Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/10/25: Jon Stewart Rips Jeffries, AIPAC Exposed By Wine Moms, Bibi Records With NELK, Amazon Sales Plunge

Episode Date: July 10, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Jon Stewart rips Jeffries, AIPAC exposed by lib wine moms, Bibi records with NELK boys, Amazon prime day sales plunge.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart podcast. that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. So in the wake of Zoran Mamdani's Democratic primary victory, you've got a number of establishment Democrats

who are starting to sweat a little bit about a potential primary challenge from the left. Hakeem Jeffries was asked about this possibility for himself on CNN. Let's take a listen to what he had to say. I have no idea what these people are talking about. We are gonna continue to focus our efforts as we did on the House floor in connection

with Donald Trump's one big ugly bill on pushing back against the extremism that has been unleashed on the American people. It's clear to us as members of the New York City delegation that the problem is Donald Trump and House Republicans. What do you mean by that?

Are you being honest when you say you don't know why they're targeting you? You know why they're targeting you. Oh, no, I'm not. I know why they're targeting me. You know why they're targeting me.

But I don't care that they're targeting me. Why don't you say it? You know why they're targeting me. I think they're targeting me because I'm pro-Israel. That's 100% right. Yeah, that's the issue. They are targeting you because of you. So are you why they're targeting me, but I don't care that they're targeting me. Why don't you say it? You know why they're targeting me. I think they're targeting me because I'm pro-Israel. That's 100% right. Yeah, that's the issue.

So are you saying they're targeting you and all of these other individuals? You've got Clark, Hakeem, Tempsey, Sanders. I am specifically targeted because of my position on Israel. By the way, he's been courageous on this issue, and he's had a backbone, and he has stood up to the wacko radicals in his party on this, and he deserves all the credit in the world for it. But that's why he's on the list because these people have a burning hatred for Israel. It's one of their main pieces of their platform and that's why they put him on the list and it's terrible. So starting there with Hakeem Jeffries and then to Richie Torres who starts looking very

uncomfortable as Scott Jennings starts singing his phrase on CNN. And I mean look these people, they should be afraid right now because the Democratic base, in a way I have never seen before, they are disgusted with the Hakeem Jeffries of the world. And you know what, on Israel, listen, most people are not gonna be voting on Israel and Gaza. However, this is beginning to be a sort of like

gatekeeping litmus test issue within the Democratic primary base. Because it's an indication of are you willing, are you going to fight, are you willing to stand up for things that are different, are you willing to stand up against moneyed interests, and do you have any like core principles that do you have basic humanity and any basic values that we can rely on? So yes, the fact that Richie Torres, who represents one of the poorer districts in the country, has spent so much time fixated on supporting

a foreign country rather than trying to help out his own constituents in his own district. Yeah, that is gonna make you a target for a primary. And I very much suspect that he is going to face one. I think Hakeem Jeffries could as well. And I think both of them could potentially be very vulnerable here, specifically because of the way that the Democratic base has shifted in their view

of their own establishment leaders. Yeah, that's actually the important point. The important point is that it's not about Israel per se. Although, Ryan put this very eloquently yesterday about Epstein, and I think Israel has now become one of this. If you just repeat Epstein killed himself or any sort of establishment thing, people's baseline, it's not that they're voting on Epstein.

They're like, yeah, I don't trust this guy. They're like, this guy is captured. And if you talk about Israel and they're like, our strongest allies, the most moral army in the world, people are like, I don't know about this. That's kinda how I think it has become. Nobody's voting on it, they're just like, that becomes an entree point through which you can assess

what people think about all of these other things. That's how I would put it. And so to see Hakeem Jeffries then also fumble it in just such an immense way, both in terms of the way he's handled the bill, in the way that he handles the entire opposition to Trump, in the way that the Democratic Party really wants. You are absolutely ripe for a major takeover.

The question is, is what form does that take? You can correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Jeffries, I mean most of these districts that are heavily gerrymandered, it's gonna be pretty tough to actually get yourself a real primary that would be successful. No, you could get a real primary. Okay, I'm not quite sure.

Richie Torres, I have to look at Hakeem Jeffries. Richie Torres' district in particular, Zoran won. I think he won Hakeem Jeffries' district as well. But I'd have to double check on that one. I know he won Dan Goldman's district, which is like a lower Manhattan district as well. So I don't know if you followed this. Richie Torres, since Zoran's district, which is like a lower Manhattan district as well. So I don't know if you've followed this. Richie Torres, since Zoran's victory,

man has he done a 180. He stopped Israel posting. He'll only occasionally now post about Israel, whereas previously it was like every other tweet was about Israel, you know. He put up this video that he quickly took down because I think it was such an embarrassing copy, attempted copy of what Zoran was doing,

like the man on the street thing, and he's just getting ripped apart, so he deleted it. He has gone to bat for Zoran in the context of saying these Islamophobic attacks on him are unacceptable. So he definitely recognizes that he has an issue, and that he has a vulnerability. Hakeem Jafari is, I mean, he's like so rizzless that it's astonishing.

He is the biggest black hole of charisma I think I've ever seen in my entire life. I was watching his appearance on The View the other day just to see if there was like anything interesting there that we might wanna cover. And the way he talks, he does all these like disconnected hand motions while he's talking, that you can clearly see

some consultant was like, this is the way to punch up your presentation, and you need to be more, you need to, yeah, you need to use your hands, you need to be more energetic, and it just comes off like he's a traffic cop, or just very robotic. So for Richie Torres, the focus on Israel, he's like a traffic cop or, you know, just very robotic. So for Richie Torres, the focus on Israel, he's right, it's a problem for him. It is a problem.

When you have a huge gulf of a disconnect between where democratic leadership is and where the democratic base is on Israel, yes, that's an issue for you, no doubt about it. For Hakeem Jeffries, the fact that he has become a figure of public mockery across the board with your most normie possible liberal Democrats for his inability and unwillingness to fight Trump

in any real meaningful way and how absolutely pathetic he's been in this moment, yes, that makes him vulnerable too. Jon Stewart actually was taking shots at him over his like insanely cringe pathetic posting around the one big beautiful bill. Let's go ahead and take a look a little bit at what Jon Stewart had to say. But at least Democrats still have Hakeem Jeffries

over in the house. He's a younger leader. And he decided not to answer with words, but with imagery. Hakeem Jeffries on Instagram, he's got a baseball bat and he says House Democrats will keep the pressure on Trump's one big ugly bill. ["Hakeem Jeffries is a I'm not a Trump fan"]

Hakeem Jeffries answered with imagery. Imagery that sends a clear message to Republicans that Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats are waiting for their moms to pick them up from T-ball. Yeah, just absolutely pathetic. So here's- Do you keep the sneakers in that too? Oh my God.

