Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/10/25: Dems Call For Gov Shutdown, Rand Paul Shreds JD On Venezuela, UFO Hearing, Tim Dillon Roasts AOC

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

Emily and Saagar discuss Dems call for government shutdown, Rand Paul shreds JD on Venezuela, explosive UFO hearing, Tim Dillon roasts AOC.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't audition in, like, over 25 years.

Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending, with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of Dacias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. What would you do if one bad decision forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth?

Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York state number, and we own you. you listen to shock incarceration on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts your entire identity has been fabricated your beloved brother goes missing without a trace you discover the depths of your mother's illness i'm danny shapiro and these are just a few of the powerful stories i'll be mining on our upcoming twelfth season of family secrets we continue to be moved and inspired by our guests and their courageously told stories. Listen to Family Secrets Season 12 on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

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

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Well, with a government funding deadline coming up on September 30th, shut down brinksmanship now finds itself at the center of populist politics once again. But of course, Sucker, we're not talking about Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, although we'll get to them in just a moment. We're talking about Ezra Klein. We're talking about progressives in the House and in the Senate who now face quite an interesting decision to fund the government or not to fund the government to cooperate with Republicans or to push for a shutdown and rally the troops.

Let's go ahead and put up on the screen this Ezra Klein op-ed, which was everywhere. You've probably already seen it, actually. This is C-1. Actually, we're going to play a sot of Ezra Klein talking about the op-ed. He wrote in the New York Times, the headline was, stop acting like this is normal. And towards the end of the piece, Ezra Klein says, I'm not a political strategist.

I hope somebody has better ideas than I do. But it's been about six months since Schumer decided that it wasn't the time for a fight, referring back to the brief moment where Democrats considered in March a government shutdown that neither he, Ezra continues, nor the country was ready. Democratic leaders have had six months to come up with a plan.

If there's a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders. So let's go ahead and bring Ezra in himself via the SOT from the New York Times. We are no longer in the muzzle velocity stage of this presidency, where Donald Trump is trying things and seeing what sticks. We are in the authoritarian consolidation stage of this presidency. I want to be very clear about what I'm saying here. Donald Trump is corrupting the government. He's using it to hound his enemies, to line his pockets.

and to entrench his own power. He is corrupting it the way the mafia would corrupt the industries it controlled. You could still, under mafia rule, get the trash picked up by cement. But the point of those industries had become the preservation and expansion of the mafia's power and wealth. This is what Donald Trump is doing to the government. This is what Democrats cannot fund. I think the case for a shutdown is this. A shutdown is an intentional event.

It's an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump's corrupting the government into an acute crisis that the media, that the public, will pay attention to. Right now, Democrats have no power, so no one cares what they have to say. A shutdown would make people listen. But then Democrats would have to actually win the argument. They would need to have an argument. In my head, the argument is something like this. Donald Trump won the election. He is the legitimate president.

His government should be funded so long as it is acting the way the government is supposed to, serving the people being held accountable. But there are red lines that cannot be crossed. ICE can conduct legitimate deportations, but it can't be masked men roaming the streets, refusing to identify themselves or their authority. Remember your right to remain silent?

The Trump family cannot be hoovering in money and investments from the countries that depend on us, and fear our power and our sanctions. There have to be inspectors general and jags and career prosecutors watching to make sure the government is being run on behalf of the people rather than on behalf of the Trump family. Democratic leaders have had six months to come up with a plan.

If there is a better plan than a shutdown grate, but if the plan is still nothing, act normal and hope for the best, then Democrats need new leaders. So what Klein is calling for there is Democrats to use some of their votes in the Senate to say, no, Trump, you have to come to the table or this is a government shutdown. We are going to be okay with this idea of taking the blame. We're going to get into that in a moment because it goes back deep into Republican politics

over the last 10 plus years because it's worth it on our end to hope the messaging that comes out of all of this is that, yes, we want the blame for shutting down the government because we're trying to have Donald Trump come to the table unreasonable demands about very unpopular measures he has taken. So maybe that involves ICE. Maybe that involves, you know, making the issue about some of these government agencies that have been defunded. You could come up with a million different ways that Democrats can message this, but they didn't want to do it at all back in March. And Klein's argument is the world has changed since then. what he's saying doesn't apply now for Schumer's case is the judiciary has not stopped

a lot of Donald Trump's priorities. That's the Ezra Klein case, but let's go to Capitol Hill where Mike Johnson was addressing some questions about it just yesterday. How's Speaker Mike Johnson about a potential shutdown and the funding battle. This is C-2. House Republicans continue to work through regular order to fund the government for FY26 for the next fiscal year. We're working closely with the White House and the Senate to ensure we made our deadlines, and Chairman Cole, Tom Cole, the appropriators, continues to diligently work towards getting all 12 bills out of committee, and they're almost done with that. And as we get closer to the funding deadline, though we recognize the shutdown chatter

from the left is growing louder. Some of these people seem to enjoy this. It seems Democrats may take the path of maximum resistance and try to shut the government down. If Democrats are willing to work with us, we have our sleeves rolled up and we want to do this in good faith. We just have to think responsibly how to spend less money than we did last year. And if they're willing to do that, and it's incumbent upon all of us to do it with the high national debt,

we're open to that. But the ultimate question of whether there's going to be a government shutdown at the end of the month is going to be up to congressional Democrats, and that's just the way it is. Was that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and John McCain?

Circuit 2014 or 2013 that I was hearing? No, of course. That was Mike Johnson, saying Democrats are looking like they want to choose the path of, quote, maximum resistance. Maximum resistance. Okay. Now, this came on the heels of report from Punchbowl, so this is John Bresnahan, next element we can put up.

