Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari, and Kmele discuss the Trump Mamdani meeting, nationalism, Marjorie Taylor Greene and some political gratitude.

Episode Date: November 26, 2025

Today on Suspension of the rules, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele talk more about the Trump/Mamdani meeting as well as some more on the implications of Marjorie Taylor Greene's resignation. The guys debate a bit about nationalism on an individual level. In lieu of the airing of grievances Isaac challenges Kmele and Ari to share some political related gratitude and they deliver. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming up, the Trump-Mam-Dani meeting, a slew of foreign accounts on X. I go to the mat for nationalism, question mark. Marjorie Taylor Green, she's leaving Congress. We talk a lot about that. And then some gratitude in the spirit of Thanksgiving. It's a very good one. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Suspension of the Rules podcast, a place where two of us have non-functioning internet and audio and video, and one of us has his shit together, which is our managing editor, Ari Weitzman. I'm Isaac Saul, also here with... We're getting fiber. We're getting fiber. It's coming over the hill. We can now say whatever we want about Elon. It's happening.

And, yeah, gentlemen, I hope you're looking forward to the holidays. If you're traveling this week, wear a suit, new requirements. No more looking like a sloth. Absolutely not. According to Sean Duffy, as far as I understand. Camille, what do you think of this new policy that you need to dress nice in order to travel on the airlines now? forward by the transportation secretary. It kind of seems like something that might be up your alley, to be totally honest with you.

In fairness, it's not a new policy. This is part of a new PSA that Sean Duffy, the head of Department of Transportation, formerly of Road Rules fame. So obviously well qualified. Or was it Road Rules or that other show? Dog, you got to know that because that's critical to the joke you're trying to Well, I'm only making fun of the fact that he was on an MTV reality show. It just occurred to me that road rules would actually make him more qualified

than some of the other reality shows that he was poorly on. Real-world Road Rules and Real World Road Rules Challenge. So here we are taking a prompt from Sean Duffy. That's distracting us from the fact that travel is going to be delayed by distracting from that. Well, he doesn't even care about the fact that travel is going. going to be delayed. The PSA is all about how air travel is kind of crappy because you people aren't behaving nicely. You're not helping old woman put their bags in the overhead compartment and you're dressing like slabs if you're dressed at all when you get on planes.

This nudist policy. It's gone too far. I can actually appreciate some of this. I mean, I just about 12 hours ago got off of a flight from L.A. to D.C. And it was horrible. But it was horrible because they treat you like cattle with domestic air travel in the United States. And it's just gotten considerably worse since the days when people actually used to wear suits to the airport so they can get on a plane. Now people, you know, arrive in string bikinis and tank tops and their underwear. Where are you going? FDR is getting on the plane with no shoes or something. socks on. It's very weird. Not FDR.

This is a dream you had. What are you talking about? RFK Jr. Well, this is the thing. The whole experience is so disorienting. I'm still trying to regain my bearings 12 hours later. But I don't know that the PSA is going to be particularly helpful in terms of improving the experience for people. If the guy next to me had been wearing a pocket square and a tie and still smelled a little funny, like I think I'd still be pretty

miserable right now. This is just straight victim blaming and you're a victim here. You're disoriented from travel. You're part of the, part of the class of people that are being challenged by the fact that we have now a string of air buses instead of flights to the great skies and the blue yonder and what it maybe once felt like. But it's just because air travel is kind of worse. So it's not everyone's fault for like, you know, adapting. I don't think that people, wearing suits and dressing nice is going to make flights become less delayed and us be moved in and out of planes and orders that are designed to maximize suffering rather than to maximize efficiency. I don't think that's going to make a difference. I think it's probably

the fact that our infrastructure with flights needs to be fixed. But yeah, sure. I mean, if we have like some slacks on, maybe we'll feel a little better about it. I know feeling uncomfortable makes me feel better. Yeah, I do love the idea that, like, I'm in the middle of a flight delay, and I've been stuck in, you know, O'Hare Airport for 12 hours. I'm like, God, I'm so glad I'm in this three-piece suit and top hat. Otherwise, things would be so much better if I was just, you know, in sweatpants and is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You know, I don't really understand. All right. Well, the Sean Duffy dress nice for airplanes headline is probably like the least important thing that's happened in the last seven days since I got a chance to sit down with you, fine, gentlemen. I was honestly unsure about where to go in today's show and what topics to make sure that we covered. I still feel like somebody wrote into me, a Tangle Reader wrote into me about the Trump Mom Donnie meeting with a kind of wide. is this mattered, like, no, this doesn't matter. Nobody thinks this matters, um, take, which I thought was sort of interesting, surprised me a little bit. I feel like it really matters.

Like the, like, I think his perception was like, this is all theater and these guys are just doing this because, um, yeah, because this is how they operate. They want media attention and they're both main characters and that's just how it is. And I was, I was, I mean, I tried to really check my biases because I obviously care about New York and I obviously, you know, paying attention to the president, whatever. But it really does feel meaningful to me that if Trump is making room in the kind of MAGA coalition and who he's being warm and welcoming to, that included in that is somebody like Zoran Mamdani. I mean, that feels to me like an important update. And, you know, I think we touched a lot on the idea and the Tangle newsletter and the podcast about like what this says about Trump and how he operates and that he'll talk to anybody

and he's willing to, you know, negotiate with the other side. But I also feel like we, in retrospect, we probably didn't spend enough time on the sort of, I think he has a lot of the same ideas as I do comment from Trump and just the general reality of that, which gets so little attention. And I ended up rereading the Washington Post editorial board take on this, which on second read, I was like,

you know, there's so much more here than maybe I gave credit to in my take. And one of the big things that I think is probably worth just stating outright is like Trump and Mamdani both really want to centralize more control

in the executive. I mean, there is something, you know, it's like the Mamdani control the means of production ideology meeting Trump. I am the president

so therefore I can tariff the whole world and, you know, make these big, broad sweeping economic decisions without import. put from Congress or whoever else, it's pretty interesting to think that this blurring of the

public and private sectors, you know, the Trump administration's treatment of Intel, whatever, and Mamdani being like, I want to have government-run grocery stores in New York City, I mean, they kind of do rub shoulders maybe a bit more than a fiscal conservative who votes for Trump would want to admit. And I wish, in retrospect, I'd spend more time on that in my take. I'm just curious if, you know, maybe to start, I guess my lob is, do you guys think this is a thread worth pulling at? Or that that's kind of, you know, a figment of the imagination, you know, reaching for something that's maybe not totally there in tangible terms, given how far apart they are on some other issues. I'm going to go first because I know Camillo has a couple books in his head that he's writing as,

we speak that he's going to lay out in front of us in response. But there's definitely a thread there. I think in and of itself, the marker of who is Trump warming up to what are the ideas he's talking about. He's the president. He's a very active president. That's worth discussing just for its own terms without even talking about where the parallels lie. But the parallels are there. I have this take that I think Trump and now, Mondani, But mostly Trump, because, again, C, is the president, is pushing the country to become more fiscally conservative. People who were liberal or are liberal and who oppose the president

are looking for reasons to oppose them on anything. Tariffs are a really good example of this. His trying to broker the U.S. steel trade is a good example of this. His getting the government shares of Intel is a good example of this. I'm hearing people from the left, reading a lot of, We're reading a lot of the same editorials at the same time. I know you're seeing them too, are saying like the government shouldn't be involved in free enterprise like this.

And it's like, oh, that's from the left now, is it? Okay. And then conservatives are like saying the same thing, saying, well, we like that the president is trying to do what he thinks is best for American manufacturing, but we do think it's inappropriate to use the tools of the federal government this way. So it looks like that there's a broader consensus. that's sort of forming around opposition to some of these policies,

which is a little counterintuitive, that the president is moving the country more conservative because they're going counter to him and he's the Republican. And I think Mamdani, it's a little bit more straightforward. Like, we don't know what he's going to do yet. He's just gone to office some of the ideas about government-run grocery stores and trying to have the tools of the government be involved with price setting, like with utility costs, with rent control,

things that there's a lot of consensus over, but things there's a lot of disagreement over too, so not like two out-their decision policies. Those are things that are easy to oppose on an ideological ground in a straightforward way if you're a Republican. Like it's just anti-conservative, you're a Republican easy to oppose.

