Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/7/25: Starship EXPLODES, Tariffs OFF, Newsom Butters Up CHARLIE KIRK

Episode Date: March 7, 2025

Krystal, Ryan, and Emily come at you with another Friday episode to cover topics like Elon's latest Starship blowing up, Trump pausing more of his Tariff threats on Canada and Mexico, Gavin Newsom debating Charlie Kirk on his podcast and more! Sign up for a PREMIUM Breaking Points subscriptions for full early access to uncut shows and LIVE interaction with the hosts every week: https://breakingpoints.locals.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. 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. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Happy Friday, everybody. I was lamenting yesterday when we were trying to put the show together that there is just too damn much news to try to cover. So we've got a bunch of stuff that's interesting in the show today. Ryan and Emily, how are you guys doing? Hey, good to

see you. Lovely. Great to see you. Lots of Elon updates, some Laura Loomer updates. We got some Gavin Newsom, some the latest with the tariffs. Are they on or off? What does it all mean? Nobody really knows. Some interesting stuff from the Democrats as well as they continue to find themselves a little bit lost in the wilderness, more than a little bit lost in the wilderness, I'd say. So lots to get through. Let me go ahead and start with this image to set the stage for today. We had another starship that, you know, from Elon's company SpaceX that blew up upon launch yesterday. This is a somebody who was a passenger on a commercial flight that took this video you can see all the debris in the air there and we

were talking beforehand so this is the second blow up that Starship has had this year the FAA was previously investigating the last one you know at least before SpaceX guys basically came in and did like a hostile takeover the FAA this is out of eight Starship launches. Four of them have failed, so not a great success rate, especially since NASA is effectively pinning the future of the space shuttle program on Elon and SpaceX at this point. So any reflections on this, guys?

So beautiful. Yeah, I mean, after the last one right they launched investigation and then you know doge was has been able to shut that investigation down as producer mac was pointing out before this show started the last one had you know you know real repercussions for people who were in the the the blast zone the radius of that of that of that debris collapsing back down to Earth. And I think it's an awkward time because if you're looking at doing cuts to federal spending, such as closing Social Security offices, such as firing 80,000 VA workers, which we'll talk about later in the show,

to have that paired with sending all this money to SpaceX and then to have it just blow up in the sky, it's not a great image. Not a great look. Yeah. And the investigations of SpaceX have been not just from the FAA, there have also been environmental issues with them not following compliance and causing damage to the area where they're testing these rockets in the surrounding communities. This one caused multiple commercial flights to have to be diverted. The last one also caused, I think, around a dozen commercial flights to have to be diverted. Obviously, it's the FAA that's doing all that work.

So, again, Elon's involvement at the FAA becomes directly, you know, direct conflict there. And you had a couple of Florida airports that had to shut down completely for at least a couple hours while this debris was falling from the sky to avoid any further incidents. So, yeah, as you said, Ryan, not a great look. There's a bunch of other Elon news here to get to. to this probably the most significant from yesterday which is um trump gathered the cabinet together to let them know elon musk is not in charge of hiring and firing they are uh kyle cheney here who's a great follow in terms of just like the legal ins and outs in particular she says it was an abrupt admonition that appeared aimed at the mounting legal scrutiny of musk's power over the government. And what he's pointing to there, Emily, I think, is the fact that, you know, there have been all these court cases.

One of them is focused on whether the Office of Personnel Management has the ability to just blanket fire federal employees across the government, not just obviously within their own agency. You know, as part of that, like obviously Doge does not technically have the power to just blanket fire whoever they want across the entire federal government. So one way to read this that some people are is, okay, this is Trump actually reigning in Elon. Another way to read it is this is the Trump administration trying to position themselves in a stronger way legally without really changing the dynamics of what they're doing here. Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely true. I actually think in a weird way, both are true. But this was always an easier, I don't want to call it a loophole, but this was always an easier way to approach the situation.

And I think maybe part of it is now they have the whole cabinet in place. Basically, I think maybe Chavez de reamer uh who'll get a vote soon uh there are a couple outstanding people but now most of the the cabinet is in place so you have people who can make those decisions who aren't big balls um and it's like it's it always just made more sense to have that it's like legally easier um and trump the only other interesting thing in that i I think, was Trump saying now, according to Politico, that these cuts will be done with the scalpel and not the hatchet. So that makes me think it's a little bit of both, that he actually has realized that there's been a lot of like sledgehammer, like rehirings, and maybe like not the most efficient way of going towards efficiency.

And so he's like just saying, we've got the cabinet in place now. Like you guys are actually in charge of this. Just know that we want cuts. Because the other thing he says, according to the Politico story, is if you don't do the cuts, Elon will do the cuts. So now he's just like using Elon Musk as the sword of Damocles, like hovering over anyone who's out of compliance with the spirit of doge and elon musk is not i guess in charge of doge i mean he's the

head of doge but he's not the administrator of doge it's hard to keep up right um yes according to the speech yeah it's like a schrodinger's doge or something everyone is doge in their hearts yeah and from that from the, from the outside, it looks like chaos. It looks like, wait a minute, you know, you told us that you spent the last four years putting together this, you know, this, this detailed, sophisticated plan, talking to people who know what they're doing. You got former OMB director Russ Votis back at OMB. He did his project 2025. They're going to come in and they're going to do exactly what they've wanted to do. And then they do that thing.

And then they're like, actually, never mind. We're going to do it a completely different way. And they're talking about rehiring thousands of USDA employees, I noticed. And a bunch of others are in limbo. We're on administrative leave, but we can't get in touch with anybody. Are we fired? Are we still going to get our paychecks? Are we coming back because you're now acknowledging what this judge said about our firings, that they were illegal?