He said, news, House Democrats had an angry caucus meeting this morning, so that was yesterday, over government funding and possible shutdown. Rank and file Dems want party leaders, especially Schumer, to be willing to shut down the government in order to get what they want on Obamacare and Medicaid. That post in and of itself, I mean, if you just reversed the parties and put it up verbatim in 2013 would be such a parallel to what's happening right now. A number of Democrats stood up to complain at the meeting. Most of the anger was aimed at Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats, but Breznihan reported. So let's then get in our time machine and go back to 2013 and listen to the way some Republicans, Mike Lee. We're going to have a clip from Mike Lee and then we're going to have a tweet from Ted Cruz that we're going to put up on the screen. We just want to revisit the tone that

Republicans were taking back in those battles because what Democrats are actually talking about right now is the potential substantive effect of a fight, but more than anything, the effect that a fight would have on morale and on Democrats' national messaging strategy because we have covered here poll after poll showing the Democratic Party's brand is absolutely in the tank. It is a total crisis level for national Democrats, and they need a better messaging strategy, obviously. So some of the argument from Ezra Klein and others right now is this is your opportunity to say what Democrats are for in a way that actually puts the onus on Donald Trump to do something. And that is what has been debated for the last 10 years, because the Washington establishment

said all of these shutdown fights made Republicans look like, you know, foolish obstructionists. And we remember how the Jeffersons were treated on VEP, right? They called themselves the Jeffersons. That was part of the joke. The, like, Freedom Caucus group that was parodied on VEP. You probably remember, well, this was the cultural treatment of the Tea Party. They're, you know, obstructionists who cared more about shutting down the government than making the government work for people.

And that's, you know, powerful argument as far as it goes. But at the same time, Obamacare, we forget, went through a very unpopular phase around this time period in ways that Democrats. can reflect on now. So here's a little gift. This is a flashback to Mike Lee during the 2013 shutdown battle. The position taken by the Democrats is not defensible. What they're saying is unless you fund everything in government, including Obamacare, we will not let you fund anything. That's crazy. The American people know what's crazy. President Obama said he would be willing to negotiate if you reopen government and if you raise the debt ceiling. What would you say to

that? Well, I'd like to know what it is that he's willing to negotiate on. I mean, first of all, the fact that he's even willing to negotiate at all is itself a welcome change. But it is a change because so far what he's been telling us is, you do it my way, you do it exactly my way, or we will not do it at all. You can't do that. He's not a dictator. He's not a despot. He does have to deal with Congress. So if he's willing to negotiate, that's great. I'd like to see where he's willing back in early July was when I saw that he was changing the law, when I saw that the president himself was saying this law is not ready to implement and he's not going to follow it. I thought, well, Congress shouldn't fund it if it's not ready, if he's not going to follow.

He's not a dictator. He's not a despot referring to Barack Obama at the time because Mike Lee said he has to work with Congress. So if Senate Democrats deprive Republicans of the 60 votes that they need to pass a bipartisan continuing resolution because this is the ridiculous way that we fund our government, which, by the way, Mike Johnson was opposed to. But if that's what we are doing, then Senate Democrats can force Donald Trump to come to the table or, I mean, the cost of forcing Trump to come to the table is taking the blame for shutting down the government. But Democrats can use that as an opportunity to say,

if Donald Trump wants to fund the government, exactly what Mike Lee is saying there to Barack Obama, If Democrats want to fund the government, if Donald Trump wants the government to reopen, he can actually accede to some reasonable, popular demands about X, Y, and Z. Maybe it's USAID, whatever it is, I don't think that would be a popular demand. But just one example of the many things that Donald Trump has changed, not all of them are popular. Some of them are, but not all of them are. And so then Democrats have an opportunity to make the fight about that and say, Donald Trump is not a dictator.

He has to work with Congress. we are Congress, and we're asking for these things to be done. So let's put this next element on the screen. It's Ted Cruz. I went deep back into Ted Cruz's Twitter history. This is 2013. Obama admin chose to shut down government rather than defund slash delay Obamacare not long ago, yet here we are. So listen to the verbiage there.

Obama admin chose to shut down the government rather than defund slash delay Obamacare. Obviously, of course, we all knew at the time. I mean, even in that Mike Lee clip, we just ran the Chiron, was. Peter King. There's a flashback. Republican Peter King referring to them as the quote suicide caucus. That was the internal battle happening among establishment Republicans and Tea Party Republicans at the time. And look at this, C6. This is from the Peter Sosnik memo that went super viral, always does whenever it comes out. When it was published in Politico a couple weeks ago, it's Gallup data. It goes back to January of 2008, and it shows Republicans' favorability

with their own party and Democrats favorability with their own party. The Democrat level right now is at 73 percent. 73 percent Democrats favorable of their own party, 91 percent Republicans currently favorable with their own party. The only time either party has had any level of favorability that low, I guess one it is, 2009 Republicans in 2009. And if you argue that the Tea Party wasn't a successful populist takeover of the Republican Party. You're wrong. You're wrong. Donald Trump completely showed that. In fact, Donald Trump learned from that. So if you are a populist progressive Democrat right now, it is abundantly obvious saga. And this block was your idea. It's like 20 minutes right now. That's why I asked you to do it. But it is so obvious for Democrats that they have a golden

opportunity on a platter in front of them. And if they are too bitch ass to take it. it. They definitely are, by the way. Well, I think there are a lot just, they're just like the Republican leadership of that time. The Bainers and the others, they're like, look, that's not how we do stuff. Even Bainer went along with it at some point. That's true. I mean, eventually did cave. But, you know, for, I'm trying to think about the original Republican leaders, they're like, well, that's not how we do things in Washington. John McCain. Process. And we have the committees. And they were like, bro, you're not listening. You're not understanding how angry people are right now. But I mean, it is an open question. Did it work? Like, what is

the legacy of shutdown politics for Republicans. I'm not sure it did. Like, right, the original, what was the big shutdown, 2013? That was after 2012, pre-DACA. It kind of inspired Obama to do DACA, so I would say a bit of a backlash. But my point, though, is that I kind of think Obama won if you go back and you look at some of the polling. Now, look, you could make an argument in the long run, because in the immediate term, remember Obama shut down the national parks, people freaked out, they blamed Republicans. I remember Boehner shutdown was trending. You know, the Democrats were very sophisticated at that time. And also they had the media on their side.

I guess this time around, the media probably would be on the Democrat side. Oh, totally. And it would satisfy, like, the bloodlust for a lot of the Democratic voters. But, you know, people get real mad whenever they don't get paid or there's not basic government services. And I'm not sure who they would blame. It's a different political... Except fellow workers right now despise Trump. That's true.