And I'm sure there's a lot of people in the middle that are now thinking about, well, I just made this argument with Trump. He's cozying up to Mumdani in the White House. So maybe I am an opposition. of this. I think there's a good deal of confusion in response to the fact,

the fact, in fact, that there is a threat to pull on here, that there are parallels. I think it would be, maybe there's more for us to discuss, but I think, you know, we're still learning about when Lamdani's policies are and we're starting learning about, like, the way these things actually work. In a lot

of ways, we're learning about what Trump's policies are, too. He's been using the executive a ton, and we don't know if that's going to shift to legislation as the courts block him. But I mean, my long-winded answer is just to get to a short version, which is, yeah, I think there's something there. Yeah, I'd agree there's something there. And I think a lot of something there, honestly. And for all of the reasons that you have mentioned, Isaac, in other contexts and that we've discussed many times, like Trump's tendency to agree vociferously with,

like, the last person he talks to, all of that stuff is on display. We've had, many, many conversations about the parallels between populism on the left and the Bernie Sanders movement in general and the MAGA movement more broadly. And to the extent they say they have some things in common and agree on some economic things, that's a lot of what's talked about. To the extent there's something new in that regard, it's the fact that they're talking about housing and building housing as a mechanism for addressing concerns related to cost. and I think that is a very healthy development in general and good policy to the extent that Madami is pushing in that way, and the Trump administration is actually helping to be supportive

in that regard. I think another important dimension of this, though, is the way MAGA in particular has responded to this. There doesn't appear to be a lot of upset on the left that this meeting has taken place, and that was certainly a risk that our new incoming mayor in New York seems to have avoided. being too chummy. Trump, on the other hand, has seen the likes of Laura Lumer and a bunch of other

and MAGA stalwarts openly, not so much criticizing him directly, but talking about this meeting in ways that suggest they're less than enthusiastic about the kind of olive branch and the generosity being extended there. Elise Stefani, who is the one who essentially got flagged in the meeting,

having suggested that WMdani is some sort of radical Islamist, she doubles down on her perspective immediately after. Again, not rebutting Trump directly and calling him by name, but essentially continuing to assert her perspective on things. So I do think all of that is meaningful. I don't think it's merely theater. It does perhaps suggest that there might be some ways in which

the new administration in New York is perhaps going to look for ways to tamp down some of the more energetic disagreements that might emerge in favor of actually finding ways to kind of collaborate and do things together. But if passed this prologue, and we certainly saw this in California with Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump getting together after the fires, and it didn't take very long for that honeymoon to be disrupted and for Newsom to be on the assault again and for the Trump administration to be aggravating Californians

with a lot of their ICE activities. Yeah, that actually was a good segue to the other point that I wanted to make looking back at my writing just a couple days ago that I wanted to, that I wish I had said, something I wish I said that I didn't, which is that I don't think this is going to last. And I didn't really make that clear kind of in my take, but the odds that we're sitting here in six months

and Mondani and Trump have a relationship that feels cordial or upbeat or positive seems extremely unlikely to me. I mean, I don't think Trump's going to stop immigration enforcement in New York City, which Mondani has said promise up and down as part of his campaign he was going to fight against. I imagine the federal funding will become a threat that Trump sort of hangs over Mom Dani's head at every turn. And, you know, I don't know if Mom Dini's actually going to follow through on it,

but he is, as of like a week ago, still promising that he's going to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he ever shows up in New York City who, you know, I think Trump considers a friend of the administration and is literally a friend of Trump. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and if there is any semblance of a confrontation there with Netanyahu stepping foot in New York, that's going to be a big, big problem for the Mom-Dani-Trump relationship.

I mean, there's basically just landmines everywhere. So, you know, if Trump and Elon barely lasted six months together, I think Trump and Mom Donnie lasting six months is even less likely, honestly. So I wish I had mentioned that. Trump and Elon did get back together. yeah it seems a little tenuous though it's never the same it's never the same yeah it hasn't been the same that's true they they do seem like um like distant star cross lovers at this point less so than the early days of that you know burning romance where things can never be better and it's the

best relationship of all time um yeah speaking of elizabeth actually, it turns out that a lot of the hot MAGA girls on X are in Indonesia and actually anonymous random people on the internet. For those of you who spend less time on jobs. Yeah, yeah. For those of you who spend less time on Twitter than maybe Ari Camille and I, there is actually a big important story that happened this week related to the platform, which is Elon Musk made, in my opinion, one of the best changes that, has ever come to the platform. I think it was actually pretty important.

He's done a lot of stuff that I've not appreciated since taking ownership. But he made it so there is a piece of information on the account page of people's Twitter accounts that tells you what country the profile was created from. And the result was an unbelievable amount of carnage. On the left and the right, actually, many, many, many conservative right-wing MAGA accounts with, you know, smoking hot blondes in the profile picture and I am a woman for Trump hashtag, you know,

tweeting stuff about how they're going to vote for Trump to save women's sports. They turned out to be these accounts that are just based in some far-off country that is, makes it very obvious that they're not a man. American citizens voting here. Of course, it's not 100% fullproof, but quite a few of these accounts have either gone dark or blocked people who have pointed this out or haven't responded at all to the accusation that maybe they're actually just foreigners running the accounts, which I think kind of gives the game away. If you were like an American expat living in Thailand and someone

called you out on this, you'd probably say so. And this is happening on the left, too. There's quite a bit of sort of like lib resistance accounts that actually turned out to be accounts operating from outside the United States. And some of the accounts are closely associated with places like, you know, Nigeria or Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia, where there have been known sort of like bot-dragnet operations happening where people are sort of trying to shape the narrative. um with social media posts from abroad pretty interesting uh i mean a i think maybe we all underestimated the degree to which some of these actors were kind of influencing the discourse b it makes a lot of sense because holy shit x is a cesspool and like i i'm using it less and less because it's so polluted with partisan hackery but i'm curious um I'm curious what you guys thought when you saw some of this stuff coming down the pike.

And also, does it make you rethink any of like the Russian interference social media campaign stuff that we heard about in 2016? Like to me, that's kind of where my mind went was, oh, this actually feels meaningful. And a lot of people dismiss the Russian bot activity in 2016. It's like, oh, it was just, you know, a few dozen Facebook accounts who don't matter and whatever else. But I don't know. This makes me wonder if maybe we knew even less about what was actually happening then, given how much was sort of under the hood once this change came out and how much carnage there was. Maybe this is a bigger part of our politics than we actually understand. It's interesting to frame it that way.

I mean, that's actually, yeah, it's an excellent, excellent question. And I thought about that, but certainly as you ask it and detail it, we need to take a closer look at the data and try to figure out whether or not there's any indication that things have gotten materially worse. I mean, certainly the conversation at that time was its Russian influence campaign. They are spending money. They're setting up these particular agents. They have their bot farms that they were operating in an attempt to try and influence the election. Has it gotten materially worse since then? Obviously, a lot of these actors, as you mentioned, some of those places, Indonesia,

UAE, Nigeria, those places are not Russia. Who is funding those operations? Is it the same people? Do they have the same objectives? We do know that a lot of that foreign influence stuff that was taking place in the 2015-2016 window actually seemed to be geared towards cultivating energetic, responses around divisive issues. And in a lot of respects, the operation does seem to kind of parallel that with these MAGA accounts. A lot of anti-Israel accounts and pro-Gaza accounts similarly

exposed. I would agree, I think having more information about this is good and people being able to recognize. And it's also just heartening to see people actually looking and then posting the screencaps. And it's not just journalists. Like I've seen regular. people doing exactly the same thing. I think that's wonderful. My hope is that we get greater transparency as well. We've talked about Fuentes for a while and other nefarious actors who have what seems to be a great deal of prominence on the social media platforms now, but how much that engagement is real? We don't actually know there isn't a great deal of transparency. There used to be more when we had more direct access to the Twitter API, which I

believe was somewhat modified before Elon even took over. And there's been less transparency up until this point. So I think that's a good thing in general. But I do want to know how much of Nick Fuentes' influence is real. It seems to be the case that he is getting an exceptionally high rate of engagement when he posts content to X engagement that by some counts appears to be even more dramatic and quick and fast than the engagement that Elon or Trump or Barack Obama get when they post something to Twitter. And what I mean by that is they put a post up and within minutes, there are thousands of people who have liked and retweeted something.

