Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 2/10/23 Weekly Roundup: Krystal Responds to Rogan Controversy, State of the Union Reactions, Jeff Bezos Washington Commanders, Ohio Train Disaster

Episode Date: February 10, 2023

In this Weekly Roundup, Krystal and Saagar respond to Rep Josh Gottheimer and other critics of a segment on Ilhan Omar and Antisemitism during the Joe Rogan podcast, Post reactions to the State of the Union with guests Kyle, Marshall, Ryan, and Emily, and an interview from The Lever's Julia Rock (@jul1arock) joins us to talk about the Ohio train derailment disaster that's causing devastating damage and currently swept under the rug by most of mainstream media.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it means the absolute world to have your support. What are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints.com. We were on the Joe Rogan experience, and Joe actually brought up what happened with Ilhan Omar, her removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee over alleged anti-Semitism. In the course of that discussion, he made a joke, a joke which is, let's just say, not being well-received. We are going to play the full context for all of you and then break down the ensuing controversy that has embroiled

all of us here at Breaking Points. Let's take a listen to the clip first. I just saw like Nancy Pelosi is endorsing Adam Schiff for California Senate. When you read through the way that man lied to the American public through all of Russiagate, you're like, yeah, he should be should be like in prison for perjury, not being bolstered by one of the most powerful women in the country for the United States Senate. Do you see him sitting next to Ilyan Omar where she's apologizing for talking about it's all about the Benjamins? Yeah.

Which is just about money. She's talking about money. She shouldn't have apologized. I mean, I'll go ahead and say it. That's not an anti-Semitic statement. I don't think that is. It's about, Benjamins are money. You know, the idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous.

Listen. That's like saying Italians aren't into pizza. It's fucking stupid. I mean, listen. It's fucking stupid. I understand that the way she phrased it, like she could have phrased it a different way so that people would have less of a freak out. But can you not talk about the influence of money in D.C.? Of course. dc of course i mean this is very obvious there's a very obvious reason why for my entire life

there's been a uniparty consensus around our policy vis-a-vis the israeli government and a total inability or unwillingness to criticize the israeli government it has everything to do with organization and yes money just like every other fucking interest in dc and so yeah the fact that she said that she got kicked off the Foreign Affairs Committee. Look, I have issues and disagreements with Ilhan Omar, but she actually is one of the more courageous voices on foreign policy. She's willing to call out some of the hypocrisy and bullshit in U.S. foreign policy. Extremely rare in terms of United States congressmen. So it's actually kind of a real loss that she got kicked off that committee.

Yeah, she, whether you agree with her or not, she has a bold opinion. And that opinion is not her own. There's many people that have that opinion. And they should be represented. My point is she's sitting right next to Adam Schiff. And no one says shit. She doesn't say, yeah, yeah, I probably should have said, hey, motherfucker, what did you say? Right.

Yeah. You're right. You said some crazy shit that wasn't true at all. Okay. So that's the clip. Now you have it in its full glory. You can decide for yourself whether he was being anti-Semitic or not. However, many people have decided to use a bad faith view of what happened there and accused not only Joe Rogan, however, Crystal and I as well as somehow being anti-Semitic. So let me go ahead and read this tweet from

Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democratic congressman best known for trying to save the millionaire salt deduction. He says, quote, It is despicable language like this that leads to attacks and threats against Jewish people. Joe Rogan has a massive platform. It's infuriating to watch him and Crystal Ball promote blatant, dangerous, anti-Semitic tropes, including those masquerading as anti-Israel sentiments. So, Crystal, I just want to throw it to you for your reaction, because not only Gottheimer, but the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, is now condemning Joe Rogan. They're condemning us. We have multiple pro-Israel groups calling us somehow anti-Semitic for talking about the role of money in politics and the way that lobbying works. So what was your reaction to all of this nonsense? I mean, first of all, I went back and thought through, you know, our time with Joe and like that particular moment. And to the, to the extent that I really thought about what he said that deeply at all, it was sort of like, oh, it's a off color, like women be shopping level of joke. And so then I

went on to make the points that I think are really important that I 100% stand by, which is that it's not anti-Semitic to talk about the influence of money in politics with regards to any topic. And even when it comes to the topic of our government's relationship with Israel and Israeli government policy, I think it is nonsense that Ilhan Omar got taken off of a committee because of her comments. I don't think anything she said was anti-Semitic. I don't think there was anything wrong with what she said. And I think we have to be able to be honest about the way money works in D.C. without just casually throwing around these very harmful and damaging and ugly labels. So, you know, Gottheimer's tweet, I don't even really 100% understand what he's

saying there about, you know, masquerading as anti-Israel or something like that. I'm not even clear on what he means by that, but I can tell you personally, I 1000% stand by the comments that I made and my view of the situation with Ilhan Omar. And I would say it again any day of the week. You have nothing to apologize for, for all of the people who are out there saying, how dare you? Why didn't you confront him? First of all, he's a comedian and he was making a joke.

Now, I'm not going to say it was the most artfully phrased joke or whatever in the world. And, you know, if he wants to clean it up, that's on him. Number two, we were having a substantive discussion around the removal of a United States congressman around allegations that she made that influence of money in politics, something that we all seem to agree affects every platform on earth, but we're not allowed to discuss it here. As people can probably tell, I'm really upset because I'm not allowed to discuss it here. As people can probably tell, I'm really upset because I'm not going to just sit here and let people smear you and Joe Rogan as anti-Semitic. We've got every pro-Israel group and all these congressmen on the planet denouncing us

as somehow like, what is it, anti-Semitic by allyship or some bullshit like that because we sat by and didn't immediately call him out. Once again, I don't think that it was the best phrase, Joe. At the same time, like, who are you? What, you're the editor now? And, you know, even that, take a step back. Do you believe Joe Rogan is an anti-Semite? I don't believe that.

I don't believe that for a second. Do I believe, Crystal, that you were being anti-Semitic whenever you were talking about, you know, the influence of money in politics and how that relates to Israel? No, it's complete and utter nonsense. And this is how they smear people who want to talk about this at all. So I'm really honestly outraged by this entire thing and the way that people have reacted to it in the broader establishment. And here's the worst part, as you and I know, Crystal, how many people will watch the full episode in a full context, in the full clip? How many people will dismiss what you said about that substantive point

because of the joke that preceded it? And just so much of this is just completely ridiculous. But they got the headlines that they wanted. You know, they got the headlines that they wanted. Breaking points is anti-Semitic. Joe Rogan is anti-Semitic. A lot of people aren't going to look past this. That's actually what's the most disgusting part of it all. There's a whole outrage industrial complex. And so the fact that, you know, he makes this like offhanded, off-color joke

and that we don't immediately jump, how dare you, Joe Rogan, and jump on our high horse, but instead use it as a moment to talk about the legitimate criticism of DC and the way that money in politics works. I mean, I just, listen, honestly, I don't let it bother me that much because I think these people are bad faith. I think they're just looking for a way to take shots.

I don't think they really are like deeply offended or morally outraged or like, you know, people are saying, oh, this is so dangerous. Come on. I mean, it was the State of the Union last night. There are so much, so many larger issues at stake than one off-color joke made by Joe Rogan and how we responded to it in the moment in, you know, hour one, hour and 30 minutes into a three hour plus podcast. So listen, that's, it is what it is. Like I said, for me personally, the direction I steered the conversation in, the comments I made about Ilhan Omar, about the way D.C. works, about what you're allowed to say, what you're not allowed to say, I stand by it. I'd say it again. I just said it today. And I don't think there is anything

remotely anti-Semitic about talking about the influence of money in politics. And it is absolute bullshit that Ilhan Omar was pulled off of a committee because she was honest about such influence. I agree. You know, actually, we didn't even get to talk to comment about that substantively. I think what happened is totally ridiculous. I mean, especially, you know, you're actually playing into the trope that you're not allowed to talk about it by removing them from the committee. And actually, that's what this entire thing has revealed to me, which is that you are like, what, are we not allowed to have that discussion? Now, I deplore anti-Semitism. I think it's terrible. But conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism

is freaking ridiculous. And, you know, even to just to come back to what Rogan was talking about, as you said, he was making, as I understand it, and as I understood it in the moment, it was one of those things where like everybody likes money. Now, look, I wouldn't have phrased it the way that he said, but also like, who are you? You're going to sit in the room with us while we're all laughing or whatever, having a good time and being the editor of all this and then having your faux outrage. I've seen a lot of so-called free speech warriors, Crystal, people who believe in free speech. Oh, this is so terrible. Pushing this cancellation campaign. They're like, we got to get right wingers to stand up or whatever against Joe Rogan. These people are

all complete frauds. In my estimation, they're jealous of him. They're jealous of the fact that they don't have as big of a platform. And they are they are the ones proving the trope that we're not allowed to have this discussion by without being called anti-Semitic. And that is where that is why I remain outraged by watching people supposedly crystal on the side or whatever of the free speech come out and, you know, denounce us and denounce Joe. They're full of shit. Like, let's be honest. This is always the issue where it really comes down to it. I mean, I've said this for a long time. The issue you're most likely to get canceled on is supporting Palestine, criticizing Israel. And that's one of I mean, listen, I care about free speech for the principle of it, not because of which side it happens to help or hurt in the moment. But yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy that's kind of exposed by this moment.