Yeah. And so maybe they would eat it. I'm not so sure. You take two paychecks away from somebody, and that's a little dangerous. Trump did buckle, to be fair, in the first shutdown under his administration. I covered that extensively. It was like a 17-day shutdown, and he basically caved to Nancy Pelosi and to Chuck Schumer over border. Because he knew it was bad.

He's uncomfortable with it for himself. And that's where I think Mike Johnson, the thought of him, the sound that we played of him earlier, saying, we don't want to do this, we don't want to do this. We want to work with Democrats. It's actually interesting because he sounds sincere in that to me because I think he knows the president does not want this battle. Yeah, that's true. I mean, yeah, I don't know who would fall on. at this point. But yeah, I wonder, I do wonder if it's worth doing just purely politically for the Democrats solely to show, yeah, we can do something. We're not just going to give them

well, you have to extract some pound of flesh. The thing is, though, as you and I know, is when the Republican leaders would eventually cave to Obama or they would do some sort of deal where Obama supposedly caved to them. It was never enough for the Tea Party caucus or any other people. They were like, no, we can't go all in. Because that wasn't the point. Right. The point was radical. I'm saying, though, 10 years later, 12 years later, actually, do you think it worked out for the Republicans, like in the legacy of shutdown politics? I think it worked out for the Republican politicians. So a lot of people from that era have gone on to be the heavy hitters in the Trump administration. I don't think Republicans would look at this generational change of the party with

Trump without these shutdown fights, because what they did was show national Republicans that the base, the people are in the county party headquarters, making the calls, knocking on the doors, were so, so, so very mad at the party. And that was a lesson that I think eventually is why Republicans gave way to Trump in a way that Democrats didn't give way to Bernie to their benefit. That's very true. But that said, I think Republican voters continue to lose because look at this administration. Is there an actual populist will in the administration?

to do what Republican voters really wanted with the Tea Party, which was not all that different, despite at the time people thinking it was, between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. It was the sense of injustice and unfairness. And that has not been remedied, nor will it be remedied in the near future, even if Democrats, I mean, that's where this could be a politically disastrous decision for Democrats, because based on their class bubble, they could end up picking the absolute dumbest battles to shut down the government over it. Like I was joking earlier about USAID.

Right. Are they going to shut down the government to bring back USAID? Don't put it past them. They actually are that stupid. Are they going to shut down the government to protect some of the 30-year-old single men who are taking jobs away from poor Americans by being here illegally or entering the border? I mean, there are some things on deportations they could do that I think would be popular, but watch them choose the dumbest popular.

Yeah, it's possible. I don't know. I mean, yeah, I think that they care more about process and all that stuff more than anything. You're right. We would not put a USAIDD shutdown past them. I have no idea, actually, which way they will go. But I enjoyed your trip down memory lane. Thank you for updating us all. All right, let's go to, you are the shutdown expert.

We always will. We'll keep you that. And we'll keep you that resonant here at breaking points. Did you hear that excuse? I don't know if you're going to lie about that, right? Lauren came in. From viral performances to red carpet looks that had everyone talking. The podcast, the latest with Lauren the Rosa,

is your go-to for everything, B.M. We will be right here breaking it all down. I'm going to be giving you all the headlines, breaking down everything that is going down behind the scenes, and getting into what the people are saying. Like, what is the culture talking about? That's exactly what we'll be getting into here at the latest with Lauren the Rosa.

Everything VMAs. I'm a homegirl that knows a little bit about everything and everybody. To hear this and more, listen to the latest with Lauren the Rosa from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the Eye Heart Radio at Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers. The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the

plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, do this, pull that, turn this. It's just, I can do it in my eyes closed. I'm Mani. I'm Noah. This is Devin. And on our new show, No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these.

Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. See?

Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app. Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. What would you do if one bad decision forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth? Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York State number, and we own you. Shock incarceration, also known as boot camps, are short-term, highly regimented correctional programs that mimic military basic training.

These programs aim to provide a shock of prison life, emphasizing strict discipline, physical training, hard labor, and rehabilitation programs. Mark had one chance to complete this program and had no idea of the hell awaiting him the next six months. The first night was so overwhelming, and you don't know who's next to you. And we didn't know what to expect in the morning. Nobody tells you anything. Listen to shock incarceration on the I-Hifference.

Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's go to Venezuela, shall we? So I've been wanting to cover this for a while. I know it's a little bit dated, but it is an important conversation. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. So there was a big debate amongst Republicans about the strike by the United States military on these purported drug dealers off the coast of Venezuela after the designation of Trende Aragua, a gang in Venezuela as a foreign terrorist organization for trafficking drugs.

So that was the justification for the strike that it was an imminent security threat to the people of the United States. So J.D. Vance tweets, quote, killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military. Brian Krasenstein, who for some reason is back on Twitter, says, killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process, is called a war crime. J.D. responds, I don't give a shit what you call it. So this kind of ignites a libertarian versus Republican Civil War that erupted with Rand Paul entering the fray. Let's go to the next part here, please. Ran Paul responds, quote, J.D., I don't give a shit, Vance, says killing people he accuses of a crime is the highest and best use of the military. Did he ever read to kill a mockingbird? I'll return to that. Rand, we need some better references. Did he ever wonder what might have. happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation. What a despicable

and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without trial. He goes on and gives several interviews expounding on this as to why he decided to pick this fight. Let's take a listen. The reason we have trials, though, and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing Venezuela, the Venezuelan dictator? I think probably that, you know, we had the facts correct, we got bad people here. But that's the reason, like, off our coast, it isn't our policy just to blow people up. And it's hard because obviously they're bad people. So people are like, they want something bad to happen them. But typically, even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible

crime, they still get a trial, basically. They get a lawyer, they get their day in court. But if we're at war, you know, we blow up bad guys all the time. I think that's what they're saying this is a war. And our country, war is the exception. So when we have a war, we have a It was intended that we would declare war, it would be a big vote of our Congress. And then at that point in time, we say if that enemy, if we are at war, let's say with Venezuela, then we say their ships are, you know, free to shoot them anywhere they are anytime. And so we kill them off their coast. We kill them in their country.

