little bit more clout than me that can just buttress these insane Democrats.

We've given you a lot of context so far for Gavin Newsome's politics or lack thereof. Another important element of his current political career as governor of California is that he opposes California's billionaire tax. There is a fight right now within the state of California over this ballot measure. which would be a 5% tax on the residents of California, whom have over a billion dollars. This would be a big part of trying to cover the gap in funding for health care programs like Medicaid that the Trump, one big, ugly-ass bill pushed and was responsible for some of the largest health care cuts in the country.

This billionaire tax would fill those gaps. But Gavin Newsom has been vociferous in his opposition. to this proposal, even as there is like significant grassroots support for it in California. And this is not the first time that he has acted on behalf of billionaires. There was a measure that he ended up killing as governor that would have much more intensely regulated private equity and hedge funds as they price gouge on health care. He was somebody who ran on single payer health care, but then worked behind the scenes after getting elected to kill it. So the only time really that Gavin Newsom engages in progressive rhetoric

is when he's going to backtrack on it later and stab the left in the back. That's pretty much his track record. Yeah, we need to focus on tabletop issues like healthcare and also do nothing about that. Yep. It's really important that we focus on nothing except making sure that nothing threatens the wealth of billionaires. I digress. By the way, I will say, You know, one of the arguments that Gavin Newsom makes in opposition to the billionaire tax is like, well, if we tax the billionaires 5%, they're all going to leave California. And I just want to say that that's not true. That doesn't happen. This whole thing just played out in New York City.

All of the richest people in New York City saying if Zoron wins, we're going to leave. Guess how many of them have left. Even in California, they did this. They raised taxes on millionaires 15 years ago, and the number of millionaires increased in the state. This is a capital flight myth. that academics have studied, and it's there to stave off the calls to tax the rich. It's not actually something that happens, especially in large states like California in New York, where they are centers of culture and finance.

And these corporations and billionaires need to be there. They're just trying to shake down the state for more tax cuts to pretend that they're going to leave. The real reason Gavin Newsom opposes this stuff is because his career is in the pockets of these billionaires. And so Hassan Piker, popular leftist Twitch streamer, if you, in fact don't engage with any straight men on the internet and don't know who he is. He was talking with our girl Jennifer Welch of I've had it who's been on this podcast before as well. And she asked who he would vote for in a hypothetical election between J.D. Vance and Gavin Newsom. And this is what he said. Who do you vote for J.D. Vance or Gavin Newsom? Well, I'd have to vote for

Gavin Newsom. Me too. I wouldn't blink. What about you, Husson? I'd probably vote third party. You would? Oh yeah. I mean at that point it doesn't even matter like because my policy on this is is the same as like my refusal to endorse Kamala Harris. The reason why I did not endorse Kamala Harris was because she did things that were not only unproductive but also unconscionable. But and I still stand on that. I still talk about it all the time because people constantly bring it up. They're like you didn't sufficiently like promote Kamala Harris. You're the reason why she lost. And I'm like, I am incapable. There is no singular force in this country that is capable of making or breaking an election.

And if that was real, then it is the most idiotic thing not to listen to my demands. But everybody knows that that's not real, right? If I had this singular force to be able to make Kamala Harris the president, then Kamala Harris should be coming to me every day and being like, let me do a collab with you, please. Totally. Right? That's not the case, of course.

And they know it. That's why they didn't do it. And for me, the way I see it is if the Democratic establishment makes this decision one more time, just as they did with Hillary Clinton, just as they did with Kamala Harris. And in some ways, just as they did with Joe Biden as well, which led to Trump too, then they just don't care. People lost their minds over Hassan Piker saying that he would not vote for this candidate. In an election that is two and a half years away for a candidate who is not running yet, they blamed Hassan for the state of the country, saying he's no different than MAGA Republicans, that Hassan handed Trump the presidency on a silver platter. They also called him a Russian asset. Hey, Hassan Piker, we have

something in common. There was one popular tweet that said, Hassan is functionally no different than a fascist. Here's what I'll say. You can argue that there are some Democrats who are functionally no different than fascists. And I would argue that perhaps Chuck Schumer, who is, refusing to rule out voting against supplemental funding for this horrific war that we are waging in Iran is an example of, at the very least, a fascist enabler, that he is repeatedly caving to the Republicans on issues as it relates to government spending. Like, that is much closer to a fascist, because he's literally enabling their actions, than someone like Hussein, who's demanding better of the opposition party that's supposed to be keeping us from a moment of fascism that we've already reached. And the problem here is that this level of entitlement, this, however, the Democratic party kind of fans are reacting here, is what has repulsed so many voters and has made it so that

the Democrats are actually more unpopular than Trump right now. And when you look at polling. And that is because of the entitlement here. They keep trying to preach democracy as an ethic. And I agree. I want to protect. democracy. But the big problem is that they don't practice it internally, whether it's forcing Joe Biden to run when you had actually Democratic Party voters saying, we want somebody different. They said, no, no, no, we're going to actually make South Carolina the first primary. We're going to try to box out anybody who might challenge this very geriatric kind of ailing old man who's deeply unpopular. And we don't really care what you have to say. You oppose the genocide

in Gaza, only like single digit percentages of Democratic voters, let alone only 25, percent of independence per Gallup poll last August. So those numbers have gotten worse since then. But it's something like 9 percent of Democrats support Israel's military action in Gaza. Well, hey, the Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, he's all for Israel. It doesn't matter what the voters think. My base I don't even care about. I care about the Zionist lobby. These are fundamental undemocratic actions that have enabled the fascism of Donald Trump. So when then Kamala Harris goes out there with Liz Cheney with a big democracies on the line, ballot. What do voters think? Do they think of democracy as something that they need to protect