Listen, again, off-color, offhand joke made by a comedian in the middle of a three-hour podcast. Is this really what we're like going to the mat over? I just feel like there are so many more important things for people to actually care about and get outraged about. And back to Mr. Gottheimer, by the way, one of those things perhaps people should be outraged about is this is one of the most corrupt members of Congress. As you said, Sagar, he's like the guy pushing for the millionaire salt tax cap tax break and one of the top funded congressmen from the private equity industry

that he has gone and like carried water for. And guess what? I think we should be able to talk about that. And I don't think that it's anti-Semitic to do so. Yeah. Yeah. He's the one who calls himself Mr. Salt. His entire thing is bringing back a tax deduction, which disproportionately helps millionaires and multimillionaires, specifically in California and New Yorkork and he has the gall to come after you to come after rogan for talking uh about also you know somehow making this into an anti-semitic thing so anyways i thought we owed people a reaction to it i as people can say i'm i'm pretty hopped up um about this entire thing and uh yeah i don't know i i i just i'm often reminded of like just how disgusting uh the you know and how disgusting and inconsistent so many people claim to be

whenever it comes to free speech and secondary on the mainstream media i mean you got to go look every headline variety mediate all these other people they're like you know rubbing their hands together relishing this complete b BS controversy because they have it out for Joe. Joe is going to be fine. All right. You know, it'll be fine. We will be fine here over at breaking points. But that's not the point. You know, you can't just call people anti-Semitic. You can't just throw these things out there and try and spin it into a whole thing in the service of your agenda. And we are not going to apologize. I can tell you that right now for all the people who've reached out and said, oh, you guys got to put your distance between yourselves and Joe.

Yeah. you know, full-throated condemnation of real anti-Semitism, like what was on display with Kanye West. I mean, the record is clear. So if you're super outraged about how we, you know, navigated this one moment in the middle of a three-hour podcast, I would encourage you to look at the larger body of work. And again, listening back to it, listening back to the comments that I made immediately in the wake of it, where clearly I directed the conversation right to what really matters, the influence of money in politics, 100% stand by it, no regrets. I'd say it and do it all over again. Good. All right. So you guys know where we stand for all of those who have asked us

about the controversy. This is the last thing that we will say about it unless they want to keep this thing going. We can go all day. But everybody, enjoy all the content out on the channel today. We've got our breaking points, State of the Union for the podcast. We have the full audio of all of our pre and post coverage of the State of the Union. And also shout out to many of the people taking advantage of the premium discount we have going on right now, 10% off for all of the JRE listeners who joined us since that podcast. I don't regret going on that podcast. I don't regret anything that we said on that podcast. And for the critics, you know, I'll save it for later for my more off-color comments.

All right. You have, of course, been listening to the president of the United States delivering his State of the Union, leaning heavily into an economic message front and center at the top. But I think probably the thing a lot of people will pay the most attention to is how raucous the Republicans were. You had Marjorie Taylor Greene yelling, you're a liar, lots of, especially over his comments about Social Security and Medicare. There's a big uproar. They were yelling at him about the border and other things. Kyle, let me go to you. First of all, what were your sort of big takeaways, big impressions? Geez. Well, I like the fact that most of the speech was economic and the early part was economic. I feel like that, you know, if you lean into that, that's positive and that'll get a good reaction, I think. But obviously, yeah, the bigger story is how I'll go with the word annoying, how annoying the room was. And I'm very curious to throw it to you guys.

I don't know if it's just because I'm getting old. I don't know if it's because I'm tired and it's past my bedtime. But every single time somebody chirped up, I was like, shut up. Just wrap it up. I don't want to hear it. It's annoying. He's speaking. He's the president. Even if he wasn't the president, if he was Bob from the PTA meeting, it's like, let Bob finish his thought. Because they're all just trying to get a viral moment. They're all just trying to fundraise off it because of the Joe Wilson moment back when Obama was president and he screamed, you lie. And they had massive fundraising numbers. It's like, I get it. I get it. I get it. You're all virtue signaling. You're all trying to get, you know, the spotlight on you, but it's, it's dumb and it's annoying. Do you guys agree with me?

Uh, I'm not so sure. Here's the thing. Uh, in terms of my objective feelings about, or in terms of my personal feelings about it, I'm indifferent. If anything, I actually do kind of enjoy it just because I like the idea of a raucous house of representatives. That said, look, if it's all fake and it's all a stage, then these people are going to have to play their part, right? You pointed to that. Marjorie knows exactly what she's doing. She's absolutely going to raise a lot of money. But I would even step back. I don't think that was the biggest story that's going to come out of that. It might be a 24-hour thing, and some people will be like, oh my God, my norms. Guys, the biggest story, the takeaway,

is whenever he was confronting them directly on Medicare and Social Security. I mean, in terms of what we will be talking about probably for weeks now, that moment is going to get replayed over and over again when he's like, okay, are we all agreed here? Oh, so you agree with me, so it's not going to be a problem. Stand up if you agree with me when he's like, okay, are we all agreed here? Oh, so you agree with me, so it's not gonna be a problem. Stand up if you agree with me. That was actually, look, I'll give the man credit, that was the best absolute part of the speech. It was the only part where he went off script

and it did actually work for him. There were a couple where, what did he say? Name a man who would trade places with Xi Jinping. I still do not know exactly what that means. All right, so my meta takeaway, I was telling you guys this during the speech, vast majority of people stop watching the State of the Union after about 30 to 45 minutes. The first 30 to 45 minutes was all an economic message. Most of it was made in America. I mean, look, not even President Obama ever gave a made in America speech like that. And to me, that just shows me the way that Donald Trump really changed politics forever on Made in America and on China. So those two issues, it's solidly in this state of the union. No president even almost disagrees now at that point. So for the Medicare and the Social Security, and then I thought overall it was an effective speech as far as Biden ones goes. If I were him, you know, I'd be pretty happy with my performance.

Marshall, I want to get your thoughts. I sort of feel like with the Republican interruptions, et cetera, Biden really led with this message of like bipartisanship and unity. He made a long show at the beginning of congratulations to Kevin McCarthy. Congratulations to Mitch McConnell. We're congratulations to Kevin McCarthy. Congratulations to Mitch McConnell. We're going to work together. We did work together in the past. So he wanted this message of like, I'm the guy who is here to work with anybody. We've gotten some things done together, et cetera. And so it certainly serves Marjorie Taylor Greene's and whoever else's interest to get their little viral moments for their Republican based fundraising. But I also

do feel like that sort of plays into Biden's hands as well when he's trying to portray himself as the grown up in the room and the one that's serious about actually reaching out and getting things done. Yeah, that's what we were talking about the start of the real, you know, live show here, which is that voters like hearing that, you know, you could obviously, I think it's important to separate the like annoying DC version of like, oh, back in the 80s, everything was super chill and everyone was best friends, the Gipper and Tip O'Neill, like, you know, the Joe Scarborough thing. But like at a baseline level, the centerpiece of American politics right now is what like suburban moderate voters think, and they want to hear that.

Marjorie Taylor Greene's district may be interested in her doing that performance, but no one else is. And that's a real misjudgment that could be effective in 2024. Yeah, exactly. I mean, look, let's step back. What did we say at the top? Or at least for what I said. I said the balance is economy. Lead yourself. Try to gaslight balance is economy, lead yourself,

try to gaslight a little bit about, oh, everything's great, all of that. At the same time, you're like, I'm a bulwark again, so what did he lead with? He goes, here's all the things I've done, goes straight into the bulwark against Medicare, Social Security, I will veto, and what does he end on? He ends exactly on stop the steal now look saying that paul pelosi attack had anything to do anything to do with quote the big lie and not schizophrenia is ridiculous however uh politically savvy move um i think to try and pay attention to what people say so right yeah so it's like one of those where listen you know you tie those two things together uh and you know it's savvy i think in regard. You end on the democracy thing that really kept people there.

So, look, I think he hit all the notes. It clocked in at around an hour, 15 minutes. As State of the Unions go, that's pretty average. I mean, overall, again, I just come back to it. I'm like, effective job. I really think so.

