Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/20/25: Krystal and Saagar REACT: Trump Inaugural Address

Episode Date: January 20, 2025

Krystal and Saagar react to Trump's inaugural address.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories

shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip hop. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. and that's what stands out is that our music changes people's lives for the better. Let's talk about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to We Need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. All right, you've just been listening to the once and future president, Donald Trump, once again, assuming office. That's right. The once and current president. Sagar, let me turn to you for your initial response. And we've been sort of underscoring some of the contrast between this Trump presidency versus the first Trump presidency. And to me, a lot of those were evident in the tone and the approach that Trump has now won, as opposed to the underdog kind of surprise status that he had the first time. American carnage and the themes of that speech were present, I would say, in about the first 10 to 12 minutes, where it was really a searing indictment of the Biden presidency from foreign chaos to inflation to an overall indictment of like

cultural liberalism and the left. So the way that the speech was structured was really interesting. It began, you know, both with the golden age of America starts right now, if we think about it, almost like a college paper. The second paragraph then was one which laid out his theory of what went wrong in America from immigration, chaos at the southern border, inflation, different from the first time around, the specific executive orders. This was also tonally, you know, this is State of the Union Trump. This is his most disciplined. He only went off script one or two times. There was a weaving in of some of the most famous moments in American history, from the call to put a man on the moon by John F. Kennedy, to we will plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars. He's talked specifically, I have here in my notes, about many of the things that he ticked off from foreign chaos. But actually, what's really interesting to me about the speech was this was only about 36 some minutes, I think, here as an inaugural address,

relatively average in the number of time, but spent significantly less time on foreign affairs than I thought. And that is interesting to me because it is clear from what I could see with Trump's speech that this was all about politics here at home. So if we think about some of the previous big speeches by American presidents, the inaugural address is very often, famously in 2009, Barack Obama extends his fist into a hand to the country of Iran, which led to the Iran deal. President Reagan spent huge portions of his speech speaking about the Soviet Union, about communism, similarly to George W. Bush. A lot of people will not remember George H.W. Bush. Many people may not remember, but Bill Clinton spent a significant amount of time kind

of thinking about the post-Cold War era. This was a speech about America and its problems. And to the extent that the foreign affairs were weaved into it, it was about our spirit of national unity, and I will win to achieve the peacemaker unifier status. So I was really interested to see that tonally, and just how strikingly different that is, than a lot of inaugural addresses that are often given. But yeah, overall, I would say it was a blend of the original 2016 American carnage. We had the, you know, your wealth has been taken from you, a really, an indictment of the bipartisan elite of the Biden presidency, but then bringing it all really

to a source of cohesive unity in America, and that from that will flow prosperity both at home and abroad. So interesting for me to watch it. Actually, I thought he did a pretty good job. Both he stuck to his overall text, which is difficult for him, tonally hit all of some of the most popular parts of his campaign promises and also that have been polling, as we've seen in some recent stuff I'm sure we'll discuss in our shows going forward. So, you know, overall, this is a speech that very much fits in the spirit of American carnage, but represents him coming into his second term. You know, I will I will note, you know, there was not calls for unity, quote unquote, in terms of working with the Democrats. This was a defiant Trump, a popularly elected Trump that I thought was interesting also to see from him very much in

terms of the lessons that he's taken over the last four years, linking his own persecution and his legal indictments from the Biden administration to how he was able to overcome that in the spirit of the American people kind of fusing those two things. So very interesting speech, I thought, overall, I think it's quite effective in terms of him delivering his message. Emily, what were your thoughts? Well, you know, I think the what we're seeing a lot of his advisors or his operatives tweet in unison is golden age, golden age. Whoever wrote that speech was talking about sunshine pouring all over the world.

And I think there was a really intentional effort to blend, as Sager says, American carnage and optimism in a way that the original make America great again, never like that original catchphrase was not always forward looking in terms of the tone that Trump leveraged it in. Reagan is very different than that. Reagan was much more forward looking whenever he talked about making America great again, which he literally used the same line that was from Reagan. And I think what Trump did was move a little bit more in that direction and try to use the aesthetic, conjure the aesthetic of sunniness, golden, sunny. We're hearing this over and over again. I think that's what they wanted to be the number one takeaway from the speech was the tone of like literally sunshine and gold. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that's why I actually didn't think that it bore much of

any resemblance to the American Carnage speech, because that one really went deep on not only painting a dark portrait of America, which, you know, many Americans agree with. And I also agree with painting that picture in a way that was an indictment of both party establishments. This is a much more partisan speech. But in addition, you know, the line in the speech that actually stood out the most to me as such a encapsulation of the difference between that speech and that moment and this moment is when he was talking about the LA fires and he says many rich and powerful people's homes burned down.