They are illegal. So am I rehired or am I still fired? How's this all going to work? Or is it just going to be like the tariffs where you talk about it a lot, do a little bit, and there's a lot of pain in a micro level for some people, but then it all gets flipped and we kind of move on and pretend like it never happened. I don't know. my personal read of this is that the real message was sent in that public cabinet meeting where Trump says to all of them, like, if you don't like it, get the hell out. So the message is sent, you better do what Elon wants you to do. But, you know, technically, of course, it's up to you. You're in charge and use the scalpel, not the hatchet. But if you don't do what we want, then get the hell out of here. I mean, that's the way I read it until I see a different posture. You know, to me, some of his language is more about recognition that this is profoundly unpopular. You know, if you look at the polling of, you know, oh, we're slashing the Social Security Administration. And

like Ryan said, it's just like chaos everywhere. And why are we firing all these veterans and people showing up to town halls saying like, what the hell is going on? This is an attempt to be like, oh, no, no, no, everything's normal normal we're doing this in the way that you would want because if you pull just like hey should the government be cut and should it be more efficient people like yeah sure of course but when the rubber hits the road and you see like oh the people who are tracking bird flu are gone and planes are crashing into each other and i no longer can, you know, reach someone when I'm trying to get something resolved with my social security check or like in Maine where now because they cut the link between the social security administration and the health services, you now

have to go in person to a social security office to like register your new baby as if when you have a newborn, you don't have enough on your mind to deal with or adding that to the burden as well. So when you see all that chaos and the reality of those cuts, the feel and the political ramification becomes much different than if you just ask people like,

hey, should the government be more efficient to which most people, you know, overwhelmingly would be like, yeah, sure, of course. Yeah, that should be an easily winnable fight, right, Emily? Like, from the right to, you know, the public thinks that there's waste in government. The public is not particularly sympathetic to federal workers in general. To fire federal workers and still wind up on the wrong end of public opinion

takes a massive level of incompetence, really. Well, I mean, the scalpel versus hatchet dichotomy is interesting because a lot of people on the right were using that, the reverse from Donald Trump, like the reverse of what he said to justify Doge's chaos. This is like the callous, like you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Maxim, like this is always it's necessary. Like you will never, ever scale down the size of the federal government if you don't do it with the hatchet first. And so I guess in a sense, I'm curious and I should probably talk to some people today and ask around if they see this now as like phase two of Doge.

Like they came in with the hatchet and now they can afford to be like more precise and targeted. But if it's not true that they got through like some type of first phase, which I think most people until yesterday would have said they didn't, then that defeats what everyone thought the purpose of Doge was, which was to be this generational opportunity to actually use the hatchet. Because if you use the scalpel, people say you will never, ever scale back the size of the federal government because it gives everybody time to fight back. It gives everybody time to sort of come up with a strategy. And you end up just kind of back where you started and trimming around the edges.

But Doge was supposed to be like the generational chainsaw opportunity to borrow from Elon's imagery at CPAC. Yeah. And instead, as always happens, a bunch of Republicans went out on a limb that Trump asked them to go out on. Then Trump grabbed their chainsaw and chopped the limb off. Yeah. And now there they are explaining how they actually always meant to be at the bottom of the tree with broken legs. That's very relevant to the tariff conversation as well, where, you know, the whiplash of that leaves his defenders, you know, defending every single policy under the sun in an attempt to curry favor with him and to, you know, curry favor with a base that's very committed to him. Let's say, Ryan, let me have you explain this one because you've been all over this debanking vote that occurred in the Senate.

So Laura Loomer here upset because she says every Senate Republican, with the exception of Senator Josh Hawley, just voted to legalize debanking. Now, apps like PayPal can get away with banning you for your political views. Thanks to Senate Republicans who just voted to repeal a rule that made that illegal in December of 2024. And Elon Musk replies, really? Question mark. Laura says, yes, really. Hopefully you can put an end to this, Elon. GOP does not like CFPB. And so they are now just opposing everything CFPB has done, including the good things like implementing a law in 2024 that banned payment platforms like PayPal, Stripe and Venmo from banning people based off their political affiliation. Senate GOP just voted to legalize debanking. They should kill the companion bill off in the House. Ryan, what is going on here?

Yeah, you think that this show has contrasting perspectives. How about Laura Loomer and I teaming up to try to save this CFPB debanking rule? Like Like the whole, it's not even horseshoes. It's like just looping in like a NASCAR track, you know, in itself. So, yeah. So, Laura Loomer, you know, shared our reporting over at Dropsite. And we covered it here at CounterPoints. I had reached out to her because she has herself been debanked in 2019. I don't know, you know, what her't know what her far right particular offense was,

but PayPal stopped working with her. Venmo canceled her accounts. She can't use Uber Eats. Not the Uber Eats. Uber Eats. Basically shut off from all of kind of contemporary app activity. There were even some like comical ones that like the apps don't even exist anymore. What was that one where all the tech bros were on audio talking to each other?

Oh, yeah, Clubhouse. She even got banned from Clubhouse. The next big thing. Yes. Is Clubhouse even still a thing? God, I forgot about that. I don't think so. I guess maybe. Yeah, anyway. still a thing? God, I forgot about that. I don't think so. I guess maybe.

Yeah. Anyway. So, and she confirmed. Yeah, yeah. And she still actually can't use PayPal and some others. And so the CFPB passed a rule under Biden and under Rohit Chopra that says banks cannot debank over political reasons or for ideological reasons. And he said, and I'm including in that anybody that does more than 50 million transactions a year.

So that lumps in PayPal, Zelle, Google Pay, Apple Pay, all of these apps. And they all fought this relentlessly because they don't want it's they don't want to be regulated period and so uh elon elon musk and whatsapp zuckerberg both have been talking about getting a payment app you know getting you know allowing payments allowing you to move money through whatsapp or through your dms on twitter whatever they that's one of his most important ambitions for twitter it's one of the reasons he bought it. He wants it to be X in an everything app. Yeah, he's been very clear about that. And they would instantly then be covered under this new regulation.

And it would just mean they can't debank people for political reasons. And they'd have to have serious fraud prevention efforts, just like banks are supposed to have. And fraud dispute mechanisms. So you get scammed. There's to have, and fraud dispute mechanisms. So you get scammed, there's a process that you can dispute it. The scams on Twitter now, like there's just, you're absolutely screwed. Like you get scammed, you get shut out. You better know somebody who can like get your case in front of Elon. Otherwise, you know, you're shut out of your account and the account is going to be controlled by whatever crypto scammers took it from you.

And Rupar got caught by that recently. So they don't want that regulation. And so they persuaded the Senate to pass this resolution, getting rid of this CFPB rule. And so Josh Hawley voted against it. I've seen Steve Bannon is now engaged on this question. It still has to go over to the House. And so now Democrats just had another one of their members die who uh so they're what you're the four seat majority now so maybe five seat at this point um democrats you know if everybody shows up they'll all vote no republicans only need to find a handful of people single digits low single digits to say no sorry

musk like sorry paypal like we're going to regulate you here. And the regulation is going to say you can't debank people for political reasons. Elon Musk saying, really? Like, as if this is, like, coming as news to him is kind of hilarious. Sort of like when Zuckerberg was on with Rogan pretending like he didn't know what the CFPB, I've never even heard of them. Don't even know what it stands for. Like, why are they even going after me? This is the first I'm hearing of this. The first I'm hearing.