But we've declared war on them. It's a little harder here because this is a crime and this is a criminal syndicate. As it's not as simple as it may sound that, well, let's just kill drug dealers because Because sometimes you have to figure out who people are before you kill them. Right. It's a problem. All right. So, Emily, what do you think about the...

So, you know, I've been kind of rolling over this. And I want to give Rand credit because the guy spoke up about the killing of an American citizen who was drone struck by the Obama administration back in 2013. When it was not popular, he brought up to... By the way, that is by far one of the craziest things that's ever happened. Because it was basically an extrajudicial killing of a U.S. citizen. abroad where they gave him, quote, due process, like inside of the executive branch without ever bringing in to the judicial system. But he talked about it broadly, and this is something

that a lot of libertarians and others have been talking about. You know, with the original argument, I think what I find most despicable about it is conflating that these cartels are the ones who are killing Americans because it's not even true. In the case of Venezuela, that's what is like, you are hijacking a legitimate sentiment, 100,000 people a year dying from fentanyl. 99%, this is from the U.S. government DEA figures, 99% of all fentanyl that enters the United States comes from Mexico, and originally the precursors come from China, 99%. 90% of all, I think 93% of all cocaine, which enters the United States, is from Colombia, transited via Mexico through the border here into the U.S., which is obviously also tainted with fentanyl.

The cartels that are responsible for this are the Sinaloa cartel, you know, whatever, the New Generation Cartel, all of these, whatever, there's various subgroups and others that exist inside of Mexico. It's one thing to say, those are the people. But Trend de Aragua? I mean, this, we had Juan David Rojas here

on the show, and he's like, guys, like these are engaged in human trafficking, which is a horrible, despicable crime. But, you know, to the extent that they're doing drug dealing, it's street dealing. And to me, I said this to end. It's not an industrial drug. like drug dealing, fentanyl.

Which Ceyloa and others are. Yeah, they are. They literally are. But we're not doing anything presumably about that. It's like, this seems cover to me as this literally just seems covered to me as a regime change operation. Yeah, 100%. We have a $50 million boundary on Maduro's head

because he's engaged in drug trafficking. Again, and Texas did not rule that out. Right. 7% of all cocaine, not from Colombia and Mexico, transits via all of these other countries, including Venezuela. So this is like, even calling it tertiary is not even fair. And we have this huge U.S. military presence. We have a $50 million bounty on Maduro's head. We struck this speedboat,

which allegedly was carrying cocaine, whatever. We don't, we don't even know if any of that is true. Because they will not say. They will not release the evidence. They won't even say. They won't reduce the evidence. So I'm like, well, you know, for me, and I think Glenn Greenwald brought up a great point. It's like this looks like a Noriega style regime change operation all over again. And I think it would be a different story if it was about the Mexican drug cartel. By the way, you want to know why they haven't struck the Mexican drug cartels? Because what is it? 50% of trade, maybe 40% of trade moves across the U.S.-Mexico border.

And they're not going to do anything to jeopardize that because it would destroy the entire U.S. economy for Mexico and Canada. There's no way U.S. military strikes are going to happen in Mexico and they're not going to shut the border down. Shine bomb and others, it's never going to happen. And for them, what they allow, basically, is like, you know, we have all this new cooperation. It's not bullshit if you ask me, but my point is just that the actual cartels that are doing this are facing nothing, like nothing. Yep.

But then the sideshow with Venezuela, all of a sudden their cartels and their poison, it's like, guys, it's not even true about what's happening here. And this is use of the United States military, regime change, literally openly being crowd about by our current Secretary of State. In Venezuela. In Venezuela, which is like the neocon wet dream, everything about this stinks to high heaven. And that's taking it out of the first principles due process type stuff. This is, because, you know, that's a good argument, too. It was, hey, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepts these ships all day long. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We prosecute people. We have international agreements, et cetera. Why didn't you do that? It's to send a message. It's like, okay, send a message to whom? And send a message for what? To the Maduro government, who then overflew U.S. military sites. And then Trump tells generals, oh, you can go and shoot them down.

Do we want to be in a hot war with Venezuela? Again, over a country which zero percent of fentanyl enters the United States of America, from, but that's the problem. Nobody even does enough cursory Google search to look at, even the mainstream media when they cover this, they're not giving you the facts about the They're like, oh, it's Trenda-A-Ragua. They're Aragua, they are

involved in drug trafficking and you're like, well, what kind, you know? I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff. I mean, technically the drug trafficking is accurate, but to your point about Wanda B. Inside of Venezuela, by the way, I don't give a shit who drills drugs in front of Venezuela. Definitely not to the point of using the U.S. military for to do it.

Yeah, so, I mean, and you get into these process arguments, and it sounds like from J.D.'s perspective, so when you're talking like J.D. Vance's here, I don't give a shit. That is probably not that difficult to sell definitely to Republican voters. That's, you know, I was going to say, I mean, it's perfectly consistent from many people in the Republican Party who never really changed their mind on, for example, the AUMF. I went back and looked to see what Matt Gates has said about this. And he's tweeting his interview with J.D. Vance and saying no apologies, American flag emoji

where Vance is saying, if you are engaged in war against the American people, you were at risk of having your entire operation literally blown to bits. By the way, that can be perfectly true. And also not for example, while also for example not having the Secretary of Defense slash War, Pete Hegg said,

by the way, I don't have any problem with the Secretary of Defense changing the name to the Department of War because it's much more honest. We've talked about it here on the show. I agree. I totally agree. But anyway, all that is to say, this is like Matt Gates was against the authorized use of military force being used in Africa when he was a congressman and all of that for a good reason. Now, Pete Hexeth has recently said it's no different than Al-Qaeda, right?