And many of those rich and powerful people's homes burned down and many of those rich and powerful people are with me here right now so different from the theme of American Carnage was I'm for the forgotten man and the forgotten women and now the optics are I have all of my billionaire buddies here with me ready to run the government if I could just I'm just going to read a portion so people could recall the American Carnage speech and what the tone was. And to me, how different it was from, this almost felt like, to your points,

like a State of the Union, it was like a laundry list of we're going to do this and that, executive orders, blah, blah, blah. But he said in that speech, which really painted the vision, the sort of ideological orientation of Trumpism, at least as the way it was sold to the public. We can talk about the differences between how it was sold and what it really was.

But in any way, it was more of a sort of like, let me lay out my vision, my view of the world, whereas this was more of sort of like a laundry list of policy. But in that original speech, he said, for too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. The people who are sitting with him there on the dais in front of the cabinet members,

the Elon Musks and the Jeff Bezos and the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world, they're the people that he was indicting in that original American carnage speech. And now they are giving him a million dollars or more for his inauguration. They're his best buddies. They're hanging out at Mar-a-Lago, etc. So to me, that was what was most noteworthy about that speech. And actually, Lee Fong, he had tweeted over the next decade, Silicon Valley will replace blue and white collar workers with AI and outsource more jobs overseas. So the people that are standing around Trump, they're going to be there on a mission to do that. Truckers, designers, engineers, lawyers and far more power will flow to the dozen tech overlords standing next to Trump at his

inauguration. Ominous optics. And, you know, for me, that's sort of the biggest takeaway from the this entire dynamic. And Lee made another great point, which was, you know, at Trump's rallies, he really went out of his way to have regular working people. I remember him going to McDonald's and driving the garbage truck, et cetera, et cetera. And now I think it was Stoller who said this. Those people are literally out in the cold while the tech oligarchs are there warmly, you know, warmly snug in the embrace of the Capitol standing there behind Donald Trump. Yeah, it is. I mean, look, Crystal, what you're describing is the fundamental tension of the overall Trump movement, which is one both that is backed by an establishment consensus,

most of it really freaked out by the popular vote victory mandate that Donald Trump was then delivered on the backs of working people of the United States. If we think about the working class coalition that delivered the popular vote here to Donald Trump, the swing state victory, all seven, exactly right. Those are the people. And I see all of those people walking about the city, as you said, bundled up. Some of them not bundled up too much. You guys didn't listen, but it's OK. Fetterman's in shorts.

Yeah, well, that's a whole other thing. We won't even get into that by the way in shorts for the inauguration of our president wore a suit for bb netanyahu's visit oh wow great great call out crystal i love that uh very that is fantastic okay i'm gonna i'm banking that one up there i'm gonna steal that one from you uh. Just a little bit more on the speech. What is so, you know, dynamics wise, too, I have to say we should never have these in the Capitol again. I hate the applause lines in terms of pausing just like the State of the Union. Inaugural addresses both delivered outside with the magisterial view of the Capitol are those, like you said, Crystal, which focus

on the masses and the hundreds of thousands of people. All of the inaugural tickets, some 200,000 were given away, right? So the expected crowd was hundreds of thousands of people to attend this inauguration because it is the people's president. When you keep it inside, just generally, I don't think it's a great optic specifically for what you're saying. I do think it's a very important call out, the one that you just made. But I also think that this is a natural extension of Donald Trump becoming the Republican Party, right? Because when you are the leader of the Republican Party, you can't indict the Republican Party. So if I'm looking through all of my notes, we just see Trump's conquering of

the Republican Party and hence why it was much more, quote unquote, partisan speech. So he began, his first priority was immigration. Today, I will declare a national emergency at the southern border. Float from that was drill, baby drill, inflation and energy prices. What came after that was about Doge, then bringing back free speech to America, then DEI ending those policies, then eventually transitioning to the military. And of course, some classic Trump giveaways. We're taking back the Panama Canal. We are changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. I think that part is actually worth dwelling on a little bit because we've talked about this a little bit on the show.

