Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/28/23: Trump DOWN After Missing Republican Debates, Trump Mugshot, Putin Confirms Prigozhin Death, Panic Over Paid UPS Drivers, Oliver Anthony Calls Out Republicans, Media Simps Nikki Haley, BRICS Expansion Threatens PetroDollar

Episode Date: August 28, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump going down in polls after missing debates, Trump's mugshot raising millions for his campaign, Putin confirms Wagner Leader's death, US military blasts Ukraine Tactics, Bloomberg TV Panics over well paid UPS drivers, Oliver Anthony calls out Republican Elites over his song, Media simps for Neocon Nikki Haley after GOP debates, and China declares war on US hegemony with BRICS expansion.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee 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. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody.

Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. We got lots of data about who actually, quote unquote, won the debate and what impact, if any, it's going to have on the polls. So we'll break all of that down for you as best we can. We've also got the big Trump mugshot, much awaited, I feel like on both sides, kind of a national Rorschach test. So we'll talk to you about that and what it means. We've also got some polling about how the American people are feeling

about all of his various criminal charges, which is pretty interesting, actually. So we'll get into that. Also, some updates in terms of the assassination of Prokosin, the former head of the Wagner mercenary group. Putin is weighing in now, so we'll play for you those comments. And we also have a new dispute breaking out into the open over tactics on the Ukrainian side between Ukraine and the U.S., so we will give you the updates on that as well. Massive development for unions. New ruling from the National Labor Relations Board. We'll break it down for you what it means, and this comes as workers affiliated with the United Auto Workers

have just authorized what could be a huge transformational strike. So we'll get into all of that. And Oliver Anthony speaks out in the wake of his song being used at the Republican debate. Apparently he found it sort of amusing and wanted to make it clear that he does not affiliate with either party. He's not too happy about it. He's weighing in. That's a fun one. We'll get into that as well. Yeah, that's right. And before we start, just want to say thank you again to everybody who took advantage of the debate special discount that we had going on during the debate for our annual membership.

We really appreciate everybody who has been doing it. And we are excited to say we are working actively to commission both our own polling, but more importantly, focus groups, professional firms. It does cost a lot of money, though, so if you can help us out, BreakingPoints.com, to become a premium member. We're building to get you the best possible coverage as we lead into the major election season. So with that, what do the other people's focus groups say? Okay. So I think the biggest question, you know, since Trump is in such a dominant position coming into the Republican nominating contest is did he lose any altitude whatsoever from skipping this debate? The signals are mixed at best. Let's put this up on the screen. So this was, I thought, in some ways, the most interesting metric. They asked Republican

voters who watched the debate, who are you even considering voting for? Like, who's even a possibility on your radar? And they showed the shift for each candidate. And interestingly enough, every single candidate who participated in the debate, even candidates like Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson, they all saw an improvement in terms of the number of voters who were even considering voting for them. The one person who saw a decline was Donald Trump, who, of course, did not participate in that debate.

So prior to the debate, he sat at 66% of Republican primary voters said they are considering voting for him. He declined about five percentage points down to 61%. He is now actually second in that metric to Ron DeSantis, who saw a bump up from 63% to 67.5%. In terms of this particular metric, the person who saw the largest jump was actually a former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who many thought had a strong

performance. I have a whole thing about the substance of her performance that I'll get into later. But, you know, a lot of media coverage that was very fawning of her. And she had, I think, a better than many people expected performance up there on the debate stage. So she jumped up from 30 percent to 46.7 percent. This, again, in terms of people not who are supporting her, but who would even consider voting for her. So Sagar, on this one metric, you do see that there was a little bit of damage to Trump, not enough to like really eat into his lead. But you can see there is somewhat of a risk in his strategy of not participating in these debates. The benefit that he has is that of those 61 percent who are considering voting for him, most of them are not voting. They're going to vote for him. So

that seems pretty important. It's like, well, I'm considering a lot of things. But where you ultimately end up is what actually matters. In terms of also the overall debate from the Washington Post, we have this. We can put it up there on the screen. One of the immediate post-debate polls that dropped 29% actually thought that DeSantis won the debate, 26% for Vivek Ramaswamy and 15% for Nikki Haley. I'm kind of most surprised by the DeSantis figure, but I mean, it did kind of settle, I guess, a debate after the debate of whether he lost or whether he won. I kind of put it as neutral because I was like, well, he got his greatest hits lines. He seemed to do fine. He didn't take any incoming fire. He didn't have any bad moments with Chris Christie or anybody

like that. He was, I think, the fourth person who spoke most in the debate. So not too much, not too bad. And everyone, you know, he has a high affection amongst a lot of GOP voters and they liked him. And then it's also not a surprise that the other two people with bigger breakout moments, Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley, seeing their overall favorability, consideration and polling bump rise. So we haven't yet seen the massive bump for Vivek Ramaswamy. We don't even know yet if that's going to materialize. Sometimes these things do take time. Don't forget also there's going to be another debate just next month. So if you've got compounding earned media, don't forget, you know, with Trump, he didn't really have some of his best moments until two or even three debates into the cycle where he had a total

domination of the field. So we don't yet know. But the major bump for Ramaswamy has not yet been seen both in partisan polls that are out there in terms of like super PACs and others, but also in terms of major live caller polls that happened afterwards as well. Yeah, they also tested all of the candidates favorability that Washington Post poll did both before and after the debate. And those ones where you can see the shift are kind of the most interesting to me. And so you had Nikki Haley again was the person who saw the largest shift in terms of her favorability. She jumped up by 14 points. They said that put her in clear positive territory. Now 65 percent hold a favorable opinion of her. Vivek, his shift is interesting because on the

one hand, he jumped up 10 percent in terms of the share of GOP debate watchers who have a favorable opinion of him. But he saw an even larger increase in the share that say they have an unfavorable opinion of him. So because he was so aggressive and, you know, so sort of like, you know, getting in there and mixing it up and his stances were very clear, but some of them also quite divisive. He saw some people who really loved that and some people who apparently did not like that as much, which I think could be part of why you haven't seen in the polls any bump for him, even though you had a large percentage of people. I mean, many of the post-debate polls did say that he either won or came second in the debate. The other thing that I think you could be seeing here in terms of a lack of a polling bump for Vivek is actually something that Kyle was arguing in our post-debate panel, which is, yeah, people who are Trump supporters liked Vivek in the debate, but guess

what? They're not voting for him. They're voting for Trump. Now, the good news for Vivek is that he's sort of betting on something happening with Trump that takes him out of the race. And so I think in terms of that, if he's positioning himself as the primary Trump alternative, then he probably did himself some favors here, even as it's not really showing up that much in the polls yet. And actually, we can put this next poll up on the screen that shows you the shift post-debate. This is an insider advantage poll. And so we have the numbers here, but it also shows you how much they have moved since the last time this particular polling company ran a poll in the field. Trump did lose a little bit of altitude.

He's at 45 percent. That is a six-point decline, but it's obviously not enough to knock him off of his perch. Ron DeSantis saw a significant shift, plus eight. He's now up at 18%. Nikki Haley, also with a pretty sizable, notable shift there, up at 11%. And Vivek Ramaswamy, more or less, treading water at 7%. That is an increase of plus one. Everybody else more or less staying the same. Christie, four. Scott, three. Pence, two. Larry Elder wasn't in the debate at one. Everybody else more or less staying the same. Christie four, Scott three, Pence two, Larry Elder wasn't in the debate at one, Hutchinson one, Burgum one, Hurd one. So the most notable shifts coming, Trump bumping down a little bit, DeSantis bumping up significantly and Haley bumping up significantly. And with regard to Ron DeSantis' saga, you know, I think people actually, a good number of people liked the fact that he was kind of out of the fray in the debate.

And I do think that, you know, my pre-debate prediction was better than my post-debate analysis in that I thought since he had been caricatured as this like incredibly awkward, inept person, that when people actually saw him on stage and he very clearly and know, clearly and forcefully delivered his message and didn't get mixed up in some of the back and forth of the other candidates. People both felt like he was forceful in his delivery, but also like he was a little bit above the fray and a little bit of the like adult in the room. Some of that is being rewarded for that. Some of that is really coming through. We have this next one we can put up there on the screen and it shows the same thing. This is from a Patriot polling company. Keep in mind, this is 750 registered voters. It's not necessarily likely voters, but registered voters skews more Democrat and or people who are not MAGA. However, it does show a bump there for Nikki Haley, 23%.

Ron DeSantis at 22.4. This is on the question of who won the debate. Mike Pence at 12.2, Christie 9.6, and Vivek Ramaswamy 8.8. It's a little bit of an outlier, but it does show with the consistent kind of performance of DeSantis, both in some of the more partisan polls and also in the independent ones, people didn't seem to mind that he didn't engage in some of the imbroglios or fights or any of that. It did work out in terms of Vivek Ramaswamy, I think, with name ID. And we saw the Google search trend results that happened afterwards. But so much of this, as we're about to talk about the actual contender in this race, the man with 50, 60 some percent support of the Republican voters who have him. And in that sense, though, maybe Vivek's strategy is probably the best one.