So, one of the things, I jotted down a bunch of this stuff that I thought was most interesting. One of my things I had, I jotted down a bunch of this stuff that I thought was most interesting. One of my favorite lines was he was talking about the 15% minimum tax rate for corporations worth over a billion dollars. And he says they have to pay a minimum of 15%. And then he said like kind of casually and flippantly, God love them. Yeah. And that got a decent laugh.

And, you know, I was chuckling here. I thought that was a good line. I noticed early on one of the very first lines was like, we've created 12 million jobs. And then everybody starts clapping. And Kevin McCarthy sitting there like, yeah, I will not clap at 12 million new jobs. It's like, dude, this is one of the ones that it's like you have to do it just to look like you're sane. And then like you were pointing out the Social Security and Medicare moment there. What I was getting really annoyed by is like, just own it.

It is a lot of the Republicans position to that. They want to cut it. They might soften the language to try to blunt the effect by saying, no, we're just trying to reform it or save it. But functionally they want to cut it. And when he says that's what they want to do and they're like, boo, boo, boo, it strikes me as so disingenuous. Like just say, yes, this is our position and we would like to debate that on the merits and we would like to defend the position of cutting Social Security.

They get so weaselly about it. And that's what was driving me crazy. I was screaming about it here in the studio when we were watching it. So the thing that he's referring to specifically when he talks about, like, sunsetting these provisions was what Senator Rick Scott, who was in charge of the Republican senatorial campaigns this time around, so not like an insignificant player, it was part of the plan that he put out. And this was Mitch McConnell was basically like, shut the F up. We don't want to talk about that. We're trying to run on nothing here and just like bash them on inflation. So this is not without basis. And you've had other Republicans

also talking about the debt ceiling, talking about cuts to entitlements. You have had some others who say, no, no, we don't want to do that. Donald Trump obviously said like this is off the table. But what's sort of more interesting to me is I feel like in previous eras, in the Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan era, they were much more comfortable owning the fact that they really wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. Like if Obama had said that at a State of the Union, they would have been like, yes, we do. And here's our plan. And here's Paul Ryan with the PowerPoint of how he's going to do it. And so, I mean, this is another way that even though you still have a lot of the same ideology, even though many of them still are committed to it, would like to cut Social Security and Medicare, et cetera, et cetera,

the fact that they're offended that this is suggested about them, that they want to cut these programs, represents a pretty remarkable shift in terms of the Republican Party and what they want to publicly put forward. What do you think of that, Marshall? Yeah, I think that's a great way to put it, Crystal. I mean, the core thing, as you guys are articulating, this really reminds me of the defund the police debate in terms of how you could identify a vulnerable area. So think of defund back in 2020. There were some Democrats who were very defund. There were plenty of moderate Democrats who weren't vulnerable. You can take the more extreme position as the party's trying to figure it out. And that's as an attack point. That's

basically what's happening with Social Security. Back in the 2000s, like think of when George W. Bush tried to reform slash cut slash privatize Social Security after one re-election in 2005. Like back then, the party consensus was that this is what we do. We fight against the New Deal, we're fighting against the Great Society. That's our party. After the Social Security privatization failed, after Paul Ryan flopped as a VP, and then after Trump then ran in favor of Social Security and in favor of Medicare, also we need to add the failure of the repeal of Obamacare, Republicans genuinely don't know what to think. I think as you see, and the thing that's funny, Kyle, I get your point about needing to have a fair debate. And I agree with you most of the time. But like J.D. Vance,

for example, J.D. Vance actually wouldn't be in favor of cutting Social Security. He came out to what you said. I don't think he's the best. I don't think he's the majority of the party, but especially with younger Republicans who are basically grown up in an America that's accepted the New Deal, but accepted Social Security. It's actually not quite clear what the actual position is, which is why it's perfect for Joe Biden to attack in that direction. I completely agree with that characterization. The defund is exactly right. Right. Which is one of those. They're like, no, no, no. What we want to do is raise the retirement age. It's like, well, okay, well, you know, you're still, when you're already within that heuristic, it's like, it's not going to be good for you. Just so people know, cutting Social Security and Medicare is probably up there with defund the police and affirmative action as the least popular things that you could actually try and do in politics.

Hence why he beats him over the head with the club with it, which is exactly what I would do. I was surprised that he didn't mention abortion more in the speech. My count was a single line. It came, let's say, like two-thirds or so into that. I was pretty shocked by that, actually. That's something I would have led with if I was president. So I just want to say, look, I hope I'm wrong, but we just saw with this whole fight with getting Kevin McCarthy to be speaker, there was a whole fight and there was a right flank that was pushing back against him.

And one of the things they settled on is we're going to have a debt ceiling showdown. And our whole position in the debt ceiling showdown is we want to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare. So I think the overwhelming majority of the party is going to be on board with that. Now, whether or not, you know, I hope Biden is telling the truth when he's like, I'm not going to do some sort of grand bargain. I'm not going to cut it at all. But I think the predominant position in the Republican Party is let's cut it. Well, I'm not so sure, because remember, there's only 17 people, right, who tried to extract that. Those are like the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus diehards. What the look, the majority, I genuinely have no idea. I do not know. If you were to ask me my gut feeling, I think most of them would say what I said, something around like they want to raise the retirement age.

But of course we don't. But that's cutting. That's a cut. Yeah. I agree with you. What I'm saying is like that is what I think most of them. They don't want their position to be characterized as cutting. Yes.

So security and Medicare. Because they're disingenuous. And they're trying to save it. That's the line they're going to go with. Right. But that is even just them not wanting their position to be characterized that way is very different. And of course, the fact that, I mean, Joe Biden was part of the Obama administration that actually put a deal on the table that would have cut Social Security. And now clear. And he, you know, over the course of his career, a number of times talked about cutting Social Security.

So it does show you the way that the politics around this issue have clearly shifted. Now, one thing I think that's really important to say is that in terms of the big money institutions within the Republican Party, like the think tanks and, you know, the Koch industry, the Koch network, they still are very much looking for every opportunity they can possibly find to cut these programs. And that matters a lot. I think they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to, like, piss on people and say it's raining. So they want to do the debt ceiling thing, force the cuts and then go, oh, we're not we're just reforming it. We're saving it. So that's that's what they that's their game. That's what their game has been for a long time.

So I think that's the goal. It's not like they're actually becoming more moderate on it because they're afraid to acknowledge what their actual position is. They recognize how toxic and terrible the politics are for them. They recognize that they cannot be out and out being like, yes, we want to cut Social Security because they have realized that that is devastating for them. I want to pick up, Sagar, on what you were saying, because that was something I noted, too. You know, in advance, you were saying like, OK, here's the formula. Yes, economics, but clearly the stop the steal stuff in January 6th and abortion, like that's what won the midterm. So he's going to lean into that. He really didn't. Both, he closed with democracy.

He closed with January 6th, Paul Pelosi with abortion was also in the latter part of the speech. But the part that really counts in terms of what they're focused on and what the message they want to take away, it really was loaded up with economics. And I was also surprised that you had very little mention of abortion ultimately in this speech. I mean, the two themes that he leaned into very heavily to start with was this idea of like, I'm the guy who can work with anyone, bipartisanship, let's get things done for the American people, and then laying out the case of what he thinks he's delivered and what he still wants to do. Now, one challenge for him is the fact that we were looking at a poll before the speech. Very

few people say they feel like they've been impacted by the Biden agenda. So, you know, whereas I think if you're overselling the economy and the rosy picture of the economy, you're going to have a hard time. There probably is some benefit you can get just from selling. Here's the things we did and going down the list and trying to persuade people that no, actually, we have been doing some stuff. What do you think, Marshall? Yeah, I think it's, I just want to go back to a quick thing you said about the lack of focus on the abortion, the democracy thing. Like maybe, I think this kind of goes to my early comment about how I'd be curious about Joe Biden's like political analysis here. It seems to me the political analysis is that you need to move on from 2022. Like you're

going to reach those heights. You're going to be successful that midterm, but maybe that's just not going to be successful running on that retread when it comes to 2023. Like there could be an instinct of like, man, we're going to still, like, you're still talking about that. It's not, it's not up for grabs as much. So yeah, I'm really, I'm really curious how the right responds to the economic stuff, especially, Sagar, to your point about how Biden and Team Biden are clearly taking the made in America, compete with China bit that Trump added. So that especially given the, I think, attempt to bring things back to culture wars is going to be an interesting shift there. Yeah, I already know what they're going to do. They're going to go culture war. They're going to criticize them on the border.