Yeah, it's a lesson. Stop dressing like shit. Sterile also made a good point of like, don't you know that if you wanna look intimidating, the angle is from below so you look larger, not above. So it shrinks you down. See, he doesn't even know all these basics and apparently he's been caught using Facetune now

multiple times. That is humiliating. There was this picture he posted of himself on Instagram where he's like leaning up against a park bench and you can see very obviously, like the park bench is all wavy and manipulated from whatever they were doing to like, I don't know, make his hips smaller or something.

That was my friend Julie Grace. What are you doing? Julie Grace, who is a great reporter I recommend people follow, who's spotted the FaceTune. So shout out to her. There's also this, this is really fun. Let's put this next one up on the screen about, you know, eyeing him for a primary.

And they respond, if team gentrification wants a primary fight, our response will be forceful and unrelenting. We will teach them and all of their incumbents a painful lesson. So branding them team gentrification is, I mean, what is that exactly? It's like the way that they're kind of trying to frame this

as Zoran is just like the rich, white leftist candidate, and they're like the original residents of New York candidate, but I mean, it doesn't really fit with a lot of the data, you know, that has come out of the primary itself, especially if he was able to win your district. Yeah, no, no, that's exactly right. And I mean, it's also rich coming from Hakeem Jeffries,

who takes, of course, money from all kinds of private equity and whatever that are actually doing the gentrification. And from Hakeem Jeffries, who has been a leader in the Democratic Party as it has pivoted to be a richer white college educated party, like that being the center of gravity within the Democratic Party.

Let's put C4 up on the screen just to dig into some of these numbers. So first of all, Zoran now, after all the ranked choice voting, he has now won the largest number of primary votes for a Democratic candidate in New York City of all time. Now, it is a little bit different because this ranked choice voting now wasn't before, blah, blah, blah, but that is still a really significant accomplishment.

You don't do that by just winning what they call the commie corridor. He made huge inroads into some of the hardcore Cuomo base. And now keep this up on the screen. This is polling for if you, if all five candidates stay in the race through the general, this is what it ultimately looks like. And you've got Zoran winning, you know,

most every constituency. You have him winning white voters, black voters, Latino voters, Asian voters, college educated. Cuomo does beat him among non-college by about three points. But you can't look at this and say, oh, this is just wealthy white people gentrifiers. Like that is a preposterous way of, he's winning Latino voters by 21 points.

And, you know, for all the, there's been so much analysis about why left-wing candidates struggle with the like black democratic base. What you see from these numbers is, yeah, once you're the democratic nominee, this is a constituency that's primarily loyal to the democratic party, they're by and large gonna vote for you.

So, in any case, any sort of look at the data with an unbiased eye shows that this coalition was much broader than the way certainly that Hakeem Jeffries is trying to portray it here. And who his base is at this point, Hakeem Jeffries, I don't know. I mean, maybe people in his district have some feeling about him that's different

than the national narrative. I'm sure it will not be easy to unseat him, but I'm sure he has to be nervous, and if he has any sense whatsoever, he has to be nervous because he truly is a primary target. And last thing here before we get to the I've had it ladies, it's so crazy to me that you have this guy, you have the Democratic Party doing all this soul searching,

oh my God, how do we appeal to young people again? How do we get the bros back? And how do we get excitement back into this party and make people trust us? Here comes Zoran out of nowhere. People freaking love this guy. They love him. He's a rock star, he's compelling.

He understands the, he's got a message that clearly resonates with people, like hit the nail on the head there. And then he also understands the medium of the moment. Like he is a sort of native TikToker where, you know, it's the vertical video and he's very comfortable in that form. And this is the way that the public greets this guy

on the street at this point. Let's go ahead and play C6. Yes, yes, that's me, that's me, yes. Oh, excuse me, I need to take a photo. Yeah, yeah, we can take one. I voted somebody that won something. Thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you so much. I'll take yours. Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you so much. Enjoy. Thank you. How's it going, guys? Thank you. Thank you.

How you doing, brother? Thank you, thank you. Thank you, my man. I appreciate you. Thank you. Can I take one too? Yeah, yeah, I appreciate it. Hi.

Salaam alaikum. How are you? I think she's coming. I voted for you. Thank you. I voted for you. You voted for me. So here you? I think she's coming. I'm worried for you. Thank you. I'm worried. I'm worried for you.

You go to the police. So here you have this guy who is a true star and the instinct of the Democratic Party establishment is like, what can we do to destroy him? Tells you so much about the party. I see, I respect a renegade when they are there and I can see and recognize somebody who's got genuinely political talent, but that's what makes him vulnerable because that's ultimately why he was there in the first place.

It does look a lot better for him than in the initial days. I think he's gonna win. I do. I don't think he's, I don't see, I mean Adams is, it's possible. That's the only possible thing. He has a very low approval rating.

No, people are so delusional about Eric Adams. Eric Adams has a 20% approval rating in the city of New York. He has the lowest mayoral approval in the history of that city. Like, even if, in fact, I actually think Cuomo is probably the stronger candidate against Zoran if you are in the Bill Ackman camp of like, let's clear out the rest of the field. These guys all hate each other.

They're not looking out to get out of the way of one another in order to be able to win. And Sliwa's gonna pull his like 18% the rest of the field. These guys all hate each other. They're not looking out to get out of the way of one another in order to be able to win. And Sliwa's gonna pull his like 18% or whatever of the vote. I mean, I don't know. It's certainly possible they'll be able to take him out. But also if you look, Zoran has much higher favorability than any of these other candidates too. So he's getting all the union backing at this point.

Like there is a consolidation of sort of like those sorts of power bases within the city behind him, which is also gonna make him very difficult to beat at this point. Definitely. All right, let's go and get to the I've had it ladies who I am loving. So Emily educated me on what's the name of their

Bravo reality show? Sweet Home. So they came from the Bravo world. Emily calls it, it was like this Hick Lib show, she absolutely hated it. They're Sweet Home, Oklahoma. Yeah, and they still live in Oklahoma. And they now do this political podcast.

And I've sort of watched over time as they have gone from just being like very wine mom resistance to being sort of increasingly radicalized. And I think that they are representative of something that is happening in the Democratic base. And it fits certainly in with what's going on with Zoran. But watch them go in on the politicians who,

the newer politicians who have not gotten behind Zoran and then putting up, they go to the APAC tracker and they put up all the money that all of these politicians are getting from APAC and pointing to that as the reason why they won't support Zoran Mamdani. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this. Representative Laura Gillen, $94,905.