And I do think what, you know, Russia invading Ukraine and getting away with it, but even more so Israel doing committing a genocide in Gaza and getting away with it. This has really solidified a new era in foreign policy that Trump is seizing on. And so he is in this speech really overtly announcing a new American imperialism. I mean, he even uses the term manifest destiny. Yeah. Goes on and on about seizing the Panama Canal. Right. Talks about

renaming various things. And, you you know it really is quite assertive and also i would add into that you know as part of the immigration portion um he says he wants to declare the cartels foreign terrorist organizations that'll be one of the original executive orders that means that he can go to war with Mexico with zero congressional input using the authorization for the use of military force that was put in place for the war on terror post 9-11. So again, another like quite imperialist militaristic direction that he feels, you know, that he is obviously unafraid of embracing and putting out there as part of his project for this term and this administration. And one more thing before I get you guys both to weigh in on that.

Sagar, you mentioned how little there was on, like, Ukraine. I don't think you mentioned Ukraine at all. No, we did not say the word Ukraine. There's just sort of an illusion of, like, oh, the wars that wouldn't have happened if I had been there. There was one mention of the Gaza, at least temporary ceasefire deal that's in effect right now, which was all we're happy the hostages are coming home. And that was it. So nothing broader about the end of the war, the end of the suffering of the none, just a one liner about the hostages. And that was also that was noteworthy to me as well. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And, you know, it's interesting. So this is where the vagueness of Trump, he often weighs for himself. Right. So what he does is by not by just saying I'm

the peacemaker, then the conditions of peace itself. It's like, OK, well, we'll figure it out in time. Same way, actually, because he's not a hardened ideologue. That's like, like in sometimes he is right. Like on trade, he is a hardened ideologue. But there are some. Yeah, I mean, it's like, oh, the Panama Canal. Oh, I remember the Jimmy Carter thing. Yeah. Let's get that. Let's get that shit back. I mean, I do want to stick on this because it's actually important because at a big level, let's zoom out. You know, I've got a bunch of these books behind me. And when we think about, you know, when there's the Trump book is here and there's multiple other presidents and we're looking past, you know, 30, 40 years behind us, what we will see is a collapse effectively of much of the liberal world order under the Biden administration, both from Israel and from Ukraine. Afghanistan was also a significant part of that. We are now fully back in the era of great power competition. And so that's

why invoking President McKinley and the Theodore Roosevelt era of the early 1900s brings us back spiritually in his speak of manifest destiny and others back to that moment over 100 years ago, where the United States is an open and vigorous competition with Germany, with the UK, the expansionist powers and imperial powers of Europe. Now we have both China, Russia, various world orders and other things that are emerging. And it's actually a sign of that return of geopolitics that probably we could take the most from it. I mean, Donald Trump will be the very first American president in 75 years to declare an open policy of expansionism in his inaugural address.

We really should consider that. The phrase manifest destiny and others has been uttered in terms of looking back to the founders. This is the first time in the post-World War II era that an American president taking the oath of office openly announces an expansion both from the Panama Canal, he didn't mention Greenland, but obviously Mexico there, while phrasing it similarly in terms of the peacekeeper. How would all that work out? I have no idea, obviously, and there's some huge

questions, but spiritually, that's very important. And it actually, it fuses well, I think, with a lot of the politics. And that's why I often tell people, you know, when you read a book, so much of our politics rhymes with that era of we have huge questions about immigration, hyphenation, what do we do about this with our society? We have big questions about our global, do we want to be a global power? Do we want to just be a, you know, a nation of farmers? Tariffs is the same thing. That was a huge question as the United States becomes rapidly industrializing and we became an exporting nation. How should we raise this? And then also the Gilded Age. And that's where we can also fuse that. And I think bring this full circle where we have this extraordinary separation of wealth and of workers. And so, you know, bringing all of those themes together, I just feel like, yes, look, nothing changes on a dime. But, you know, we've known a lot of this for quite