It's an exceptionally unusual thing to see happen for anyone, let alone someone who is kind pushing malevolent ideas like that. If it's real, then it's concerning. If it's not real, it's concerning in a different sort of way. And again, information like this is valuable, but it does require us to actually get some more details so that we can develop some informed perspectives on what's happening. We really got Fuentes on the brain still since we talked about last.

He's really worms his way in there. Not inconsequential. We were talking about this before it became the kind of central issue for Republicans. That's true. I don't know, I don't know if it's, maybe it's something where he and his network are subjected to some of the same, like, exposed accounts as being not America based. I don't think he's ground zero for it. I don't think you're saying that he was, but it's certainly something that we have to continue to look at. I know that the way that we, or at least I understood, the Russian interference campaign story of 2016, wasn't that there was proven collusion with the president,

and it wasn't that it was all a hoax and nothing burger. It was that we didn't see any direct operation between the Trump campaign and Russia. That was overstated to the point where it was unreal, and you could even legitimately use the word lie for some people. But the idea that Russia did not have an interest in trying to sew this information in that election is not what we should have learned from that. In fact, the lesson that I think I took away was, oh, a lot of people, Russia included, see an opportunity in our media ecosystem, media ecosystem to try to make a buck by fanning flames, by sewing discontent, by stirring shit up. And that market is not dominated by Russia. It is something where they have an interest and others will too.

So even though we can say there's some northern African or Middle Eastern countries or even South Asian countries, East Asian, where there may be Russian ties, it's sort of like the discussion we had with France last week. Like even though we can draw the connections, it's probably not the case that it's all part of the same disinformation campaign. It's probably different actors all seeing the same opportunity. And honestly, I cannot imagine a better advertisement for Tangle than, hey, people online are trying to mislead you. They're trying to take advantage of the fact that you have distrust in the media and your politicians.

And they're selling you a bill of goods. They come from now we know where, but previously God knows where. They're trying to take advantage of your rage and weaponize it against you. don't trust what you read on social media just because it confirmed you serve priors. Come check out readtango.com, blah, blah, blah. I think it's just something that supports what we're trying to do really well.

It supports what, I mean, a lot of media organizations are trying to do of just follow things to the source and have conversations with one another. It's a good feature from Elon and I hope that it progresses to even more skepticism from what these accounts are posting. It's interesting. I will say there, one caveat about this being a great feature that's probably worth pointing out is like there are going to be some misses. I mean, for instance, I saw there are Palestinian journalists who it's pretty common practice. I mean, there's something I've seen reported before that they're like journalists in Gaza who get VPNs or phones with chips that are operated out of.

of like Poland or something. And so I've seen some people posting stuff like, oh, this quote unquote Palestinian journalist. And then it's like a screenshot of their account being based out of Poland. And you go to the journalist page and it's just like, you know, there is a person taking pictures and selfies

and videos from on the ground in Gaza. And now they're being framed as somebody who's like not there or somehow fraudulent or illegitimate. It's like, no, they're probably an actual Palestinian. and journalists in Gaza, they just have done something to try and keep their phone from being tracked, which a lot of them do because of the Israeli government. So I feel like there's, there will be some misses. I'm kind of curious for your guys' reaction to like a tone shift that I'm just noticing in the immediate wake of, of this revelation. I'll give you one good example.

Ian Miles Chong, who is, I don't even know how to describe him. He is a very online Twitter internet era, quote-unquote, journalist. I mean, most of the work he does seems to be just from his computer posting stuff, videos that he sees and reframing them in sort of very political, divisive lenses. but he's also done some legitimate reporting on groups like Antifa, et cetera. He posts regularly under this framework that he really cares about America and has America's interests and heart and whatever. And in this purge, it came out that his account was based in the United Arab Emirates.

And I saw him post something today about the, the redistricting battles that are happening. And Charles C.W. Cook, who's a writer at the National Review, responded to the Post. And he basically said, does it ever feel odd to you that you've never been to the United States? But you're writing long disquisitions about how representation works in Indiana. And I don't know. Like when I first read Charles Post, I'm like, yeah. Like, this guy's totally full of shit, you know?

Like, it's good that somebody's calling him out on it. And then I think a little longer. And I'm like, well, I don't know. Like, should I not be allowed to say anything about, you know, an election that happened in Germany because I'm not German? I don't really know if that's like a rule or framework I want to play by. But there's a, there is something that feels disingenuous about what somebody like Ian's doing. And there's a lot of that.

I mean, what we learn from this is there are a lot of these people with like millions of followers on Twitter. And to put this in context, I mean, these are people whose platforms just by the numbers, their megaphone is way bigger than I have here at Tangle. And they're just sort of posing as people who are different from the reality of who they are. And it feels a bit, like, I feel in myself being like, okay, I'm never listening to this person again. And then I'm sort of questioning, like, is that really the approach I should take just because Is there accounts based in the UAE or whatever? And I don't know whether I'm like how to feel about it, I guess.

Is there an analog where there are accounts being exposed that comment on American politics but are saying, yeah, but I'm a European account. I talk about European politics. I'm going to draw these comparisons when I see them. I think that's not quite what's happening. I mean, if somebody were to say to you, you, hey, you've talked about the war in Ukraine, but you've never been to Ukraine. You should shut up about it. We could have a conversation about that. I mean, the U.S. is a stakeholder. I think we come

across that position in a way that's authentic from RPOV and don't claim to be Ukrainian. And I think that's the big difference here. It's fine if you want to be a U.K. account who talks a lot about politics, lives, breathes the stuff. are saying gerrymandering in Indiana is an issue. It's going to affect U.S. representation, and ergo, the relationship with Europe. So I'm a stakeholder. I'm going to pine on it. But it's different if you're saying,

I'm red blood and American, and here's what I think about Indiana, and then you're exposed to not be that. I think those are different things. And if there are accounts that are saying, that are talking about U.S. politics and have it claimed to be, they can continue to do that. The U.S. is the 300-pound gorilla on the international stage.

I think everybody has a right to an opinion about what we're doing here. And I think it would be different if we were claiming that they didn't. Yeah, I think Charles, I haven't seen his post, but he's a friend and tends to be very thoughtful. If he's just posing this question, do you ever think it's unusual? It seems somewhat appropriate since Ian not only has his own Twitter account, He essentially has a broad, wide-ranging media operation that is all focused on engaging in American political advocacy, not so much journalism, because it's all MAGA-oriented, flows in one direction. He's like promoting various viral clips in order to try and influence the conversation here domestically. So, you know, it seems like inappropriate question in that context.

certainly I think weighing in on foreign politics is one thing it is as both of you have pointed out very different thing when you try to masquerade as though you are you know American patriot the proud dad is like your bio proud dad proud American at the bottom and we know you're not proud of your children you liar neither of those things are true um so that's that's a very different sort of thing. And I do think that when the goal of what you're doing seems to be promulgating falsehoods, which we actually have seen plenty of that from a number of the accounts that were flagged that I've seen, I can remember specific instances of them pushing content and pushing narratives that didn't seem quite right. So to the extent that's what's going on,

it seems like that is particularly concerning and separate from simply having a perspective on something that's happening in a place that's far away. And it's entirely possible to have expertise about something, in some instances, because you're not enmeshed in everything about the kind of domestic political situation. You get a different vantage point on it from being far away and perhaps not caught up in the passions of whatever kind of partisan political wrangling is taking place domestically. We'll be right back after this quick break.