Did you see that from him? No different from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. If you're in a boat, you're going to get struck. And of course, again, we haven't seen the evidence that this is, you know, not a potential. mistake, as Rand Paul cited. Maybe it's not. Maybe these were actual narco-terrorists. Maybe let's just say it was Sinaloa. Let's say it was actually the people who are bringing fentanyl into the United States. The argument from a lot of conservatives who started to rethink the neoconservative policies that got us into quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually that the process is really important

Because when you start to paper over the process, you give oligarchs essentially power to do regime change wars without democratic buy-in and in ways that end up being, well, let's use the word again, quagmires, because they were not well thought out and they were based on crazy levels of intelligence. I've been reading the Michael Isikoff, David Korn book called Hubris, about how we ended up getting to Iraq. And it's funny that those are the two authors who wrote that book about how we cooked up the intelligence case. But when you then look at how the Trump administration now is connecting Trende Aragua to Cartel of the Sons to Maduro

and say that Maduro... Oh, it's literally just like Iraq. It's the same shit. It is. It is. And look, no one's claiming here that hundreds of thousands of troops are going to go into Venezuela, okay? I don't think they're that dumb. Hopefully. But if there is a military strike in Mexico,

which I don't necessarily agree with you won't happen. I can see some type of precision action or whatever, but if troops die, if American troops die in Mexico... Right. Yeah, people are going to freak out, and they should. What happens then? Well, okay, why do you think that the Mexico thing would happen? I just don't see. If they were going to do it, they would have done it.

The Shine bomb government has made it entirely clear. Nobody is set in foot on Mexican soil. We have the greatest Trump card of all, literally card of all time, which is the vast majority of the goods that you rely on. You know, I mean, could go on forever in terms of the amount of stuff that the crosses the U.S.-Mexico border on a daily basis. Is that really going to be put into jeopardy? That's why I don't think it's even happening.

It's not even in the conversation. They made, they beat their drums hard about we're going to go after the cartels. And it's all bullshit. You know, none of it, not a single one of those things has materialized. I don't think you're wrong about that. But I think what we're seeing with them building this cartel case, I feel like part of it is that they're trying it with Venezuela and trying to build a case potentially for Mexico because I think Hegseth actually. They have all these ideas about precision-type strikes that they could do in Sinaloa in a way that Shinebaum, for example, might actually welcome, which she wouldn't right now because this is like about Mexican sovereignty or whatever. But what happens when they start turning the screws to the Mexican economy or threatening to turn the screws to the Mexican economy in a much more serious way?

But also what worries me most is like what happens if a CIA guy doing anti-narcho-terrorism stuff in Sinaloa gets killed? what happens when there is some type of like we've already seen drone action since Trump's come to office on the border what happens when there's you know in Ray Nosa some type of drone activity

from CIA or DOD or whatever do we get pulled into something that possibility is what does worry me definitely and by the way all of this is not exactly out of the realm and remember there's some crazy stuff they went down with the U.S. and Colombia back in the 90s And they even made movies about it.

We're clear and present danger. All right, let's go, let's end with some words from Glenn Greenwald, who did a great job of breaking this all down. Let's take a listen. Maga was supposedly a movement, principally of younger people who booked all these wars and said, why are we keep bombing people all over the world? Why do we keep getting involved in these foreign conflicts?

Why don't we focus on our own country that's falling apart instead? And yet it's been amazing for me to watch how easy it is to convince most Trump supporters, not all, but most, to just start cheering for the very words they said they were against. You just tell them, these are bad guys. I think he's right. I think people should have a lot more scrutiny

and not just take people's word for it about fentanyl or any of this. It takes, look, go on chat GPT, go on Google. I mean, do we just sit here? Are we mindless drones? It's not that difficult. You know, and I did this for all of the, Remember, anytime there was some strike in Yemen or any of this, they all fall apart like this,

almost every single time. But, you know, that's what politics says. And by the way, you also end up killing civilians and enraging their communities against the United States often. That actually happened. You know, I used to think that was a leftist talking point. I started looking into it. I was like, no, they're actually right. It's true.

100% true. Well, great. And Glenn's in a position to know that because over the last 10 years, he's talked to many people on the right, including both of us, who hopefully will remain consistent on that. But he's talked to many people on the right. I'm probably thinking of Matt Gates. We'd have to ask Glenn if that's someone he has in mind who made these cases to him and with him.

Right, that's right. On the basis of constitutional law. Very important point. Did you hear that excuse? I don't know if you don't lie about that, right? Lauren came in. From viral performances to red carpet looks that had everyone talking.

The podcast, the latest with Lauren the Rosa, is your go-to for everything be amazed. We will be right here breaking it all down. I'm going to be giving you all the headlines, breaking down everything that is going down behind the scenes, and getting into what the people are saying. Like, what is the culture talking about? That's exactly what we'll be getting into here at the latest with Lauren the Rosa. Everything, VMAs.

Let's get to do it. I'm a homegirl that knows a little bit about everything and everybody. To hear this and more, listen to the latest with Lauren the Rosa from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the IHeartRadio at, Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers, the pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control.

And they're saying like, okay, pull this, do this, pull that, turn this. It's just, I can do it my eyes close. I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devon. And on our new show. No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence.

Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was.

Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so deep. tiny, you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught, and I just looked at my computer screen.

I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases, to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get to a UFO. Crystal's not here.

We can do a UFO. I'm joking. She never holds me. Mom's away. Yeah, she doesn't hold me up anytime. I want to cover this story. There was a big UFO hearing yesterday. Again, I'm very sorry that I could not attend.

One of the major headlines out of it is a new video that was released, ostensibly showing a UAP in which a hellfire missile was fired, and it seems to glance off. Now, I'm going to give you some countervailing evidence. I want to be clear that shows that it could be a balloon, but I do want to at least give it some credit for the video being released. Let's go ahead and put it up here on the screen. So you can see here, this is a 2024 incident, allegedly, according to the congressman who released it, and you can see the object moving over.

Soon you're actually going to see a hellfire missile come. It glances off, and you can see that it continues basically dodging. So that is the alleged evidence that was included there. from the congressman, there's a couple of other angles that you can see from it. What's important, though, I think, is not just the video that was released, but actually some of the testimony, including here from U.S. Air Force veteran Dylan Borland, who testified on witnessing a, quote, silent 100-foot equilateral triangle that rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds at Langley Air Force Base. Let's take a listen.