You're telling me this for the first time. It's very sad. So I think if you're Elon Musk, curious, Emily, for your take on this, if you're Elon Musk, you take the L here and you tell the House, do not repeal this rule. This is outrageous. Because it shows then you're you can you can be performatively non-conflicted because you're like okay yes this would hurt me but i am willing to let this go through because it's so obvious that conservatives should not be

you know kicked off of you know banking apps just for being conservative so i'm going to stand up for i'm going to stand up for this and then this. And then he can figure out down the road how he can get a carve out for his little coin. They're destroying the CFPB. Exactly. He doesn't need this in place. They've already gutted the CFPB. If I were him, I would cynically just get behind this

and say, yeah, don't do this. This is terrible. But if it hadn't been elevated, then he wouldn't have even had to make the choice. I think the cynical calculation is absolutely smart, but I don't know that they're actually going to even bother. They're going for everything. They might just repeal the rule and be like, you know what? What are you going to do?

Well, and they also have a fairly arcane argument about how the rule actually is, it's like the opposite. You've probably seen this, like they flip it on its head and they say the rule is what allows for the, they say that what they're doing is fighting debanking. Like that's their argument. They have this like arcane, like lobbyist crafted, clearly like tech lobbyist crafted argument. And Tim Scott is out saying, well, I've got a bill that's going to ban debanking. But it's like, that's, that's treating people like, like they don't have any idea what they're talking about. It's like, there's already, there are laws on the books that are interpreted to mean that you can't discriminate against people on their viewpoints.

The CFPB's rule is just implementing that law. So Tim Scott coming and saying he's going to pass a new law means that somebody then has to implement a rule to enforce it. Laws that aren't enforced don't matter. And so what Tim Scott and these other Republicans would want to do is say, well, we're going to pass a law, but we're not going to enforce it. So that way they get to tell their audience that they're with them, but the bank lobbyists are comfortable that the law will never be enforced. Yeah, because all the agencies that would enforce it are being destroyed. I'm threatened that you're going to replace me with Laura Loomer, Brian.

You're safe, though. We've got to get Laura Loomer on the show. That'd be a good Counterpoints Friday. Is she allowed on YouTube? We could just post that one on Rumble only. That's right. It could be a Rumble exclusive. Ryan and Laura Loomer team up.

That's like, I want to talk to Steve Bannon for similar reasons. It is. Whatever she said i'm sure i disagree with it she should not be banned from uber eats ridiculous yep yeah too far i mean you also like there's few people who are actually willing to really stand up to you know on any sort of principle most of them are busy being like tariffs are great you're so brilliant for taking the tariffs off tariffs are great you're so brilliant for taking the tariffs off. Tariffs are great. You're so brilliant for taking the tariffs off.

So to see someone who will stand on any principle is, you know, you got to. Yeah, she's got her views and she's sticking with it. Yeah. All right. Let's go to some of the latest Doge cuts here that are really significant. Washington Post with a good piece on what's already happening at Social Security, as Jeff Stein puts it here so you know they've slashed a lot of the workforce they're closing a bunch of offices and people

are already feeling that the impact of that and Ryan I think you pointed out this is like this is a way to cut social security effectively without actually cutting social security so this article says wait times for basic phone service have grown in some cases to hours according to employees who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity delete delays and reviews of disability claims and hearings before administrative law judges are already starting employees at a field office in indiana have been forced to pick up calls for other offices when employees said they're feeling phone inquiries for an area covering two-thirds of the state the phone quote never stops ringing now the employee said phone backups have prevented the staff from processing retirement claims. So, you know, how good is a

program? How good is a program for you? Like how much does it actually exist when you cannot actually get in touch with a human being in order to avail yourself of said program? Like if you can't get your claims processed, then it's like the program doesn't exist for you effectively. Right. It's, it's a way to kill the program, the program through attrition because obviously social security itself, something like 10,000 plus people a day are dying who are on social security. So you're moving them out. Uh, then, you know, 10, it's, it's fairly automatic to get in to just straight up Social Security. But SSI and SSDI, which are huge components of the program, are implemented by the states through these Disability Determination Services offices, and they're kind of run by SSA.

And those are the places where it takes a long time to get your claims approved. And once you're on, they're kind of always looking for ways to kick you off. Like, oh, your bank account went over $2,000 this month. You're out. And then you have to appeal and you try to get back in. And if you can shut those offices down, then you can slow the process of getting new people in or just completely block it. And then through attrition, you know, get people out through paperwork violations or death, and gradually take this program that is the most popular

and has reduced poverty by more than any other program in world history. And I say this as a huge fan of some communist governments and their anti-poverty programs, but nobody has, like, reduced poverty like Social Security did, taking it from a 90% drop in elderly poverty from pre-Social Security to post-Social Security. Not even Stalin. Not even Stalin can claim credit for that. So that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to reverse it through attrition.

I don't think that's wrong. I mean, I think that's probably, well, so I think it's, there's, Ryan and Crystal, you were both talking about this the other night when we were discussing how much austerity like featured in Donald Trump's joint address to Congress. Yeah. I think there are like real ideological and Trump may not even be aware of this ideological goals from people like Russ Vogt or people in that orbit as it pertains to these programs that are baked into the massive reforms that they want to do. So like, for example, when Trump says we're not cutting Medicaid, we're reforming the waste, fraud and abuse, or like we're rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. You can make all of these cuts to Medicaid and it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term. So I think it was Social Security, like you can get fraud out of Social Security, it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term. So I think it was Social Security, like you can get fraud out of Social Security, it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency

of the programs long term, but it does sort of handicap them. So I think some of that is baked into these like broader conservative movement policy designs. I agree with that. I just don't know if Trump, I don't know if it's like on Trump's radar. I'm sure it's not.

And I was talking to somebody who works in a state DDS office yesterday, and they said that this censorship that they've been bizarrely carrying out at SSA offices, and you saw this report that like you can't – you already couldn't go to YouTube on your work computer in a lot of places, public schools, lots of places. But they expanded that to to almost all news sites. And the DDS employee I talked to said that that also caught up their contractor. Because there's so much corporate kind of conglomerization and concentration of corporate power that you hit one company, you might hit 75 companies you didn't know were connected to it. So these state workers now can't get into their contractor portals might hit 75 companies you didn't know were like connected to it so like these these uh state workers now can't get into their like contractor portals to do just the basic work that they have

to do to implement the program and it's like that's kind of on purpose like that's the goal like they want they want these workers not to be able to do their work because the work that they're doing is slowly they don't but gradually bringing more people into the program. Yeah. Well, and I also think, I mean, the State of the Union where he was talking, he was spreading this total lie about the number of people over 200 or whatever who are getting Social Security checks. I mean, that to me is also a way to argue like we're cutting this program because of

all the fraud to avoid violating his or avoid the appearance of violating his pledge that he wasn't going to touch social security. So, you know, again, this is one of these areas where you see the tug of war between what Trump has positioned himself as politically and what Elon's ideology is and certainly Russ Vought's ideology as well. And the Elon ideology seems to be consistently winning out. I mean, this is kind of a somewhat similar. You've got they're firing 80,000 Veterans Affairs workers as part of Trump cuts. They say this is sparking a backlash. I mean, many of these people are veterans themselves that work at the Veterans Affairs administration and certainly critical to, you know, delivering the promises that we have made to people who have served the country.