I want to take... I think, okay, let me start this over because this is a sensitive one. I think I'm realizing from consuming some of this and some of my personal reactions to it that I might be a little bit of a nationalist. I might have some nationalism in my bones.

Just a normal, just not like not the white nationalists or like the Jewish nationalist, but just, you know, like I've been wrestling with this a little bit and there's a bit of a detour, but I think it'll be a worthy, worthwhile one. I looked it up, like the definition of nationalism, an ideology, this is Miriam Webster, an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others,

and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations' nationalities or supernational groups. I'm like, that's okay, right? Like, I think that's actually okay. And I think part of my reaction to some of the stuff that I'm seeing on with like this Twitter expose, it sort of reinforced this idea that I've been thinking about, I've been thinking about writing about this a little bit. It's why it was kind of top of mind for me is like I sort of do hate the fact that there are a bunch of people from other countries like inserting themselves in our politics in sometimes nefarious, intentionally nefarious ways. And in other times it's like I'm actually more interested in the people living here and

living through it and I don't know that that's a necessarily bad thing to feel or that there's anything that I shouldn't feel dirty to me to feel that way and I've been like thinking like why is this like I know I know why white nationalism is bad or black nationalism is bad or um Jewish nationalism is bad or whatever like these examples that we were hearing debated a little bit because there's like an ethnic force behind it that gets a little dangerous when you're Like, these are the only people allowed here. But American nationalism to me should be much more accepted, I think, or feel like a little bit less dirty. And I've just been, like, pulling at the thread of that idea because I think it informs a lot of my own politics, you know?

And I was thinking, like, if Italy was invaded, invaded, yeah, let's say. Italy was invaded by a bunch of, like, Canadian immigrants. We would all think that sucked because, like, Italy is, the thing that makes Italy Italy is, like, it's the food and the leisure and the people and the culture and the history. And it's Rome and Florence and Venice and, like, that's the whole point. It's like, that's why it's Italy. And if it changed, if, like, a huge influx of Canadians move there, I'd be like, damn, that sucks. like we lost Italy, you know, and that's sort of like a nationalist sentiment, like, you know,

and if I were Italian and felt that way, I think that'd be like a totally normal thing to feel. And then here in the United States, we have these weird, like, this weird disconnect between groups, you know, on the left, if a black neighborhood exists and a bunch of white people with money move in and jack up the prices of all the houses and force out, you know, the people who are living there, we call it gentrification, and we think that it sucks. And if there's a white neighborhood, you know, on the right, if there's like a white neighborhood, quote-unquote, overrun by a bunch of immigrants,

and, you know, they take all the jobs at the local factory and they start getting some kind of government benefits or whatever, it's like conservatives all view that as this bad thing, this mass immigration, this displacement of like the people who live there and now the town's changing for what it used to be. It's like, these are the same feelings. And they're kind of okay, I think. Like, I think it's okay.

I think it's like natural and okay to be like, oh, I don't want this thing that I recognize to change. And I was thinking about this when this story broke. I was thinking about writing this piece, this nationalism piece, and then this story broke. And I realized, like, there was something like, I'm like a Twitter nationalist, too. Like, I'm just like, I don't know, keep them out, I guess, you know?

Like, I don't care what Ian Miles Strong thinks, and I don't want them polluting my feed with a bunch of incendiary comments. And it's, I agree, Camille, it's worse with him because there is something nefarious he's doing. He's trying to divide people. But, yeah, I don't know. It got me thinking about this. And I'm, yeah, I'm just, I don't know if I should feel dirty. For some reason, I feel dirty saying that. Like, I feel like it's like a dirty thing to say, and I'm not actually sure if I should.

Like, I think it's okay to sort of like love your country and want it to stay relatively the same. I think it'd be okay if, you know, like Italians do that or Russians do that or Australians do that. As like an American outsider, I don't look down on that. And I don't know why I look down on it when Americans do it or why I've been programmed to think that that's like a bad or ugly or nefarious thing. Like, it can be, but I don't necessarily. think it is, you know? Yeah. I'm resisting the urge to crack a joke about Tucker Carlson body snatching with my dear

friend, Isaac Saul, because I want to take this seriously. And I actually think I want to offer a couple refinements. One with Ian, I don't know that he is trying to divide people. Let me not attribute a motivation to him. And I'll just say specifically. sure he is. I've seen that he's, yeah, well, he's, he's a partisan, he's a partisan, activist. Like, that is, that is a bit odd for someone who lives abroad to be a partisan activist full time, it seems, in the United States. He's no connection to the country.

So what is going on there exactly? It's not obvious that there's any reason for him to have a particular personal motivation with respect to American politics based on where he happens to live. And related to what you were saying, there is something, because nationalism has a bunch of historic significance as a political ideology and is attached to so many nefarious things, it's interesting that it has become the case that a lot of people use the word nationalist in the U.S. context in almost exactly the same way they use the word patriotism. And when I hear you talking about these sentiments that you said a few times, you said, okay, and I don't want to presume too much, but I, I want to. I want to. I want to

wonder if the thing to say is almost it's natural and understandable that people have these particular impulses. They live in a place. They see people coming from abroad and changing the dynamics of their communities. And it raises some flags for them. Oftentimes, there can be meaningful tension when there are cultural dissimilarities between two populations. I will never forget visiting Africa for the first time, spending a little time in Cape Town. And there was this They called it the xenophobia taking place. There were Zimbabweans who were coming across the border. And the border between Zimbabwe and South Africa is pretty far north of Cape Town.

But in Cape Town, you had Zimbabweans sleeping outside of the police station en masse because they were being, there were threats of violence. There had been attacks on them. And they were seeking safety and refuge in this place that they were. migrating to and the concerns there were all so similar to the kind of immigration beefs that we've seen here in the United States. They're taking our jobs. They're changing our culture. We don't want those people here. It's hard to call that racism in the same way that it kind of gets lambasted as racism elsewhere. And I think having an appreciation for the fact that this is natural and we actually see it all over the place helps to put it into context

in a way that I think we tend to not. But in terms of the okay dimension of it, I think it is fully acceptable to be patriotic. And there are lots of different ways in which one can be patriotic. It could be bellicose and vapid and gross and my country right or wrong. But it can also be really constructive and it can be built around what we have here in the United States. America is not a kind of ethnic identity so much as this kind of creedal, philosophical allegiance that we have towards one another. So to say, you know, that my, I'm proud to be an American, which I don't so much use the word pride in that context, because I reserve pride for particular kinds of things that I earn.

But I would say, like having a tremendous amount of gratitude is a sort of patriotism as well. And that I have in space. I mean, my family, I'm a first generation American. My family came here from Jamaica. and I think on net I've been a profound benefit to the nation, and I try to be. I have a great appreciation for it. But, you know, could someone be concerned that I'm taking their jobs? Maybe I think I've created more than I've taken, to be totally honest.

But, you know, I think, again, a healthy thing to actually have some appreciation for and to look for some nuance in those conversations about nationalism and patriotism is a very good thing. Is there like a pro... It looks like you had something cute up, go ahead. Is there like a pro-immigration nationalist movement that I could join? Does that exist? Are those people out there? Or do those things feel like there?