Representative Adriano Esbilat, I'm butchering his last name, $202,000. Representative Tom Swazi,, 202,000. Representative Tom Swasey, $312,000. Representative Dan Goldman, $366,000. Representative Gregory Meeks, $690,000. Representative Grace Ming, $619,000. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, almost a million dollars coming in at $997,000. I will remind you that she engaged in Islamophobic attacks on this mayoral candidate and didn't

defend Islamophobia, yet is so quick to call out anybody as being anti-Semitic. And that's the thing in this, is that we can speak out against the provocations and the war crimes of the Israeli government, and they don't get to hold us hostage and tell us we're anti-Semitic. That's bullshit and don't fall into that trap. Next up, Representative Richie Torres, $1.5 million. Senator Chuck Schumer, $1.5 million. Senator Chuck Schumer, $1.7 million. Joaquin Jeffries, $1.7 million. Representative George Latimer, $19 million.

So, this is the kind of lady stalker who definitely would have been a Hillary Clinton in the Bernie versus Hillary. Definitely would have been Hillary. The allegations of antisemitism in a previous moment definitely would have cowed them, where they, oh, we can't say that, we can't talk about that, whatever. And now here she is, like, this is bullshit, your weaponization of antisemitism, here's Kirsten Gillibrand taking a million dollars

from AIPAC, like, screw all of these people. And I was telling you, I listened to, actually, this whole episode of them talking about APAC and talking about Hakeem Jeffries and Zoran Mamdani, et cetera. And it was really clear that the language around Israel and Palestine, like they're not fluent in the language.

And you know there's all these tripwires of how to talk about, you know, is it the IDF or is it the IOF and the occupation? Like all this stuff, right? The language and the vernacular and the history, et cetera. And these are also the type of people that, because they didn't feel like they were experts on the conflict, previously would have just said,

it must be complicated, I'm just gonna stay out of it. No more. Like, she was perfectly willing to take a position, call it out, say we're not standing for the murder of these babies and you all need to get on board. And so I do see that as a sort of sea change. And so while I don't want to overstate how central this issue is,

I actually do think that it's becoming a very important dividing line in the Democratic Party. It reminds me of back in the days when, you know, gay marriage was still very much a live issue. And maybe it wasn't the issue that everyone was voting on, but for young Democrats in particular, it was like a gatekeeping item. It was a litmus test item. If you weren't there on gay marriage,

then they really didn't want to hear the rest of what you had to say. Because that was an indication you're unprincipled. You have no political courage and willingness to stand up on an issue that, yes, at this moment is difficult. And it was a difficult issue at the time. Gaza has become that issue in the Democratic primary party. I do think it's going to be very important in 2028 because you just can't persist

with such a massive gulf between where the Democratic base is on something that is very emotional and visceral versus where the Democratic leadership is. And so that's why I think these ladies are very important indication of the radicalization, the shift that has happened in the Democratic base on this issue. But that, you know, then dovetails into, well, who then are you? Is she aligning herself with Zoran Ramdani? You know, one of the furthest less characters in the party on fighting Trump. Who does someone like her end up aligning with? It's Bernie. It's AOC.

It's she also would love like a Jasmine Crockett people who are out there and who are fighting. And so that's what's really profoundly different within the Democratic Party. Yeah, it's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way. I mean, I don't know though. In the gay marriage point though, Obama ran in 2008 and basically, didn't take a position on gay marriage.

I mean, the way that I would see it then in Israel is somebody who's just not pro-Israel and tries to ride the, you know, everyone knew Obama was for a gay marriage, but he was like, oh, I'm not gonna take a position on it effectively at the time and didn't really come out. But it was- I think he came out until 2013. oh, I'm not gonna take a position on it, effectively at the time, and didn't really come out. I think it came out until 2013, if I may say? The era I'm talking about is a little bit after that.

So when I ran for Congress in 2010, I came out for gay marriage, and I was like, oh my God. It was a big deal. And so 2010, 2012, that's really the era of politics that I'm talking about, where it became this sort of like, you know, it was a statement issue, where it became this sort of like, you know, it was a statement issue where it told you what side you were on, whether you had any political courage

or whether you were just someone who was gonna go along with what was the path of police resistance. I can see that, but I don't predict a Zoran type figure being the national Democratic candidate on Israel. I just don't think that they're willing to go that far. Or maybe, I'd have to go back and look exactly at what he said, but I don't think that the future Democratic nominee will say the words genocide, apartheid, state.

They'll probably say something along the lines of what's happened there is a civilian catastrophe and we should reexamine our relationship with that. But in terms of the way the left discourses around this, I don't think that's ever going to happen. But with this, also though, rejecting the criticism of anti-Semitism, I could see that, for sure. I could definitely see something like that happen.

With these women, yeah, it's interesting in terms of the way that the Israel relationship and all of that is being re-examined by the political base. And the only reason it's kind of an interesting idea is to the extent of how, quote, she wants to fight on all of this. I'm still a bit skeptical. I mean, I wasn't here whenever you guys,

didn't she do some trans thing with her and Rahm Emanuel? So I'm like, well, you know, it's like, I'm still seeing a lot of these like toxic cultural left elements with these like suburban wine mums. I just don't think that's particularly like going to go anywhere. I mean, it may be nice, you know, to go viral online, but like, I don't see that, you know, being resurrected

as a major political issue or some sort of litmus test like that in the future. I don't disagree that you should quote abandoning principles or whatever should be happening on the stage, but I don't see the same vernacular around the way that she may wanna talk about these types of things being talked about on the democratic stage in the future. So it's probably like a marriage of the two

on Israel, immigration, and any cultural issues in the future. So it's probably like a marriage of the two on Israel, immigration, and any cultural issues in the future. People don't want like naked abandonment, which is kind of what I think you're talking about, but you know, not every Democratic stage is gonna be raising their, person on the Democratic stage is gonna be raising their hand talking about decriminalized border crossings

again, which is what happened back in 2019 during that primary. So I'm not so sure yet. She's a canary for me on the Israel issue, but I don't think that's the path of the way things are gonna be going. That's just my opinion. On Israel? No, no, on all issues.

I think it's more- I'm saying we should not look at her as like, what I'm saying is we should not look at the position that she's taking on all issues as kind of the way things are going to be going in the future. And that's kind of what explains how you can support somebody like Jasmine Crockett and AOC. It's like you don't actually have anything in common.

Well I think that the thing is the fighting Trump. And that's it. And that's also where something like transgender issues, where that comes in, why that clip of her with Rahm Emanuel who's just such a like lonesome piece of shit anyway, and he's like very punchable, you know, regardless of how you, where you are on any issue.

Why that resonated so much was not even so much about the particular issue. It was her willingness to say, you're just adopting a Republican framing and this is bullshit, and not to bend. And that's what's, the Democratic base previously, it was all about, oh, let's reach out, let's have bipartisanship, and let's get along.

That is over. And so I think that's more of what has been the response to her, the response to Hakeem Jeffries, the response to all of these like, you know, legacy democratic establishment leaders. And I actually think you're wrong on Israel-Gaza, especially because we're talking about, you know, a democratic primary, presidential primary

that's gonna happen a couple of years in the future. It already has become among the Democratic base, very large majority believes this is a genocide, I can guarantee you. And when you have what was so important about Zoran's victory in New York City is that he supports BDS. Like he is anti-Zionist.