I'm running effectively as a number two, dark horse number two. If something happens to Trump, then I'll try and scoop up all his voters. I got all that nice favorability going for him. So that's, I think, his best possible chance. Yeah. And I have in my monologue today, a poll. They tested the race without Trump. And it's DeSantis and Ramaswamy who are basically tied. There you go. So if if something happened to Trump, I mean, I can't see him dropping out, but whatever. If something happened and he was no longer in the race, which is basically what all these candidates are banking on at this point, that's like their best hope. His voters would probably split largely between DeSantis and

Ramaswamy as of today. One thing I am curious about is even though I don't think Trump lost a lot by not going to the debate, you know, you do see his favorability ebb a little bit. You do see the percentage of voters that are considering him ebb a little bit. The debate was watched. I know what the Twitter numbers say, but the Twitter numbers are not reality. The debate was watched by way more people than his Tucker interview was. These candidates are getting a lot of headlines. They're getting a lot of media attention, sort of stealing the spotlight from him, at least for a moment until his mugshot came out, which was literally one day later. I do wonder if he reconsiders and attends any of the future

debates. What do you think, Zahra? Do you think he'll think twice about sitting out all the rest of them? You never know. I think if we saw bigger rises for Ramaswamy, the answer would be yes. Because it has been effectively a wash in terms of the polls. Yeah. I think his strategy was ultimately correct. And as we are about to talk about, the mugshot is clearly the number one news story for most normal people. I mean, ask people who are out there who don't engage with our show or are in super users, quote unquote, whenever it comes to politics, media, what do they know about? I guarantee you they've seen that mugshot on

Instagram or, you know, posted on Twitter or somebody sent it to them as opposed to a single clip from the GOP debate. And that's because, I've always said this, like Trump, he's not a politician. He's a pop culture icon. He's a fixture of American culture since he was in freaking Home Alone 2. It's just like you can't get away from that. He was in rap songs. He was on The Apprentice, the highest rated network show at the time.

It's just a different stratospheric level of name ID. And then he was the existing president. So he gets his mug shot out there. I think we're all about to talk about that. That's just going to wash a lot of these things. And considering his fundraising haul and all that we're about to get into, I think he probably made the right decision. And to bolster your point, there was also a morning consult poll post-debate. You know, they do their tracker,

I think, basically on a weekly basis. They literally showed no change in price. There you go. No, statistically, maybe one person was up a point or down a point or whatever, but it was basically exactly the same after the debate as it was before the debate. So I don't think that so far the debates are not

the game changer that some of these candidates would like them to be, even as their, you know, lineup, whether they're second or third or fourth, has kind of shifted around in everyone not named Donald Trump. We've teased enough. Let's get to the frickin mugshot. Go ahead and put it up on the screen. This is what it looks like. I mean, the high res version. Yes. Everybody was waiting for this. I don't care whether you're like a resistance liberal or what. This was a real cultural moment here. Trump getting the mugshot. Now, he obviously has this was not his first indictment, as you are well aware. But this was the first one where they did make him do the mugshot. It basically the theory being, listen,

we don't treat everybody the same. So if you're getting arrested here, you're coming in for the mugshot. For those of you who are just listening and not watching, I mean, you've probably seen it already by now, but this sort of like very angry, defiant stare, glare into the camera. He's wearing a blue suit, white shirt, red tie.

He's got the sheriff's logo there up on the side. And as I said before, Sagar, this really turned into kind of a national Rorschach test. There was also a lot of discussion about like the height and weight that he self-reported. There's a whole other conversation. That was a whole, yeah, exactly. And there was a whole cultural moment of people sharing like, this is what six foot three, 215 actually looks like. You were talking about the things that really break through for normal voters. Exactly. This was what I was getting sent from people in my life who are not like big politicos. This was the conversation that they were kind of obsessed with was looking at the mugshot and talking about Trump lying about his height and weight.

All my all my gym friends were doing the exact same thing, Crystal. Really? Yeah. And I mean, I think it does, again, speak to the way that it has become like a pop culture signifier. And then, though, it comes back to, did this backfire? Like, was this a mistake? You know, if we were to consider that this is obviously political, you can talk about the legal merits and all of that, whatever you want, at least in the eyes of voters, it's clearly political. Even the ones who support it are like, yeah, it's political. And I support the indictment of Donald Trump.

Well, then did we help? Or, you know, on their side, like if you're trying to think, did they do Trump a favor? I mean, we shouldn't forget the reason why people do mugshots is so that you have an official record of what they look like in case you don't have a real book. Everyone on the planet knows what those men look like. It's from the 19, it's like a 1960s era relic, especially before the internet. Trump, I'm going to venture a guess, is probably the most photographic man ever in the history of the world. Obama actually was before him. Yeah. It's usually

the president's, you know, especially in the modern media age. So like, did we really need one? And also there's a reason why the feds didn't do a mugshot and specifically in order to deny Trump the fundraising opportunity. And lo and behold, let's put this up there. He has raked in $7 million after the Georgia booking. Crystal, they are raising some $1 million per day online. They're selling signed copies of the mugshot. They're selling t-shirts of the mugshot. Now it's getting distributed, like, alongside rappers, apparently. One of those guys, I forget, the one that Trump helped get out of prison. Lil Pump, I think. Lil Pump, I apologize. Lil Pump, in terms of the way I'm supposed to say it.

So he's transcended, you know, into, like, the meme universe with the mugshot fully embracing it. That shit has already sailed. The meme-ification of Trump. Listen, I actually, I kind of appreciate the principle of this is the way we do things and we are not granting you an exception. Because like you said, there's a lot of people that don't technically need a mugshot where we've got photos of them. Like there's a thousand photos of basically everybody online at this point.

So I don't mind the principle of this is how we do things. You're not going to be treated in a special way. So, you know, we're going to do the mugshot, et cetera, et cetera. And, yes, his supporters are going to, you know, we're going to show you Jesse Waters over on Fox News. Hilarious clip of him, like, fawning over this thing. People who hate Trump are going to have a totally different reaction. Every single one of his arrests, whether they had a mugshot or not, there was a huge fundraising bump for him in terms of the Republican primary.

But I think in terms of the general electorate, you know, it's a very different picture. So for his Republican adversaries who want to be able to grab the spotlight, want to be able to have a different conversation, want to be able to move beyond Trump. I think these events are profoundly unhelpful for them because one day after the debate, Trump is once again the center of the circus and driving all of the coverage and forcing everyone to basically come to his defense again on the Republican side. But I continue to think for the general election, I mean, you know, this is really serious, Like this is going to be a problem for him. And I think Joe Biden is eminently beatable. Like I saw this morning, his approval rating is like

31%. But guess what? Trump's approval rating is also 31%. And he could be by that time potentially facing prison time. Now, an outright majority of Americans believe he should suspend his campaign right now. So it's not like for getting back to the White House, he's in a strong position. But in terms of winning the Republican nomination, every one of these things is just helpful for him. Yeah, I think you're probably correct. I mean, listen, with the general electorate, I never have any idea. It's one of those where ahead of the 2022 elections in the polling data, nobody was like, I'm really pissed off about January 6th and about Stop the Steal. But then obviously voters, when they went to the polls, were very upset about it. And they directly punished many of the candidates who most

embraced it. At the same time, was that because of Stop the Steal? Was it because of Trump? And then abortion is laid out on top of all of this. The people who are pro-life will be like, no, no, no, it was all Trump. The people who are pro-life will be like, no, no, no, it was all Trump. The people who are pro-choice are like, well, it was a lot of abortion. I tend to fall much more on the side of abortion. Trump is actually the most moderate candidate in the entire GOP race on abortion, hilariously enough.

And whenever you continue to think and you to look at how they are gonna digest these overall indictments, the polling data that we have seems to indicate, it's like, yeah, a simple majority of people seem to believe that these are just. But though, that doesn't mean that they may not vote for him. Maybe they will. I mean, some people say they won't. Then there was the whole silent Trump phenomenon that happened both in 2016 and 2020. So I just don't know. I do agree. I think it is, in general, a weakness. And for a lot of people who are listening to this, I know it can be difficult.

If you listen to the show, you probably distrust institutions and the establishment. But I've said before, for a lot of normal people, it's like being arrested. They're like, oh my gosh, you must have done something wrong. Yeah, absolutely. When you get a mug shot.

Yeah, exactly. They're like, wow. I mean, to be in seven indictments or something like this, that's just crazy. I mean, that's one of those where, you know, if you still have some faith in the system and the justice system and all of that, it can code very differently than people who are both his supporters and were like pretty online and aware of some of the things going on in the justice system. I think the abortion point is an interesting one to pick up on because the ad that the Biden campaign released after the debates was about abortion. It wasn't about January 6th. It wasn't about Trump arrest. It wasn't about any of that. It was, they took clips

of Trump saying, I'm the one who overturned Roe versus Wade. And then they cut together some of the more extreme positions that were taken from GOP candidates on the debate stage. And that's what they released. And clearly, they think that continues to be the most potent, evocative issue for them. And it's an interesting one because, you know, if you poll voters, that's not going to be the top issue for the largest percentage of voters. But the people who are motivated by that are really motivated by it. And we, you know, at this point, we've seen it in multiple elections, certainly that Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

We had one recently in Ohio that was a big deal. We've actually got another one coming up in Pennsylvania that's going to be a big deal for another state Supreme Court seat. So they still feel like that, you know, and the thing is, it's not like the Biden administration, they're not even promising to do anything on the issue. They're just promising to not make things worse and

arguing that, you know, the Republicans, whether it's Trump or anybody else, would make things worse. So I do think that's going to continue to be really central. You're referring to some of the numbers here about how Americans feel about all of these various charges. Let's put this up on the screen because this is kind of fascinating. On each of the different charges and indictments, a majority actually thinks that he is guilty. The numbers are extremely similar, no matter whether it is what I consider to be the weakest case, the falsifying business records case, or the sensitive documents case, or either of the election subversion, whether it's the Georgia or the federal one, you're basically sitting at 50% of the country who say, yes, he did it. He is guilty. And only about 25% in each of these instances who say, no, he's innocent.