And Emily, I think politically, these have been some of the more difficult for Republicans to be able to answer when you have people who stand up and are like, how could you be firing all of these tens of thousands of veterans who serve the country? How could you be firing all of these military spouses who are sort of disproportionately on probationary status because the nature of having to move around the country and, you know, depending on where your spouse is being stationed and deployed? And so I think politically, this has been some of the stuff that's been more difficult for Republicans. And as part of why Elon had to meet with them this week and assuage some of the Republican caucus concerns

about what they're hearing from constituents in their district with regard to Doge. Well, my favorite part of that report was at the meeting, Elon Musk handed out his phone number to senators, but not House members, which is actually pretty funny. It reminds me of the Veep line where she can't get something through the Senate. She says, OK, then lift the sewer grate to the house and we'll go over there. So funny. But no. So what's really interesting to me and I was very surprised to find out by this that that actually pairs it back down to 2019 levels. So in the last several years, the growth of the VA was 80,000 people, which is very, like the last six years, the growth of the VA was 80,000 people, which is interesting because it's about a 400,000 person department and they're going to get it back down to around 300,000. But even if that,

even if that on paper, you look at it, the politics of it, Crystal, are going to be, I mean, we played that video earlier, what was a few days ago from roger wicker i want to say it was roger wicker at a town hall where he was getting specifically confronted on veterans i was listening to an npr segment um about their local a local va outside of seattle getting hit by this and you're just like when you localize this it's going to i don't know that we've like actually fully seen the bleeding politically shown up show up in polling yet because I don't know that we've like actually fully seen the bleeding politically shown up, show up in polling yet. Cause I don't know that it's been fully like people haven't reckoned with it. They don't realize there's still uncertainty as to whether this stuff is

permanent or whether it's going to get reversed. People are going to get rehired because we have seen people get rehired. So I don't, I mean, if some of this stuff is permanent, the politics of that are going to be extremely difficult for Republicans. Yeah. And also, you know, we're already seeing a good transition to the next piece about tariffs. We're seeing some real economic warning signs and making massive cuts to the federal government. That is going to have an impact not just on those workers, but obviously rever reverberates throughout communities, different industries where federal government funding is important. They just sort of everything is frozen in place.

And when you couple that with the tariffs and what's going on there and general sense that there's a slowdown coming, it can have devastating economic impacts outside of just the direct firings and what that means for individual people's lives. So here's the latest on the tariffs. As of yesterday, we have Trump delaying some tariffs on Mexico and Canada, at least for a month. So we get to do this all again

in April, guys, don't worry. But basically anything that follow falls under any products that follow fall under the USMCA they're saying aren't the tariffs are not going to apply and have a note here about what percentage so about 50 percent of Mexican imports 38 percent of Canadian imports are covered by that trade agreement it does create a lot of I mean so you still have a significant portion of goods that will be tariffed and also I was reading about this as well it's like a little bit complex to even figure out which goods are covered by the tariff some things will be straightforward but some things you know where you have different component parts coming from different places etc it's actually complicated to figure out which falls under this agreement and which doesn't

so you know I, I think the markets were reacting pretty positively this morning, but yesterday it was a total bloodbath in the market. So, you know, Emily, what do you think about where we are with all of this? It's hard to know where we are because it's like, you don't know if you're in the middle of something until you have some clear idea of what the end would look like. And I don't know what Trump's end is. Yeah, that's how I feel how i feel too um because yeah i mean we talked about this at length the other night but he has this conflation um of his economic goals and his immigration fentanyl goals and it's really obviously confusing for mexico and at this point. I think he's just like straight up mad at Canada and wants to mess with Canada.

But like, I don't know. I think it's really hard to say what he does going forward because he has gotten some things like, for example, the Honda Civics being made in Indiana rather than Mexico. Like he's seen some of this stuff start to happen. So does that mean that he sticks with a more targeted version of some of these tariffs? That's my best guess. I would say that he ultimately lands on targeted tariffs and can claim a win on the blunt force tariffs by getting Mexico to cooperate with immigration stuff and getting Canada to cooperate with

fentanyl and that sort of thing. So I have no idea where it's going, but that's my best guess right now. Ryan, what the Canadians think is that he's using this economic warfare against them to try to weaken them so that he can take them over as the 51st state. I mean, that's what they believe. Some Trump officials have even effectively said that that is the goal. I mean, do you put much stock in that as that's what's going on here? Because it's so hard to figure out what is actually going on here. Yes, I do think that that needs to be taken seriously. Because the United States economy definitely has the power to shrink theadian economy by an absolutely extraordinary amount like which

is already not good by the way yeah it's it's crushing and you know we're already crushing the economy now um you know we we benefit from trade with canada like we there's an enormous number of raw materials and resources you know wood paper you know energy that come in from canada to the united states but our economy is so huge you know obviously we can withstand a trade war with canada we would you know we can outlast them uh and so that now the the question is like is there a trump in power long enough to like execute on that long-term strategy and does he have the the this the ability to kind of see it through there there were people in the 1890s when mckinley was doing this that thought that that was the plan that they were gonna you know weaken canada to the point that we would be able to annex it. I didn't realize that.

Yeah, that was part of the thinking. It collapsed really quickly because even in the 1890s, people didn't like paying higher prices, and we had that giant crisis in 1893 that kind of ended that. So, yeah, it wouldn't be new, but I don't think, you know, just like then, I don't know if we have the follow through. This comes as Secretary Besant yesterday, the Treasury Secretary, said that cheap goods are not the essence of the American dream, which actually there's, I mean, we could do an hour just talking about the reflecting on those

comments and what the reality is and what a different version of the American dream because certainly in the neoliberal era what has been sold to the citizenry in in lieu of like high wages unionization a manufacturing base like you know intact communities we have been sold that actually cheap goods are the thing that we're giving you in exchange for the way we're going to run the economic system. And so in a certain sense, I'm sympathetic to, yeah, I agree. I don't think that should be. But that is the value that we've been sold.