He would not bend to their like, well does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state and he's like, as a state with equal rights. The fact you could do that in the city, in this country, that has not just the largest Jewish population, but this is a very significant part of New York culture. New York is very culturally like Jewish,

these are important institutions, and that he could do that and not only get away with it, I actually think it ended up helping his campaign because people were so disgusted with the way that Cuomo tried to weaponize anti-Semitism. That is going to be a signal to so many Democrats who are looking at how far they can, what they can say, how far they can go on this issue.

And if AIPAC's already against you, like what are you gonna, you know, what more can you throw at these people? So I do think there is going to be a sea change on this issue in the Democratic Party because you cannot sustain a situation where 80% of your base feels one way and the overall, like all of the Democratic leaders

basically feel a totally different way. I'm totally willing to be wrong. I just think policy-wise, I don't think we're all that different. I think the policy is going to be very different. But in terms of the way that they talk about it, I do think they're probably going to settle on some sort of middle ground issue.

I mean, even Zoran, he doesn't talk genocide. Even whenever he justifies BDS, he talks about it in terms of equal rights. It seems more like a moderate framing where if you're in the know, you're like, oh shit, that's actually quite radical At least for our current political project. That's the way I could see it becoming Something at a major political level, which is undeniable. I agree to be clear. Like I'm totally I think that's a good thing

I wish that all politicians would speak that way But I think it would be more politically accessible and also why it made the attacks on Zoran as anti-semitic so Preposterous because yeah, if you talk about it moderately and you're like, yeah, it's a state with equal rights, people are like, well yeah, I mean, what's wrong with that? How could you be against that? Or BDS, it's like, yeah, we should be able to boycott or divest and not have laws on the books for any country,

to anybody who we think is achieving human rights. He had a whole news cycle about his defense of globalizing the intipada. I remember. You know, like, I mean, he did say the things. Like, he didn't center his campaign around that, but because those were all the attacks that were incoming, it became a very significant part of the campaign.

You remember going on Colbert and like getting asses? Sure, yes, yeah. All that shit. That was crazy. So, in any case, let me just play you one more clip of the I've Had It ladies talking about Hakeem Jeffries Because I think this is interesting as well again as a signpost of how disgusted the Normie liberal democratic base is with their own leaders at this point This is very different from previous eras in the Democratic Party. Let's take a listen

First of all, he has addressed the rise of anti-semitism and it's not performative. It's very very real He understands that it's real. And he has the endorsement of other Jewish politicians that aren't propagandized by a corrupt Israeli government. This was your moment, Hakeem, to also stand up against Islamophobia. Because here's the thing about human rights, you guys. You don't get to cherry pick. If you're against anti-Semitism, then you have to be against Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, and down the line, also class warfare. And so this kind of cherry picking because of who donates to Hawking Jefferies? APAC. APAC donates to Hawking Jefferies. The people who preach against anti-Semitism

should be joining Zoran Mondami and standing up against the Islamophobic attacks on him. He has not said anything disparaging about Jewish people. He stands with them in solidarity. And this type of crap is so disgusting to me. And it is a cancer within the Democratic Party. We lost these last two elections to an idiot because of these centrist policies and your being beholden to special interests. And by God, it's not gonna happen again.

You can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. When we can clearly see with our eyes and clearly hear with our ears exactly what's happening with Israel and Gaza, we're not fucking stupid. Your base is smarter and y'all are gonna have to adapt or get the fuck out.

I don't know. I love this lady. I love this lady. I'll confess, I don't get it. You know, it's not, not for me is the only way I would put it. What do you disagree with her though? She's going in, she's cooking. Oh, the Democrats lost because of centrist politics?

Yes, yeah, that's right. It was a centrist policy to offer free Medicare to a bunch of illegal immigrants. The running around with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban. I mean, this is... OK, listen, I understand that's the nice leftist critique. It's true. Kamala was never doing better than when

she was talking about price gouging, and she was getting attacked for price controls. We could cherry pick that as if we want to ignore some of the border crossing stuff that she was complicit in. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. Okay, again, we will see in the future. If a Democrat runs and wins on decriminalized border crossings and amnesty for everybody and bringing Leah Thomas and all those other people back, I will happily eat my words.

I do not think that's ever going to happen. You're atheist if you think that it is, personally. But... But there's a difference between economic and cultural. Like the reason... Yeah, but you can't ignore that. That's why it's so important. But the reason that Bernie is so popular

and the reason Zoran is so popular, the reason AOC's popularity is very high now at this point is because they have focused in on these economic issues and because they fricking stand for something. I mean, that's the thing is like, I think so much of the issue by issue checklist is the wrong way to look at politics. People liked Zoran because he stood for something

and he was willing to fight for it, even when it was uncomfortable and even when it was like, oh my God, you're gonna get attacked over that. And that's what Trump understood, I mean Trump ran, Trump is doing all kinds of stuff that is so unpopular, ran all kinds of stuff that is so unpopular, ran all kinds of stuff that is so unpopular, like pardoning the J6 rioters, polls at like 2%.

Yeah, but there was no central issue. Why does he get away with it? He gets away with it because people get the feeling, oh, he stands for something. Now, it's kind of bullshit because he's, whatever, we could put that aside. But that's what is so revolting about these like poll-tested centrists,

always the finger in the air, always everything's gotta be focus-grouped, everything is calculated and calibrated. That's what people are disgusted with. And I think, you know, that's, and that is the centrist way. There was a morning Joe clip where he was asking Tom Swazee, who I'm actually trying to get on the show,

who I want to talk to, wrote an article in Wall Street Journal about Zoran, like anti-Zoran, whatever. But he was like, how come none of the centrists can be popular the way that Zoran and AOC and Bernie can? And this is why. It's not even so much about exactly where they are,

they feel like they stand for something. Same thing with Jasmine Crockett, who I have all kinds of policy issues with. It feels like she's actually willing to fight for something. And that's what I'm talking about with the Democratic Party. I don't disagree with a word you said about that. I just think, I mean, we should not over-read it. And to me, like, no, actually, like,

trans swimmers or whatever is popular. And I just think this is- I mean, that's not what Zoran ran on. No, I agree. And that's smart, right? Mr. Zoran, who was wearing a Chalwar kameez, pointing his middle finger up at Christopher Columbus in 2020,

and Mr. Deef on the police put a suit on and stopped acting like an idiot. And I think that's actually a smart takeaway for a lot of future aspiring left politicians. Being a moron, Twitch poster or whatever, and acting like that is actually not the way to get elected. Now you can not disavow that, I think that's fine. You shouldn't because then you look weak.