The rest are sort of like, I don't know. And so I feel like that 25% is the real, like those are the real, like, hardcore. Trump could never do anything wrong. And then, you know, as we've been saying from the beginning, as much as it's important and we try our best here to dig into the merits and, you know, have nuance and evaluate each claim and each indictment as they come, the reality is for most Americans, it's just a measure of how do I feel about Donald Trump. Exactly right. As, like, all of our politics basically is just about how do I feel about Donald Trump. Exactly right. As like all of our politics basically is just about how do you feel about Donald Trump. It's so important for people to take that. So we spend a lot of time going through the various merits because

we know it's going to eventually matter in a court of law. But in terms of how most people are going to digest it, yeah, I mean, they don't care. They don't care about Alvin Bragg and the D.A. They don't care about the technicalities of Georgia election law They don't care about January 6 and the free speech exception and all that Those are for us and you know the developments of which will be very important Don't get me wrong in terms of whether he can do you know actually gets convicted what the jury makeup is gonna look like What the judge says the trial date all of those are very important, but the straight-up like is he bad or is he good? Yeah I mean that pretty much reflected the various, the number and the lack of change in between every single one of them just shows, like, you've got a lot of people in this country who hate Trump and they just want to see him go away.

I think they see the legal system as an avenue in order to make him go away. It's like a forcing mechanism. So they're like, yeah, I support that. I think they also genuinely see him as a criminal. Absolutely. And so I think there's also a little bit of, like, the, you know, Al Capone getting him on tax fraud, tax cheating. It's like, whether it's for the thing that I really am mad at him about, or whether it's for a more superfluous issue, whatever it is, like, I think this guy is a criminal. I think he should face accountability.

And, you know, I'm not too troubled with the details. I just want to see him get his basically. No, I absolutely think you're correct. But as you alluded to, though, it has not stopped his supporters from issuing some of the most fawning coverage. Yes. Over on Fox News, there's basically like a little bit of a competition to be the most fawning in praise of the mugshot, how handsome it was, how tough and strong he looked, etc. I think it's pretty fair to say Jesse Waters won, won that competition. Let's go ahead and listen to what he had to say about the mugshot. And I am now going to book the Fulton County photographer for my Christmas card

because judge, and I say this with a unblemished record of heterosexuality. He looks good and, and he looks hard. And why would you think that you wouldn't practice the shot? Is that a surprise? Of course you practice the mugshot. You only don't practice if you're drunk. That's the first time Biden's told the truth. It's a handsome mugshot. My wife says he looks fierce. He looks hard, but he doesn't look scared, does he? Doesn't look humiliated. He looks exactly the opposite of how the left thought he'd look. So the media, once they observed the impact of the image, now say it wasn't natural. It wasn't authentic because the look was planned.

Unblemished record of heterosexuality there. His wife says he looks fierce. Jesse says repeatedly he looks hard. What do you think, Sagar? I'm just like, how many times do we have to say it, my man? I mean, like, what exactly are we trying to do here? Can't people just, like, kind of judge for themselves? Yeah, let people judge.

I mean, look, in terms of the face, the funny thing is, having covered Trump for years at the White House, I knew exactly what he was doing because that's the exact same face that he gave in the president shot for his official portrait. Most presidents in their official picture always smile. I think Obama did or they offer like a slight smile. Yeah. And Trump famously gave the frown. The reason why is he models it on the famous Churchill photo

that was taken in the middle of the Battle of Britain where Churchill is kind of scowl frowning at the camera as like the stolid like face against Nazism as Britain is beseeched. And he's obsessed with that particular photo. Interesting. So he doesn't smile in most like official communiques. There's another reason he's also not smiling actually in his official presidential portrait as well.

But yeah, I mean, I just think it's hilarious because I saw that and I was like, oh, that's his Churchill face. I'm like, the face he's obsessed with. As for whether he practiced it or not, I mean, he's basically been doing it since he's been in politics. So I'm pretty sure he just reverted back to the norm. Listen, if I was going to be in a photograph that like literally everyone in the entire planet was going to see, I would probably practice that face as well. So yeah, you got to play these things out. You know, I think there is like to go one level deeper analysis and Jesse Waters here and his just like shameless fawning propaganda for Trump. Fox News, led by Rupert Murdoch,

obviously wants to move on from Trump. I'm talking today in my monologue about how they're really into Nikki Haley and all the Fox and Friends people were talking about how she owned Vivek and how much they love her and she's so great and all her terrible neocon views are so amazing and wonderful. And Wall Street Journal has now published

multiple post-debate editorials fawning over Nikki Haley as well. Rupert Murdoch previously really wanted to go all-in on DeSantis. There's still rumors about he wants to get Glenn Youngkin in the race. Like, he wants to move on. And there's a lot of Republican elite media figures who really want to move on. But you can see in moments like this, I mean, their audience is so enthralled with Trump, you're just never going to be able to really turn that ship. And whatever

ability Fox used to have to really guide the Republican masses towards the candidates and policies and direction that they wanted to move them in, it's just not there anymore. I mean, you've got a much more fractured media landscape. People have a lot more choices. And Trump has a much firmer hold on the hearts of the Republican base than previous presidential candidates or other GOP politicians ever did. So, you know, they can't even like kind of get all of their hosts rowing in the same direction, let alone their viewing audience. No, absolutely right. Yeah. It's just it's pretty humiliating, though, just to see that also because don't forget, Waters took over the Tucker Carlson spot on Fox

and hasn't been able yet to assemble similar numbers in terms of primetime. And it's like, well, turns out that's the best strategy that works for Fox News primetime. Just shameless Trump fawning. Right. Oh, my God. Sycophancy. Unblemished record. It's so humiliating.

Oh, God. You couldn't pay me enough. Yeah, yeah, truly. You really could not. Okay, let's move on. We've got to talk about Prigozhin. So I did a breaking news segment about Prigozhin whenever the crash actually happened. There's now various explanations for what happened to Prigozhin's plane.

I think what everyone can agree on is that he is dead. So what exactly happened? Well, you can guess. Intel sources tell us there was a blast on board the plane. Others tell us he was hit by a surface-to-air missile. One thing for sure, he was definitely on board that flight with multiple other actually innocent people, including a poor flight attendant, actually, who didn't do anything wrong and who was blown out of the sky. We have all the video of the plane coming, crashing and smoking, you know, crashing down on a routine flight from Moscow to St. Petersburg.

Putin is now offering his condolences to Prigozhin after his untimely death. Let's take a little bit of a listen to that. Let's go and play this and I will speak over. He says, quote, if Wagner members were on board, as the report suggests, I would like to acknowledge that these people did make a significant contribution to our joint fight against the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine. Clearly, they're sticking to the rhetoric that he's been keeping up against Prigozhin. They also had previously said, Crystal, that they'd used genetic test DNA in order to confirm he was on board there. In terms of continuing, he says,

I have known Prigozhin for a long time. He made some serious mistakes in his life, but also achieved a lot, both for himself when I asked for our joint cause, like in these recent months. Recall that he was actually Putin's chef after previously serving as a prisoner, and then built himself up into a military oligarch. He says, quote, he was a talented man and a skilled businessman, offering him up some praise. I think we could say relatively confidently, I guess I hope the Russians don't sue us, is that he probably had something to do

with the death of Mr. Prigozhin. You can be the guest. You can give the ultimate guess. One interesting thing, though, is about what Prgosian was actually thinking and what was in his mind. Why did he think that he would be the exception to the rule and would live? And, you know, in some respects, Crystal, some Russian traitors, oligarchs and others who have betrayed Putin, it takes a while for them to die. Sometimes they'll give him a

year. Sometimes they'll give him two years. You know, in some cases, they gave him eight years. Pergosian was actually killed very relatively quickly for somebody who had so betrayed Putin. I think it was because it was so public and such an international humiliation to launch the coup against him. But there's always been a question of why did he turn around? I said during the segment, it's like if you're gonna take Vienna, then you gotta take it, man. But when you turn around, why did you think that Putin was ever gonna let you live?

Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Some of it does come back to his overall leadership of the Wagner Group and some of the people who were actually loyal to him. We have this from the Wall Street Journal, the quote, the last days of Wagner's prognosis. Quote, on the run, the paramilitary chief crisscrossed his global business empire,

desperate to show that he was still in control. He said, quote, I need more gold. He had spent some time in Africa, the Central African Republic, for example, where one of his first clients for the Matt Wagner Group company, several thousand people who were there, he crisscrossed and traversed. He had told various other people that things were fine with Putin. But at the same time, he also seemed to indicate he did know, Crystal, that he was in danger. And so the portrait that emerges here is he was kind of frantic, trying to shore up his position. I think he saw himself as a projection of Russian power through the Wagner Group, through a lot of its military operations in Africa and in Syria. And he was trying to make himself indispensable to the Putin regime,

even though he had launched a coup against them, and then ultimately he was killed after only a matter of months after launching this coup against Putin. So the entire thing is really surreal to see Putin fake mourn him. I don't know, I really wonder, because Russians aren't stupid, ordinary Russians.