From 2011 and 2013, I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, conducting 24-hour operations via manned and unmanned aerial vehicles for special operations forces and the Global War on Terror. During the summer of 2012, my team was on standby for weather and I returned to my barracks on base, and at approximately 0.130, I saw an approximately 100-foot equilateral triangle take off from near the NASA hangar on the base. The craft interfered with my telephone did not have any sound and the material it was made of appeared fluid or dynamic. I was under this triangular craft for a few minutes and then it rapidly ascended

to commercial jet level in seconds displaying zero kinetic disturbance sound or wind displacement. Some years after that experience, I was further exposed to classified information from the UAP Legacy crash retrieval program through a sensitive position I held within a special access program.

During this time, intelligence officers approached me and fear for their own careers, citing misconduct within these programs and similar retaliation that I was already enduring at this time. That was followed up also with testimony from George Knapp, who is one of the best journalists on the UFO subject, has been for decades here. And here was some of the testimony that he offered. It's been widely reported and suspected that Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors, the defense contractors, that has held this stuff, stored it away in secrecy. and tried to figure out how it works. I have confirmed on the record that Robert Bigelow and a trusted colleague from OSAP met with and negotiated with senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal wherein Bigelow's company, Bass,

would receive a quantity of unusual material that had been stashed away and protected at a facility in California. That material was not made here. That has long been part of some of the UFO community, reporting is basically that defense contractors are used as cutouts so that you can have plausible deniability. It also goes to the fact that Pentagon can pass an audit because nobody knows where some of this black money and all this other stuff goes. I do want to give some credit to some of the people who are saying that this video is not actually showing a UFO. Now,

again, I will let you make up your mind for yourself, but this actually comes from a guy who I very much respect Joe Mersia, UFO Joe. Let's put it up here on the screen. And so what he says is that from one of the, basically he looked into it, they talk about the hellfire missile. What he says specifically is that, quote, contact occurred with a missile passing through. The apparent deflection was a guidance system searching for a laser spot again causing control services to thrash. The three trailing objects align better with debris or internal components ignited by electrical damage rather than missile fragments. Artifacts are possible, but unlikely. Let's go to the next part here. And they say, the overall conclusion is that the evidence is most consistent with

a slow-moving or stationary balloon carrying an electrical payload struck by a hellfire that failed to detonate. Anomalies arise from fuse mechanics, et cetera. I will let others determine the facts, but that was some of the original kind of, quote, debunking that I saw on it. You can make up your minds for yourself in terms of what it comes from. It was Representative Eric Burleson, by the way, who is the person who revealed it. And it's one of those where it was presented as received from an independent, from a whistleblower, according to him. But the circumstances are a bit weird. He said he received it without any metadata or any of that.

And he says, independent review is ongoing. So I do think it's important to at least present the fact that some analysts and others are saying that it could have been a balloon, which they say about all of them. And so, you know, to be, I want to be totally fair about that part of the reason independent review is very important, part of the reason throwing it to the experts, et cetera, and actually taking this stuff seriously. But nonetheless, it was great to see George Knapp and some. some of the others. They're recounting some of their experiences. I do think some of us are still getting

very fed up with the fact that it's still so slow-moving. I attended the first UFO hearing, what, two years ago, you know, at this point? Yeah, this is the third one. But I'm saying the very first one with Dave Grush, right? I was there. You know, I was in the room. I thought it was a big moment. I thought something was coming. And then, you know, the NDAA continues to not have some of the UFO disclosure pieces, even though it's been pushed by members of the overall U.S. Senate. So we rely on Anna Paulina Luna or other people are making extraordinary accusations. I'm very willing to believe, but we've got to see more evidence. We got to see more stuff come from the government. Interesting disagreement playing out on X right now between UFO Joe and Lou Elizondo, who

on News Nation last night, made a very interesting argument, which is that the hellfire missile UFO is evidence of, quote, technology that is making our premier missile system completely useless. And if you're wondering why, in relation to what soccer just described about the NDAA, why are our members of Congress, and even remember Marco Rubio as a senator, why are mainstream members of Congress interested in getting answers to questions like these? Well, it's because they're seeing videos and hearing analysis from people like Lou who worked at the Pentagon. You can debate Elizondo, whatever, but saying this is evidence of technology that's making our premier missile system completely useless. Now, UFO Joe disagrees. He says, early on, I agreed right now I do not. I retain the right to change from my mind,

present any analysis or mention anybody who has done analysis besides the stuff shared on here by us but that gets to what's auger was just saying which is that years into this third task force meeting uh the bombshells are highly disputed you know it's not like this bombshell dropped yesterday and everybody was like when that new york time story originally dropped uh back in what 2017 oh yeah 2017 that's what that's why i'm here it all broke into the yep that's the only reason that's what got me in yeah but we haven't had another moment like that really it's been a while. Dave Grush was very important, I think, as well. That's true. That's true. I just got to see more. And, you know, credit to Jeremy Corbell

and George Knapp and all these guys. They're the ones who are at the vanguard. They're pushing the conversation. They're singly focused. Responsibly. They're getting, you know, responsibly vet. And I do, that's why I include all of the information. You can make up your mind for yourself. I think more scrutiny pressure on these, you know, the Democratic, the Democratic, the Republican establishment to get the stuff out there is just so vitally important. If you want to get to the truth. Because at this point, you know, you have Congresswomen and others, people making major accusations, or allegations, which I'm totally willing to believe, but we have to see more evidence in the future. That's the number one important thing. So yeah, call your congressman,

tell them to our senator, get them to make sure the NDAA is going to have that. What's it to them, right? You know, to the U.A. It's like so low on their priority list that if even 20 people call about it, maybe they'll do something. You never know. You truly never know. All right, let's get to the Tim Dillon segment that we had been, we'd put off yesterday because we talked too much. Luckily, Emily and I still did talk a lot, but luckily we still do have a few minutes here that we can go over it. Let's go ahead and play this. It's Tim Dillon and Joe Rogan talking about AOC and J.D. Vance, quote, not having it for president. Let's take a listen.