But the emphasis on issues is actually pretty important while it's still supposedly standing for something. And I just think misreading kind of where that goes is an important, probably lesson for the left. Like John Fetterman was held up as this left, look where that all went. This idea of dirtbagism. He's like left, look where that all went, you know, this idea of like dirtbagism. He's like a, I mean he's like literally brain damaged.

He totally changed his ideology sucker. Okay but if Zoran. He's not the same person at all. Right but he was celebrated for this like dirtbag identity and it's like no, the most popular left politician in the country put a suit on, acted like a normal guy and spoke in very accessible language specifically around economic

issues also while not disavowing his ridiculous left pass. That's an important lesson and I think that also fits with how renegade politicians should actually look and act in the future. That's all I'm saying. I'm just saying with this woman or this whole what's left thing, I could see how that could also be read in completely the wrong direction by a lot of people who are trying to run for office, when in my opinion, Zoran, by looking and acting and speaking

in a reasonable way, which are in some ways called unreasonable policies, made it so that he could become elected. I would also point out to Bernie, I mean, Bernie believes some really crazy shit, but he speaks in a different way, and has always worn a suit, he's the consummate politician,

and that's an important lesson. I would say AOC as well. The more that she has acted, like more of a consummate politician, and more of an elevated type figure, that has made her more popular amongst the Democratic base outside of the original chop-o-trap house left.

That's like, acting acting like them in my opinion is not the way to any sort of electoral success. I think, I hear your point. I think there's also a question of like what's authentic to you? You know like Bernie is very like in his suit and rumpled in his hair all over the like, that is Bernie, you know?

And Zoran felt very authentic here and I think you're right that the fact that he centered his campaign around affordability, which was clearly the right very authentic here and I think you're right that the fact that he centered his campaign around affordability, which was clearly the right thing to do, and made that the centerpiece when people are freaking out about, oh my god, free buses, and you've got like 75% of New Yorkers who are like, yes, free buses. Yes, exactly. And so that is absolutely my theory of politics is that's why you should put those economic issues front and center, and because that is actually the center of the country. When you look at where the polling,

when you look at what people usually vote on, so it's critically important to have credibility on those issues, and I think people felt like he did and would at least fight for the things that he was talking about. Yeah, I think he's a good lesson for all renegade politicians, actually, is that to dress up and almost act more composed than your opponents, you know, when somebody else is talking about anti-Semitism and you're

sitting there talking about New York City, you're wearing a suit, you don't seem all that unreasonable, that's actually how you win. That's the FDR story. I mean, if you really look at a lot of the people who came up from behind, like the way that they do it is specifically by kind of outclassing the competition. And so yeah, I mean, I think it's a very important lesson for a lot of people. I do think he's gonna win, and as long as he stays on that,

and if he actually governs in any remotely way like that, as difficult as it will be, I think he'll be quite successful. It's a pity for him, he's not born in America. He's from America. I know, he'd be a great candidate. Yeah, I mean, if he won, within six months he should have announced,

and he would have been able to do it. Yep. Yeah. Let's go, he should have announced, and he would have been able to do it. Yeah. Let's go ahead and talk to Israel, so, or speak about Israel. Bibi Netanyahu was in town this week for the third time. Apparently, Trump's favorite foreign leader that's come to visit again. And he did a couple interviews,

including apparently a sit down with the note boys, we'll get to that in a moment. But he was asked this question, this kind of interesting response about whether or not dealing with Trump is different than dealing with Biden, given that both of them were quite willing to fund and support a genocide. Let's go ahead and take a listen to his response. Did it feel very different dealing with President Trump as opposed to President Biden as well as the Democrats?

Is this a serious question? Yeah, it has been different. I think everybody said that they wanted to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but it's not what you say. It's what you do. It's what you do. And ultimately, leaders are tested by what they do. And at this point, I think it's fair to say Trump has been different from Biden because he maybe wanted that attack on Iran under Biden

and he got it with Trump. So he has gotten more of what he wanted at this point under Donald Trump and which is why he nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, definitely. Well, I mean, it's all just a matter of gradations, right? Like Biden basically backed him to the hilt and always said, you know, I disagree with him privately,

but bear hugged him in public. You know, Bibi, at the same time, is trying to recapture the Trump base and MAGA. Let's put this next one up on the screen. Apparently, we mentioned this, he chatted with the Nelk Boys. Again, I'm calling on the Nelk Boys to release their episode immediately.

We can't just be having world leaders on and not release it. And also, hopefully ask him maybe an interesting question or two, I actually do think this could be a problem for the Nelk Boys, because if they just let BB come on and blabber, I think that would be a misreading of YouTube and of young Republicans. That's just me, that's my opinion. But they're probably going to just let him.

No, I'm saying, obviously. I'm not a milk boy's consumer. By the way, neither am I, just to be clear. My understanding is they just sort of shoot the shit. Yeah, they mostly shoot the shit. Like I'm not expecting an adversarial interview. They had Trump on, I remember, they were one of the first people to ever have Trump on

and talk for like three hours, and it was stupid conversation. But what they don't seem to understand is if you look at every prominent right-wing YouTube creator, the vast majority are gonna have a very different take on Israel than a traditional GOP politician. I can think of two exceptions, which are Ben Shapiro, I'll let that one speak for itself. Who's popularity is falling off by the way.

Well, I mean, look, he's still a big show. We gotta give it to him. He's one of the top 10 political podcasts. I'm not gonna sit here and say he's a nobody, but he's got some competition. Dave Rubin, those two, that's basically it. His popularity is also falling off. That one is obvious.

But pretty much, if you look at, and if you look at the biggest ones, Tucker Carlson, I was just there, he let me go off on Israel, he basically agreed with me on everything. Candice, Tim Poole, Tucker Carlson, I was just there, he let me go off on Israel, he basically agreed with me on everything, Candice, Tim Poole, Tim is complicated I guess on Israel but he has people on him or at least who are critical. And so what I would point out.

And Funtas is a rising force in the. Well he's not on YouTube, but yeah. On the online right ecosystem. He's more of a Twitter thing in my opinion, but yeah, I mean he's got somewhat of an audience. My point is if you look at all of those things kind of together it points in a pretty clear direction. All the polling backs this up for young Republicans. If you look at the so-called podcast bros

and all that, look at Theo von, look at Schultz, look at Rogan, I mean not pro Israel, Tim Dillon. So if you look at the audience and kind of the way that those people are all kind of trending, it's not in the direction of having a shoot the shit, happy dad conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu. That's the way I would put it. Yeah. Yeah. And that's why it's a big mistake, in my opinion,

if you have him on and you just kind of let him get away with something like that. Correct. And in the context of Epstein too, again, the Epstein story is a massive story online, massive. It was an entree point for millions of people into politics, as Ryan said. And if you don't ask him about something like that,

I just think you look like a total joke. Now I'm prejudging, I should make it clear, if they do, I'd be happy to say it. I'll play the clip here on the show. Steini, I'll sing your praises and the rest of you guys. But something tells me that at the very least, even if they did, they're probably not gonna ask the requisite follow-ups if they should.