They're like, yeah, he was obviously killed by Putin. Why do they put up this whole song and dance? I'm just not even sure why it's necessary. There's a lot about this that I don't, that I have trouble wrapping my head around. I mean, I don't know why he ever thought he was going to be able to be successful with the coup in the first place. I know once you, but once you start, man, you can't stop. Like we, we said at the time, this man is not going to live a long life. Now I didn't think it was going to come this quickly. I thought it'd be years down the road by the time people had sort of like forgotten this incident and moved on. You'd see a footnote in the New York Times or wherever saying that he had been

assassinated, poisoned, you know, pushed down a window, whatever, or fell to an untimely death out of a window. It seems to happen to a number of these Russian oligarchs. For it to be this quick and this really brazen is quite remarkable. But that makes sense to me because Putin is trying to, you know, reassert dominance, reassert control, etc. I do not understand why Prokofiev thought that this deal would hold up. I do not understand why he still felt at liberty to fly around and try to keep his his control over the Wagner group, his control over these various interests, especially, you know, around Africa and the Middle East. Clearly, the Kremlin had been trying to kind of take over the business operations that Wagner had previously been leading. But they say that Prokosian refused to retire quietly in that Wall Street Journal piece, crisscrossing the Middle

East, Eastern Europe and Africa in a bid to keep his business links alive, posted audio messages offering mercenaries to the military regime that had recently taken power in Niger, a video of himself and Mali posing with a sniper rifle and four magazines strapped to a bulletproof vest, vowing to, quote, make Russia even greater and Africa even more free. So why did he feel at liberty to do these things? I mean, did he just, just like basically have a death wish? Did he, you know, really feel like he had that level of understanding with Putin where he could really trust his word, et cetera? I don't know. A lot about it is still very perplexing. You can, you know, I mean, you can just surmise it takes a certain personality to be a global mercenary head, warlord, cutting people's

heads off and stuff inside Ukraine. It takes a certain personality to survive in Putin's Russia, to rise from chef to oligarch, to kiss ass, to megalomaniac, to warrior, to coup. Sometimes people are actually very not rational at all. That's true. You can see here with him, it seemed delusional. In many cases, the delusions that can actually get you a tremendous amount of power very often will end up being a downfall. And it seems that that very much was the case. Overall, though, I mean, in terms of what matters, it does seem there's like a temporary Wagner memorial inside of Russia. Some people were mourning him in Moscow. There were things coming.

But overall, I mean, we haven't seen any change in the front line. Wagner has largely been, you know, been amassed into the Russian armed services. You've not seen any major, you know, change in terms of battlefield-like preparation or any of that. So also the commanders on the ground who seemed somewhat sympathetic to Prigozhin, they've been fired and unceremoniously dismissed. And Putin, in many ways, I mean, seems stronger than ever. He killed his main rival out in the open. It was a blatant signal. It's like, you cross me, I'm going to kill you. I'm going to blow you out of the sky and then fake mourn your death on national television.

Yeah. I can't think of a more bloodthirsty thing you can do, a more cold thing also that you can do in terms of a message. Yegor's analysis of Prokhorin has always been that he was basically high on his own supply. Yeah, I think that's right. That he had delusions of grandeur, that he really bought the hype around him, which was in some ways hype that was created by the Russian media propaganda networks. So they sort of built him up as this heroic figure. And then he was very, you know, omnipresent on social media or whatever. And so he really misgaged the actual level of support that he had among the

people. Again, these things are very hard to judge from afar, you know, how he felt and how people feel about him and how they felt, you know, felt about him then feel about him now, et cetera. But that was his analysis is that, you know, he had this sort of like Potemkin village of social media and actual media support. And then once that media support is pulled, there's really not a lot left there in terms of his genuine support among the populace. And so when he starts this failed, you know, coup attempt, which, you know, he denied it was really a coup attempt, but I think we all saw that in real time. Once he starts down this path and he doesn't see the people rallying to his cause in the way that he thought, kind of burst his bubble. He freaks out and he makes this deal with Putin. That's the best that I can surmise of what happened here, but wild, wild series of events.

I guess we get to live in interesting times. Speaking of that, there's an open war breaking out, actually, between U.S. military generals and Ukrainian military generals, both in the press, on background, and in the public. And it's all kind of fascinating, and it tells us a lot about where the conflict is headed. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. This is from the New York Times, but it was one of many. There was one from the Times, there was one from the Wall Street Journal, one from the Financial Times, and one from Foreign Policy, all basically quoting the same sources, which saying the exact same thing over and over again.

U.S. officials are saying that Ukraine's forces and its firepower are misallocated. American strategists saying Ukraine's troops are too spread out and they need to concentrate along the counterintensive main front in the South. The main criticism comes down to this, Crystal. The U.S. is telling the Ukrainians a couple of things. You're firing way too much artillery. You're basically reverting to old style Soviet tactics. We're going to get to it in a little bit, but they fired almost 2 million artillery shells since the conflict began. Here's the issue with that. All of it comes from us.

We manufacture it. And they have not only depleted all of our stockpiles, we can produce 20,000 per month. They use 90,000 per month. You can go ahead and guess how much Germany and the other ridiculous countries, which can't even hit 2% NATO spending or defense spending inside of NATO, how much they are able to produce. So they wiped out our overall stockpile and they're massively depleting whatever we're even able to produce in the future. Number two, they have effectively been completely unable to actually fight combined arms tactics in the way that a modern US military would fight.

They are reverting much more to World War I style conflict where you shell the hell out of the people in front of you. You kind of burrow them into a hole and then you just run forward and kind of hope that it all works out. Take out whatever tanks you can, again, with US supplied weapons. Hasn't worked out all that well. They've taken a couple of villages. They're claiming one that they've had here, but no meaningful breakthrough actually on the front line, especially relative to the tens of thousands of casualties that they have suffered and the multi-billions of dollars that we have given them. The major concern that there is right now from the U.S. side is that the Ukrainians are not grappling with the fact that the amount of aid that they were given for this counteroffensive,

it's never going to happen again. I mean, even in terms of what they have asked the Biden administration for Congress, which has not yet been even considered and has faces a lot of problems inside of Congress, the extra 25 billion, some of that is humanitarian aid. In terms of the military aid, you can appropriate all you want, but in terms of the hard actual number of things that we have at our disposal, especially for the defense industrial base, it'll never come to this again. So if they're just going to rely on shooting as many shells as possible, it's just not going to work. There is some indication that the Ukrainians have been listening because they have taken a couple of small villages in the last couple of days and they're seeing a little bit more movement.

Most of that is from pressure by the West in order to concentrate the majority of their forces at single strategic points. But they also have to watch out because the Russians now are also, it seems, massing for at least some sort of counteroffensive against the counteroffensive. Again, it's all very reminiscent of World War I. But then in terms of the future, what the hell is going to happen here? U.S. strategists and all of them, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, refuses to say it's a stalemate. He says,

it's not a stalemate, but we haven't seen anything major breakthrough. They're prepping the ground for this thing going on forever. David Ignatius, who is like the deep state whisperer, let's go and put this up there on the screen. Here's what he says, how the US sees Ukraine's push, no stalemate, but no breakthrough. What does that mean exactly? Someone can explain that one to me. Sounds like the definition of a stalemate, actually. Here are the top line things that actually come out for it for our purposes. Number one, Kiev says that this is going to go on forever. Number two, U.S. and Ukraine dramatically disagree in terms of strategy. Then number three, and this was actually the most important one to me, quote,

with Ukrainian forces stymied on the ground, U.S. officials believe President Zelensky will take the fight increasingly to Russian territory and occupied Crimea. In other words, the more they are bogged down on the ground, they're going to try and force strikes on Russian territory and in Crimea. Again, look, they can do whatever they want, but then they should bear all the risk if they're going to provide and use our weapons to do so. That puts us in a whole other ballgame, especially if they're not using measly little drones against Moscow and the Kremlin. They're actually using US-provided F-16s, of which some of them are beginning to trade right now. There was also a very telling, actually, line in here, Crystal, about ATCAMs in terms of long range

missiles that they have long desired. Quote, the United States doesn't have enough ATCAMs to supply Ukraine without undercutting its own readiness for any future conflict with China. And the reason why I think that line struck to me so hard is that the over and over again we are learning is that we already know that the Biden administration will eventually cave and they're going to give them these weapons. And yet they always tried to deny the reality that it is dramatically reducing US defense readiness and the capabilities of the overall industrial base. At this point, you should be resigned. These weapons are going to Ukraine. There's no way. First, oh, we're not going to send the F-16s.

Now we're sending F-16s. Then, oh, we're never going to send cluster munitions. Now we're, you know, basically, the only reason they're having any movement on the ground is because of the cluster munitions. Now this one, they're like long range missiles. Oh, well, they could strike deep inside Russia. We'll hear the hymns and haws about that for a little while.