Because I do, I think you're right that maybe what I'm describing is a little closer to patriotism than nationalism. But I'm also, I'm a little bit on the train of like, I live here and it's okay to, like, there's a part of the definition that's like, you want your, you prioritize the interests of your nation even to the detriment of other nations. And again, like, I know it's like a, like it feels dirty to say, but I'm a little bit like, yeah, I think I might be, like, I'm here. I mean, is that, I don't want to, you know, I don't know how far that extends. Like, you know, do I want to go invade Iraq again to get all the.

oil because that'd be good for us? No, of course not. But like if like Trump's doing a trade deal with China and it feels like we get the better end of the deal, am I happy about that? Yeah, definitely. And I don't know if that's like where the lines are, I guess. It's just struck me a little bit that it's become so toxic to say. And I think it's part of it's, and this is like owning the language stuff. It's like, you know, the characters that we've been talking about on this show in recent weeks, like the people like Nick Fuentes and stuff, like they have been, they now own this like, I'm the white nationalist, I'm a white nationalist. And they've like taken ownership over this sort of, it's almost like a self-centered pro-America view that I don't

think is pro-America. It's definitely self-centered. And it's latent with like big and xenophobia and whatever else. But, like, I'm sort of like, I think there's a pretty limited reframe that's kind of positive and is totally normal and okay. And I think it's most interesting that I see it replicated across partisan lines, cultures, countries, all over the world. You know, like the examples I gave of, like, the way conservatives view of White Town being, the population changing to being primarily immigrant

the way liberals view a black town undergoing gentrification the way any of us would view like another country having a bunch of people who are like prideful about it or wanting to preserve its culture like we in these different contexts we view this sort of kind of preservation mindset as being totally acceptable

but then for this one as Americans we don't and Camille maybe to your point it's because of and this is appropriate Thanksgiving chatter, I guess. Maybe it's because of what the American project is and what it's supposed to represent that it's not so much about national identity as it is about like this nation founded on ideals and values. And you're right.

Like there is something less ethnic about being American than Italian. I get that. And I think I understand that. Or really any European country. I mean, French, German, all of it, you know. But I don't know. I'm still, yeah.

I mean, this is, I'm like in the shower looking at the ceiling. Like, am I a nationalist? Is that what that means? I'm looking, this is my therapy now. They're complicated ideas. We were talking about identity. And identity for oneself is fraught enough. So when we discuss identity for a collective,

it gets really complicated. I think there is a difference between nationalism and patriotic or nationalist and patriotic. Not to get too far into the weeds here, but I do think this is one of the cases where etymology is helpful. Like NAT, Nat, the root from birth,

like natal, natural. It gives itself to many words that we're familiar with. Patriotic comes from Pat, paternal. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's great. Yeah, I'll just shut up. I'm just kidding.

I hear you, Ari. This is good. No, it's a good one. It's a good one. Now, keep going. Keep going. I'm paying attention. I'm awake.

I'm paying attention. Yeah. I think there's a difference between the pride and the thing that we come from compared to the thing that we are and the thing that we build and what comprises us, what we comprise. So saying I'm patriotic is like, I'm proud of this country that birthed me. saying I'm nationalist, is saying, I'm proud of this nation that I'm a part of, that I take part in. And I think that's meaningful. The idea that we want to, we're afraid to say we're

nationalist, I think is looped into this idea of the way we think of nationalist identities in other states, where it is more ethnic. Like, there's an idea of an Italian, like Italy's a language. Italian's a language. And as much as Italy was also an empire, it exported that language, not as well as France, or England did, but we also see it in their names and mannerisms. And there's a lot more that is distinctive about it. The U.S., our national identity is specifically being a melting pot. So that is the way that it was taught to me in school. And the way a lot of us brought up thinking about the U.S. is we have a big tent. If you come in, you contribute, we want to adapt good ideas.

So our national identity is a large and ever changing and that's part of it, which makes it even more complicated. So this idea of, like if you just simplify it to thinking about your neighborhood or your street or your apartment building and you have a really good community leadership

in your apartment building, let's say, and everyone contributes, they chip in, there's like sharing of resources, people get together on Wednesdays for poker night, and it feels like a good building. If somebody moves in, of that building, you want them to kind of assimilate to the thing you've built. And assimilate

can also be a dirty word a little. But you're just saying, we built this thing together. We please, we would like other people to be a part of it, but not at the expense of the thing that we've built. And that, I think, is okay to say. But it gets so fraught with these other ideas of like, okay, well, you're talking about assimilation and you're talking about nationalism and the ideas that I have for that come from these other countries where it's heavy with this expectation of how you sound and the way you look. And that does carry over to the U.S. even if it's a thing that we try to leave behind. It's hard to leave that out. All of those ideas of identity, you can't really parse them. So if somebody feels like, if you feel like somebody's

not contributing to your project and you lump them together like these people, these immigrants, it's tough to, it invites the question of what do you mean by them or these and why. And it's tough to parse out the non-contribution aspect of it from the ethnic aspect of it. It's possible for sure. But I think that's why it feels fraud is because even when we're trying to lay it out in these terms, it's almost impossible to do. I just want to double. Go ahead, Isaac.

Yeah, not so boring, huh? I was just going to say, like, I wonder if is it a contradiction to be, nationalistic about say like ethnic diversity you know like are those things can that code like what if you know again to go back to the definition an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others in that place's primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations nationalities or supernational groups I'm like yeah is my ideology that I want to elevate the United States and American citizenship or whatever American nationality above all others and place primary emphasis on the promotion of American culture and

interest. Yeah. Like, I think it is. And then I'm, and then it's like, what if part of the value prop of America to me is something like the ethnic diversity, you know? Like, can that be the thing that I want to preserve and protect as part of my nationalist ideology? Like, I I live in Philadelphia. I'm sitting in a studio that's an Indonesian neighborhood in South Philly. Like, I actually think that's pretty sweet. Like, I, you know, there's all these cool restaurants around, and interesting, like, cultural curiosities about living in this neighborhood

or being in this neighborhood that's, that's, like, very decidedly and overtly in Indonesian neighborhood, just this random little collection of Indonesian immigrants that have been here in Philly for years. And, like, I like that, I think. And then I walk home 15 minutes north of here and it's like a totally different neighborhood, totally different place. I like that thing about the United States and it actually doesn't bother me. And I think it's like part of our story and what we are.

And then I'm just, yeah, I'm like, okay, if that's the thing I want to preserve, then am I a nationalist still or no? Yeah, I mean, I think given your definition, I think it works. Although it seems like what we're talking about here is like pluralism. and equality in the kind of most fundamental sense of the word, like equal protection, irrespective of who you happen to be. I wanted to double click on something you said, Ari, because it's a distinction.

I've tried to draw in the past as well, and thought you said it really eloquently. But the notion that one can be proud to be part of, to perhaps defend and advocate on behalf of a particular kind of philosophical intellectual tradition here in the United States, which is the thing that makes the United States, the United States. I think that that here qualifies as patriotism. And again, you could have the cheap version of America, which is not quite the same thing as understanding those philosophical ideals and values and really advocating for them. But I also wanted to

kind of call back to something, which I think perhaps helps to put some of what you saying earlier, Isaac, into even further context. I'm remembering this conversation we had with Abby Phillip over on this other podcast that I do sometimes. And there was an anecdote in there about the differences between the kind of northern blacks and the southern blacks. And I'm remembering upon reading it, it brought to mind this period during the Great Migration where you had a wave of Southerners who were making their way, formerly enslaved humans, making their way to the north, and encountering resistance in prominent publications of the day,

the black publications like the Chicago Defender, and they would talk about these Southern blacks in ways that were horrific. Like if it were published elsewhere, one would have just denigrated it as openly racist. But what they were pointing out were the calls, cultural dissimilarities and the challenges that are often associated with assimilation. And I do think being honest and having some regard for people who are trying to in thoughtful ways, and sometimes in less thoughtful ways, make some sort of point about some of those

tensions is a reasonable thing to do. And, like, actually, it's certainly going to be much more productive and helpful if you're trying to navigate those things and reach a point where people do actually find the right way to live together. People who are new insurance to a community, they are doing what's necessary to try and understand the place that they're moving towards and give themselves the best opportunity for personal prosperity and growth to develop camaraderie. And yes, assimilation into that society to the extent they, they, they, can assimilate.