some time, but it does feel really it hits home to me just it's very rare you get to live through a complete paradigm shift. And I think that this will be the beginning truly of that paradigm shift. And it raises a lot of really interesting questions about the United States, our role in the world, really who we are at home. We all get to decide that. And it was messy and it was brutal. And there was a lot of arguments that happened then. And yeah, so that's really like my big macro takeaway from the speech. Well, Sagar, one thing I think useful that frames it is we haven't mentioned he is now the oldest man to take the oath of office. Donald Trump is. So obviously, truly, like at the time of him taking the oath of office, he is 78 years old. And that, I think, is a huge fact, given the amount of time we've

poured into discussing it in the context of Joe Biden, but also in the context of why Donald Trump has this sense that manifest destiny is what will return America to pride. This is make America great again, again, to return to manifest destiny, to the Monroe Doctrine, to totally owning the hemisphere and not having China come into Panama, as he talked about. He said in a section on Panama, we didn't give it to China, we gave it to Panama. So now we're taking it back. And that is really interesting. The other thing I'll add, Sagar, both you and Crystal, I think, said something really, really wise about how it's a tide shifting moment. It's a paradigm shifting moment, but there's still so much unsettled. And in reference to the Lee Fong post

that Crystal brought up, I just want to say, we know, we have all talked to a lot of the people who spent the last half decade of their work in the Republican Party and the quote unquote, broader conservative movement focused on antitrust and on the concentration of power in the hands of the people who are now at that stage, who are now sitting behind Donald Trump in front of some of the cabinet secretaries. And I'm pessimistic just by nature. And I think Donald Trump is making all of these signs that he is siding with with Elon and Bezos. And he thinks that he has truly co-opted them because the culture war has sort of loosened up.

Republicans feel like, you know, they spent years saying the cultural problems, like DEI, whatever, are downstream of economic concentration. But now that they feel like they've won the culture war, they're not so much concerned about economic concentration for all of the reasons that they should be, even though the culture stuff feels to them like it's soft. There are people going into this administration who do care. And I just want to say, I think part

of what will be settled is going to be concentrated in this boring, wonky policy battle, specifically over antitrust behind closed doors in the next several months. I think we'll get an idea of what's about to happen when it comes to how much power those oligarchs actually have versus the 30-something, 40-something-year-old staffers and law school graduates who are now roaming the halls. Yeah, that's a good point. I think we probably know the answer to that if past experience of DC holds. Emily, I know you got to jump. Thank you as always.

Thank you, Emily. Great insights. We love you and everybody. Emily will be on CounterPoints Wednesday, like normal with Ryan. All good stuff. We'll see you then. See you guys. Camp Shane, one of America's longest runningrunning weight-loss camps for kids,

promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that

enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. The summer of 1993 was one of the best of my life. I'm journalist Jeff Perlman, and this is Rick Jervis. We were interns at the Nashville Tennessean, but the most unforgettable part? Our roommate, Reggie Payne, from Oakland, sports editor and aspiring rapper. And his stage name? Sexy Sweat. In 2020, I had a simple idea. Let's find Reggie. We searched everywhere, but Reggie was gone.

In February 2020, Reggie was having a diabetic episode. His mom called 911. Police cuffed him face down. He slipped into a coma and died. I'm like thanking you, but then I see my son's not moving. No headlines, no outrage, just silence. So we started digging and uncovered city officials bent on protecting their own. Listen to Finding Sexy Sweat coming June 19th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my

husband at the cold case. I've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think Emily makes a very important point there about the I mean, you know, I'm cynical and I think most of the people on the right, not all, most on the right who postured as caring about concentration of wealth and power really only cared about the cultural domination and wokeism and censorship that they perceived as going disproportionately against conservatives. And we're right about that at times. And once that's done, and you could see this with like the Elon Musk takeover of Twitter,

right? Oh, well, now that is our billionaire that owns Twitter and is censoring in the way that we want him to, then we're comfy with it. And I think Trump has sort of, you know, he's embraced that. And that's why there was a significant portion of the speech that was about wokeism and DEI and in the military and all that sort of stuff. agree with. And all of the talk of, you know, Matt Gates is a Lena conservative and J.D. Vance is going to be on board with he likes Lena Khan, blah, blah, blah. Well, Lena Khan is out of the job now. Like that's done. It's over. And I fully expect these guys to get what they effectively paid for. So, I mean, it's a two way street, right? It's beneficial for Trump. So in that way,