Yeah, I mean, here's the thing. It's not about like, oh, you shouldn't platform Netanyahu. No, actually you should. I would love to. I would love to talk to him. You should interview any world leader, especially one that has such a significant grip on our foreign policy, absolutely.

But then it's, okay, well what do you do in that conversation? And so yeah, if they approach it like they have their other interviews where it's just like, oh, we're gonna shoot the shit and basically normalize and humanize, this genuine monster, I mean, you would be hard pressed to find a bigger,

absolute villain in my lifetime than Netanyahu. So I think in some of these people's minds, there's an inability to distinguish from being edgy, and counter-cultural, and going against cancel culture, or whatever, and giving a platform to a genuine monster who is doing a genocide every single day. Like, so that's the piece here that just, to me, it speaks to such a sick culture

that this is even a possibility. We're gonna talk about this with regard to the Trump administration sanctioning Francesca Albanese of the UN for her exposing and calling the carpet companies that are complicit in this genocide, et cetera. We've lost the ability to distinguish just basic right from wrong.

That's what it feels like to me. And look, again, look, if they hold him, you know, beat to the fire and we're like, okay, I'll, fine. I'll be happy to say, good job, guys, way to go. But I do feel like we're just in this up is down era where go ahead and put the D3 up on the screen. This is so sick to me.

US issues sanctions against UN investigator probing abuses in Gaza. So we've had Frances Galbanes on this show. She is a special rapporteur from the UN for the West Bank in Gaza. She has issued a number of reports about the ongoing genocide there that have been incredibly important.

Her most recent one, I think, was in some ways the most provocative, because as I said before, she really called on the carpet all of the companies that are profiting from this. I mean, we're very familiar and very acquainted with the way in which wars are profitable. And there are many individuals who have become wildly rich off of war profiteering, many of them live within, you know,

15 miles of where we sit right now. I don't know that people have thought as much about the way that this genocide is incredibly profitable. And she talks about Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Google, Amazon, IBM, Caterpillar, supplying those bulldozers that we've seen. And so she has really been one of the most principled and courageous actors, I think,

out of this entire conflict. And so to sanction that individual, because they dare, and the specific reason is because of her work exposing this and her support for the charges against Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, by the way, at the International Criminal Court, it's just incredibly, it's incredibly sick. And Sagar, Treta Parsi was pointing out

that the same time we're sanctioning this person who was genuinely trying to stand up for innocence in the world, the US is giving a total pass to the guy who was the Syrian leader and taking his former, his terror organization off of the terror lift and granting them sanctions relief, et cetera.

And so this is one of the things that has been the most sort of like, I guess spiritually disturbing to me at this time, is the vilification of people who are trying to stand up for basic things like, hey, we shouldn't be complicit in a genocidious connects to Zora and Mamdani conversation as well. And the celebration of genuine,

an uplift of like genuine terrorist racist monsters. Well, I would just look for me and this is the fundamental difference is to me why are we sanctioning somebody who is investigating Israel? It's like that's what the full force of the US Empire is being used at this point to go after Francesca Albanese for issuing reports about the Israeli government and then and or US companies. I mean that's fine but it's one of those things where it's preposterous in this particular time to go after, you know, the, I mean, by the way,

just so people understand what US sanctions mean, it means you can't do business with any bank that does business with the United States. It's basically like being cut off from the financial system. Isn't she an Italian national? Like, that's gonna cause some serious issues. Like, I don't even know if you can have a bank account at some of the places.

You may not be able to credit card. You may not be able to have a credit card. You may not be able to have a phone plan. Like I'm talking, just so people understand what it actually means to be sanctioned by the United States of America. It's a very, very serious thing. We're doing it basically to protect somebody who is going after the Israeli government.

I mean, look, I like Francesca. We had her here on this. I mean, she is going after us as well. Sure, I mean. You know, because we're so involved. Okay, fair. Yeah. I would just put it, again, as like a priorities thing

for like this is really what deserves sanctions, when again, you know, we're gonna point out the hypocrisy of US support here now for the Israeli-backed al-Qaeda leader in Syria. And just broadly, I mean, it's about the priorities. So for example, you know, we're recently suing Harvard University for more of these

like anti-Semitism allegations. I actually have that. Can we put D5, please, up on the screen? The Trump administration is attacking Harvard's accreditation. And a battle against the Ivy League school, and it's specifically about the indifference standard for the federal discrimination law,

basically saying that they had indifference to the safety of Jewish students on campus. Why? Because they allowed people to protest the state of Israel. That is about a hijacking of the US legal system. The only reason why, I mean, I just think a lot of the moralism and all the stuff around this, it doesn't hold up because this is America,

we're a global empire. The Syria thing is a perfect example. We often back dictators and people who do horrible things around the world, like the idea we're only gonna be doing business or whatever with moral countries. It's kind of ridiculous and preposterous. The point then is to just have some sort of a consistent standard about who we sanction or not.

And it's obvious here that our sanctions regime is being used as a tool basically on behalf of a foreign country, in addition to our federal government. And I think that is actually what is more of a bipartisan, not bipartisan, but it's an appeal that can really get to people. Whereas, I mean, and again, you know, no offense to my friends on the left, but it's like this constant like moralism, like people don't necessarily want to hear that whenever they're,

people don't necessarily want to approach international relations that way when it's obvious that it's not a realistic way to conduct relations with the entire world. I totally disagree with you. Because, but some are here to think. I mean, that's the only thing that's popular on the left. No, no, no. Most people on the right are just upset

that we're so obsessed with Israel. No, but, no, I don't think that's true. I do think it's true. I mean, I think that's part of it. I think it's also partly like just like a strain of recent anti-Semitism with the Niquentism of the world, et cetera. it's true. I mean, I think that's part of it. I think it's also partly like just like a strain of Bracin anti-Semitism with the Niquentism of the world, et cetera. It's true.

I mean, you can't deny that that's an element of it. But let me say, let me say, your reading of the American public, I think is totally wrong. Because the reason that the polling on Israel has shifted so dramatically is because even if the US government is and has always been full of shit on any sort of concern for human rights, the American people were not full of shit. They actually believed that we should be a force for good in the world.

They actually think, thought of this country as like, oh yeah, we mess up, but in general, we're the good guys, we're the good guys. And so what has profoundly changed the American public's conception of Israel and of the Palestinians is seeing these atrocities day after day after day, where it's like, how can it be our tax dollars that are being used

for these bombs to murder babies and women. I'm agreeing with you. But it doesn't sound like you're agreeing with me. No, what I'm agreeing with is the complicit in terms of us selling them the arms. If this was happening independently, I actually don't think it would be nearly as big of a thing here.