And they're just not going to talk about econ because that's how it goes. Anyway, Kyle, let's get our last thoughts from you before we bring in Ryan and Emily. Sure. Yeah. So I wanted to point out the fentanyl line from Biden. So he's over there talking about fentanyl. And you have Marjorie Taylor Greene and others start screaming at him. And I heard somebody say China. Yes. And then somebody say like, it's your fault or something

like that. To be fair, the vast majority of the fentanyl comes from China. Okay. I know. I understand that. But I always get super triggered over this because I feel like the approach for many people is just brain dead. Because Crystal and I have talked about this. About 30,000 people a year die from overdoses when it was the pain pills. Then we cracked down on the pain pills with all the good intentions in the world. And then people went to the black market and they got heroin. Some of that heroin was laced with fentanyl. And now we have about 100,000 people dying every year. So it's this like the tyranny of good intentions in a sense, because if I were to tell somebody like

Margie Taylor Greene, like, hey man, we need to legalize tax and regulate drugs in order to get past this whole fentanyl crisis, she'd be like, you're insane. That would add to the problem. Well, I mean, I think that's a fair point. I think it's also a fair point to say, like, there is a lot of fentanyl coming across the border. And from what I've seen, they've said that actually, if you did at least have some more enforcement that was happening there, it would make it much harder and raise the price, which would increase actually the amount of pure heroin. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing. What I'm saying is it's complicated.

I also would remind you, we have to talk about what's in the realm of the possible. And in that, what was it, in the polling data that we had there, which one is that if we have that element? Is that A3? Can we go ahead and put that up there on the screen? Pew Research. I think cracking down on illegal drugs was at like 57%. So, I mean, the public is just not there whenever it comes to legalizing. There it is. Reducing the availability of illegal drugs is right there at 53%. Biden also doesn't get credit, though, when he, a lot of, Biden gets a lot of shots from his left on the border because he's continued a lot of the Trump policies on the border. So's continued a lot of the Trump policies on the border. So he does a lot of the things Trump has done.

And it's not like anybody on the right goes, hey, we agree with you on this one, fella. They just act like he's not doing it. They act like he's in favor of open borders or something. Well, you're talking about migrants. And to be fair, his administration has tried to end a majority of those policies in court. And it's only after they weren't able to end those administration policies in court that they ended up keeping them. Well, actually, they not only kept them,

they expanded them. Well, then they expanded them after they tried to kill it in the court. Then they decided. And also, there has been a lot of fentanyl seizures

at the border. There's been a number of them. There's been some. The idea that he's not trying to see it. My point is, look, we can keep going round and round in circles

trying to do the same policy that's not working or we can do the actual solution, but she's not interested in a real solution. She's interested in yelling at Biden in the middle of a speech when he's talking about a very serious issue like fentanyl.

She needs to get serious on it too. I don't think anyone on this stream has claimed Marjorie is interested in a real solution. And neither is Biden. Neither is Biden. She's there. We perhaps can close this out with something that will unify us

in the spirit of what Joe Biden wanted to bring which is both Kyrsten Sinema and Marjorie Taylor Greene apparently dressed like it was the Hunger Games yes

what is going on Kyrsten Sinema wearing some yellow big bird ass looking thing people who have all kinds of memes

and Marjorie Taylor Greene in some white fur yeah she looks like from Lion the Witch and the fucking wardrobe. I mean, look, I'm gonna break my cursing thing. This is driving me insane. What the fuck is going on? Like, Kirsten Sinema literally

is dressing like she's going to the goddamn Met Gala after presiding over the Senate in a t-shirt with a heart on it. She is solely responsible for breaking a lot of the female dress code that is there, and I blame her for Marjorie looking like she's literally in Hunger Games

or Lion, the Witch, and the... I am losing my goddamn mind over here. Over the collapse of dress code. Go ahead, Marshall. What'd you say? If we're gonna rank, I think we have to say George Santos orange tie isn't great. I think Marjorie... Let me put it this way. I think Marjorie,

let me put it this way, I think Marjorie is more compelling than Kirsten Sinema is. Let me put it this way, if Marjorie showed up in yoga pants and a t-shirt and you met her at a coffee shop, she would still have a lot of main character energy to her.

I clearly think Kirsten Sinema is someone who accessorizes to make up for the fact that she's just like, bleh. Boring. I think that's insightful commentary. is someone who accessorizes to make up for the fact that she's just like, bleh. Boring. I think that's insightful commentary. Okay, everybody stick with us.

Just give us five minutes. We're going to switch the chairs out. We're going to have Ryan and Emily in here. Thank you all so much for your support. Control room, let's throw the graphic up there and we'll start the transition process. Marshall and Kyle, thanks guys. Marshall, Kyle, you guys did a fantastic job. Thanks for listening.

Okay, we're back. Thank you, everybody, for sticking with us. Look at that wide shot. We got Ryan and Emily here. We got counterpoints, which is in the house. Yeah, lots of headroom. If this were any other time, we would be doing a little bit of camera adjustment. But this is what it looks like when it's live, when we have a brand new, beautiful studio that you premium subs are helping us with.

It will be different, we promise. Okay, so people have heard us talk a little bit now. Ryan, Emily, you guys watch the speech with us. What do you guys think? Ryan, you go first. All right. I mean, the thing that's most important to me about this is that it is the launch of his presidential campaign. Right.

So you're really not going to make a whole lot of policy and you're not going to make a lot of – you're not going to move the needle on public opinion and really on the ground or in the room except for that Medicare thing and Medicare and Social Security thing, which was absolutely remarkable. Yes. We want to talk more about that in a minute. But if this is what he's going to run on, this is kind of exciting. Like this is a party that like working people could get behind. I mean, what did he talk about? He talked about, you know, supporting organized labor, pass the PRO Act, go after big pharma. We're going to address climate change. So we're going to, you know, cap insulin prices, you know, Medicare and social security, billionaire tax. We're going to bust up

monopolies and all the different fees. I'm going to a resort and it's not even a resort and I'm paying a resort fee. That seemed very personal. He stays at his friend's house for free. That was clearly personal. He's never encountered this tax. And his friend charged him a resort fee. Good point. And he's going for the identity theft and some funny stuff like that.

People are getting to him. Yeah. But in general, that's a platform that people could get behind. It's strange. It was a lot of – Matt Stoller was very excited because he's talking about antitrust. What was it? First President. The First President since 1979 to mention antitrust.

To mention antitrust. You're talking about industrial policy. You're talking about big pharma. Making things in America. Making things in America. Making things in America. And then, you know, I mean, I'm not big on this whole squishy, like, bipartisan comedy, whatever.

But there are a lot of people who are really into that. That's a very normie sentiment of, like, why can't we all just come together and get some things done? What I said earlier, Emily, and I want to get your thoughts on the whole thing, though,

is I think the fact that you had this sort of ugly raucousness from the Republicans in there really did kind of play into Biden's hands of looking like the grown up in the room. He looked in control, too. He was almost like engaging with the crowd. He let them finish. He wasn't and he wasn't heckling them back. He let them finish. So I think optically, that's 100 percent correct. That did not work in the way that, let's say, Marjorie Taylor Greene or whomever else was involved in it wanted it to work. That said, to Ryan's point, and actually Kyle made this point, too. He gave a speech that was so front loaded on economics. And that's really smart. If you're Biden's speechwriters, you should be really happy with how this turned out. He's sort of checking down, going through the laundry list and fleshing out actually, not just listing off, but fleshing out things like

infrastructure, things like the CHIPS Act. Now, to the bipartisanship point, I think that's a fascinating point because it works with people until the country stops working. Because he had a line earlier where he talked about basically decades of hollowing out the middle class. Who was in the Senate? Who was the senator from MasterCard? Yes. With identity theft. Yes. I brought that up. I agree. Middle class. I mean, it's just like so that's a real problem for Biden. And I think he has never had a real answer to confronting it head on politically. Right. But tacking in that direction,

it's not just good news for Democrats. It's good news for the country that Republicans, at least optically, were so vehemently offended by what Joe Biden said with Social Security, Medicare, because they said Kevin McCarthy gave his whole speech last night. It's off the table. It's off the table. That's good news for the country because it tells you where the Overton window is. You know what's funny? I'm monitoring the professional press corps. What are they all talking about? Decorum in the House. I'm like, who cares about the decorum?

Like, look, I'm not saying it isn't a thing, but Social Security people, Medicare, that is going to define the next couple of months of our politics. It's driving me nuts. And, like, that was the first thing I zeroed in on. I was like, man, that's a big moment. That is going to be every ad, the Biden ad, the launch. I'm the one who protected it. I will veto the bill. Crystal's picking up on the fact that Republicans are not willing to go there yet. This also puts Trump on the back foot where he's like, no, they're lying that we don't want to cut social security, but he doesn't have a unified coalition. I'm like,

this is it. This is the whole ball game, Ryan. So what else do you want to dig into? Yeah. And for decades on the left, there's been this internal argument. Do you work within the Democratic Party to try to make the Democratic Party a better thing? Or do you work outside it? You start a third party and try to pressure them from there. As the working class is kind of being divided by between the two parties here, a kind of new answer is emerging, which is that you actually work within both parties. And Joe Biden did that tonight. Like, I've never seen a speech like that kind of change the negotiating table, change the game in the way it did.