he loves having them there, having bent the knee, all that sort of stuff. But they also are going to get quite a lot out of the deal and, you know, got quite a lot out of the Biden administration too. Like all of those men are wildly wealthier now than they were before the Biden administration. They're wildly wealthier now than they were even when, Donald Trump won the election just a few months ago. This, to me, is one of the central issues of our era. And that's why, especially as crypto takes off and is one more vehicle for a massive upward transfer of wealth, AI takes off is another vehicle for a massive upward transfer of wealth. AI takes off is another vehicle for a massive upward transfer of wealth. And the guys who have their hands on the controls are the beneficiaries of that, you know, massive heist from the American public and the global public, too. What you'll find interesting, Crystal, is

the talk of the town right now from over the weekend is not just about antitrust. It really is actually about AI. And I'm glad that you brought that up because one of the under-noticed stories of the last couple of days is that Sam Altman actually briefed Donald Trump's incoming advisors about an alleged breakthrough in chat GPT technology

to establish PhD-level intelligence. Now, Sam Altman has tried to pour cold water on this, but, you know, crypto is nothing compared to artificial intelligence and then the leaps in that. And that because all of those men that were behind Donald Trump, I guess, kind of with the exception of Elon, are deeply invested and have poured billions, tens of billions into artificial intelligence. Well, Elon is, Elon's in that world too with Grok.

I mean, he's clearly making it quite the same. Well, and he started open AI with Sam Altman and is now trying to make his play to be a competitor to him. So I would put him in the same camp. Yes, but it's not,

it just, to me, it's just not industrial as much like, look, Grok, it's fine, but like, it's not chat GPT. It's not Claude. It's not perplexity. It's not one of these big players. It's not Google, it's not Facebook. All of those companies have gone so hard with AI that what they're the most fearful of is actually government policy around that. And that's why I think a lot of eyes should be on David Sachs,

Sriram Krishnan, and others who will be working with the White House under Michael Kratios around the policies surrounding AI, about questions in terms of open source, and also in terms of what the standards will be in interpretation of data. Trump did not use the phrase AI, but he did make some, you know, allusions to technology. It could be, you know, in the way that we look back on the Clinton era, what's the one thing that sticks out? The internet, right? I was at the White House recently and there was photos of Clinton sending his very first email. And I think that that's very possible, you know, a photo or a, you know, a visual of Donald Trump chatting live or something

with AI. And by the end of these four years, it could look totally different technologically in the way that 96 was an internet revolution compared to 92. Focusing specifically on what those guys want with the heavy level of investment from Amazon, Google, and others, the potential questions about breakup is really important. I will say, like I said, I alluded to Steve Bannon is really been the person on the outside to take that dissident view crystal of these technology oligarchs against Elon, against Mark Zuckerberg. And look, there's there, as we also can see here, things change with Trump all the time. You're only one tweet away, as Vivek can show us, from being shunted to the gubernatorial race in Ohio.

I don't think the same will apply to Elon per se, but Trump enjoys toying with Mark Zuckerberg and Bezos. I have no idea yet what that policy will look like. And even if what the Department of Justice policy on antitrust, as you said, will be because the explicit ones will be and they have real binary choices to make. Do we pursue this, continue to pursue this case against Google or not? Do we continue to pursue this case against Facebook or not? Now, obviously, they are all praying that they don't. Many of them were started under the first Trump administration. And many of those lawyers are now back working under Donald Trump, equally distrustful and hateful of those technology figures who were there and embraced by Trump.

Now, Trump is a decider. We have no idea which way it will go in that direction, which is why I think there's still so many major open questions right now. Yeah. I mean, I think the AI guys and the crypto guys like basically bought both parties and won like there was. So with regard to crypto and these things are kind of tied together, some of the same cast of characters. But you're right. The AI is the bigger deal and it doesn't get talked about nearly enough. The amount of resources that all of these companies are flowing into AI, the amount of data centers that are being the amount of compute. I mean, and this is also massively impactful in terms of carbon emissions and that as well. But and the U.S. government being a major player in this and the Chinese government being a major play. There is an ongoing massive arms race in AI development.