And if you're going to effectively intentionally raise prices, which is what these tariffs will almost certainly do, then you better have some other things in place to raise wages and, you know, restore some other, allow people to be able to buy houses, for example, afford college education, afford health care, or be given, you know, universal health care. If you are going to completely reorient things. On the contrary, what they have seemed to be pushing towards is, if not outright, generating a recession, generating a massive slowdown intentionally in consumer spending and in wage growth, so that in using that as the way to curb inflation. And so let me just put this poll up on the screen, and I'll get you guys to reflect on all of that. But you've got nearly two in three Americans now

saying they think tariffs are going to drive their costs up. That includes a majority of Republicans. Those numbers have moved substantially in just a month period of time. So you can see here, even among Republicans, you've got 51% saying, yeah, they're going to cause costs to go up. Only 19% saying they'll go down. 18% saying no impact. And overall, 67% of people say, yeah, this is going to cause prices to go up. And, you know, only 12% say they will cause them to go down and 12% saying no impact here. So very lopsided in terms of how people expect these tariffs to affect their lives at a time when obviously, Emily, inflation has been a core part of the political story and

political upset during the Biden administration that helps usher Trump into power. Trump promises very much like we're going to get prices under control, et cetera. And right now people feel like, well, actually your policy is pushing in the exact opposite direction. Emily, while you think on that, let me clean up my McKinley comment real quick because it actually fits in in this. It wasn't that McKinley's tariffs led into and were upended by the 1893 crisis. It was the reverse. There was the 1893 crisis that created this depression, that created this like demand among the American people that you do something about it and mckinley ran then in 1896 saying i'm going to do something about this and the thing i'm going to do is tariffs and so he's elected then and people are like oh this actually didn't solve the problem

like you were right that there was something wrong but this didn't fix it so let's get rid of let's get rid of these tariffs so before people drag on your flipping the timeline there. Actually, his speech that he gave before the before an assassin, you know, came and took him out was about how he was rolling back a lot of the tariffs, because basically like, yeah, we you know, that served its purpose for its time. But we're we're moving forward in a different direction now. And Trump, we've talked about this before, too, but I think he actually just thrives on the sense of confusion. And I think the reason that even people who follow his moves, his every move when it comes to tariffs, don't have a good idea of what's coming next is completely intentional on his behalf, because he legitimately doesn't want Trudeau and Scheinbaum to know either,

or China for that matter. But the Besant speech, I pulled it up in front of me. I just wanted to read a little bit more from where he says, he starts to talk about the United States finds itself subsidizing the rest of the world's underspending in defense. This is not just a security issue. The United States also provides reserve assets, serves as a consumer of first and last resort, and absorbs excess supply in the face of insufficient demand. In other countries' domestic models, the system is not sustainable. Then he says, access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream. The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can

achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this. And so what I thought was particularly interesting about that is it doesn't help you sell higher prices. And what Donald Trump talked about, like most Americans are going to like that to them sounds like airy in the clouds BS. I really like it because it's not how the conservative movement has talked about these things ever. And it's true.

And I think it's sort of interesting he didn't include families in that calculation and didn't talked about these things ever. And it's true. And I think it's sort of interesting. He didn't include families in that calculation and didn't talk about neighborhoods and communities. He just talked about economic mobility and all that sort of thing, which is great. But, you know, we could go into a different rabbit hole on that. But most Americans are like, sure. Yeah. But these eggs are ten dollars. Cool, man. So Trump pivoted to Biden when he was talking about eggs in the joint address. And you can only coast off of that for so long. I think he's probably fine right now,

still blaming Biden, but I don't think that lasts much longer politically. I think that it only is going to last for a little bit longer for them. And think about what actually worked. To Crystal's point about McKinley getting got by that anarchist, who comes in then? Teddy Roosevelt. And he's like, oh, I've got an actual solution here. I'm going to smash corporate power. I'm busting up all of these trusts and I'm going to raise up regular people. So you went from this kind of fake

populism of we're going to do tariffs and he's trying to like you know drain off the energy from william jennings brian tariffs and imperialism by the way tariffs and imperialism exactly um that that actually turned out to be just bs and didn't work what when then roosevelt comes in and takes on corporate power and and brings in a progressive era you know launches like government regulation of these corporate entities. And all of a sudden you start getting real economic growth again. Combined with a loose monetary policy by accidentally finding a whole lot of silver in the West. Which actually proved William Jennings Bryan right.

That you did need looser silver policy. But anyway, that's a different part of it. It's just like crypto. It's just like crypto. Yeah, there you go. Some parallels there. Yeah, actually. All right. Let's move on to a little bit of the Democrats here. And I'm curious for Ryan's reaction, first and foremost. So, you know, Al Green did his protest on the floor saying, you know, you have no mandate to cut Medicaid. He's been really on a tear, like very laser focused on Medicaid in particular, because his district, you know, has a lot of Medicaid recipients. So he feels it's quite important to the fortunes of his constituents. And you had Jeffries and other leaders, Catherine Clark and Pete Aguilar, who gathered what they describe as roughly a

dozen Democratic disruptors. They were called into a come to Jesus meeting on Thursday morning, the senior Dem told Axios. This also comes on the heels of a censure vote of Al Green in the House, where, you know, it's mostly overwhelmingly, obviously, every Republican voting to censure him. But you did have 10 Democrats cross the aisle, Ryan, to stand up in favor of decorum. So, you know, which is it just says so much about this party, to be honest with you. But Ryan, what was what was your thought about this come to Jesus meeting over how dare you disrupt the president of the United States? These were all Democrats who were in pretty Republican-leading districts, had very close elections.

So this is them kind of pandering to that constituency. I think that Jesus had a way forward for people, for his flock, his disciples. Amen, Brother Ryan. Emily can tell us a little bit more about this. But if you have a come to Jesus meeting and Jesus doesn't actually have any ideas for you, that meeting is going to break up pretty quickly jesus got his power and his charisma and his following because you know he had ideas about how they were going to go forward in the world true i don't think hakeem jeffries has any ideas right now so it's like

come to jeffries move come to come to jeffries and they're like okay well hakeem tell us then you know what is the path forward and he's like i don't know what are you asking me for we don't have any power he's like i know we're gonna put out this uh cringe tiktok video with you why haven't you guys done your tiktok videos yet yeah one where they were all scripted doing the same thing that's what that's been the democratic parties in compliance with decorum approach to resistance here. Can I say, that reminds me so much of 2009, 2010, when just the lamest Republicans who were trying to catch up with Democrats after the Facebook election. On Facebook, Twitter.