Before this speech, Republicans had their game plan for when it came to the debt ceiling crisis. You know, they're going to hold it hostage. They're going to force Biden to the table and get some cuts. And then they're going to agree to it the same way that they jammed Biden up 10 years ago. They come out of this speech with nothing left. Right. Like, so what are they? OK, well, now what are you going to do? You're not cutting military spending because you're Republicans. Now you can't cut Social Security and Medicare because you just told the whole country that he's a liar and that you would never do such a thing. So you're left with the EPA and like NOAA and the BLM. They can cut BLM and tell their base that it's Black Lives Matter. And actually they can trim the Bureau of Land Management.

I was going to say, leave Clyde Bundy alone. He's going to fly back for that meeting and defend his budget. Well, I do, to your point, because they obviously took great umbrage at the suggestion that they wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. No, they want to save it. They want to strengthen it. Right, exactly. But, I mean, the numbers just don't work out. Like, the math just doesn't work out.

If you're like, I want to slash the budget by this huge amount, right, which they do and which they've said publicly, but I don't want to touch Social Security Medicaid. Like, it just literally doesn't. Or the Pentagon. Or the Pentagon. If you put those together, like, it's not going to work out for you. And so that's why it is a fair hit to say to them, like, no, you you want to hold the debt ceiling hostage. You want to cut these programs. You have a track record of wanting to cut these programs.

Senator Rick Scott said you want to cut these programs. And it was pretty remarkable to see how much they freaked out about that. And a good sign, though, again, because this is post Paul Ryan politics and Republicans have realized, I mean, you can cut the entire Pentagon. This is per Brian Riedel at the Manhattan Institute. You could literally get rid of the Department of Defense and you can't balance the entitlement balance sheet in the way that Republicans say that they want to. And there's a reckoning with that on the right right now that doesn't mean that Mitch McConnell wouldn't love to get his hands on and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. But I think it's at least sort of becoming, and again, I think this is good for the American people. You have J.D.

Vance, Donald Trump coming out and saying the same thing and setting the tone. You have Russ Vogt, who's hugely influential in the new right and in Republican politics. His entire plan to balance the budget, he was OMB under Trump, is don't touch Social Security and Medicaid. You can get rid of, to the point that you guys are making, all of the woke policies and you don't have to. You can balance the budget in 10 years without touching anything else. And just the fact that the wheels are in motion on that tells you that Republicans are like, no, we literally cannot even whisper a word about it. And if it comes out of your mouth, we are putting you in the corner. That's a really interesting point. We got Marshall and Kyle's reaction. I was curious for your guys' reaction. So right now, Sarah Huckabee Sanders

is giving her rebuttal. I don't know who's watching it, but we have an excerpt. And I think the excerpt is important more so in what's not in it and what is in it and what the case of what the potential Republican pushback against this is going to be. I'll just read this again. In the radical left's America, Washington taxes you and relights your hard-earned money on fire. You get crushed with high gas prices, empty grocery shelves. Our children are taught to hate one another on account of their race, but not to love one another or our great country. And while you reap the consequences of your failure, the Biden administration seems more interested in woke fantasies than the hard reality that Americans face every day.

Most Americans simply want to live their lives in freedom and peace. We are under attack in a left-wing culture war that we didn't start and we never wanted to fight. Emily, what did you think of the strategy there to really go hard at the culture war? And to be fair, she didn't actually watch the speech before she had released that excerpt. So clearly, but I mean, that's kind of how all these things work. You don't get a predetermined little fact sheet and all that. What do you think of that strategy? That's a really good study in contrast, I think, because she expects Biden to come out, which is wrong. I mean, it's a good example of how Republicans are disconnected from the Biden that they're actually fighting as opposed to the straw man. And then it's not to say that Biden

isn't doing stuff in the culture war. Of course, he is sort of bureaucratically in the executive branch. That's in the DOJ, right? It's not a national name. Right. And the education department and all of these things that people aren't necessarily able to follow on a single day-to-day basis. But that Sarah Huckabee Sanders comes out anticipating a Biden culture war speech. And what she gets is something like what Stoller points out. The first president to champion antitrust reform in the State of the Union since 1979. I haven't seen the full Sarah Huckabee Sanders speech yet, but man, is that going to miss the mark if Biden is out there talking about increasing manufacturing, increasing jobs, decreasing unemployment,

and all of these economic metrics. She said the choices between normal and crazy. This is a quote I just saw from Twitter. Republicans punching at a culture war straw man is not giving people that choice very clearly. She's saying, right. But that's their problem because Biden is the one that comes off as normal. This is, yeah, that right. And that that's why that's Biden's strength is is in some ways his weakness. He's this like centrist old white man. And it's just not going to land. You're just not going to call him a radical wokester and have it stick.

It was like Jesse Waters or somebody said, people just don't hate Joe Biden. Yeah. It's true. It's something good for them. Good on them. Good for them. So on the other hand, let's go ahead and put, what is this, B3 guys that we could put up on the screen here from The Washington Post, where you have the latest post ABC poll, which had a lot of bad numbers for Joe Biden, says more than six in 10 say the president has not accomplished much,

despite, they say, the passage of numerous bills, which is true. 62 percent of Americans say Biden has accomplished not very much or little or nothing during his presidency. Only 36% say he's accomplished a great deal or a good amount. His approval rating is low. We showed a poll earlier that has him losing to Donald Trump. Of course, a lot of polls out there, too, having him losing to Ron DeSantis if DeSantis ends up being the nominee. You have a majority of Democrats, Ryan, who say, we don't want this guy to run again. We want someone else. So even as, you know, I listened to that speech and there's a lot in there

that, you know, I respond to. I think it's a good case he makes about what he's done, about what he might do going forward, laying out industrial policy, antitrust, pro-labor, et cetera. But there's a lot of signs the American people aren't really feeling that right now. The flip side of nobody hating Joe Biden is that nobody really likes him either. This same poll, I believe it was 7% of people who said they were excited about him. Who's excited about Joe Biden?

It won't work at MSNBC. It's the cast of Nicole Wallace's show. Yes, yes. That's right. The low-rated one, too. Not even the good one. Yes. If there is such a thing.

Yeah, so. Yeah, I don't know. So, yeah, nobody's excited about him, but that's not how you govern anymore in America, and it's not necessarily how you win elections. Yeah. Like, Hillary Clinton's problem was nobody was, you know, she had this small group that was really excited about her, but in general, people weren't excited about her. They thought she was qualified and most qualified, et cetera. But people intensely disliked her on the other side. And it became a contest,

if you remember in the polling at the very end, of who was the least disliked by the American public. And Biden ended up beating Trump four years later because he was less disliked than Trump was disliked. That's a good point. With Trump, he has very high favorables and very high unfavorables. Nobody feels ambivalent towards Trump. Whereas with Trump... Everyone's ambivalent to Biden. Yeah, everyone is basically ambivalent. He's like, he's fine. I mean, Emily, the thing I keep coming back to with Biden

and his re-elect is, I don't know if you remember, Ron Klain, after Emmanuel Macron won re-election in France, where his approval rating was total trash. It was like in the 30s. And he's able to win and he won pretty easily over Marine Le Pen, because people really hated her a lot. And so, you know, Ron Klain tweets this out and I was like, oh, interesting. He won reelection with a 36% approval rating or whatever. I mean, that kind of seems like the path

that they are hoping for for Biden. And so that's why you see, you know, not only in the speech, he really did front load with what he's done and what he wants to do and where we are, et cetera, on the economy. But there's also quite a bit in there, which obviously Republicans got upset about, about the Republican plans and why they were the wrong direction. So, I mean, in some ways, I think his reelect hinges on how much people dislike the Republicans, how extreme they are, and how much they want to avoid going in that direction again. Right. And that's why it totally depends on the nominee. And we've seen that show up in polling. But it's a really important point because I think American politics is lurching towards that reality for the foreseeable future,

period, where you have people with really low approval ratings, maybe even low favorability ratings that are just able to muster the right, cobble together the right coalition and just scrape past or get to that 50% mark or 49, whatever it is. And that's the reality I think we're facing in the country that we're too divided to have, I think like Ronald Reagan's reelection,

where he's just trouncing absolutely everybody. That's just not gonna to happen or Bill Clinton. I mean, we're just we're not in that world anymore. And so Republicans, I think, need to realize that if they want to create this dichotomy of normal versus crazy, they need to figure out how to make that stick to Joe Biden. They need to not be the crazy. And not be crazy. Well, yeah. Yeah, you have to do both. Don't do the Cruella de Vil thing and stand up and yell.