And effectively, I think that the people who want, by and large, unfettered AI development have won. I think Kamala was going to go in the same direction. This isn't even a partisan point. But Trump, with all of these guys behind them, just really underscores that that's the era that we live in now. And the you're right about I actually think perhaps the better comparison isn't to the 90s and the development of the Internet. It's more to the Industrial Revolution. And how disruptive that is a very live possibility that the level of disruption that we saw in like an industrial revolution where you truly have people, you know, leaving the farm, surging the cities and

all of this new like low paid, exploitative, all that chaos that was generated by that shift to industrialization. That's what we're looking at in a blink of an eye, like in a much shorter time period. And what's disturbing to me is that there is no even semblance of a democratic process around that, right? It's a handful of people who even know what's going on, even know what sorts of decisions are being made. And the types of people who are techno optimists, who by and large see the upside and aren't really weighing the downside risk. And that I think is, you know, to me as I'm watching these players and these characters and who Trump is listening to and all of that and, you know, David Sachs and Marc Andreessen and Elon himself, like that's the part that I am maybe most concerned about in the Trump administration.

And it's the battle that is playing out under the surface that gets almost no talk time from him or any of the other politicians. And it's deeply it's deeply anti-populist. It's deeply elite because these are truly a small group of like masters of the universe types who are making decisions that will have massive reverberating consequences for all of us. Just to give one more example, the Sam Altman thing is really important. And, you know, for people who don't know the backs like he and Elon, they started opening it together and they had a falling out and their rivals and they sort of like hate each

other. But then they're kind of like friendly. I don't know, whatever. Anyway, Sam was always a big Democratic given giver. He also gave a million dollars and was at the Trump inauguration as well. So he wants his seat at the table, too. But, you know, in any case, the chat GPT development is really important. But there's also been research that has come out that has already shown chat GPT and a bunch of these other LLMs engage in what's called scheming.

Where if you try to say, OK, well, now you're going to have a different goal. They will lie to you. They will sandbag. They will copy themselves onto a different server to try to protect themselves. Like that's already the level that we're at. And I don't feel like anyone is really grappling with that. So that's one of the things that I'm very concerned about, not just because it's Donald Trump in office, but because these guys have so much money and so much influence that they basically have already won the war and are going to get everything they want. Right. And that's the point, right, is not only about, well, just like the Industrial Revolution, there was no conscious policy about it.

We react to it after it already happens. And I think that's probably basically the case here. And that's where those fights inside of the admin and the theories about setting a baseline or even thinking about economic concentration and others are going to be the biggest questions for them to handle. And just kind of wrapping generally, like my overall thoughts with the inauguration and with the set policies put forward, I think I'm what I'm struck most is by how much the Republican Party has changed is not just to see JD Vance, who was an outsider, now the vice president of the United States after just two years stint in the United States Senate,

he went from writing a book and hanging out with idiots like me to literally being the vice president. And now. Well, being vetted by CNN and the New York Times. That's right. Yeah. No, you're not wrong. You're not wrong. And then he changed his, you know, completely. And now he has become a Trump warrior and the inheritor of, I think we'll see maybe Trump Jr. wants it. Well, I'm sure that'll be a fight later, but probably the inheritor of the Trump coalition. He's the first. By the way, we've explicitly moved over Gen X. So thank God for that.

We went straight from boomer to millennial. And I think that's great. I hope that the Democrats don't stand up for Ryan in this one. No, no, no. Yeah, we're millennials, Crystal. You have to stand up for our cohort. We're just as big as the boomers and we deserve power. Gen X, you suck. All you gave us was friends. Anyways, moving past that, what we see with the Republican Party is that there's no Jeff

Flake. There's no John McCain. There's no Paul Ryan. This is Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson. This is John Thune, who, yes, as is more established from the ties, I watched an interview that he gave this morning, and it was totally in support of Donald Trump. Mitch McConnell is gone. The no votes are gone. And the unanimity, which way they will be able to govern, is going to be, in my opinion, their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. So when they hit it out of the park and they're going to be able to actually pass things, it will be good. However, all presidents, especially those in Trump's position, overreach and they end up finding themselves in big problems. So for example, George W. Bush comes into office. Let's be honest, it was because people were

afraid of 9-11 and Iraq. And he's like, you know what? The American people have given me a mandate to privatize social security. Insane. Goes for it. Disaster, Crystal. It was a huge part of why he lost the 2006 midterms. FDR, same thing. 1936, people think he's a king. He thinks he's a king. And he's like, I'm going to reform the Supreme Court. Boom. Total backlash towards that one. And Trump is very much in that position right now. So his ability, actually, just like those two presidents who had popular mandates, and to then use that mandate, but instead misinterpret it possibly, which most do, can often lead to big thermostatic changes in public opinion. And that's why, in my opinion, the most important thing for Trump