They're going to do it. They cave. The Ukrainians get everything that they want. Russia will hear the, you know, hymns and haws about that for a little while. We all, they're going to do it. They caved. The Ukrainians get everything that they want. And so the last thing I'll say about it is it is clear to me that the Ukrainians are fighting as if they have a bottomless supply. They refuse to wake up to reality. And, you know, eventually I think, you know, the bill on this is going to come due, but the West is also deluded into thinking that its populations

and its defense industrial bases will be able to provide the Ukrainians with the things that they need, with the tactics they have decided that they are going to use. And the stalemate that they are signing themselves up for, it's not one which is strategically on their side. Russia's a real country. They've got real trade. They've got a real defense industrial base. You know, the Ukrainian industrial base pumps out like 15 drones and they think they're like, oh, well, the drone supply is up 2000%. I'm like, so what? You know, these are the amount that gets shot down in like three days on, on the front line. Anyway, those are all my top line things from, I read a lot about this over the last couple of days. And basically they're trying to prep the U S population

for it's going to be Afghanistan. It's just going to take years and years and years. It's just going to go forever. It's just never going to end. And the more that happens, the more, as he even acknowledges here, that they're going to pursue on the Russian side of the more difficult and the more desperate they are, the more dangerous tactics they will deploy. It's the exact same on the Ukrainian side. The more desperate and the less success they have in these counteroffensives, the more that they will be willing to drone strike within Russian territory and take more

dangerous, potentially provocative, potentially escalatory moves. So, you know, the U.S. is well aware of this, as David Ignatius, you know, one of their sort of like media allies is putting out there. They're well aware of this, but they have zero interest in really doing anything but tutting and asking nicely for them to stop, which the Ukrainians have zero intention of actually doing. The other thing that I was trying to figure out, Sagar, is anytime you see these new media narratives coming out of the sort of established media ally channels

like The New York Times and The Washington Post, you always have to ask yourself, like, why? Because they're not listening. Why? Why are they putting this out there now? And I do think, look, I think it's partly reality that the Ukrainians have not pursued the strategy that the U.S. wanted them to pursue, you know, reportedly, according to The New York Times.

They wanted them to really concentrate their forces to try to break up this land bridge that they have between Russia and Crimea, which allows the Russians to have these supply lines. That was really where they wanted to focus their troops. The Ukrainians have spread their forces more thinly across the east and across the south. But I also think it's a little bit of like, I actually think it's a lot of cover your ass of like explaining to the U.S. population why it hasn't gone as well as it was really sold going in and how it's not our fault at all. And, you know, it's their fault.

Everything's on their side. We did everything that we possibly could. And, you know, if we just, and also the implication here is, oh, well, if we just get them to change some of their tactics, then things will go completely differently, which I think is also a farce and a fantasy.

I honestly, look, I say this with whatever respect I can musters. The Ukrainian military, they are some of the most arrogant people I have ever read about in all of history because they think that they're like, they are some of the most arrogant people I have ever read about in all of history. Because they think that they're like, they're talking to the US military, literally pays all their bills, run all their surveillance, runs all their ISR, provides all of their weapons. And they're like, no, no, no, we know better than US military

planners. One of them, actually the head of the Ukrainian forces was like, this is the battle of Kursk. For people who don't know, that was like a major battle that happened in the Eastern Front in 1943. It was one of the largest tank battles. I think it's maybe the largest tank battle ever in all of history. It eventually is what helped, you know, quell the Nazi invasion. Soviet Union and you are not somebody with like any real industrial base or ability in order to mount the actual defense that would be necessary in order to pull something like that off, as evidenced by the lack of gains that you've made so far in the counteroffensive. Yeah.

And by, you know, fairly like juvenile tactical mistakes, like blowing $10 billion worth of artillery on a battle for a city, which you then lose. It's one of those where again and again and again, they revert to what they know best, which is fine, but they are not able to keep that up for all of the downstream supply chain and everything else. And they're not, the reason why I think is that the only way to use the Ukrainians is through the U.S the US media because clearly they don't listen. They're arrogant. They're like, no, we know exactly what we're going to do.

And the US is like, well, we pay your bills and we can actually see, you know, the maps and you're not listening to us. So they start leaking on background. What has then happened is that now the Ukrainian generals are defending themselves in public. There was some meeting that happened on the Polish border between the generals and between the Ukrainian, the head of the Ukrainian armed forces as well. And look, we'll see. It's possible that they will make some small gains.

But at the end of the day, I urge everybody, every time I see these stories, they're like, Ukraine takes small village. Go look at a map of the front line. They have taken scraps, hundreds of yards. 20% of the country is still held by Russia. The overall grand strategic vision has changed nothing. The only thing is a lot of people are dead. And billions and billions of dollars of munitions have been pumped into the ground,

some of which are unexploded and will probably kill children for 100 years from now. And nobody seems to care about that. And in terms of prepping the U.S. population for basically another forever war, at least in this time of forever, quote unquote, proxy war is, I mean, I think on the sort of like liberal democratic side is basically working. Like Ukraine has really slipped from the front of people's consciousness. They've just sort of accepted this is this ongoing thing that we're going to continue pumping resources and money and focus and attention into. And it's just, it is taken for granted now among much

of the population that this is just kind of the status quo. So in a lot of ways, I think those propaganda efforts have been successful. But the dangers we've been warning about, both in terms of escalation and in terms of, you know, resources that are being expended here, those continue to be incredibly real and not something that anyone should push out of their mind because, and also, you know, most importantly, like, this is a human catastrophe. It's horrendous. The number of limbs that are lost and lives that are lost and lives that are abandoned, I mean, this is just an absolute human calamity. And so we shouldn't lose attention and focus on it for that reason alone. Yep, absolutely right. massive game-changing decision that was just made by the National Labor Relations Board under Joe

Biden that could actually really change the game in terms of union density in this country. Let me go and put this up on the screen and then I'll explain in detail what all of this means. This is courtesy of More Perfect Union. They say, breaking. The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that if bosses commit unfair labor practices in the run-up to a union election, which happens, by the way, guys, all the time, like routinely in a majority of union elections, the bosses commit unfair labor practices. If that happens, then the union election is going to be canceled and the National Labor Relations Board will order the employer to immediately recognize the union and bargain with the union. More Perfect Union adds

union busting just got a lot harder. They go on to say now every union campaign has to go to an election to get formal recognition, but bosses use that time to union bust often illegally. Now, if a majority of workers support the union, bosses will have to stop union bust, often illegally. Now, if a majority of workers support the union, bosses will have to stop union busting or be forced to negotiate and recognize the union with no election at all. As the chair of the NLRB says, quote, it eliminates incentives for employers to commit unfair labor practices as a way to delay or defeat representation when a majority of workers have shown support for a union. So as it stands prior to this ruling, as you guys likely know, if workers want to

organize with a union, it is a massive uphill climb. The very first step is the union will get supporters who are interested in joining the union to sign cards. They sign off basically saying, yes, I'm interested in joining the union. Now, it used to be that if a majority of workers signed those cards, the assumption was, okay, then you're going to be represented by a union and the employer has to bargain with you unless there are some more extraordinary circumstances that would indicate that actually no majority of workers don't really want to join the union and then it would go to election. So it used to be, and this was called the Joy Silk Doctrine, they used to be, it was the presumption that the workers, if there was a majority of cards signed, would form a union.

That has been completely upended over decades. And now the presumption is the total opposite. Doesn't matter how many workers sign the card. It's going to an election. And all of that time between when the cards are signed and when the election happens, employers routinely engage in illegal, unfair labor practices and overt union busting. So this ruling is now taking a step part of the way back towards that old method where the presumption was that if majorities of workers want to join a union, then, you know, they have to recognize the union. So if the employer then is caught engaging in unfair labor practices, union election is canceled and the union wins and they have to bargain with them. So this is a huge deal. The backstory here and why this ruling is coming out now is because there is a group of CEMEX cement truck drivers who in 2019 narrowly voted against joining the Teamsters. However, during the run up to that election, CEMEX, the company, had committed more than two dozen unfair labor practices that included threatening, surveilling, interrogating workers, hiring security guards to intimidate them, et cetera, et cetera.

And so because they had so wildly skewed the results of this election, the National Labor Relations Board is now saying no. That election is now null and void. And you have to recognize this Teamsters union and you have to start bargaining with them. And that logic is now going to be applied across the board. I cannot emphasize to you enough what a huge, historic, you know, sort of rising grassroots union movements, and also of near historic high public support for unions as well. So this is really quite extraordinary. Yeah, I was just, I was trying to figure out like why now? Is it also in the context of the UAW strike? Like that's what we had been looking at. That's the one that's looming. At the same time,

we've actually seen successful resolution of some of these bigger disputes like UPS, for example, despite posturing. So is it on the heels of that? Like where does it go? No, it really comes straight out of the general counsel, Jennifer Bruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board under Joe Biden, who I think has been extraordinary. I think is one of the best things that Joe Biden has done, putting her in this position. She has said for a while that she wants to revisit the Joy Silk Road doctrine. And so unions have been waiting and workers have been waiting to see how this all comes down. And as I said, this is almost like a middle of the road path because it doesn't go all the way back to just what, you know, would be called card check, where if there's a majority of cards signed, that's it. End of story. There's a union unless the burden is on the boss to prove that, no, in reality, there aren't a majority of workers. And then you go to the election. So it doesn't go all the way back to that. It's kind of a middle of the road.