It's a tough one. I really don't know how they get their way out of it. Because it's like I can make the case on either side. Like if I'm Ron DeSantis, look, okay, let's say Trump. We had a fun debate at our live show. What happens if Trump and DeSantis both die? But what's more likely? What the hell is wrong with you guys?

It was a funny, it was a fun, honestly, it was a fun segment. All of us have debated Trump and DeSantis things so many times.'s thing so many times right all right we're like what if they both like what if they both said they both get arrested my scenario was that they were both on air force one and air force one crash like on the way to florida they blow up the chinese balloon yeah and then it falls on the debris takes them both out s Santos arrested for grooming. Yeah, Santos. Actually, no, George Santos killed them both. Okay, so part of what we got from that, part of what we got from that dialogue was that they need to try and reconcile

the craziness of Trump and the energy of that with the fact that they still won 6% of the national popular vote during the midterms. This can be done. Joe Biden is weak. We have all of the polling data to show that. It is Trump and that wing which is dragging them down electorally. However, they hold so much power institutionally. Go ahead, Emma. Yeah. No, I think that's 100% true. And Biden is picking up on this with his own party in a way that Republicans who have seen the culture war sort of path to victory in a Virginia or a Florida, you cannot just translate that to Sarah Huckabee

Sanders going all in and having absolutely no answer to Biden's very sort of like normy aimed square at the middle economic speech. That's like a kitchen table, real person speech. You can't just come out swinging with that kind of stuff. And Biden, for instance, he didn't say much, as you guys pointed out earlier, on abortion. He didn't say much about the border. He didn't say much about LGBTQ issues. He said we had one mention of transgender young people. But the bulk of the speech was on the economy. He didn't even talk about Ukraine that much. Yeah. It was at the bottom third. I was shocked by it.

Right. And so I think Democrats have realized, probably picked up on the number from the midterms, which the midterm narrative was one thing, but it is true. Republicans did have a decent night, not nearly what it was projected to be, but they did okay in the popular vote. So if Democrats see that, they do have a lot of culture war problems. There's just no question about it. You did a great podcast this week on Deconstructed where you sort of talked through some of this. They do have those issues, but Republicans can't fight them in a way that handicaps themselves going into those battles. Biden doesn't give them a lot of ammunition. And I'm not aware of a national election that has ever been won on the question of what local schools should be teaching or not teaching.

That is our destiny, though, to have presidential elections hinge on who gets to play on the lacrosse team. Like that will be like eventually where this system is heading. I don't know if it'll be this one or four years from now. But it's part of the like the process of just removing more and more decision-making away from elections. But you still have to give people something to fight over. But speaking of not having anything to fight over, it's like the Democratic Party seems like they don't have the civil war that they had over the last kind of six, seven, eight years. It was basically won by the establishment with, you know, Biden finally beating Bernie. But they also absorbed a decent amount of what

Bernie was fighting for. And so that's why you see so much frustration on the outside that Bernie's not fighting more, that, you know, Bernie's become a big supporter of Joe Biden. Because Bernie, as, you know, budget chairman, is writing the reconciliation package. He's seeing trillions of dollars of spending go through. You're seeing unemployment knocked down to what, 3.4%? Lowest since like 1969. And so you have this, he talked about the nearly 400 billion dollars in climate spending.

And so he called himself a capitalist. Yeah, they said, yes, yes, right, exactly. So they kind of ended this civil war by A, beating Bernie, but then B, bringing in a decent amount of what he was fighting for, just enough to kind of keep them happy together. And because Democrats, Democratic voters are so fired up about electability and beating the evil Republicans, you know, they're going to keep putting forward people like Biden, probably, whereas Republicans still are, you know, fired by the cultural issues. And because, I think, they were told that Trump was unelectable. They said, screw it, we don't care. We're electing him anyway. We're nominating him anyway.

He won. They don't want to hear about electability crap anymore for people. And they're not going to want to hear that for a long time. Go ahead, Chris. Emily, what do you see as the contours of the coming Republican? I mean, the Republican civil war is sort of upon us. You know, people are kind of choosing their sides and the battle lines are breaking down. But like, is there are there economic issues that are involved in that Republican civil war? Is it primarily around culture war issues? Clearly, Ron DeSantis is positioning

himself as like, you know, I was during COVID. I was the guy who was open for business. Donald Trump was shutting things down. Whether the facts of that, whatever, that's how he's positioning himself. Is that going to be the key dividing line? How do you see this playing out? So it looks like Nikki Haley is going to announce formally and do a rollout next week. And that's already what I've seen some on the kind of new right talking about is like, what an embarrassment that this is just a Tea Party ghost who has not updated herself whatsoever. But then the question is, what is the substantial difference between Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley? Because with Donald Trump, we know to some extent that it's just a

mixed bag. It's the same thing with his foreign policy. You're going to get some new, some shocking new, and some of the old stuff. It depends on who wins the fight at any given moment, the tug of war at any given moment. But how substantially different is Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin, Mr. P.E. Patagonia vest going to be on that issue? And I think that's a really open question. And the primaries are going to be a place where that's sorted out because Republicans do face pressure now after Donald Trump. This is post Paul Ryan era not to do things to Social Security and Medicare. Like this is a huge source of pressure on Republicans. So I think a lot of it will be

hashed out in the midterms. I think it's completely up in the air now. I think anybody who says the Republican Party has been, you know, permanently changed for good and turned into the party of the working class is absolutely wrong. That's not to say there isn't some reason for optimism. It's possible. Right. Yeah. And by the way, Stoller talks about this. Like this is good for everybody. The Republican Party is never going to be a beautiful, wonderful, pure party of the working class. It's like Stoller Stoller talks about this. This is good for everybody. The Republican Party is never going to be a beautiful, wonderful, pure party of the working class. It's not going to happen. The Democratic Party is not going to be either. One might be better than the other. But the Republican Party, at least being dragged, kicking and screaming to say things like if we're going to balance the budget, we're not going to do it from stealing and raiding from your entitlement funds.

That's a good day for everyone. But the question is still open. I mean, I see that and I don't because at the end of the day, the McCarthy holdouts also begged and demanded a vote for the frickin fair tax, which is, you know, terrible, terrible, regressive, like total Tea Party throwback stuff. And the whole contours of the debt ceiling fight, outside of them just not publicly wanting to be accused of cutting Social Security and Medicare, this is Tea Party 2.0 stuff. I mean, this is all Tea Party tactics. They're asks, they're Tea Party asks. So it's, you know, when I look at something like that, I'm like, is it really changed? Is it

really different? Because now that Trump is sort of less clearly in command too, you know, a lot of their talking points and their economic policy has just floated right back to that Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan era ultimately. And I mean, it's Trump himself, his biggest accomplishment was the gigantic corporate tax cut that they all are perfectly happy with. Well, and the other thing, and you'll definitely have thoughts on this, but antitrust is a huge, and I'm actually very curious if Sarah Huckabee Sanders had a word about antitrust because Republicans have actually made significant motions. Some of the most powerful antitrust suits have been filed by people like Ken Paxton in Texas and the Trump

administration against Google. There's some real meat on the bones. That's like one of the areas where there is actually truly a realignment, to borrow a word from Sagar and Marshall, that you can see happening. And who is Rhonda Santos? Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Is Nikki Haley?

What are they going to say about that? How would they govern? That's a completely- Nikki Haley is already on record. We know where Nikki would be. She's already on record against what is it. And she's taking her lane out on that. Now is not the time to rethink capitalism, is what she famously said in her speech. So good luck, Nikki. I'm going to enjoy watching you fail. I really will. I could say that as the Indian

American who doesn't want to see you be the first one on the stage for all of us. But Ryan, I'm curious here also on the Democratic side. So at the end of the day, you know, the laundry list of here's what I want and all this, it's not going to happen. This was all just oppositional. So to that extent, Biden, we were talking about this is the kickoff of his campaign. It seems like it did a pretty good job. Like overall, this is probably as good as you could probably hope for. And he didn't step into any of the pitfalls. I saw that he's on his way to Wisconsin and Florida. In Florida, I'd just be like, give up, Mr. President.

Like, that ship sailed, sir. Wisconsin, that's a smart move. But, yeah, like, going into those two states in the next couple of days, like, this is probably going to be a pretty high point for him. And especially coming off the midterms. There were two paths he could have taken when Republicans said we're going to hold the debt ceiling hostage to force demands. He could have taken the last Joe Biden approach, which was great. You know, we all need to get together.