and them is don't misread the mandate. And second is competence. The reason he lost the Oval Office in 2020 was the feeling of chaos with COVID. He barely lost 40,000 votes, right? So this time around, if you're the same shits show feeling, it will be detrimental to Republican chances going forward into his overall popularity. Well, because there's a dichotomy right now. And Ezra Klein actually wrote, I thought, a pretty good piece on this in the New York Times. You probably saw it as well, where, you know, on the one hand, it's like Trump won one of the most narrow popular vote victories in history. It was a point and a half. Right. So by historical standards, not a landslide. We're not talking about, you know, Reagan's reelect or anything like that.

On the other hand, the vibe shift. Yes, has been definitive. Right. I mean, just look at those people sitting on the stage, right? All the young bros, like the, you know, the cultural figure, Carrie Underwood up there singing after he gives his speech. The vibe shift has been incredibly significant. So you're left with this sense of an I can do anything overwhelming mandate. And the Supreme Court has said, like, criminally, you can basically do anything and there's no checks in place and nobody wants to stand up to him. Even the Democrats don't really want to stand up to him this time. So you've got on the one hand, all of this power. And on the other hand, the country is still quite narrowly divided and it can go in the other direction very, very quickly. So, you know, it really is quite

a fascinating political moment, you might say, in terms of, you know, what it's going to mean and how this is going to look like moving forward. And even on things like, you know, he thinks, and there's a lot of data to support this, that his immigration, you know, very, like, hardline immigration policy has been embraced

by the public and if you ask the public like we'll probably cover the polling tomorrow mass deportation they're like yes let's go but then if you ask them more details about how that looks and you know how that goes there's a lot more trepidation about what that actually looks like in real life when you are dealing with not just theoretical, sure, get the bad guys out, but the reality of like people who are sympathetic or who have been here for a long time or deploying the military to the border and having this, you know, militarized situation, it gets a lot dicier. So there is a danger for Republicans of overreaching and overreading the mandate.

One last thing, point I wanted to make about Biden and the corporate concentration and the antitrust and stuff like that. And it's, you know, it's both a compliment and a criticism of Joe Biden and that administration. There were things that were done that were genuinely good, right? Lena Khan, Jonathan Cantor actually being serious about antitrust, actually being serious about labor. And, you know, some of the things that so unable to articulate or understand basic things, there is never even an effort made to enlist the American public in a story of why those actions are important. So, you know, like they successfully sued Google. There's now an open question of Google could be broken up. Like that is monumental. Have you heard Joe Biden say anything about that until his last speech?

He's like, oh, I'm concerned about Oliver. He's like, well, what did you do? You know, I'm concerned about these tech tech giants. It's like, OK, but and you know what? You have some credibility. You your administration did do some things in that regard. But you ended up with the worst of all worlds because now all the tech billionaires hate you and are going to do everything they can to make sure you're out of office. And the public was never enlisted in this project and never understood what you were even doing, let alone how it could better their lives.

And also, by the way, you can't just do that, which is a longer term project. You also have to deliver for people materially in the short term. So that's part of how these tech billionaires won such an overwhelming victory and why if Kamala had been elected, I think the policies would have looked similar to what Trump is ultimately going to do here. But, you know, Trump, with the embrace of all these guys, it's like very clear is this attempt to, you know, if you come at the king, you best not miss. Biden came at these kings and was not forceful enough, was not able to enlist the American public in this project. And now the project is basically dead. Yeah, I mean, I could write an entire book about the failures of Joe Biden. I think that's a good point. I mean, one of the problems with having unpopular presidents for various reasons is that all

of the other stuff attached to them dies as well. I know a lot of people who supported many things, actually know a lot of evangelical Christians who will tell you that George W. Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to them because his disastrous war in Iraq sank many of the Christian right policies that they supported. Now, I disagree with them, but politically, I think that they're correct. That's a huge reason, exactly like you said. And then there's also a big question here. What does victory look like? I mean, the thing is, Trump's cultural and vibe victory, specifically over young guys, has been so extraordinary, so overwhelming and so different