But in comparison to where we are today is a huge deal. And so, you know, this is a general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board who's been very interested in trying to rebalance the scales and make it much more fair for workers to be able to organize and be able to bargain. And this particular case that ended up before the National Labor Relations Board just gave them the sort of perfect opportunity to revise and update the, you know, the approach with regards to when unions are recognized and when the elections have to occur. So I think they were, if I had to say why now, it's because this case provided them with the opportunity to issue an updated ruling and updated guidance about how this is all supposed to work. That makes sense. Well, then it will likely spawn some more labor

actions in the future because people will feel as if they have much more of a cover. And it will also change the way the business has to interact with said unions. Workers will have a lot less fear about like because as of now, you know, we covered the Amazon fight down in Bessemer, Alabama. Right. And a lot of workers in a region where there aren't a lot of good jobs, you know, they were fearful. Right. They're afraid. Like, OK, I've got a job that pays pretty decently. of workers in a region where there aren't a lot of good jobs, you know, they were fearful, right? They're afraid, like, okay, I've got a job that pays pretty decently. And yeah, I got all these problems with it. And I might like to be part of a union and have that kind of collective power, but I'm afraid like they'll, they might retaliate against me. They might close up shop altogether.

They might fire me. All of those things were a real possibility. And in the past, workers that routinely, I mean, bosses that routinely union bust, like Starbucks, like Amazon, like basically all of them, they would get a slap on the wrist. You know, they have to like pay a modest fine or post the rules and the rights that workers have in the workplace. And that would basically be it. So there was no real accountability or no real consequence to work to bosses just overwhelmingly union bust. So yeah, this completely changes the landscape. I mean, I think it'll take some time for workers to really internalize like, no, actually, I don't have to be so fearful of those consequences. I can actually, if I want to join a union, be involved in organizing all of those things. I can actually, if I want to, join a union, be involved in organizing all of those things. But the way that this rebalances the scales, the way this changes the landscape,

we've had years and years and years of union density decline. And even in this past little stretch over the past year or couple of years, where you've had a lot more activity, you've had a lot more strikes, you've had a lot more union efforts, you've had the Starbucks movement, the Amazon movement, all of that stuff, you still, as a percentage of the workforce, have seen the percentage, like the union density decline. This could actually be the thing that flips that on its head, that enters a new era of increasingly building worker power. And, you know, to shift to the other part of this that is really big, you pointed out the Teamsters, the UPS workers organized under the Teamsters just scored some major wins in terms of their contract, got a lot of attention. Some of the drivers are going to

make it $170K a year. With benefits. With benefits. That includes the benefits. That's a good wage. And by the way, that's not just good for UPS workers. Any driver in the package delivery industry is probably going to benefit from this because FedEx, they're going to have to up their game to compete now with UPS. So you're starting to see these big national movements where workers can really tell, hey, if I have a union, I might be able to get a better deal. They can see the wins in the games that are occurring here. And we've got another really big one that is coming down the pike that we've been following closely. Go ahead and put this up on the screen. So the United Auto Workers, of course, represent workers at all the big three

automakers. They have now overwhelmingly voted to authorize strikes at GM, Ford, and Stellantis. Stellantis is the name of the other big three at this point. The union on Friday said an average of 97% of combined members at the automakers approved the action. However, final votes are still being tallied. They have a new president at the UAW, a guy named Sean Fain, who ran on being more militant and more representative of the rank and file. He was quoted as saying the big three is our strike target and whether or not there is a strike, it's up to Ford, GM and Stellantis, because they know what our priorities are. We have been clear and the demands that the union

is starting their negotiation with are, you know, they're quite extraordinary. Like they're, they're audacious. And I personally love to see it. Includes a 46% wage increase to match the wage increase that the CEOs of the big three have gotten over the just the past couple of years. Restoration of traditional pensions. So not 401k, like defined benefit. This is what you get. And that's the end of the story. Cost of living increases, which is something that these workers gave up when they helped

to bail out these automakers during the financial crash. And reducing the work week to 32 hours from 40 and increasing retiree benefits. So basically going to a four-day work week, something that has been successful in other industries and studies have shown has been pretty successful overall. But that's another, you know, that's a really big deal. So the strike deadline, the deadline in terms of contract negotiations is coming here in just the next couple of weeks in mid-September. And obviously, if these workers go out on strike, it would be a really, really big deal. And whatever contract they are able to secure is also going to be a really big deal, not just for auto workers, but for a lot of different workers across a lot of industries. Yeah, that's actually the most interesting one to me is both about the changes, as you said, about UPS and how that will change the overall package delivery market, especially as it continues to massively grow. But then also with UAW, that sets the actual tone for as we head

into even more automation, electric vehicles, that's where actually some of the biggest fights with them are on, demanding that X amount be actually made here in the US. I think that's the most important thing about helping us remain resilient as a country to make sure that in any future problem, that we actually will be able to control a lot of what we actually need in order to subsist and to live here. And the union is actually a huge part of that. It's interesting because they're the ones really fighting for all of that. If the execs had their way, every single thing would be made in China. They don't even want to make it in Mexico. They want to make it all halfway across the globe in order to save a penny, in order to squeeze even more out of the stock price. Yeah. And the UAW has been unhappy with

the Biden administration not doing enough to make sure the new EV and battery jobs are union and pay similar wages to the rest of the industry. So that's one of the big fights. But not everybody is happy about workers trying to claim a little bit of power, a little bit of better wages, benefits, et cetera. Over on Bloomberg News, they were live from Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It's very beautiful, lovely surrounding that they're there kind of freaking out about this potential strike

and what is going on with the workforce. Let's take a listen. We've had the pay rises. We've had the pay rises. We've had the union action. We haven't had the strikes. Exactly. And I don't think anyone wants to see those strikes anytime soon either. Which has transmitted into this belief that labor has the upper hand and that if labor

has the upper hand, price increases can continue, not just union jobs, but more broadly. And that is the key question here. Is that going to continue so that you see a longer and higher inflation and a stronger and better economy for even with the rates that we see right now? So it's time for the surveillance extrapolation. We do this every year at Jackson Hole. John, I'm trying to envision you, bronze shorts, working your butt off at UPS, popping 170 all in. That's so never going to happen. Why not?

Why are you talking down the potential for this to happen? Even our next guest is laughing. Exactly. Lisa, if we put John at Flint, Michigan building Buicks, what are you going to pop? 225? Not sure. You've got to pay an auto worker more than a guy delivering boxes. They cannot believe

that these workers are actually earning decent salaries. They think only people like them deserve to earn, you know, living, able to afford like a house and a middle class life, etc. But, you know, the thing I love about those clips, we played some of the ones with Kramer freaking out over on CNBC, is just like, this has never happened in my life where they actually feel worried that there is some countervailing force on the other side. And it is a remarkable thing to behold. I think what happened is is that we had a massive oversaturation of white-collar workers, is that obviously with the student debt crisis, then you have an entire generation of people who wake up and you're like wait I don't actually make all that much money and especially whenever it keeps up with the real inflation, not just inflation cost of

goods, but the necessary inflation for shelter. And then you combine mortgage rates. And then you have to look at, like, what are people actually paying for? What's genuinely valued? At the end of the day, it's about capitalism. And in our system, what we are finding is that the service sector in general, we've squeezed not as much as we can, but a lot of what we have already to get the gains. But we've forgotten so much about all this necessary part of our economy, the blue collar workforce. And then they, using their ability in order to extract concessions, are like, yeah, we actually want to get paid. You relied on us all throughout COVID. We're not just going to sit here and we're not going to take it anymore. It turns out AI is

more of a threat for the lawyer than it is for the driver. And so in that scenario, it's like, you know, I won't say it in a crass way from Goodfellas. Like, screw you. Pay me. You know, it's like, I've got you. And why shouldn't they? So it does annoy me, you know, the way they're talking like, oh, pulling $2.25 an hour. There's no way.

All of that. First of all, it's not true. But second, you know, it's one of those where it's like, well, okay, but what's wrong with that? Like, why is that bad? Why is it bad, though? What, are you saying that the bowtied guy sitting in a Jackson Hole? I really think a lot of it is class anxiety. They're just mad at the idea that these people will actually get paid even close to some of them or their kids who are majors, something useless in college.

And we're banking on some upper-middle-class-ish type job, which is just not paying out the same way that it used to. Yeah. I think the class anxiety part of this is very real and the class discontent, like they just don't fit. Like none of those people could do the package delivery job. None of them could do it. I couldn't do it. That is a freaking hard job. Those men and women are working their asses off and it is brutal and it is hard on your is hard on your body. And they are actually providing a service that every one of us depends on. And so to have this like sneering contempt about them earning a decent wage and being able to potentially, possibly, maybe sometime in their life afford

a house and that they think that that is so undeserved. Meanwhile, you know, they don't think twice about the multimillion dollar salaries that they're raking in, like sitting in a studio or flying to Jackson Hole and opining for the world on their thoughts on, you know, the business world from on high. They don't think twice about that. But when it's people who are actually making the economy work, building cars, delivering packages, et cetera, it's nothing but sneers and nothing but contempt. That's right. Well, speaking of sneers, contempt, class anxiety. Yeah, that's a good transition. There's so much going on here. Oliver Anthony of the Rich Men North of Richmond fame, number one on the Billboard Top 100, the number one song in the United States, didn't take so kindly to seeing his song used in the GOP debate and not just in the debate, but really

being embraced explicitly as a conservative kind of anthem against the ruling establishment. Here's what he had to say. It's aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me like I'm one of them. It's aggravating seeing certain musicians and politicians act like we're buddies and, and act like we're fighting the same struggle here. Like that was trying to present the same message. It was fun. It was funny seeing it, the presidential debate. Cause it's like, I wrote that song about those people, you know? So for them to have to sit there and listen to that, that cracks me up. But it was funny kind of seeing the response to it. Like that song has nothing to do with Joe Biden, you know?