Because I mean, look, there's atrocities literally all over the world. I mean, but that is. I mean, was the Azerbaijan thing here a major thing? You're talking about that as like, you know, like it's the morals of it are, yeah. You're talking about that as like, you know, like it's, the morals of it are just completely irrelevant. And saying that for most Americans,

that's completely, I don't think that's true at all. I think the morals are incredibly central because it's so at odds with what people want to believe about this country and the sense that, you know, in general, we're like the good guys in the world. And so, yeah, I think the morality of just like mass murder of women and children and complete destruction, I think that is quite central to the way

that public opinion has formed. What I'm trying to say is that if it weren't for the US role in enabling it, I don't think it would be nearly as central of an issue here in the United States. And that's because I know for a fact that there are literal atrocities happening all over the world. And I would also caution people, this whole good guy narrative, that's what leads to Libya. Oh, we gotta go and protect some Libyan civilians.

Yeah, now we've collapsed the government and Gaddafi got killed. That's what leads to Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. Like, acting in that way is actually a terrible, terrible foreign policy. That's what responsibility to protect and all of that is built around, it has led to some of the worst humanitarian disasters, actually in terms of the fallout of acting on that way. So I would really caution people not to go down that path.

That's actually even indicative in and of itself of the way that Americans think about these things because those like good instincts of like, we should stop the Russians invasion, we should support women and girls in Afghanistan, we should make sure the Iranian people can be free or whatever. Those deeply moral instincts are often weaponized

to actually create mass chaos, carnage, death, and suffering. There's no doubt that Afghanistan would be better if we never did any, Iraq, certainly, Iran, absolutely. And so I think that actually speaks to the desire of most Americans to be the good guy, to feel like, okay, we're a force generally, like a benevolent force in the world,

and trying to be on the right side of history. And so you're right, that can absolutely be weaponized here, but I mean, that is very much at the center of what has caused people to change their views on Israel is just seeing the horror and wanting it to stop. And not wanting to see in their timeline every day another like blown up baby that is blood on our hands and every taxpayer in the country.

See, I agree, I just think that the outrage is, from and every taxpayer in the country. See, I agree. I just think that the outrage is, from me and just from what I've observed, comes down to tax dollars and then the diplomatic cover of the full force of the US empire to enable this from happening. But let me just give a hypothetical. If this were happening without a single dollar

of US support, then what would it be? I mean, like what? What would the implication of that be? It would lead to what I just described, what, we're gonna bomb Israel Does someone say no, that's ridiculous You know, that's not something that most people do we shouldn't do that on any country because that could lead you to the same Libya and type of

description that with the destruction that's happened in all these other places to the extent here that the quote like the outrage from the American people which is correct in in my opinion, is that we're not only enabling, but we're actively providing cover for, supplying, and in many cases encouraging something like this from happening. So that's kind of, I think, that the nuance is important there. And so, you know, again, if I point to the right,

like I think a huge portion of the why the American right in particular has moved against this, and I still think this is part of the left critique of this as well, is look at the level of obsession and money and government policy that our government is being used on behalf of this foreign country, which also is enabling and committing these immoral acts on an uncivilized nature.

But it is not because, but all of it kind of traces back to the level of obsession and the support from us. It's not about the individual act itself, except in some rare cases. There are great humanitarians all over the world who are, you know, the Congo or South Sudan or Kosovo and all these other things. But for example, if you go, if we were to look back to the Serbian intervention from NATO, that was done under the exact same terms.

It was a terrible idea. It didn't work. Actually led to pushing Russia away. I would give that as a great example of why we should not get involved, in particular, if the United States is staying out of it. And yes, I understand that sounds callous, but look at Ukraine. Look at Libya. Look at Kosovo. Look at Kosovo. I mean it's a disaster, look at what happened with Serbia,

look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan. Nobody's better off because of the great, you know, moral US empire. So this is, I caution from talking in these times of terms because I've also seen it be weaponized. I don't know if you were here, but you know I talked about how Elie Wiesel's son went on Fox News and used his father's legacy to say that we should bomb Iran because he said my father was always very upset that the United States never bombed the you know the death camps and that's why this genocidal regime America has to come in and to my side whoa hold on a second yeah we can't be you be putting that type of standard in terms of how the US should operate.

And so I just think defining the terms in terms of, defining the terms of US support, US protecting these people, also obviously blatantly hypocritical on all of this, and trying to have some sort of consistent standard of, look, we do what's good for us. And yes, there's tragedy all around the world, but at the end of the day,

we're just gonna pursue our own interests. That seems to be the middle ground for a real American foreign policy that most people can't get behind. In the case of Israel specifically, that's also true that they just would not be able to do what they're doing with them. Yeah, that's also objectively correct, very true.

I mean, they couldn't fight, what, they're fighting a war in like six different fronts right now. You can't do that. They are completely shielded from the consequences of their actions because of us. And so, yeah, I do think Americans are much more deeply invested in this particular,

number one, because the horror is just, I do think it is the worst atrocity that we have seen in our lifetimes. But number two, certainly, because it's our bombs, it's our dollars, we are the baddies, we are the bad guys here. And I think that's why it's so deeply painful to so many people and why you've seen so much of a shift on the sort of normie liberal Democrats and also some, especially among young people on the right.

Yeah, and let that be a good lesson, because that's about how the most moral outcome can actually come from saying no. So for example, if we didn't provide Israel all of the support, then they wouldn't do this, and it actually would lead to a better outcome in the region. They would have to reckon with the realities of themselves as a small nation,

and in this region, and trying to get along with your neighbors, and not piss everybody off all the time. Look at Africa, they've got a bunch of small nations, yeah, and they fight each other sometimes. Mostly they have decent enough relations. Yeah, every once in a while war breaks out, we don't go shipping weapons all around into the region and they figure it out for themselves.

So let them do that, there's nobody stopping. There will probably be better relations between Israel, Iran, there will probably be a two-state solution, especially if we push things in a more of a restraint-minded direction. And that, of course, would lead to a more moral outcome. That's all I'm saying. It's just I can see, I've seen this road go way too far

under Samantha Powers, the responsibility to protect doctrine. And I do always worry about setting some standard from the United States as having to be the world's policeman for good you know abroad and I've seen that hijacked in a really in a horrible way in the past so I want people to like define their terms around Gaza and Israel very specifically to make sure that it's not hijacked by somebody you know sometime in the future because it can lead in a very very dangerous direction that's all

I was trying to say. All right. Let's talk about Amazon. Yeah. Let's do it. This is the final thing that will end, which is very important for our economy. Let's put this up there on the screen. And Amazon Prime Day sales are now off 41% on the first day, their brand advisor says. Needless to say, that's a little bit of a disaster

Therefore the company but it's actually kind of an interesting story if we think about what it means for e-commerce tariffs and also consumerism which is unfortunately the backbone of the United States economy what they point out here is that Amazon took a massive gamble this year by expanding Prime Day summer sales to four days from two, betting that the extension would give, quote, shoppers more time to navigate millions of the deals on its sprawling store. But the stakes right now, the results right now, are grim, raising the stakes for the next couple of days.