It's shocking to me. They'd take a picture of their breakfast.. And it's like shocking to me. They'd take a picture of their breakfast. Yeah. No, it's true that they would. It's truly shocking to me as someone who grew up in the era where like Republicans were the epitome of cringe on social media, that it is now Democrats. And it happened very, very quickly. Like Republicans used to, I mean, I think politics is always pretty cringe on social media, but Republicans used to actually envy the way Democrats were able to speak more like fluently on social media. And they spoke the language of social media more fluently. And now it's completely reversed.

But on this point about Hakeem Jeffries, he is terrible. He's so, so bad. Surprisingly, surprisingly bad. Not the man for the moment. I never thought I'd long for the leadership of Nancy Pelosi. But at least the woman has some skills, like has some

Machiavellian flair to her. This is the thing. Republicans would look at Nancy Pelosi and they would say, what we did with George Santos, this is how they would see it. They actually lost battles because they kicked out George Santos and they looked back on that afterwards and they were like, Nancy Pelosi would never have done that in the same way that Nancy Pelosi probably would never have forced this struggle session over what Al Green did. I don't think Al Green's optics were great like censor him when people want you to be harder on Trump.

Like the optics of both are bad. Here's the thing, too. Sorry, Emily, I didn't mean to cut you off. But the thing with Al Green is, OK, let's say you feel like, oh, the optics were bad of him, you know, standing up with his cane and the thing. But you know what Republicans have figured out, and Trump in particular has figured out, is if you are able to generate controversy in a conversation, which Al Green did, then you can move the political dialogue in the direction that you want. And so what I appreciated about what Al Green did is immediately afterwards, he's escorted out and he says, I am here and I'm willing to stand up and I will take the consequences because they will not cut Medicaid and they will not go after my constituents. And I don't care if they do censure me. I am here to fight. And so now if Democrats were smart enough to say, yeah, he's right. These Medicaid cuts are outrageous and they're going to

be incredibly destructive. Now you switch the conversation to an issue where you are overwhelmingly on the side of the people and it's Republicans who are having to respond. Instead, you have the Democrats forcing some hand-wringing conversation about decorum. And meanwhile, you're also pissing off your own base who are like, yes, Al Green, you're a hero. Thank you for doing something. Yes, Jasmine Crockett, who also was called into this meeting and berated for her resistance not being appropriate with decorum, whatever.

I don't think, Ryan, that Democratic leadership has internalized, that it not just like lefties like you and me who are mad at the establishment Democrats at this point they have lost the libs like the heart like the democratic base like the backbone of this party

who were in love with Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi they are like fuck you Hakeem Jeffries screw you like we are disgusted. And I don't think they've reckoned with the fact that it's not just, you know, this group of like progressives and lefties that they're used to sneering at and used to marginalizing that has they have gotten crosswise with at this point. Yeah, they're lucky that, you know, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times seem OK.

You know, they're just they're just going to kind of let this they're just going to step back and let Hakeem Jeffries just play this thing out. Because as Emily pointed out wisely the other day, there's a very similar dynamic to the problems that Republican leadership faced during the Tea Party. Yeah. And there was an insurgency then. And within like a cycle or two, they had been wiped, you know, the old guard had basically been wiped out and sent back to their kind of readout

at the Chamber of Commerce. What they had, though, was Fox News. Like, you know, sending cameras to every single Tea Party rally. You know, 30 guys in Boehner's district would be driving the news for for that night on fox and once you know eric canter was beaten fox was like all in on the tea party movement and the left yeah which doesn't have aoc aoc beat joe crowley and became

an enemy for several years right you know if if there was a left media that then rallied behind that element, it would own the party by now. But of course, CNN, MSNBC, these are like corporate backed media. And there's no overlap between left populism and corporate media. Where there can be with right populism and corporate media, where there can be with right populism and corporate media. Because they're not at odds ultimately with superpower. But what's interesting is that in 2017-ish, whatever, actually I thought we did see an interesting reception that the sort of populist left got on corporate media

because everybody was together under the banner of the resistance yeah and now there's nothing like that because as long as they were going after trump right right right exactly so but now corporate media like hakeem jeffries is terrified that the jasmine crockett's of the world and crockett has been on msnbc or whatever else but like they're terrified of the jasmine crockett's of the world and Crockett has been on MSNBC or whatever else but like they're terrified of the Jasmine Crockett's of the world actually um making them look like they've they're still on the wrong side of the culture war and so CNN and Hakeem Jeffries right now are going to be really risk averse about um platforming populism anything that smacks of populism even if it's coming from like corporate friendly Democrats, because they are

like, we need to get back, they don't understand that actually economic left populism is what people want. And if you get rid of cultural populism, like cultural left populism, you're taking down the left economic populists with them. And what's left is really unpopular, corporate democratic BS. Right. And Jasmine right and jasmine crocker doesn't have doesn't bring forward and she doesn't lead with a class analysis right uh and so so there's nothing threatening about that and she's extremely talented you know in the way that she kind of rips apart republicans and so she makes for great tv and there's nothing threatening there uh you that what was that marjorie taylorene riff she had? Bleach blonde.

I mean, that was just... Yeah, yeah, that's true. Yeah, that's true. She really... She is down. Whatever it was, she just nailed that. Yeah. But there's nothing threatening there to... There's nothing threatening there to corporate power. Yeah, I mean, she's a little bit of a polymarket populist, if you would, because she is like

crypto-backed, very like, you know, in terms of her economics. She's... I reported in my book, The, that crypto people came to her during her first campaign. And it was basically like, we'll wipe you out or we'll support you. Oh, that was her. Oh, interesting.

I remember that. You remember that section? Yeah, that was her. She's like, give me the damn questionnaire. Yeah. I don't care. I'm not for crypto.

I'm not against it. I don't care. I don't understand it. Just tell me where i need to sign to not get nuked and that's yeah and you can blame her for that but it's also that's a real problem with how our campaigns are financed that's true and they made an example as you pointed out of katie porter and after that it really was just like basically capitulation um i real quick want to get to because this ties in so much, the Gavin Newsom, Charlie Kirk thing

before Emily has to jump. Do you have a hard out at 10, Em? Ish, yeah. Okay, all right. So we can get a few minutes from you on this. So Gavin Newsom has launched a podcast, God Save Us, okay? And he's announced a few-

Pod Save Us. What's it called? Is it like Gab and Gavin? I don't know. Gabin and Gavin? I don't know. Gab and with Gavin? I don't know. I don't know. But his, I don't know.

I think his first episode, I haven't tracked it that closely, was just himself, which is kind of appropriate. He talked about the Menendez brothers, too. Are you serious? Okay. The second episode, he has Charlie Kirk on. And first of all, this was interesting to me. He tells Charlie Kirk what a big fan his son is of him.