We'll be right back after this quick break. Well, speaking of people who hate foreigners, we should probably talk about Marjorie Taylor Green a little bit. Wow. It's that, too. she's emigrating from Congress is I think what you wanted to say. I'm just kidding.

Well, actually, I don't know. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Green might honestly take ownership of a viewpoint like that, to be totally frank. So she said some really insane stuff about Alon Omar and, you know, various members of Congress with immigrant backgrounds.

So I think she deserves that little joke. She is leaving, though. That's real. for being facetious That's not a joke Yeah, that part's not a joke I am so confused Is that I'm just so confused

By this entire thing I really don't know What to make of it I wrote this whole take about it And we record the podcast today That was literally four hours ago And I'm sitting here And I'm just like

I don't even know if I believe anything I wrote four hours ago I have no idea what to make of this story. I don't, it's, it's totally bizarre. Like she, she came in like this insane rocket ship of paranoia and populist angst and like, I'm going to be Trumpier than Trump. And nothing she did in the few years that she was in Congress was considered beyond the pale. I mean, she was liking.

posts about murdering Nancy Pelosi. She was claiming that hurricanes were being geoengineered by the government to target Republican voters. She did this stuff on like a weekly basis. And everybody was like, yeah, fine. And then she started talking about how Republicans need to have a plan to address the Affordable Care Act and how they should release the Epstein files. And she's out.

Like, that's it. I'm just like what is this really and also like amid all of that I mean maybe most bizarrely she personally underwent one of the most rapid and distinct transformations publicly of any politician that I can ever remember and she attributed a little bit of it to Charlie Kirk but like on her way out she's talking about how she regrets the way that she's handled politics and how she wants to put the knives down and how, you know, she's like simultaneously sticking to the sort of MAGA firebrand stuff.

Like, this is what I ran on. This is why I'm here. While also undermining the leader of the MAGA movement while also like really trying to extract herself from the coarsness of MAGA politics that has defined it for so long, which is just like, we're going to be the truth-sayers and roll the grenade in the room

and, you know, who cares what happens? Max don't care about your feelings, et cetera, et cetera. I was like, my head is spinning. Like, I truly genuinely don't know what to make of it. I, it's sort of surreal to imagine that she's just going to leave Congress. I can't totally, like, get my head around the fact that she's willingly leaving because of a disagreement with Trump that stemmed from her basically saying that Republicans need to do something about the thing that they ran on, which was the affordability crisis and also obviously

the Epstein file stuff. It is bizarre, man. And anyone, it is a reminder for me personally. Like, I reluctantly do some of the political prognostication, but it is a reminder in the starkest terms possible that just like you literally never know what's going to happen in a week, in a month, and six months in a year.

I mean, the ground these days especially, feels like it can change so fast underneath your feet. You know, I did say this, and this part I'll stand by, you know, if six months ago you came to me and told me that Marjorie Taylor Green was going to be resigning from Congress in a huge spat with Trump, and he'd be calling her a traitor, like two days before he welcomed mayor of New York City, Zohraamam Dani, to the White House and defended his mayorship.

Like, I would have been like, you are literally- Socialist mayor. Yeah, like there's, I don't know. I would have thought there, you were insane. And here we are, and that's the reality of the political wins and how they've blown. So I don't know. I'm making sense of it in real time, but I really, it is bizarre and confounding. And I feel like there must be like machinations happening in the background that we don't totally understand.

Maybe it's just as simple as like she doesn't want to face off with Trump in a primary and she knows that'll suck and she's going to get her pension and whatever. she's out. But, yeah, it's shocking nonetheless than me, I would say. There is... Oh, go ahead. I was going to say that there's a lot to talk about, so why don't want you start talking about it? The pension may not be worth all that much,

but it is interesting that she came in to... Like literally or at the conversation point? Literally. It might not be worth that much. her. Because I don't, I don't believe it's, what is it, like a thousand dollars a month for her or something like that. I've seen some reporting that suggested. I'm not exactly sure. And her wealth grew pretty ridiculously. Yes. Astronomically. Yeah. It just in the space of five years, she went from a reported net worth, personal net worth. And I'm reciting this from memory

somewhere around like 700,000 to almost 25 million. So that's a lot of money. And And she credits some savvy stock trading. But it's also the case that a lot of that is tied up in the family business that she became a part owner in, I believe, while she was in office. And that seems to be the source of most of that wealth. So good for her, if it's honestly earned. Maybe that's part of the reason why she's not so interested in dealing with all the congressional stuff and it's lost its appeal. And I will say at least, and it's not so much of the fence, and it's not even a diss, really. But MTG is just not the most sophisticated person in Congress.

She's not like a lifelong lawmaker to the extent we talk about her concern about weather machines funded by the Rothschilds. These were in Facebook posts that she put up. Are the Rothschilds Jews? Well, interestingly, I was just talking to. my comrade Michael Moynihan, who was on real-time with MTG like two weeks ago. And her explanation was she didn't even know that the Rothschilds were Jewish. And he said, I believe her. Like, I believe that she actually didn't know.

She could actually use that. And was just saying this. She just got to bumped into that sort of thing. I guess that is plausible. You know, it's honestly, like entirely plausible. You know, the Trump-MTG fallout, I, my thinking about this is it seems like a real miscalculation on the part of Trump. You've already got people like Thomas Massey.

MTG, while she's doing things you don't like, is clearly someone who very much still wants to be part of your movement. She never says anything disparaging about you in particular. In fact, she goes out of her way to continue to compliment you. The Republicans, we used to talk about conservatism as a big tent. party. And it's harder and harder to say that sort of thing when people get purged, even your most loyal vocal supporters for being a little too far off the reservation. And for you to formally make a proclamation that you are removing your endorsement from this person, as opposed to just kind of giving them the cold shoulder, it's just a bit weird for the president of the United

States to do. And for her to have to exit, and she didn't have to exit, but for her to choose to exit. Again, just it's odd. It creates a bizarre dynamic and it is one of many, I think, missteps by the administration in recent months just from a, again, strategic political standpoint. I think even the vociferous refusal to do something on Epstein to placate the Republican and conservative base who were demanding more documents only to capitulate months later, just seems really, really strange. And, you know, some people have speculated about whether or not there's some culpability there. But more than that, it just strikes me as like these are odd political calculations on the party of the administration.

And like Camille, I'm sort of struggling with the idea that the ground that she's staking out this resignation statement over, the idea of we should have the Epstein files or whatever, documentation there is about Epstein released and affordability for U.S. citizens are politically favorable grounds to stake. And it's a place where the party of which she's a member that she's opposing currently is vulnerable. And it makes sense for her to push for that. While at the same time, the thing that I'm struggling with is that she in her career not presented a very sympathetic figure. I think if I'm looking at the arc of, and you feel bad saying it because she's sort of speaking humbly right now. And she's, I think if there's one thing that she's

always been, it's genuine. I really do believe the things that she said are things that she feels and believes and things is the right thing to say or do. But I think she's also been loud and ignorant and throughout her career has been humbled. Now, I don't think she's a humble person. I think you're either humble or you're compelled to be humble. And when you look back at some of the comments she made, I remember after the Jewish space lasers thing, or actually the comparison of mask mandates to laws that were passed during Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, she visited the Holocaust Museum and then apologized.