Online sales are down some 41% compared to the start of Prime Day just last year. The prolonged event has encouraged shoppers to actually do more treasure hunting, meaning that they're actually getting, in some cases, better deals for them but not good for Amazon. Consumers are browsing and loading up shopping carts, but pulling the trigger in case better deals emerge.

Shorter Prime Day sales actually generated more urgency from shoppers who were worried they were gonna miss their discounts. And broadly, it shows a couple of things. Number one is that people, with the credit card balances where they are, with the spending and the problems in the economy and all that, where they are right now,

people are pulling back a little bit. It also shows that people are getting pretty desperate at a retail level to try and push inventory out the door. There's no other explanation for why they would expand Prime Day or whatever by four days except for two days. So if you put those two things together, while yes, we have some top line numbers that look good, the job numbers look OK, the inflation numbers, they look OK. The stock market, I think NASDAQ yesterday hit an all-time high, mostly because of NVIDIA,

which is now a $4 trillion market cap. But underneath the surface, all of those little things still seem to look precarious in that direction. And especially if we're speaking today, as we did earlier, about the tariffs that are coming back into place from the Trump administration and the level of uncertainty at a consumer level. So it's the two track story of America where like earnings look good and video looks good, but then there's all of these weird canaries that are around that kind of demonstrate some caution for both the American consumer and American business as to their actual health.

And you know, by the way, reminder at a fundamental level, like the housing stuff is still a disaster, you know, and all of that too. Oh yeah, I mean the affordability crisis continues to pace. And it is very real and it is shaping all of our politics here and other places around the world as well. Yeah, I thought one of the more telling statistics there was that people were loading up on those sort of lower purchase price to get, you know,

dawn dish soap or whatever it is, and sort of stocking up on those sort of lower purchase price to get, you know, dawn dish soap or whatever it is, and sort of stocking up on that, and not doing as much of the larger purchases I thought was an interesting indicator there. And it does track, whether you can put E2 up on the screen, it does track with an overall slowdown in online shopping. So online shopping sees biggest slowdown in over a decade. S-Terra tariffs disrupt e-commerce

This was a CNBC report from just a couple of days ago They describe this as the most disruptive period in more than a decade as a result of Trump's trade war and tariffs policy Online purchases for home delivery experience double-digit year-over-year declines across major categories Including office supplies down by 13 percentage points, sporting goods down 12 percentage points, cosmetics, furniture, home furnishings, large electronics each falling by 10 percentage points. And this analyst says this is the first widespread pullback

in the online category growth in over a decade. Groceries were the only real exception to the negative trend. So basically since online shopping has become normalized, it's just been growing and growing and growing and growing, you're over here as more people switch from going to the store to purchasing from Amazon or wherever else.

And so to see this pullback is quite a shift in trends. It is quite notable. And then of course fits with the Amazon Prime data as again, a warning sign that people are kinda, if there's a purchase they can put off, they're pushing it off into the future, wait and see what happens, sort of be able to conserve their resources

for in case there's an eventuality in the future in which they're really going to need it. Yeah, and actually right now, again, it's always so difficult to tell. The travel numbers are actually pretty good, which usually means people are doing well. But actually, some of the stuff that I've seen is that even with travel doing well,

a lot of it is debt finance. There's a lot of it is people putting stuff on credit cards and unfortunately, these airline businesses are more credit card companies than they are actual airline companies. Almost half their revenue comes from credit cards and transactions. So it shows that, like, that's not the best indicator. Gas actually is doing quite well as of right now, luckily, despite the fact that we had

that Iran crisis. So there are indicators in almost every direction, but I still think that affordability stuff and canaries like this are important to look at for the economic data Don't remember don't forget that you know I mean Trump in some ways is correct about the Federal Reserve It's insane that the rates are continue to be where they are. I mean over 6% I was looking today the average mortgage I think for even 750 credit scores and there's like 7% which is crazy high

I mean and it's one of those where, actually, a couple years ago, in, what was it, when did the rates spike? 2022? Well, a bunch of people bought houses in 2022 hoping to refinance at lower rates. And they believed that the refi would come in maybe one year or two years or something like that. But they've been sitting there chunking money away

on a 6%, 7% mortgage now for like three years, which is, I mean, been sitting there chunking money away on a six, seven percent mortgage now for like three years, which is, I mean, that's a ton of money in terms of the amount of interest that you're paying to the bank. And so a lot of these people who are hoping and kind of betting on a rate cut in the future in real estate are stuck basically with these huge mortgage payments.

They either have to sell at a loss or crunch in other ways. So anyway, those are all things that I'm looking at, being like, I wonder, I just always wonder if and when this grand experiment is ever gonna pop. Something about it just seems crazy to me, that the NASDAQ hit the all-time high yesterday. TSMC sales up 40% with semiconductors.

NVIDIA, $4 trillion market cap. I mean, that makes NVIDIA more than like the entire United Kingdom stock market put together. Maybe even the European Union, actually. I'd have to go back and look. But yeah, something about it doesn't seem quite right, even with all this tariff uncertainty. And there's always just seems to be like some small thing that could push things over the edge. That's what I'm personally worried about.

The stock market seems particularly disconnected from reality. It just doesn't seem right. It does not seem right to me right now. Apparently, some of the indicators are that the large institutional investors have pulled back from equities, but you have retail that's very enthusiastic. That's part of what has propped up and continued the stock market growth. And then if you look at like the dollar, for example, or the Treasury yield curve, you see a different story.

Totally. You see sort of, you know, consistent increase in the Treasury yield curve where you're having to basically pay higher interest in order to convince people that they should hold Treasury bonds. And then you're seeing continued decline of the dollar again and again and again. So some of the analysts I've seen have said those may be the places to look for more of an indication of what's really going on versus the stock market,

which seems just like disconnected. Yeah, you're right. You know, the retail thing is a very interesting story because retail people are buying the dip, or buy the dip, we'll see, are buying into the market. But actually, a lot of institutional money are in money market funds. I just saw a chart today, it's trillion dollars sitting in a mark in a money market

Just you know collecting for five percent interest or whatever So I mean you could read that two ways which is that once the rates go down They'll start buying back in but I don't know there's there's a lot of weird stuff that is happening We wanted to give you that update in terms of the economy, but I think that's it for today Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you. We'll have a Friday show on for you all tomorrow. So we'll see you then. This is an iHeart Podcast.