So let's take a listen to a little bit of that. And then we can play the piece that has gotten the most attention, which is Gavin Newsom on trans girls in sports. Last night, trying to put my son to bed. He's like, no, dad. I just, what time? What time's Charlie going to be here? What time?

And I'm like, dude, you're in school tomorrow. He's 13. He's like, no, no what time what time's charlie gonna be here what time and i'm like dude you're in school tomorrow he's 13 he's like no no this morning wakes up at six up then he's like i'm coming i'm like he literally would not leave the house did you let him take off school no he did of course not he's not here for a good reason but the point is the point school for like two years once one day the point is the point which is you are making a damn dent. I'm kidding. When you go to these college campuses, I love watching your TikTok, which is next level. All right. That's enough of that.

But I just wanted to use that as a way to say, like, I'm sorry, Gavin Newsom. You're a bad dad. Like, you should not be letting your kid watch this trash. And also, if you are raising your child with any sort of, quote unquote, progressive values, like maybe reflect on where you went astray that he is in love with Charlie Kirk. I, to me,

I, I don't, I wouldn't want to ban my kids from watching Charlie Kirk or anybody, but I would do a lot of deep self reflection about what I had done. There is no way to get them there. I have an 11 year old son, almost 12. No way in hell. I would let him watch any ofyear-old son, almost 12. No way in hell I would let him watch

any of that kind of trash. No way. No way. It's an interesting... Yeah, because YouTube is such a mess. You go from Minecraft, and then quickly you're into this right manosphere stuff.

True. Absolutely true. Emily, any reflections? Well, I don't have children children so i don't have to make this decision but um what if they're watching a son biker you know yeah i would i mean i would be all for that i think it's like the i do work with a lot of like younger people um because i'm in that like right wing world of student stuff. And what I find is the reason they're drawn to people like Charlie Kirk

and Ben Shapiro is they feel like they're getting a moral clarity from it. And actually a lot of them watch Hasan Piker too because they like watching people who aren't mushy middle centrists. They like watching people who tell them something and are utterly convinced of it because it makes them feel like they're listening to something that's true. So I have no idea what path Gavin Newsom's son is on. But I think the podcast is really interesting for the exact reason we were just talking about with Jasmine Crockett, which is that Gavin Newsom is totally the type of person who like he can he's going to pivot. He's such a chameleon. He's at like,

he's smart enough to know that you have to look transparent and authentic. And like Kamala Harris could have gone on Joe Rogan and shot herself in the foot by just looking like a robot. Like she went on call her daddy and it didn't really make a dent because she just was Kamala Harris, like talking to Lester Holt when she was on call her daddy. Like it was just, there was nothing authentic about it. It was same, like same old political robotics. But he's at least smart enough to know that you got to try to just look down to

earth. Like you're shooting the shit with Charlie, but he can't, he's not going to be able to be a chameleon on economics. He can do it on culture stuff, but he's not going to be able to do it on corporate stuff. Well, and he's smart enough to realize, like, oh, I got to do a podcast. You know, I got I got to be relatable. That's the lowest common denominator. He's not smart enough to recognize that. So when I saw he had Charlie Kirk on and I think he has some other right wing guests booked next. I can't remember who it is, but Rick Caruso, maybe.

I don't know. I was like, oh, well, if he has them on and he fights with them, liberals are going to love that because Gavin is. I mean, he did the Ron DeSantis debate. Democratic base voters never loved him more than when he did that. And he has the capability to then when i see that actually this was like a hot stone massage interview like you don't understand where the base of the democratic party is right now because you may think this is smart positioning you know with regard to like you know taking the l so to speak on trans girls and sports throwing them under the bus whatever you may think that's smart positioning for a general election you got a primary to get through first. And right now he's sort of placing the same bet of like the Hakeem Jeffries of the world

and leaping past where the Democratic base is to where he thinks the quote-unquote moderate middle will ultimately be. Well, to your point, Emily, totally skipping up, he's a corporate back guy, corporate donor guy. There's no way he's going to move on economics. He's sort of a populist piece. So instead, what does he got to do? He's got to like throw trans people under the bus, throw immigrants under the bus, et cetera. in terms of what the Democratic base needs to say, wants to see, that it was honestly a little bit astonishing to me that he was this tone deaf. Well I just put up on the screen to your point this he chose to tweet this excerpt with the

line, no one believes pornography should be taught in schools obviously but that's not why four thousand plus books have been banned, the Republican Party has been a banning bench, I disagree with that but whatever. It's so interesting to me that he chose to post that excerpt because i feel like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too he's trying to throw red meat at the democratic base and then also uh create clickbait on the right you know like he he is trying to use this where's the red where's the red meat for the democratic base that part i didn't see the republican party has been on a banning binge right like he's trying to like pump up the left like yeah the republicans are book banners and gavin newsom is he's you know holding the line um well he's talking you know about cultural issues like trans sports in a different way

what do you what did you think of all this ryan in this clip he didn't actually hold the line he had a he it was like he didn't know where he was yet in the clip he's like but he posted it in a way that made it look like he did right in the clip though he's like there shouldn't be pornography in the schools we all agree with that and then Charlie Kirk's like okay then

I'll show you some books that are pornographic and have pornographic images in them, and you agree we should remove those. And he goes back to, well, I don't really want the government making those decisions. Right. Which is like, well, you just said that the government

shouldn't allow pornography in schools. So should they or shouldn't they? So you come, like a voter watching that from both sides would be like, well, we're not actually sure where you stand on this question yet. And it should be an easy one. Because if you say that there shouldn't be pornography in schools, like you just said that, that's your position, then obviously you have to get out of there if somebody identifies one that fits that category. When they come back and they're like, well, the Bible should be banned and so should this Bill O'Reilly book and so should Toni Morrison, then you slam them as like extremist nutjobs. Right. But he – I don't know. I don't know.

And I don't quite know why he can't like just make that little concession. Yeah. Well, here's why I'm a little bit grateful that Gavin Newsom has misread the moment to this extent, because I think right now liberals just want someone who's going to put up a fight. That's it, right? It's very inchoate. They're very disappointed in leadership. They want to see someone match the energy of the moment. And the people, by and large, who are matching the energy of the moment are on the left. Then you have some people who are like a Jasmine Crockett who, look, I've appreciated that she's been out there fighting it. Like you said, Ryan, she's really talented.