And that was a memorable moment. And one of the things that she said was, and this is a quote, I will never forget. Quote, I was allowed to believe things that weren't true. And I think the way that she's sort of been reticent to take culpability for things that she's said before really knowing what she's been talking about is something that I think has rightfully followed.

her to this moment where now she's fighting the party and the president over something that she believes in, like releasing documentation about Epstein, affordability that it was getting trumped during the one big beautiful bill and following the government shutdown. I think she's also been a person who has enjoyed expressing power in the House of Representatives. And she hasn't been doing that. Like the Congress hasn't been expressing any power. Johnson is doing what the president, the leader of his party wants him to be doing. The caucus is falling in line. And it's pushing her out. So that's sympathetic to be looking at her trying to do something and saying Congress isn't doing anything. But at the same time, I kind of think that she should be duking it out. It seems to me

like she's choosing to be loyal to the party one last time by bowing out rather than actually fighting for the constituents that she claims are top of mind what she'd be doing by staying in, in my opinion. I think it would mean her taking a battle with the party and letting it get ugly because she's done that in the past and just the fact that the resident of the Oval Office has an R next to his name rather than a D shouldn't change that about her nature. And if there's, like, the qualities that I really wish we had from her that would stay in Congress that she's taking with her

are her pugnacity and her genuineness. And, you know, maybe it's a fair tradeoff. We're losing some of the noise, the rancor, the discontent, the politics with her leaving. But it does just feel odd to your original point, Isaac, that of all the things that she's done, that she's said that have been objectionable or controversial, the thing that she's leaving over

is affordability in Epstein because she doesn't want to fight her party on it. That's a tough circle to square. Yeah, I mean, you said that in your dissent today and then you just said it a couple of times now, like she doesn't want to fight the party on it. And I don't know if, I don't think I agree with that framework.

I think she understands that it's a losing fight. she was fighting the party on it and the response was knives out for her and the president promising the primary her and like Marjorie Taylor Green's saying in this statement she releases and her video announcing that she's not going to run for Congress again like I'm not going to put my family through the hell of running against Trump and whoever the primary opponent is and the MAGA movement and then be framed as like a traitor to the movement that I've dedicated my time in politics to and destroy my family along the way and whatever else. Like, yeah.

I mean, I think that's pretty legit. I think she would have a- And don't do that. Don't run again. Oh, you're just saying she should just stay in Congress the end of her term and that's it? Yeah, why resign in January? Like, she's really good at being a problem. Like, I mean that in a good way.

Like, be a problem. Like, say the things you want to say. You have a platform. I guess I interpreted that as you saying like she should stay and run and not back out. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's, I mean, that's, yeah, not what I'm saying. I think when you're in Congress, through our point earlier about Trump being Mercurial and like he's buddy-buddy with Mamdani now that could change, could change with this endorsement too. And I think we know the path to Trump's heart is fealty and flattery,

But that she could still, like, you know, say, I disagree with this. I'm planning to not run for re-election at the end of my term. And then see what happens after that. But like even if she, so I'm saying she could leave the door open. But if she wants to close the door entirely and say I'm done, I'm not going through that battle. Yeah, I think be the problem and finish your term out. It is amazing to me. I mean, she has become such a sympathetic character.

And to me personally, so quickly. I like the the degree to which you know six months ago I viewed her as this just rabble rousing

flame throwering controversy seeking member it was just like all she really seemed to want to do and I don't know if it's part of the

PR stick or if it's genuine or whatever but just in the last month watching what's happened I'm I've developed a sort of like sadness or pity almost for her where I'm watching her and I'm like oh no she really did genuinely believe a lot of this stuff she was motivated by like a true ideology and she's getting crushed by the machine and it seems like she's really getting crushed like I think her decision is probably based in reality but it's wild to me how quick it happened. the speed is remarkable of her being pushed out i mean this is the things like

crushed by machine pushed out she's deciding i don't want to take that away and i think it's it's still something where i have a hard time running with that sympathy to the end because i feel the same way i read that statement that she put out and it does tug at me a bit But, like, what's the machine that she's crushed by? She's one of the most powerful 535 people in the country. And she's used that power very well in the years that she's been there. And she's claiming a lot of other people are dissatisfied. And her choice is to fold.

Like, that's where I kind of get lost because she's not done that before. It's just when it's Trump, like she's too hurt to do it. Yeah, my, I don't know if I, I believe a lot of what she says, but I don't know if I believe that assertion, like, that she's too hurt. I think she just doesn't really want to do this anymore. She's, she's personally much wealthier than she was before. She's got a new boyfriend and got rid of that old guy because she got that, the divorce while in office. I think she just is done. She's finished with the fighting and would prefer to do something else. and that's not so hard to understand.

Sure. I mean, maybe that I think that could be a contributor, but I don't think that's the primary motivator. I don't think it's her, and we're speculating here based off of reading between the lines, so I don't want to speculate too far, but I don't think there's anything where we could see this as, she's content, so she's quitting, and she doesn't, like, she's too content to fight. Maybe that's part of it. of it, but I don't know.

Yeah. It's just, she's, as you pointed out, she's taken a lot of fire in the past. And at the moment, while she was taking fire, she was also being celebrated in a lot of circles. And there were Democrats who were saying, hey, we're happy to have her in our camp now. They're hugging her in front of the Capitol building. She can go on CNN. Even on real time, she's getting tons of applause. Like, that was unusual territory for her to be in.

And she's had the opposite treatment from those same people while cultivating controversy. But you're right. I mean, we are speculating quite a bit here. I think the more interesting question is like, what does all of this mean for MAGA broadly, for the president with respect to his influence? Is it the case that he is still the kingmaker for conservatives going forward into the future? I mean, once the midterms get here, those could either be very bad. Or at the moment, it looks like it's probably going to be very bad for conservatives or about a wash.

And is a wash enough to maintain Trump's importance when it doesn't look like he's actually going to try to do some sort of third-term antics? Like what happens to conservatism going forward if people like MTG are getting pushed out of the party? I mean, I think that the reality. is that we're about to see other members of Congress flee. And that's the stuff that Jake Sherman's been reporting. Marjorie Taylor Green's been sort of affirming is the degradation of the job has gotten so real. And the degradation of the body's gotten so real that people are just saying, screw this. Like, what's the point?

You know? And it is, I mean, Camille, last week, you sort of made the case that, this was almost the weakest Trump had been and that there was sort of the biggest divisions that we were experiencing and seeing in the MAGA Coalition. And that was before this happened. And before I saw the...

Yeah, I mean, the response to her retirement was a lot of people sort of affirming her view here. And then we got all these reports that there are like, there's a host of House members who are talking about leaving because they just feel disrespected and boxed out from the White House, which like, yeah, of court, I mean, obviously, because they're not, they're being totally prevented from doing their job and they've been totally defanged and they have no power. And they have agency, which they don't seem to understand how they can use it. But the Trump administration has kind of successfully sideline them, you know, on everything. And I just think it's, it's unlikely to me still that this is the beginning. of some brewing congressional revolution, but I certainly view it as more plausible now

than maybe I did a week ago. And that's significant. So, all right, listen, we're coming up on an hour and a half here, and I want to make sure we get in our last segment before we get out of here. This episode is going to come out, hopefully before Thanksgiving. We typically end this show with some grievances, But I thought it would be important today to flex our gratitude muscles, given the holiday.

I don't know about you guys, but at my Thanksgiving table, my mom enforces a rule that everyone has to go around and say something that they're thankful for before we eat our meal, which I love. It's a good practice. But I was thinking about for the show, and I didn't think that was quite enough for us. I didn't think just, you know, Camille's going to talk about his kids, Ari's going to talk about like his dog's ACL healing or something. I'm like, you know, I want something a little more unpredictable, a little spicier. So the prompt is that you have to express gratitude, but it has to be something closely tied to the political world,

which we mostly sit here and, you know, Monday morning, armchair quarterback, talk trash about people in politics. politics and media, and it's probably good. I think we're better about than most people of offering our praise and thanks, but it's probably good to exercise some gratitude as well. So that's how we're going to end this podcast with not the grievances section, but the gratitude section. Gentlemen, me first.