than last time around. I'm still honestly like coming to grips with it. I still don't even know what it really means, what even victory is to them. All they care about is when he owns libs, right? Right. There is, though. There is a lot of people, though. It's not just Vibe. There's a lot of people, though, who did vote, you know, on material grounds. There's a lot of people who do pay attention. And those people also, I think, will be the great swing voters of America. I think the bro coalition will always stick with Donald Trump. I mean, he is, you know, like this Uber mention figure, if you think like philosophically and just like fight, fight, fight is going to endure with that generation, I think forever. In the same way, Reagan was a cultural icon more

than a political figure to an entire generation of guys. But what you watch is how quickly that can dissipate and be destroyed under George H.W. Bush. So victory for Reagan is not victory for the Republican Party and vice versa. I guess just thinking broadly here about Trump and about the first hundred days will be the ultimate test of all of these questions. It's not just going to be about technology, of course, which is very important. Immigration will be the big test for them as well. Will the public support, endure and go and go along with we have immigration raids scheduled for tomorrow in Chicago and elsewhere. This will be the first. Apparently they pulled back from Chicago after the details leaked. But I think the expectations are still there will be some significant immigration raid somewhere.

There will be an immigration raid somewhere in this country. And there will be, you know, ride alongs and media appearances and things like that, which will dominate our news waves. Well, let's see. You know, we I look, I have beliefs. Obviously, we've hashed it out a million times. I'm curious, too. I'm like, let's see it. Let's see what happens. We've still got big question marks here about who's going to take over Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. in terms of their confirmation hearings. And there could be fights about that. So I believe that these first 100 days will be a big test for thermostatic public opinion. And I have very close eye on the Democratic Party and then also on the Democratic voters. The resistance was a natural phenomenon last time. It doesn't exist right now. I'm curious to see if it can reform and what the general theory of opposition to Donald Trump and the various forms that it will take. So it's a it's a crazy moment here in Washington. That's all I could really say. Yeah. No. In terms of the resistance,

the the liberals are really but they really are in disarray. I think they feel many feel betrayed by some of the elite, especially media figures that they trusted. I mean, you mentioned before Sagar, Joe Biden being like, welcome home, Trump. I mean, they, Joe Biden may not have really believed he was a fascist and democracy, but the liberal base really did and really does. So they feel betrayed on a lot of levels. And I was mentioning before, you know, I think part of why the Democratic Party feels less inclined to resist and fight, there's a variety of factors, but one of them is they're kind of comfy with this like oligarchy thing. They've been cozy enough to these billionaires the same way. You had the lead candidate for DNC chair, Ken Martin, be like, well, yeah, we're going to still raise money from our good billionaires.

We're just going to stay away from the bad billionaires, which is like, of course, his definition of a good billionaire is one that gives to the Democratic Party versus, you know, maybe the country and the party should not be owned by billionaires whatsoever. Maybe that's ultimately the direction to go in. So I think that there's going to be a reckoning, which will probably occur bits and starts over the next four years, but certainly in the next Democratic primary presidential contest. That's really a fight for the soul in the direction of the Democratic Party. is going to arise, they're figuring out who they trust, what they believe, what view of politics makes sense, because, you know, the version that was sold to them of like, resist on the grounds of Russiagate and, you know, the high minded democracy talk, which I don't personally disagree with the, you know, the threat that Donald Trump poses. But this was clearly inadequate to the

task. The legal cases were clearly inadequate to the task. The legal cases were clearly inadequate to the task. So they're kind of regrouping and figuring out, okay, well, if that didn't work, what could work to fight back against this political force that we're opposed to? So Sagar, I don't know if you're, I think we lost Sagar. So in any case,

we were coming to wrap here in any way. But in any case, thank you guys so much for watching us on this live stream today as we watch President Donald Trump retake the Oval Office. What extraordinary times that we live in. It's going to be very interesting. Sagar and I are going to be back to cover. We're going to do another live stream tomorrow just because the news is coming in so fast and furious. So we want to make sure that we're as current as we possibly can covering all of this raft of executive orders that are going to be issued both today and tomorrow. So we'll be doing that live show again for you tomorrow just so we can make sure that we are on top of all of the news. But we appreciate you guys. And it's certainly going to be an interesting four years. See you soon.

Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Helen gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeart

Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7. Because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip-hop. It's Black Music Month, and We Need to Talk is tapping in.

I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives. Like, that's what's really important, and that's what stands out, is that our music changes people's lives for the better. Let's talk about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to We Need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an iHeart Podcast.