It's a lot bigger than Joe Biden. That song is written about the people on that stage and a lot more too, not just them, but definitely them. Very explicit call out of the Republican debate and also saying, I wrote that song about people like them. Let's put this up there on the screen. He also tweeted this out, quote, I don't support either side politically, not the left, not the right. I'm about supporting people and restoring local communities. Now breathe some fresh air and relax, please. I'm not worth obsessing over, I promise. Go spend some time with your loved ones. He also put out a Facebook post basically saying some of this as well. I apologize for beating a dead horse.

I need to address this quote in my video earlier since it's been misquoted. Corporate news is now trying to twist me into being a Biden supporter. Richmond, north of Richmond, is about corporate-owned D.C. politicians on both sides. Though Biden is most certainly a problem, the lyrics aren't exclusively knocking Biden. It is bigger and broader than that. It is knocking the system collectively, including the corporate-owned conservative politicians

that were on stage that night. Good night, everyone, and thanks again. So I gotta give the man credit. You know, it is, of course, it's mostly been Republicans who have, at least on a national level, been trying to embrace the song. I've seen a lot of video, of course, of, you know, a lot of people, everybody for which the song resonates and, you know, God bless. I think that's great. And so I have to give him credit because I think the easiest thing that would have possibly been for him is to lean into this, right? To go the Rittenhouse route or any

of these, be like, listen, you know, it's time to make some money, go sign some, he said he's turned down like multimillion dollar record deals. It'd be easy for him to go start playing Turning Point USA concerts and to, you know, go to a Trump rally or something like that. And he's like, no, I don't want to. Now, look, it remains to be seen. We'll see what he can do. It's not easy, though, to be thrust into overnight success and to fame like this and actually try and stand up at least for some semblance of what you believe in from a more principled level. So I do appreciate that. I really appreciate that he was willing to call these people out. And I actually, I hope he continues to do so as more people try in order to weaponize his song on a political level. Yeah, I'm of two

minds about it because on the one hand, like, obviously I enjoy him being like, screw you, Fox News, and you're the problem and all these, like, Republican tools on stage. Like, this song is not for you. So I, of course, enjoy that. On the other hand, like, the song is overtly political. So it's not so, I mean, when you're talking about, like, Jeffrey Epstein, you're talking about politicians, you're talking about, you know, people on welfare. If you're 5'3", you're 300 pounds. Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds. Like, of course, people are going to view that through a political lens because it is overtly political.

And the you know, the narrative, especially in that part about like, you know, people who are overweight and eating fudge rounds and we're paying for them like that is a, you know, explicitly right wing political statement. So, I mean, almost like in defense of Fox News and in defense of the conservative influencers who really were key to his success with this song, like, of course, anyone hearing these lyrics would interpret it that way. So I'll give their side of it. They actually saw some people saying that they're like, hey, screw you, man. They're like, the only reason you're famous is because of us. You know, it isn't just be like the merits of the song. They're like, we're the ones who like posted it, memed it and like brought it to our audience and really built you up and turned this into kind of an explicit, like screw you against, uh, you know, the ruling establishment, all those

people were the ones who got it popular. Uh, that's why, you know, you, you know, for who are you to come out and basically denounce your overall fan base? I don't know. I'm of a couple of minds of it. I think that the more, look, I agree with you in terms of the explicit analysis of the song is very clear. Like what the song is. I, as I've said, I basically think it's a, it's like a blue collar folk libertarian type song of which is, you know, very reminiscent of like Reagan-esque type themes. On the other, it does seem in some of his commentary since that he has been trying to distance himself from the more overtly political part. So I talked to you about this before I pull this up. He's clearly, he's heard some of our criticism too, about some of the language around

welfare. Here's what he has to say. Our government likes to throw money at problems without conceptualizing real solutions to connect to individuals involved. The lyrics contrast that some left without any and others are left only with the option of living on junk food. Meanwhile, our farming industry has been corporatized and sold out. Food is entirely too expensive, especially in a nation with just abundant farmland. In politics, it's all about keeping people who are dependent, dependent. So it did seem clear to me here in this song, or in this kind of clear-up lyric around the fudge rounds and condoms. He didn't want it, though, to be perceived in the way that it was, if that makes sense.

But, I mean, the line literally says the obese milk and welfare. I don't disagree with that. So, like, how am I supposed to take that? I am not disagreeing with what you're saying. literally says the obese milk and welfare i don't disagree like how am i supposed to take that i am not disagreeing with what you're saying i'm only saying it is clear to me that he didn't want it to become sort of anthem i think against uh welfare in that way and look he didn't i mean he didn't know he was gonna go overnight fame yeah you know unless it's like yeah i have no problem i genuinely have no problem with the guy like i really have no problem with the guy. Like I really have no problem with the guy. I find the, the like fascination with the song.

Interesting. I find the adoption of the song, you know, by the right. Interesting. As I said at the time, I think there's so much desire on the right to have some like culturally relevant products that anything that seems like it fits into their worldview.

It's like, yes, we love it. It's very like they get very, you know, people in that side get very excited. And I think that's why there was such a elevation of the song. But I just you know, it is it's fine for things to be political, too. Like there's oftentimes this reaction of like, oh, things that are political, that's bad. I don't want to be, almost everything is political. Like certainly if you're talking about Jeffrey Epstein and milk and welfare and fudge rounds and war and like these things are all political.

So I don't think that there should be this reaction against like interpreting it through a political lens because clearly a lot of the people that his art resonated with, they did see it through a political lens. They interpreted it as a validation of their views. And that's fine, but I don't know that you can fully, like, you put your art out into the world,

then people are allowed to interpret it and, you know, find resonance with it however they want to. So that's more my view. Well, his latest song, I think, is actually, it resonates with me a lot more. It talks about war, right? Brink of the next world war talking explicitly. I mean, I wouldn't say explicitly, but more so about calling out politicians, sending money abroad to talk, I think, pretty clearly a swipe at Ukraine.

I mean, you can call that coded left or right or whatever if you want. But if we can mean those types of lyrics into the broad populace, I'm all for it. I'm now explicitly pro-Oliver Anthony if he's going to get some anti-war rhetoric actually in order to be cool, at least on some sort of pop culture level, to actually break into people who may not have heard or considered those types of views before. I think this is much more healthy. I do think your point of like, he could have very easily just been like, It's easier.

Okay, the right loves me. I'm gonna embrace it. I'm gonna like go all in on this. I mean, he could easily spit up songs that are just like overtly right wing and really clear and continue to have a lot of success and make a lot of money. And so I do respect the fact that he was like,

this is not the lane I'm going. I respect that. Because a lot of people do travel so I do respect the fact that he was like, this is not this is not the lane. I respect a lot of people do travel down that path. How easy is it? You know, overnight fame like this. I bet you every Republican politician has asked for him in order to come and go on the stage. I bet you also that Fox has been begging this guy trying to like, we'll pay you whatever you want, private jet money, you know, in order to come and to become a contributor or whatever. I'm sure the daily wire and all those folks have been wanting to do something with him. I reached out to him through his, one of his representatives and they were pretty exclusive. They were like, look,

he doesn't really want to do interviews. He doesn't want to turn himself into like a political fit. To be clear, you know, I think you could see from this, like we, you know, I'm not, I, I would be interested in talking to him from a, from a less of a like, Hey, tell me about why Joe Biden sucks for you. And just be like, just be like, let's talk about this. Like, what was going through your mind when you're writing the lyrics? Like, where's it coming from? Tell me about your experience, Farmville, your homestead.

What does it inform about you? The very big song that you release after is about the war. Clearly, you're very involved in online politics. Like, why? You know, why does that resonate with you? These are all types of questions. So Oliver, if you're listening,

we would love to know what you're talking about. But I think in general, it does take guts to actually explicitly put at arm's length the people who in many ways did make you famous and who are making you into a political statement and say, I don't want to be associated with that. From a long-term play, career-wise, probably the right move. In terms of the, probably the right move. If you want to last decades. Who knows? Not if you want to immediately cash out. Who knows?

It's so impossible to say. I mean, I guess the last thing I'll say is, like, I actually think the fact that, you know, some of his views are kind of, like, contradictory, and they don't totally, I mean, this is, like, very normal. Right. Way more normal than having a sort of, like, consistent ideological valence that you consistently apply across issues.