But there is a danger that you end up with someone like a Gavin or a Pete who are politically like they're good at being sort of like political debate bros who use their willingness to directly challenge Republicans as a way to Trojan horse in yet another standard neoliberal establishment agenda. Like liberals, I think would be very susceptible to that right now. If you just see someone who was like a normal Democrat, but who was willing to fight with the Charlie Kirk, who's willing to tell him to their face, to go on Fox News and like hold their own. Maxine Waters in 2017. Right. And the specific policy issues come sort of secondary. So I think there's a real possibility that you end up with a Democratic primary where someone who is able to sort of posture as a fighter, but then just really is upholding the status quo is what the liberal

base wants. So I am grateful to Gavin Newsom for just having this very, like basically capitulating to Charlie Kirk in this conversation and not going down the path of posturing like he's gonna be some renegade fighter for any sort of like populist or different principle

than has reigned in the Democratic Party and been a total failure for years and years. Because I do think he would be one of those candidates that, look, he's a talented guy in a certain respect. And I think he there would be a real danger of him being able to win in a Democratic primary and then just basically be, you know, Kamala Harris or whatever. I've got to run, guys. All right. Thank you. Ryan, you want to play the last? there's one more clip right yeah i got one more this is the um trans girls in sports i can get your reaction to this on the other side this is the one that made the most um news here like you right now should come out and be like you know what the young man who's about to win the state championship

in the long jump in female sports right that's that that shouldn't happen you as the governor should step out and say no. No one I appreciate. And like would you do something like that. Would you say no men and females. Well I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. So that's easy to call out the unfairness of that. There's also a humility and grace that these poor people are more likely to commit suicide have anxiety and depression. And the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well. So both things I can hold in my hand. How can we address this issue with the kind of decency that I think is inherent in you, but not always expressed? What do you think of that, Ryan? I mean, I think they're getting closer to an answer on this question that keeps bedeviling them. I mean, I think the first answer should always be you're raising this, like, distraction of an issue that affects, like, you know, 0.01% of the population because you don't want people to pay attention to the fact that you're robbing them blind.

I think that's – you should always remind people of that fact. You also don't want to look like you're dodging the question because it is something that some people care about. And if you look like you're dodging it, you got to give some answer. You obviously don't want to embrace the kind of transphobic language of misgendering people the way that Kirk insists on doing in that conversation. But I do think that Democrats have no chance to win on this question. Like three or four years ago, I wrote a story about a poll and a memo that the Transgender Law Center had been circulating that, you know, very, very, very pro-trans organization that was like, we've done polling, we've done focus grouping. The numbers on this are just absolutely abysmal. Like the public, and every argument that we made on behalf of our

position made the public less likely, not more likely, to support our position. So you're not going to win. No amount of pushing on this issue is going to get you to a place where you're winning. And so then when you lose on that issue, you end up losing on a whole slew of other issues as well. And so I think his point about the fairness, it's so then what do you do? All right. And I think the prison question is an interesting one too. And so if Democrats, you know, Democrats say, look, there's, they don't like when people say there's only two genders um but then if that's the case why should there be only two divisions you know men's prison women's prison or men's sports women's sports you know maybe there needs to be uh you know cis men cis women and and uh and like non-binary

yeah category or if when it comes to prison like trans men and trans women are segregated yeah cis women cis men like this is something that we can think about as a society in a respectful way that that gives dignity to people and but but also like absorbs how people feel about it and aren't gonna and are not going to change no matter what. According to all of the polling and focus grouping and conversations on common sense, where do you come down on it? Yeah, I mean, I think everything you said is reasonable. Where I get upset is you had immediately after the election,

you had a few members of Congress that were like, oh, well, the problem for the Democratic Party is they just need to surrender on this issue in particular. And because the polling is so bad. And I get that the polling is bad, but it ignores a few things. I mean, first of all, it ignores how bad the polling is for Republicans on certain issues, especially like Donald Trump pardoning violent January Sixers who beat up cops. Really unpopular, like extremely unpopular, you know, taking over Greenland, really unpopular. Even core parts of his economic agenda right now on tariffs, really, really unpopular.

Cutting Social Security, cutting Medicaid, really unpopular. And so where I get very skeptical is when you have people like Gavin Newsom, who think that this is all it's very convenient for them to say, like, oh, we just need to basically sort of throw these vulnerable people under the bus. And that's the key back to Democratic Party, because it allows them to continue operating as they were. It allows them to keep taking big money, you know, from donors because it allows them to continue operating as they were. It allows them to keep taking big money, you know, from donors. It allows them to keep pushing a really status quo agenda in terms of economics. And the other piece where I worry is, you know, Republicans initially postured like, oh, well, we only care about trans, you know, trans kids. Like, if you're an adult,

do whatever you want of course the free country etc etc now you've got a law up in texas where people who identify as trans could be prosecuted for fraud so that's the other piece is like i think there's a fear the congresswoman from delaware yeah is um you know being called a man by her and she's an adult like so yes this is like claim that they only care about kids and adults should be able to make the choices that they want to make is yeah he lied by their actual reality i just i reject the idea that this issue is actually the reason why democrats are struggling i think it has much more to do with selling out the working class. And so if your answer doesn't lead with like, there's literally like a dozen

trans girls in sports in the entire country. And so if you're fixated on this, you are not definitionally like thinking about the issues that actually impact millions and millions of Americans. And then it's not that important to me ultimately where you fall on this particular issue, because I do think it is a challenging one. I don't think that, you know, the sort of like binary works for everything. I think there is a question of fairness. I think it could even vary sport to sport what the right answer ultimately looks like. But if you are foregrounding this as like the central party for the Democratic Party, that's where I have an issue.

And that's, I think, the camp that Gavin Newsom very much falls into. Yeah. But like what you said is like, was not what they were saying before. Before they were drawing a very hard line on this, rather than saying, you know, this is open for discussion. We need to figure all of this out. I think they're probably ultimately going to say like, this isn't something for states and localities to work out. And I don't have any problem with that answer. What I do have a problem with is, first of all, the misgendering and the just instinct to sort of throw this like, oh, this group's a problem for us. So we're just going to throw them under the bus. Oh, immigration is, we're just going to throw that under the bus rather than actually making a case for your views and ideals and there's so much of

an instinct in the democratic party right now to just capitulate on any area where they're you know where they're underwater polling wise and that is not how the republican party operates at all like not even a little it's certainly not how donald trump operates at all so i think it is just like wildly learning the wrong lessons from the last election yeah um well ryan thank you so much for spending some time with us this morning and it was a pleasure yes indeed i'm sure they're going to be like 18 million more stories that break over the weekend that saga and i will struggle to squeeze into a show on monday if anything truly huge breaks we will make sure to cover it over the weekend then guys enjoy your Friday, enjoy your weekend. And Sokka and I will see you guys on Monday.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series

examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. 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. Arthur writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back.

Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room.

You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.