Now, why is AOC shutting her mouth about Israel? Because AOC's donors are big Israeli tech people. She's been silenced And she's trying to run for president, too Really? Yeah She'll struggle She's not going to win

She's a goofball She'd be making mojitos She's a goofball She doesn't have it She's a goof But here's the reality She's shutting her mouth about Israel Is AOC out there about Israel?

No No Because she's a fraud But the smelly Gross Anarcho communists in Brooklyn, to their credit, know she's a fraud.

They know she's a fraud. In between their, you know, whatever, open mic nights and whatever, they figured out... Poetry slams and dog walking. They figured out that this bitch is a fraud. Big time. Yeah.

I don't think she was when she first started. She wasn't, but she was probably... She's realized she has... She's ambitious. She likes nice bags. She likes nice bags. That's what it is. She's ambitious.

She won't. to be the president. You realize that job can get you hundreds of millions of dollars. Look at what happened to... Can you get up who her donors are, Jimmy, these Israeli tech people? It's kind of interesting because this actually just kind of came out. Israeli startup entrepreneurs played roles in the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She pulled out of an event commemorating Rabin.

Some concluded that AOC doesn't like Israelis, but two were instrumental in the lawmakers' early career. That's where it gets weird. They find you when you're young. They find you when you're making mojitos. They find you when you're young and promising, like, JD. Well, that's the thing. J.D. is going to have to, if you want to be the present, he's going to have to say Peter Thiel, I'm not, he's going to have to say Peter Thiel is and here's why that's good. J.D. has to get out there and go, wouldn't you rather know who Satan is and be friends with him and have dinner with him than have it be like, who's Satan?

Right. So he's got to get out there and say, I happen to be friends with Satan. Satan. And I want that to be misunderstood. I want it to be destigmatized. Right. If Satan could go on the Nulk Boys, maybe they could straighten it out. That's right. The Dog Boys, that was good. So what do you think of

Tim's? We've got to be a little, look, I'm not on the business of defending AOC, but like, I wouldn't say that she shut her mouth about Israel. I mean, she said genocide, right? You know, the one thing that we've hit her for here on the show with Ryan is about her vote

to fund the Iron Dome. Right. Because, I mean, her, she had this whole convoluted explanation of it. And the D&C. Oh, I support defensive. Yeah, exactly. Look, I mean, the part about how she was legit in the beginning and has become a tool of a Democratic establishment, I think it's totally fair. I don't think it's totally fair to say it's about Israel, though, per se.

Yeah. That's my only thing. I mean, I don't think he's wrong. I don't think she could be president either, specifically for those types of reasons. She did basically co-opted. And remember, she wanted to be the oversight chairman. Yeah. And she played ball.

She shut her mouth about all kinds of stuff. They still wouldn't give it to her. Played ball with Pelosi. Right. Polos's entire tenure. Those are all fair criticisms of AOC, as as, I mean, basically at any point, if at any point in your career, you have, you rely on donors from the American donor class, you are going to end up coming into contact with people who have close ties to Israel. That's just how it works. Well, it's not like. The worst thing she did at the DNC was saying that Kamala was

working tirelessly versus E-smart. That's pretty fair because- That was insane. Well, you know, now maybe the Israel thing is, making sense to me. Because when it came, yeah, she put out the words, but she actively worked for Kamala to get elected and gave her cover on Gaza, which she did not have to do, right? And you and I were there, we were at the DNC. You remember all those activists. We met some of them. They were treated horribly, and they were kicked out. Horrible. It's still pretty crazy in retrospect to have experienced that. Ryan and I interviewed a couple of them on the street, and who literally were kicked out, like not joking. It's a great memory of mine, by the way.

Just you and Ryan with microphones falling, like, falling the hippies around the DNC. We had a good time. Oh, it was a blast. Maybe we'll do it again. But the point is just that that's a fair criticism. But to say that she's been bought off or whatever, I'm not entirely sure that is accurate. On the JD point, though, here's what's interesting. J.D. had dinner with Tim very recently by Tim's own admission.

And Tim seems to be truly, like, captured by the Palantir Teal. He spent a long time going off on the Antichrist. He's like, why do you need four lectures? One wasn't, it was good. It was funny. I guess I'm just, I'm curious for him. I'm like, so what? Like, who is the good politician?

He said some nice things about Marjorie Taylor Green. Yeah. Which, you know, I mean, okay. I mean, I like some of the things MTV says. Definitely, I think she's very courageous in standing up on Israel and a few other issues. But, you know, with presidential material. I guess the reason why I thought it was important to cover is like, where does this podcast thing go. Yeah, right? Right. Trump was the perfect vehicle for them because he's entertaining,

fun to talk to, good stories. You could project whatever you want onto him, even though he's literally been the president before, and you can be like, no, but he's different, you know, this time we're right. But where does it go from here? Like, to me, it just seems like pretty nihilistic, but I really have no idea. Well, yeah, this question of who has it or who doesn't is the reason we're asking it in a way that's not like, oh, Al Gore, he's very charming, is because we've entered a new chapter in media history, which is if you're in Gen Z, you grew up expecting politics to look like reality television through no fault of your own, but because politics started to merge with iPhone, smartphone, and social media in a way that it's hard

if you're younger to trust people who don't come across well on the popular mediums in smartphone world. So if you can't have a normal conversation, right, it used to be the sit down at a bar test, right? But now it's more like sit down on an Instagram live, which, by the way, AOC does a lot of Instagram lives and others don't. But that's just because there's something about speaking in real time in a way that feels authentic to people. I think that's really what Tim Dillon is talking about with Marjor Taylor Green or Thomas Massey is another example. who, you know, Massey had success on Theo Vaughn. Like, that's gotten tons and tons of views.

I think the reason is to sound authentic right now, you have to absolutely flame the donor class. You have to be willing in ways that Gavin Newsom is not. In ways that, what, Hakeem Jeffries or these other guys are not. And that's a lesson for AOC too. Yeah, I understand. You know, she used Instagram and X successfully to take a seat away from Joe Crowley

when nobody thought it was possible. So Ramam Dani did the exact same thing. And it's just about leveraging those mediums in a way that resonates. And that's what I think Tim is saying when he's like, can Dady do that? Well, no, and I think part of the reason why is Trump is the Republican establishment.