You know, I mean, I try to be like I have thought a lot about my where I try to be consistent. I'm sure I fall short of that as well. But it's much more normal to have a lot of sort of like a mishmash of views that may not fall exclusively in one camp or the other. So in that way, I think that his lyrics are very relatable probably to a lot of people. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, after last week's Republican debate, the GOP donor and media class have a new queen, former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. The Washington Post conservative columnist Kathleen Parker raved about Nikki's brains and experiencing, declaring, quote, hands down, Nikki Haley won the first GOP debate. New York Times' David Brooks cut to the chase, directly appealing to Nikki's

likely constituency, writing, donors, this is the moment to give her a chance. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch made his new favorite clear through the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which fawned over Haley's, quote, debate truths. And through the mouthpieces on Fox & Friends, who unanimously declared Haley the debate's clear winner, in particular because they love her neocon foreign policy. Brian Kilmeade called her right in every sense of the word. Ducey claimed his informal poll of fellow Fox talent and other assorted friends indicated Haley, quote, ran away with the show. Ainsley jumped in friends indicated Haley, quote, ran away with the show. Ainsley jumped in to take Haley's side, deeming Ramaswamy's response unimpressive and

unsatisfactory in that foreign policy exchange. Ainsley was also particularly dismayed at his lack of support for unconditional aid to Israel. Now, it makes complete sense that Nikki Haley would receive a rapturous reception from legacy Republican elites. Her worldview is perfectly aligned with their interests. She is all in on forever proxy war in Ukraine. She will never even think of cutting back on our massive aid to Israel, no matter what atrocities our ethno-state allies inflict on Palestinians. And since she didn't have a chance to make it clear on the debate stage, she quickly took to the cable news airwaves to proudly declare she would cut Social Security by lifting the retirement age. Take a

listen. Well, you know, you've got multiple candidates on that stage that said they wouldn't touch entitlements, including Trump. And any candidate that says they're not going to touch entitlements means that they're basically going to go into the go into office and then leave America bankrupt. Social Security is going to go bankrupt in 10 years. Medicare is going to go bankrupt in eight. So the way we deal with it is we don't touch anyone's retirement or anyone who's been promised in, but we go to people like my kids in their twenties when they're coming into the system. And we say the rules have changed. We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. Instead of cost of living increases, we do it based on

inflation. We limit the benefits on the wealthy and we expand Medicare Advantage plans. What's the right age there then, Ambassador? Well, I think we have to do the numbers. We've got to figure out what it is. But what we do know is 65 is way too low and we need to increase that. We need to do it according to life expectancy. Even Nikki's Trump critique is in tune with the big financial interests that have always dominated the Republican Party. She's not worried about the corruption of Trump or the massive giveaways to the wealthy or the dangerously belligerent stance towards Iran. At the debate, she laid into Trump on the debt and the deficit. And obviously from her comments on entitlements there and her love of the war complex, the only cut she's really interested in are those that would slash benefits for ordinary Americans, not the type that might

unsettle our financial overlords. Now let me say, there's at least one thing I do like about Nikki Haley, and it's that I don't think that she would create the type of Trumpian chaos that he stoked on January 6th with his persistent lies about election fraud. She'd probably be open to the type of like Brooks Brothers coup that George W. Bush pulled off back in 2000, but the ragtag, overt Keystone Cops insurrection would not be on the menu, and I do genuinely appreciate that. I also like that she's not a terrifying religious zealot in the way of Mike Pence. And on the optics of the debate and the type of political theater that is rewarded in such settings, I do think she performed well, and voters seem to agree. Polls following the debate showed the former South Carolina governor receiving high marks. Most had her coming third

to just Ramaswamy and DeSantis. One even had her, quote, winning the debate overall. But even with Haley vastly exceeding expectations and performing to probably the peak of her abilities, the limits of her throwback Reagan-era politics are obvious in her continued low-polling support. In the post-debate polls, the very best for Haley showed her barely jumping into double digits, barely threatening DeSantis, let alone Trump. That an elite pro-Nikki consensus formed so quickly really reveals that these people still have no clue about how to actually defeat Donald Trump. No idea about how much contempt the American people have for them and for their failed ideology. Elites have long fantasized that Trump is the whole problem in American politics. That we could just somehow get

rid of him then politics could get back to quote normal. A normal which included endless class warfare against working-class people and ever skyrocketing inequality. But just take a look at this. If you remove Trump from this GOP primary it's not the throwback Nikki Haley candidates who rise to the top. But just take a look at this. If you remove Trump from this GOP primary, it's not the throwback Nikki Haley candidates who rise to the top. It's the candidates who most closely impersonate the big guy. Ramaswamy leads at 24%.

DeSantis statistically tied with him at 23%. No one else cracks double digits. This is nothing to celebrate, by the way, guys. Vivek is a full-on climate denier who out of ambition and political experience is eager to watch the world burn even faster.. Vivek is a full-on climate denier who, out of ambition and political experience, is eager to watch the world burn even faster. DeSantis merrily uses immigrants and trans people as human pawns for political advantage

in whatever culture war happens to be hot online that day. Both of them won a wage war on Mexico, apparently, and presumably because they saw some poll that said that's what the GOP base wants. But no one should be surprised when charlatans arise to fill a vacuum created by decades of disastrous policies which have destroyed the middle class, commodified our entire lives, and sold off our futures to the highest bidders. And until we address that core rot, we are going to be left with a kind of depressing politics which would force us to choose between a Haley or a DeSantis, a Trump or a Biden. In other words, Trump and his wannabes, they are a symptom of these deeper problems.

But Nikki Haley and her benefactors, they are the problem. And the answers were nowhere to be found at last week's debate. Sagar, what do you make of the Nikki Haley moment? I was sort of amazed. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints.com. All right, sorry, what are you looking at? Well, while we were transfixed by Trump's mugshot and marveling at the post-GOP debate polls, some very different news was happening far across the globe

that may end up being actually more important historically than anything else going on here. The BRICS nations, also known as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, formally adopted six new countries into their informal economic conference, explicitly challenging US hegemony and gives us a better glimpse at what a multipolar future may look like. The new nations added include Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Important first to note that the decision to formally invite these nations into the alliance at all is an explicit victory for China. It sparred with its other great power alliance member, India, over whether to expand the bloc

at all. Clearly, India was outvoted with South Africa sitting also on the sidelines, as China explicitly seeks to use the BRICS to counterweight the Western-led G7. Now, given China's victory in outvoting India in the alliance, it is important then to further note who and why. And it doesn't take a genius to see what's going on here. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, and Egypt is an explicit challenge to the Western-led order in the Middle East. These countries collectively export a vast portion of the world's oil supply,

and China, of course, is sucking up as much as it possibly can to fuel their industrial capacity and keep up with the demands of the Chinese middle class. The willingness, it seems here, for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, and Iran to even accept the alliance invitation is an explicit rebuke of President Biden, and it shows how much we are already taking our eye off the ball where it actually matters. China has already pulled off a massive diplomatic coup. They're getting the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians to stop hating each other and unite against the West. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt collectively have been given some untold trillions of dollars in U.S. economic and military aid. Yet, when given an invitation, they are happy to snub their nose at us, even while all of them, save Iran, will still get some of the largest foreign aid distributions of any other nations on Earth from the United States.

What might be an even more important legacy than a slow realignment of the entire Middle East is also their open war on the U.S. dollar. President Lula of Brazil at the summit called outright for a BRICS nation to consider a common currency for trade and investment between each other as a means of circumventing the petrodollar, but also for a obvious reason. China, Russia, India, the Gulf Arab states, and Iran are all pretty sick of transacting in dollar terms after the war in Ukraine that spurned Western sanctions on Russian oil.

And to be clear, they very quickly found a way around it. But now, instead of doing backroom deals, they want to simply price deals between themselves in their own denominated currency. This too is not just to ease trade, but to make it effectively impossible for the long arm of Western sanctions to touch any of these nations should conflict break out, or if the West seeks to compel any of their behavior with sanctions in the future.

In fact, something I learned about in the very early days of the Ukraine war was that we were wasting one of the most important levers that we have on the global economy on a matter that is of no importance to us. Our dominance of the global financial system is something you should only leverage in a time of imminent peril. And considering how little that Ukraine actually matters to the US way of life, I think it is now

obvious it was a huge mistake because not only did it not work against the Russian war machine, which is doing fine, but it also showed our hand to nations like China with whom we may find ourselves in a standoff over matters that actually matter a hell of a lot more to us. They didn't get to where they are about being stupid. They sought and they immediately began sanction-proofing their entire economy and global supply chain, hence why it is such a diplomatic coup to get the oil-producing states into the BRICS alliance and the beginning of talks of trade between those nations without the dollar. We may not have a goddamn thing to say about any of this in the future. Even nations not fully on board with the idea of BRICS currency, like South Africa and India, are still expressing

hope in moving to total denomination of trade in their currencies at the summit. All of this accelerated realignment against the Western system is a direct consequence of our policy towards Ukraine. Again, a nation which matters less to us in terms of trade, security, and stability than every nation that I just discussed here. In fact, the only reason that the summit has gained any attention whatsoever is because of Ukraine. Dozens of nations, other than the ones I listed here, are lusting after BRICS status and eager to get out from underneath the thumb of Western control.

We are watching directly and in real time. Those who don't agree with us pursue other suitors like China or simply pursue independence of our reach. People should not construe this monologue as saying the whole Western system is dead. That is foolish. That is obviously wrong.

The only point is that the near 75 years of the Western-led international order, which of course has reaped gigantic benefits for the US economy and the US way of life, is weaker today than it has been for decades. We need to prepare vigorously for the unstable system which our foolish leaders have wrought. Biden, the Washington establishment, they have tied our fates completely to the sinking boat of Europe, which is mired in demographic and economic decline, while the rest of the world, who we actually depend on to fund the American way of life, goes in a completely different

direction. The more that the gap in those interests accelerate, the more uncertainty is injected into the system, and the more likely that war breaks out, putting millions of people at risk. We have absolutely nobody to blame but ourselves for this situation. So anyway, I see a lot of people being like, Brickster. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. Go ahead and sign up if you can. We've got those fun focus groups, polls, all that stuff that we're working on in the future. You guys enable us in order to do that. Otherwise, we've got a great show for everybody tomorrow, and we will see you then. DNA test proves he is not the father.

Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author 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. 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. 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.