All right, all right. Me first. I actually was planning before we announced or we discussed pre-show, peaked behind the curtain, the idea of us doing gratitude instead of grievance. Before we had that conversation, I was planning on blowing up the intro with this, but just like no announcement, just guns blazing saying, I love U.S. District Judge Cameron McAllen Curry for throwing out the Comey indictment. Because as we know, I really, really don't want us to have to talk about any.

anymore. Like, we've been talking about how it's like obvious political prosecution. You know who agrees? U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry, who looked at the same bill of goods and said, no, no, no, we're done. Tish James, not doing that either. No, we're done. We're not going to do this anymore. And I really hope that that's true. I don't want to do this anymore either. No more investigations into investigations and we can move on and talk about other stuff. It could be a moment, not unlike 2022, walking outside and seeing a decaying

mask on the ground, thinking nature is healing, we're returning back to the natural order. We can leave these things behind us and move forward. So thank you, U.S. District Judge, Cameron McGowan-Curray. That's a good one. Just like I still see those masks around,

my suspicion is that we will eventually have to talk about that. I have some thoughts. We'll come back to it later. But I'm happy, you're happy. Ari. Maybe I'll go next since I'm running my mouth already. You know, I was out in L.A. for three or four days and we had a string of events that I was participating in. I did a thing with Megan Kelly on Friday night. And the culmination of things was a fifth column recording again live in front of a studio audience. And just as we

did when we went out to Irvine and did our event not too long ago, I am reminded in context like that where I have a direct opportunity to interact with people who read and listen to the things that I put out into the universe related to politics and culture and there's something really refreshing about just being able to talk to people about that work and sometimes they have critical things to say about some of the stuff you say but in general I mean, really grateful to be in a position to have those conversations, to have venues to share my perspective and to get direct feedback from people who are grateful for the opportunity to kind

of read my reflections and ponder them who sometimes get a lot out of it and are very thankful for the work that I do. And I'm happy to be able to do that sort of work in a context where generally speaking, I can offer my opinions without particular fear of retribution or repercussions from higher-ups or from various political officials. And I've just got extraordinary gratitude for that. Sometimes it can be a difficult job. As today, the conversation about nationalism, Isaac, it can be difficult to kind of thread the needle to ask certain kinds of uncomfortable questions in public. but it's also genuinely inspiring sometimes

and something that can be really refreshing and help remind you about what's authentically important especially when you have opportunities to speak with people directly who consume the product who find value in it and I hope for many more years of being able to do exactly this sort of stuff. Man of the people, look at you.

A man of the people. I like that one. I like that one a lot. Okay, I'm going to do something that I almost never do because I find it incredibly dangerous. People always inevitably use this kind of moment to bludgeon you over the head in the future. But I feel fairly confident about it.

So I'm going to do it because one of the most common questions that I get entangle is, like, who is a politician? that you like or you think is doing things right who is somebody that you're like oh i'm happy this person's in member comics and all we do mostly is criticize i think that's our job we're members of the press we're supposed to have adversarial relationships with the subjects of our work um i'll tell you somebody i feel fondness towards who is a sitting representative uh is marie gloosengamp Perez um i don't know how familiar you guys are with her she's from a district in Washington. It's a Trump district and she is a Democrat. She's described often as like a

moderate blue dog Democrat. But she's done some really interesting interviews. I heard her on Ezra Klein's podcast. Somebody sent it to me because they thought it was just like a really awesome interview and I listened to it and I left thinking, yeah, that is a really awesome interview. And I'll tell you why I really like her and I'm thankful for her and grateful for her because she's actually turning the temperature down, it feels like, to me. She's like, kind of being against political extremism is sort of fundamental to her campaign,

and she puts a lot of emphasis on how she wants to be heard by people who disagree with her views. Like, she's very careful about the way she frames and words things. And in all these interviews, I hear her doing, the really hard work of not just going for the fancy slam-dunk Twitter post line, but saying things in a way that will reach people from across the political spectrum. I think it's how she got elected with a D next to her name and a district that went for Trump. But more importantly, she's kind of conducting herself in Congress outside the party lines.

I mean, she made a bunch of headlines a week or two ago. because she tried to pass this motion, effectively condemning the move that another Democratic representative had taken where he resigned sort of at the last minute from Congress. His wife had some health issues and there was personal stuff going on. But his chief of staff basically was the only person who had filed the paperwork in order to replace him in Congress. And she came out and said, like, this is like anti-democratic. This is an anti-democratic act. And it's something our party says we're going to.

condemn but nobody here is condemning it so she filed this motion um i can't remember whether it was like she was trying to censure him or what exactly it was and there he had a really sympathetic story the things that had happened to his um wife and his family and a lot of the democrats are really pissed off that she was doing this and i was watching it like i know i think this is right like this is she's seeing something in her own ranks that she feels like is wrong she wants the party to be kind a pro-democracy. This is how you walk the walk. But of any politician that I've seen recently, she's doing a better job of kind of talking across party lines, making sort of moderate, middle-floating politics appealing to both hardcore partisans and also people in the middle at the same time.

She's talking to Trump voters. She's talking to Kamala Harris voters. And I like her. And I never, I really, really rarely ever say that I like a politician. So please don't blow this. Come on the show. I'd love to interview you. But don't blow it. Don't turn into somebody different. I like where you're at now.

And that's who I'm thankful for in the political world right now. It's a good one. I think for a different reason, I might add Thomas Massey, who we're talking about Marjorie Taylor Green being somebody who had reasoned, like things that she fought for and then, like, loyalties that have torn her one way or the other. And Massey's just been the same dude. He just, like, is fighting for the stuff that he believes in the whole time. And I really appreciate that.

It's really, as much as it's also, like, it's refreshing to see politicians, you know, win split districts and take the moderate vote. I think there's also a comfort in seeing politicians who are like, I'm an ideologue. This is my ideology. and I'm voting my ideology, and then they do it. I love that. Yeah. I don't think ideologue is a bad word. I think your ideology may be good or bad,

but being an ideologue isn't necessarily a bad thing. Okay, but I have a follow-up question, Ari, is, and this is outside the bounds of politics, but is not changing actually a good quality trait? Do we value that? So this is something I left. this is eye-roly about our process maybe. This is something that I left as a comment

into some draft or another in the last couple of days that loyalty and open-mindedness are conflicting values. I think we're talking about like Trump and Mamdani, but I think that they're, you know, sometimes, yes, sometimes no. I think being loyal to a way of thinking can be good, but it can also trap you from being exposed to new ideas. However, as the old saying goes, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

So it's helpful to have guideposts that you stick to when you're unsure. So I think it can be good. But I'm open-minded about it. Yeah. I think, like, Thomas Massey, he sort of gives me like the Bernie vibe where they show Bernie, like, 50 years ago, giving the exact same speech he's giving now. And everybody's like, look how true to his principles he is. And I'm like, has he not learned anything in 50 years?

Like he doesn't, there's nothing new here that he wants to add. Nothing's, his views haven't changed. I don't know if that's, yeah, I'm just not so sure that that's good or bad, I guess. I'm not totally sure. I think it takes all kinds. I mean, it's not a bad thing for your representative to be predictable to say, like, this is what I'm going to do. And then they vote for you and you go and you do it. Mm-hmm.

I feel the need to speak up for Emerson here, who is often misquoted. But it's a foolish consistency is the high. hobgoblin of little minds and that that kind of pragmatic well-informed attachment to one's principles and defense of those principles in the face of circumstances where you might be tempted to change your mind is is a is a virtue properly understood emerson hated hobgoblins that's all right uh well Well, lastly and most of all, I'm thankful for you gentlemen and our executive producer and podcast editor, John Lull, for making this show happen every week. Appreciate the audience and all you guys tuning in.

Hope everybody has a joyous Thanksgiving. We're going to be off the rest of the week, so enjoy a break from the news if you feel like you need it. I'm definitely going to take one. I'll be stuffing myself with turkey stuffing, wine, beer. This is my favorite holiday of the year. I cannot wait to just watch football and eat and hang out with my family all weekend. So I'm very much looking forward to it. And we'll see you guys next week.

Bye, fight with your family. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kback and associate editors Hunter Asperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.