We'll do a commission. A little Simpson Bowles. Simpson Bowles. We'll hold hands together. I got Bruce Reed here. He was my staff guy. He's still in the white house. He's got to dust the plans off. And yes, like people want to work longer and Medicare is too generous and Medicaid, you know, you know, people, people need to be incentivized to get back to work. Like they could have been that Joe Biden, right. or it could be the Joe Biden that we saw tonight, who baits them with the Rick Scott plan. And then he could have baited them with the Kevin McCarthy plan, saying they were going to strengthen Social Security and

Medicare. He gets them to call him a liar. And he said, oh, wait, we got a lot of converts here. I'm happy. So great. So he goes the other direction and says, we're not going to go down that path, which means that the Biden who came out of the gate with the, you know, he said, here's my offer on the American Rescue Plan, $1.9 trillion. And Susan Collins comes back. She's like, here's our offer, $550 billion or 600 or whatever it is. Two hours later, he puts out a statement. He's like, we're doing this alone. We're not taking six months like Obama did and allowing Susan Collins

to just dictate this to us. That was a shocking moment in democratic political history. But is it him? You know how he's been conferring with John Meacham and trying to step into the FDR shoes? And this is actually reported. Axios has had reports on Biden, like genuinely trying to rescue the economy heating up and the economy is heating up in different ways. And that might explain the disconnect between I'm not the old Joe Biden. Screw it. We're not waiting for Susan Collins. But at the same time, he did say Republican friends over and over again in that speech. Yep.

Notice that? I mean, this is in particular a real break from the old Joe Biden. Here's the line from the speech. If anyone tries to cut Social Security, I will the speech. If anyone tries to cut Social Security, I will stop them. If anyone tries to cut Medicare, I will stop them. I will not allow them to be taken away.

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Now, he doesn't say in there, not yesterday, because he's tried multiple times in the past. For 40 years, I tried to cut Social Security. But if you try it, trust me. Not tomorrow, not ever. Take what we can get, folks.

Yes. God love you. Yeah. I mean,. Not tomorrow, not ever. Take what we can get, folks. In the future, yes. God love you. Yeah, I mean, listen. I don't want to oversell it because, on the other hand, went out of his way to bust the potential rail strike and hand power to the bosses there. Hasn't fought for lifting the minimum wage. Mentioned the PRO Act here.

That fell off the table. Didn't really put the screws to Manchin and Sinema over Build Back Better. And so, you know, we were all happy when we got something in the Inflation Reduction Act. But it's easy to forget how much the actual original vision was trimmed by a lack of willingness to play hardball and a willingness to, like, just accept the rulings of the parliamentarian and things like that. So I don't want to oversell it here, but I do think there are some noteworthy shifts in terms of, I mean, even just industrial policy and antitrust. These were like antitrust. I mean, the Obama administration was terrible on antitrust. Terrible. Allowed some of these gigantic mergers to go through that now people are raging about, right? The Ticketmaster being a primary example there. And, you know, so industrial policy was basically a dirty word in both parties for my entire life until now. Up until literally, I think, three years ago. Really, when Biden put out... You were a communist.

Do you remember when Biden put out, what was it? His, like made in America plan. I praise it on rising in here. I was like, hey, listen, that's pretty good. I was like, you can say whatever, you know, I was like, by the way, I was like, Jared, please release the made in America thing from the National Security Council, which I know that you held up for two years and then didn't end up passing for literally no reason. So in a lot of ways for Trump, this is dangerous territory. I mean, Biden is taking the two most singular popular things that he did, which was China and it was made in America. Look at that, you know, the way that he talked about China in the speech.

Although not much. No, he didn't talk about it much, but look, he did not say that, what, seven years ago. Right. What he was trying to say in that whole switch places with Xi, I speak Bidenese, is because I used to watch him whenever he was coherent. And he would always talk about how he was one of those people. He was so pro-engagement with China. He often says this. I'm the only person, I've spent more hours with Xi Jinping than any other Western leader in the world. I've sat there and I've talked with him

across the table. That was his big selling point. He was so excited. Oh, I know. Yeah. Actually, there was a lot of business dealings going on. That was side of selling point. He was so excited he even brought his son. Oh, I know. Yeah, actually there was a lot of business dealings going on that day. That was side of the big guy. All on Air Force Two, another story for another day, of which we have covered several times. But the point is is that he has gone from engagement to confrontation.

Clearly that is, without Trump that doesn't happen. And he's also now gone completely with Made in America, the full embrace of all that. I do want to know who he is. He goes, many people don't like when I say this, but we're going to buy American. I'm like, who is saying that? Like outside of like JP Morgan CEO, who is saying that? I'm like, I like that.

Most people like that. Larry Summers. Yeah. Okay. Got some flap in the country club. One last thought. And then I want to hear you guys final thoughts as well. But, you know, one thing we talked about going into this, which maybe it shouldn't matter, maybe it shouldn't matter.

I think it's reasonable for people that have concerns about a man who would be 86 by the end of a next term. And so as much as The New York Times was running a story that I know is planted by Biden aides about how he's preparing to overcome a stutter in this speech, sort of trying to set the bar low that if it doesn't go well, don't be an asshole. It's because he has a stutter. It's not because he's old, guys. Don't say that. But ultimately, you know, I mean, he's still Joe Biden at 80 years old. It's still not what he used to be. It wasn't like an incredibly masterful oratory. But Ryan, I think, you know, in terms of what he's that this is a man who is still capable of conducting the business of the presidency and that we're not all going to be left in the hands of Kamala Harris dear God I think I think we're also starting to all grade him on a curve relative to what we expect from him like I think he has successfully set the bar really low for his

public performances every time he tried to go off the teleprompter, off script with a little riff, you're almost holding your breath for him. He tents up. Outside of the Medicare thing, they were all bad. All bad. Every single one. Even his start, he starts out by saying, I get to be here because Jill's going to the game tomorrow.

Like, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the Super Bowl and the Eagles? Yeah, it's like. What are you, what? That's Sunday, man. He's very excited Are you talking about the Super Bowl and the Eagles? What? That's Sunday, man. He's very excited to see how Donovan McNabb performs. What? He should have finished with a Go Birds at the end. He's not winning Missouri.

That's true. That's true. He's saying Fly Eagles, Fly Rocks. On that point, and he did seem to get tyree nichols name wrong um it wasn't alden tyler yeah it wasn't great sounding like tyler yeah it wasn't a perfect performance um but i do think that because the bar is so low for him every time he clears it and looks like he can give a normal presidential speech for an hour again because the bar is so low and part of that by the way is because don Donald Trump was the preceding president. That's a good point. And Donald Trump's State of the Unions tended to be

pretty boilerplate and conventional. That wasn't true of the rest of his communications. So Joe Biden being able to just give a speech for an hour, talk about his Republican friends and make America at least sort of be back in the political theater that people are comfortable with. I guess that's a win for him. Yeah. All right. Okay, guys, thank you so much for your analysis. I hope everybody enjoyed this stream. Thank you so much also to our premium members

who help support the show and keep all of these things going. They are expensive to put on, so we really much appreciate you. And we love you all. We're going to have some content for you guys tomorrow. Hint, it involves a congressman attacking Crystal Ball, my partner over here, and Joe Rogan, a vicious attack calling them anti-Semitic. We will get into all of that tomorrow. We'll have a full show for everybody on Thursday.

Lots of great content in the interim, and we will see you all later. We've been tracking a lot of Jeff Bezos news in respect to the Washington Commanders, and it looks like there could be some developments here. Let's put it up there on the screen. So Charles Gasparano, he reports that Bezos is considering buying the Washington Commanders and that the Commander's sale will take place weeks after the Super Bowl and owners meeting in March. Despite the denials, people inside the NFL think that Bezos' bid will come after the initial bids because given his wealth, he is capable of making any numbers worth for a purchase. So he's going to see what other people put on the table and then he's going

to be like, let me one up you. Here's a billion more. So can we just wrap this up and everybody be like, yeah, totally. Let's do a handshake. I don't know how it's going to work out. As you pointed out as well, Dan Snyder doesn't like Jeff Bezos. Why? Because Bezos' paper, the Washington Post, is the one that exposed a lot of his wrongdoing in his organization. At the same time, money's green, no matter whether somebody took you down or not. But these guys are billionaires, so they operate at a different level.

It's an extra billion here or there. But the other question is that the previous reporting from the New York Post said that Bezos was exploring a sale of the Washington Post to possibly finance this. So maybe Snyder would be like, okay, you can have the commanders, but you have to sell the post if you want to do that. So I could see him being petty enough to do that. Bezos, I think he absolutely is going to end up with the commanders because listen i mean these guys are like gods in america these nfl owners like nothing comes close to being like a pop culture icon that's what he loves you know bezos loves me

in hollywood you know the instagram thing he doesn't even work anymore big lizzo amazon yeah he loves lizzo apparently um the guy is, he's no longer interested in being, quote, respectable, which is what the post bought him. He's interested in just being super rich and being culturally relevant. So buying the NFL, an NFL team is the best way to do that. Yeah. You know, he could turn the stadium into one of like the biggest stadium or the best or where he could out-compete Jerry Jones and be one of those types of people. And, you know, like I'm sure people would like it. They absolutely would.