So how can you be against the Republican establishment? You can't be anti-establishment and speak out against the person. Peter Thiel is now the Republican establishment. Well, it's not, I really, I think the teal thing is a proxy for whenever he was on Theo Vaughn's podcast. And J.D. gave it.

He was like, well, I take money. from a lot of people. Theo came out and he was like, yeah, I just thought that was like some typical political bullshit. And I was like, yeah,

I mean, it is kind of a problem. Like, I do get, like, you know, you don't want to talk badly or whatever about friends

or people who've donated to you, but, you know, it makes you look bad. Or, and look, personal loyalty and all that stuff is important. And it is hard.

You know, I can even speak from experience. You have to cover people who you literally personally know. It's weird. Yeah. But at a certain point, like,

you have a higher and better calling to your job, right, and just say kind of what you think. That seems to be the issue. And part of the reason I think Republicans are really going to struggle post-Trump because you can't say anything

that's bad about Trump if he's still alive. It's not possible in the age of the cult. Maybe especially if he's not still alive and he's a martyr. Right, yeah. Well, I don't know what's harder. I actually think if he's not alive, it's much harder.

But, or sorry, if he's alive, it is much harder. Because he can literally sit there from... Destroy you. Yeah. If he wants to, he's never going to leave the political stage. Whereas Democrats, they have no sacred cows anymore. Kamala's done. Her book excerpt just came out, and she's trashing Biden, right? It's over. You know, that all the Obama, Kamala, Biden worship, etc., this is permission to say, I wish more of them would. Go weapons free. Flame, you need to. That's what people want to see. Exactly. That's what people want to see. And this is the question about, I actually thought JD did fine in that Theo Vaughn interview, but the problem is the clips, right? If there's a clip that comes out of you, it doesn't matter if the two hours, I mean, it does matter if the two hours is great, but it can be sort of offset. the time. Yeah, exactly. And I thought, and that means you have to be, now, that means you have to

be basically, like, doing reality, TV honesty at all time. And that's what politicians need to get used to is saying stuff like, listen, I'm just friends with Peter Thiel. Right, that's right. That's the way you have to handle it. But all that is to say, we're also in a transition period right now. So there are still people, boomers, whomever voting, probably some elder millennials, for example, who grew up in a different time than Zoomers and are deeply uncomfortable with voting based on who's good on a podcast and don't like Mom Donnie, and don't, you know, that's, Mom, Donnie's pulling at what he's

amazing polling levels for the politics that he brings to the table, but he's still under like 50%, right? Yeah, people, somebody asked me, they're like, do you think politics will ever go back to normal? And I was like, I don't. I really don't know. Yeah, I agree. Because look, we did try it under Biden.

A lot of people were like, exhale of fresh fresh air, let's gut Biden in there, he's normal. But it was a disaster because normal is bad. I've been trying to tell people that my entire political career. Normal is actually way worse than normal. We need to be very, very not normal. To the extent Trump is bad because he's not normal. He's too normal. Actually, he's too normal of a normal Republican, like acting like George W. Bush while he's in office, but just with mean tweets or whatever. So what comes next?

I don't know. I mean, I could see easy return to, I could see a fighter under Gavin who rhetorically is just like Trump, rhetorically a fighter, policy level like very similar. Yeah. I can see that happen easily. I mean, I believe he's one of the top polls. The alternative is, is a Trump-style figure who comes in and just knocks everything over. I hope for the ladder. Or a Bernie style figure, by the way. Maybe. I'm not sure if that's even possible anymore. I would like, I'd like to think so. I'm not sure.

But Bernie is actually really good in new media, which people, like he crushed Theo Bonn because he's generally honest. He doesn't cover for donors. I just think he's one of one. I don't see anybody else. Same with Trump. I do not see. And that's why, I was like, maybe we'll go back to normal because nobody's as talented as he's people. I think that's an absolute

possibility, right? And, and And again, like, it'll always be a tug of war between the Marjorie Taylor Greens and now the Marjorie Taylor Greens and maybe like the Ilhan Omar is on the left. And then the traditional politicians, you know, even if the presidency kind of goes back to normal and Washington feels like, you know, it's 1999 again. If that happens, it'll still, there'll still be a tug of war in the background between the new media stars and the old ones. Well, in a way, it's still downstream of our circumstance. We can't go back to 1999 politics because it's not 1999. 1999. 1999 was a great year. The S&P 500 was booming. No 9-11. We had the early days of the, the optimism, man, I mean, I was so young. I wish I could have been an adult in the year 1999 with my Nokia phone. I mean, I've just been cruising. Dude, a beeper maybe? What a world to live in and to think about the, what a world to live in and to think about where things could go. And then it just all comes crashing down. Dot com and 9-11. I guess that was part of the point.

That was part of the price that you pay for that moment. But it must have been awesome to live through. I'm genuinely envious of the adults. You and I share the exact same theory. I think it's possible that civilization peaked in 1999 or 2000. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, 100%, I think that. In America, specifically, the peak of the American Empire was 1999.

All right, there you go. We've given you all of our thoughts. Emily, thank you very much for having me on your show. I appreciate it. No, it's wonderful. But we haven't given you all of our thoughts, because we will still give you more thoughts. We're doing the AMA.

Don't worry. Yeah, don't worry. Stick around for that. Thank you guys so much for watching. I'll be on tomorrow with Crystal. We'll see you that. nonprofit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick

as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. One Tribe, save my life twice. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the Psychology Podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation, you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome.

Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials is easier. Complex problem solving takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Jennifer Lopez. And in the new season of the Overcomfit podcast, I'm even more honest, more vulnerable and more real than ever. Am I ready to enter this new part of my life? Like, am I ready to be in a relationship? Am I ready to have kids and to really just devote myself and my time? Join me for conversations about healing and growth, all from one of my favorite spaces, The Kitchen. Listen to the new season of the Overcomber podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

This is an IHeart podcast.