inherently? Or do they see a group of cynical politicians who are not acting democratically in and of themselves, which means democratic responsiveness, which means changing your positions to reflect that of your constituents, to reflect that of the voter base? And they have no legitimacy on the issue of democracy because they don't practice it themselves. They don't listen. And they protect like they can just force things through by throwing trans people under the bus, by some focus testing here, what have you. No, no, no. There's no shortcut. You have to respond to voters. Period. I wish people would understand that leftists did not actually lose this election, that non-voting leftists are a minority within a minority, that many of us actually did go out

and vote for Kamala Harris. I did. I voted for her. I did with all of my criticisms. And that's another thing. I wish people would understand that a lot of times we're making these criticisms with the idea that we would like to vote for them. To me, telling me as a trans person to listen to Gavin Newsom essentially say he doesn't give a fuck about my civil rights and then say, if I don't vote for him, I'm ushering in Donald Trump or, you know, the JD Vance presidency that's going to, you know, ruin everything. It's like, it's so ridiculous and it's frustrating. It's, frustrating that people don't see that it's ridiculous because it should actually be seen as a very reasonable thing for me to not want to vote for a candidate who would be working against my

interest and would also be funding genocide or would be defending the idea that billionaires don't deserve to be fucking taxed. It's like none of this makes sense. So why are you yelling at me? Yeah. I mean, look, the discourse around the 2024 election was in my, you know, years, like being online and talking about politics, some of the most miserable months of, like, my waking up and doing work every morning. And I know that, like, all three of us feel that, because if you were vocally against so many of the things, notably the genocide, that Kamala, maybe in different language than Trump, but functionally promised to continue in the exact way that Trump has, then it's like, well, how do we vote for this person? How do we advocate for this person?

and the election came upon us. I went in the week leading up to the election. I took a bus to Pennsylvania and I fucking door knocked. I was coconut posting. I'm a DSA member. I was on TikTok getting yelled at for being like, I think maybe Kamala might be the better of the two choices. Yeah, I'm like making stupid cases.

Like, look how hot she is. That's got to count for something, right? I didn't even like her policies like that. And I mean, this is the thing for me. It's like when I talked online about how I had like gone to Pennsylvania and door knocked, there were Palestinian people who were very disappointed in me. And what could I say to them? What did I have to say to them?

Nothing. Because I am not going to look you straight in the face as so many people are asking trans people. trans people to do are asking Arab Americans to do and say, vote for this candidate who doesn't care about you, who has presided over the mass death of your family members of people in your community, and suck it up and vote for them because that's what it means to protect a democracy. What kind of democracy is that? And so that was the conversation, the very tense and uncomfortable and miserable conversation that was happening then in the days before the 2024 election.

guess what? We lost that election and we've seen what having a candidate who failed all of these litmus tests has paved the way for. And I mean years and years and years and decades of this sort of neoliberalism has paved the way for. Now we're not in an election cycle. So now we're having this conversation. So like just don't tell me that I am a fascist, that I'm no different than a MAGA Republican because in March 2026, I'm saying I don't want to vote for Gavin Newsom. Like, what is the point of representative democracy if we can't even air our desires because it's like we must accept this preordained prince from his $9 million mansion? You know, to wrap it up, that's kind of where I am just screaming from the rooftops,

is that we have to perform representative democracy by actually representing people. and representing their views and not just trying to work around it. Represent them, uplift them, and it's not that hard. You can do it. You just have to have a universal message, which a lot of Democrats are afraid to do, because universal programs mean taxation, challenging power, all of that stuff that needs to happen if we're going to make sure that fascism is destroyed. And I'll just say on Twitter, as people were, you know, going at Hassan for saying he wouldn't vote for news,

Hassan defended himself by highlighting Gavin Newsom's waffling on trans issues in particular, to which some people said, no, he supports us. Look what he did in 2004. And one week later, after this whole fiasco, Gavin says on CNN, just to bring it home, that Democrats should be more culturally normal. Hassan Piker vindicated, I guess. I don't know. You know, being a leftist, it's often a game of just being right. right too soon. Oh yes. It's absolutely agonizing and it ruins your psyche and your mental well-being, but we don't have a choice but to be leftist because this is how progress is made. I guess there's some comfort in knowing that the people before us, people who have sacrificed way more than I

have, also experienced this incredible frustration. We're just in a really, really difficult time right now and we keep fighting. We've got no other choice. Emma and Kat, thank you so much. for like dragging me through the mud. I promise, if you're listening to this, I promise this is the last time for at least a few episodes that I'll talk about electoral politics. It'll be back to celebrity analysis soon. I just had to get it off my chest.

Thank you both so much for being here today. Where can people find more of you? The majority report with Sam Cedar, but also myself, Emma Vigland, is live every weekday, noon, eastern. We're live for around two and a half hours. You can become a member at join the majority report. We are a daily left-wing news show that covers all of these issues and more.

I'm primarily found on YouTube where I go by my stage name, Cat Black, and you can also find my writings on blackin the city.com. I am definitely trying to celebrate my creative ability right now. So I'm going to be trying to speak less about politics, but knowing me, I'm still going to do it. I'm still going to do it. I can't stop doing it. It's important to be. But I'm trying to embrace my creative side, so look forward to seeing.

that. And if you have made it this far in the episode, thank you so much. I hope this is the last time for a while that we have to talk about Gavin Newsom. It's one thing to talk about like, you know, pop cultural stuff that I have a problem with. It's another thing to just talk about this dog shit, cynical, rich guy politician that I don't, it's just like genuinely not fun, but I hope we made it fun. I love you so much. Thank you for listening to this episode. I will see you next time. And until then, stay Rudy.