And don't forget, Amazon HQ2 being built right here in the DMV area in Crystal City, where thousands of Amazon employees are going to be already. He already owns the biggest house in Washington, D.C. This would just step it up even more. Yeah, this is what it looks like to go through a midlife crisis when you're one of the richest men on the planet. Yeah, right. You're like, to go through a midlife crisis when you're one of the richest men on the planet. Yeah, right. You're like, I'm going to buy an NFL team.

Maybe I'll sell this newspaper. It's kind of a pain in my ass. Let me get rid of it. I don't care anymore. It does sound fun. I'm not going to lie. It looks pretty fun. The other thing I have to contribute to this conversation is as a long-suffering Washington football sports fan,

Dan Snyder has got to be one of the worst owners in the history of the NFL and perhaps all of sport. And one of the good things that the Washington Post has done under Bezos' leadership is expose all of that. But, you know, that being said, I'm like not cheering for either one of these men. So we'll see how it all unfolds. He continues to deny it. They're also, I mean, the Washington Post is in not great financial straits. They've been having to make layoffs. They bet all the way in on like Trump and political news coverage. They didn't really diversify in the way that New York Times did. So the financial position there for them is not very good. That being said, you know, he's a billionaire.

He could prop them up easily without any problem. But does he want to do that? And more importantly, does he want, you know, I think he didn't like that when he was going back and forth with Biden on like tax policy or whatever. He didn't like that people were like, hey, dude, you own a really important newspaper. Maybe you shouldn't be putting your hand on the scale the way that you are here ultimately. And by the way, we see this as sort of like reflected in your papers coverage, which is a problem as well. And I'm not sure that he liked that and the implications of having actually some real responsibility with owning the Washington Post. So let's see what happens. Look, the best move for him, sell the Post, get rid of it. Don't put your hands in this and become a pop culture figure. You already kind of are, you know, the whole Jack Bezos

meme with his girlfriend. And also, look, Washington, like, people who have ever been suffering for a long time. By the way, Crystal, we actually have some fans on the Washington Commanders, so shout out to those guys. Oh, do we? Nice. Yeah. And I won't out them yet. I'm not going to out them before they out themselves as breaking points.

They have made it known to me that they are fans of the show. What I think would be cool is that, look, there are a lot of people who, you know, they have very low season ticket holders. It's very hard to sell the game. Yeah. And D.C. doesn't have a good enough sports community. You know, when the caps are good, then people get excited. It used to be different, Sagar.

No, I know it was. I mean, this was the most valuable franchise in all of sports when I was growing up. I mean, these were Super Bowl winners. And when the stadium was here in the city, it was totally, ever since they moved out to Maryland, and is it still FedEx Field, whatever the heck it's called? The fan experience is terrible. The vibes of the team are terrible. Like, all that tradition and history was kind of swept away.

Daniel Snyder, terrible owner. So, yeah, listen, I'm not super excited about Bezos owning the team, but getting someone different in there, I would hope it would kind of revive what this great team used to be. An extremely dangerous situation in Ohio, 5,000 people had to actually be evacuated from one part of that state after a Norfolk Southern train derailed. It was carrying some toxic chemicals, burst in flames when it derailed. And then there was a danger that it would actually explode. They had to do a so-called controlled release that also released a gigantic fireball.

So a really terrifying situation, one that could have gone, bad pun, off the rails. And now we're getting some reporting from our friends at The Lever about how corruption may have provided the backstory that led to this extraordinarily dangerous situation. Let's go ahead and bring Julia Rox, she's a journalist with Lever News, to break down the story. Great to see you, Julia. Thanks so much for having me. Yeah, of course. So let me go ahead and read the headline that you have here. You say rail companies blocked safety rules before Ohio derailment. Norfolk Southern helped convince government officials to repeal brake rules and corporate lobbyists watered down hazmat safety regulations. So tell us exactly what you found here. Yeah, so this is basically a story about how, you know, over the past decade or so, as the biggest railroads were spending a lot of their profits on executive pay

and stock buybacks, they were declining to upgrade their Civil War era braking systems, which basically make it impossible to stop all of the cars on a train at once, to electronically controlled braking systems where you can stop the entire train simultaneously. And the sort of point of these upgraded safety systems is that, you know, in the US, lots of trains are carrying things like crude oil, hazardous, flammable chemicals. And so the stakes are very high if something goes wrong and the train derails. So during the 2010s, the Obama administration tried to impose some more stringent safety measures on these trains carrying flammable, hazardous materials. But the railroads came in, including Norfolk Southern. They lobbied really

hard against these rules. When a limited version of the rule was finally put into place, they got the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to strike it down. I mean, I think we all got a close-up look at how much these freight companies really don't care particularly about health and safety, given the way they laid off workers and pushed them out, the limited amount of time off if they got any at all. And, you know, these are like, it's not easy to conduct a train and you can have, we've had an increase in derailments as a result in part of the way that they have treated their workforce. What is their side of the story here? Why did they push back against what seems like an obvious

important safety innovation in terms of these braking systems? Well, so you're right. The backdrop is exactly the same as what they've done with their workforces. You know, like you said, they slashed them by about 30 percent in the past decade or so. You know, the argument of the railroads wasn't even that these brakes are not safer. Norfolk Southern had actually tested out some of these brakes back in 2007 and said, like, they are way better than the air, the conventional air brakes that we use. They reduce stopping distances by up to 60%. But then when the Obama administration turned around and said, okay, install them on your trains, you know, carrying hazardous chemicals and oil, they said it's too expensive. The benefits of it do not justify the high costs. That was their argument. It wasn't that the brakes weren't effective. It wasn't that they would make the trains more safe.

It was simply that they were too expensive. You have another piece here. It's not just regarding the brakes, but they also sought to limit what could be classified as hazardous materials. Let me read a little bit from your piece. You say alongside their campaign to kill the brake rule, industry lobbyists pushed to limit the types of chemical compounds that would be covered by new regulations, including the brake rule. They proposed limiting the definition of high hazard flammable trains, mostly to cover oil trains, but not trains carrying the industrial chemical on the Norfolk Southern train that necessitated evacuations in Ohio. So I want everybody to think about this. This train derails, catches on fire. You have to evacuate the area. They do a controlled release that results in a gigantic fireball.

And this was not classified as being a high hazard flammable train. Yeah, so people in the area were told that the rail cars could explode and launch deadly shrapnel as far as a mile. But this train was not being regulated, like you said, as a highly hazardous flammable train. And that's in part because of successful lobbying efforts by the chemical industry, as well as other industries, to very narrowly limit the types of substances that would give trains this classification as high hazard flammable trains, as well as sort of create this high threshold whereby a certain number of cars had to be carrying the material and the cars had to be sort of either next to each other. There had to be even more cars spread out over the train. So they create a very high threshold for a train to even be subject to these regulations that are supposed to impose more safety features on trains carrying really

dangerous chemicals. And finally, Julia, help us understand who were the political players involved here? How much of this happened under the Obama administration versus the Trump administration? Has the Biden administration had anything to do with it? Yeah, so the Obama administration, you know, if you look at the coverage from the Times, sort of surprised people in imposing this requirement on railroads to install these brakes. I think surprised them because there'd been so much industry pushback. And as we know all too well, the Obama administration was always welcome to folding under industry pushback. Trump moves to repeal it, and the

Biden administration has not attempted to reinstate these rules. Biden railroad regulators say, yes, these breaks are much better. We endorse them, but it's not on their rulemaking agenda. They haven't indicated any intention to do it. And the point you made early on, I think, is worth, again, highlighting here that, again, the backdrop is workforces have been slashed on these trains. Inspection times are getting much shorter. You know, workers are exhausted. They're coming to work sick.

Of course, that is making all of this more dangerous. And there's also plenty, as you've talked about on the show, that the Biden administration could do, you know, to help these workers and force better safety standards on these railroad companies in all sorts of regards. And they haven't done it yet. Yeah, I'm just shocked that Mayor Pete hasn't gotten right on top of that, Julia. Workers, when we were covering the potential rail strike and their negotiations, this is exactly the type of accident that they were warning about saying, I mean, listen, when you stretch people so thin and you are working them to the bone and they have no time off, even for

the basics of going to a doctor appointment, guess what's going to happen? It's not just their health and safety that's going to be compromised, but there are going to be massive spillover effects. And this is just a really sad and horrifying example of that. Great reporting on this, getting this backstory, helping us understand how we got to this point. Really super important. Julia, great to see you. Thanks so much. Yeah, our pleasure. Thank you guys for watching.

We'll have more for you later. This is an iHeart Podcast.