Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari and Kmele talk about the New York elections, reflecting pool controversy, Tulsi Gabbard, Tara Palmeri interview and more.

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Coming up on today's mega episode of Suspension of the Rules, Isaac, Ari and Kmele cover the reflecting pool controversy, the historic election in New York that has upended the Democratic establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and a very strange story about a cult leader, and a debate about whether or not Tara Palmeri should've released her recent interview. 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 audio edited and mixed 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, I spend the least amount of time possible talking with Camille and Ari about the reflecting pool controversy. The historic earthquake, whatever you want to call it, election that happened in New York this week, that has upended the Democratic establishment. Tulsi Gabbard and a very weird story about a cult leader. And then we debate whether Tara Paul Mary should have released that interview that she released. It's a really good episode. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Suspension of the Rules podcast. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, here with Tangle, managing editor Ari Weitzman, and our editor-at-large, Camille Foster, who spent the last 10 minutes trying to get his studio set up correctly. It sounded like he was in a physical altercation with somebody.

But it's like the most discombobulated I've ever, the most pedestrian I've ever seen you, Camille, maybe just to steal. word of your own and really stab you in the heart. Thank you. Thank you. The important thing is that Camille is here. Actually, the important thing is that it was really, really funny to watch him. Yeah, yeah. But you couldn't actually watch me. I was off-camera.

We could get the soundtrack in a sort of Benny Hill style. It was really nice. Tremendously good fun. Before we get into today's show, which I swear is going to be really interesting and full of extremely important things happening in the, news. I want to talk about one big story that is not interesting to me, is not important to me, but is unfortunately a very big story in the news, which is this reflection pool stuff that's happening at the White House. And so I decided I'm going to do something. I have my handy phone here.

You guys can't see this on YouTube, but I have my, or if you're not on YouTube, I have my timer here. I'm going to give everybody 60 seconds maximum. You can take five seconds to me. want to say whatever you want about the reflection pool stuff happening. And then we will not talk about it for the rest of the show. And if I hear anybody try to steer us into the direction of discussing it, I'm fired, I think. You won't have a job tomorrow. So those are the rules. If anybody would like to start, I'm happy to start the timer. As much time as you would like, less than 60 seconds is the rule. Any thoughts for matter.

Ari. Okay, great. It'll help. Camille. Okay, wow. All right. The important thing about the reflection pool is that the issues that are happening to it right now are a little bit of the

own making of the people who did it. Put in a liner. Liners don't always fit with like porous stone. Put in some peroxide that's going to make it peel. It's not exactly the perfect solution. It's a good example also of something. that I wrote about last January is Trump's big game, where we talk about something that feels actually important in a way or useful, beautifying the parks. It's a problem. Who wouldn't want to

solve it? But the way that he chooses to solve it maximizes the vision. We're going to put in a liner. We're going to make it blue. It's going to be beautiful. It's going to be great. Anybody who doesn't like it, they're the enemy. We're going to even make it so anything that happens to it, that's vandalism. And now it's a crime problem. Who doesn't want to be in favor of crime? Do you like vandals? Of course not. So anybody on one side or the other is, automatically to their corners about something that ultimately doesn't matter. And I think that's why we probably don't want to be talking about it. But here we are, playing Trump's big game again.

Really well done. You did it in exactly a minute. Actually, there's a minute 04, but I started you four seconds in, so I was a little bit gracious. Camille, I won't be so gracious with you. 60 seconds on the clock. You can go, please. I'm reminded of a Drake freestyle. He says, I am so sure of my Ron.

I can sacrifice a line and then goes on to mumble some nonsense. I will forego the nonsense. But the only thing I have to say about the reflecting pool, which I won't be tempted to talk about later at all, is this is predictable. The end. Wonderful. 25 seconds.

I have really nothing useful to add except when this story first broke, I thought it was a very classic Trumpian story that he was, you know, tried to undo something Obama did. and he was just like radically focused on that because Obama tried this thing and it didn't work or it did work or whatever he screwed it up and that he was just like inventing the vandal story.

Seems like maybe there actually were people vandalizing it which was surprising to me. I mean, I think a few people got arrested. I'm not entirely clear how serious the vandalism was or how much it was related to the algae bloom. It seems like that was just the direct result of what they did, what the Trump administration did. But this is,

This is one of the dumbest stories I've ever had to endure in the news cycle, and I cannot wait for it to be over. Thank you guys all for playing the game. Wonderful. Now, on to do some real news. Now, give me five minutes to just talk about Audi. Unlaying just in general. A couple weeks ago, we were on this show talking about a Los Angeles mayoral race,

and I was, I think, maybe with a little bit of accidental foresight, because I wasn't trying to exercise foresight. I was just sort of, you know, seeing the playing field a little bit. He doesn't even have to try, ladies and gentlemen. Yeah, that's right. Thank you. Yeah, that wasn't how I intended that comment,

but I appreciate you picking up on my amazing self-confidence. I just sort of stumbled into some foresight about the lack of conversation about the fact that a former member of the Democratic Socialist of America had won the, or seemed potentially, potentially to be on track to win the Democratic primary for the mayoral race in Los Angeles. And everybody was obsessed with the Spencer Pratt of it all, including us. That was most of what we talked about when really there was this very clear signal that a challenge from the left was coming for the Democratic establishment and had some teeth.

There is no longer a doubt about that storyline. Last night in New York City, it was fully manifested. Zoramam Dani and Hakeem Jeffries, you know, the House Speaker in Congress and New York City's newest mayor, both based in New York, exercised their power and threw their weight around and went to the mat a bit on kingmaking in the city of New York and what members of Congress, New York City would be sending to Washington, D.C. And Zoran Mamdani whoop that ass. There is basically no other way to say it. He got the vote out. He turned up the voters that his preferred elected representatives needed. And the Democratic Socialists of America, this progressive lefty wing, got the victories that they wanted and basically got a clean sweep.

And it's a really interesting new world that we kind of woke up to today. And, you know, we had just written about the rise of the kind of DSA progressive caucus that is gaining power across the country at this sort of like urban city level and seeing some of it in the mayoral race is seeing it some of it now coming into Congress at the House level. Graham Platner, who formerly was kind of associated with DSA, I think also very clearly more progressive kind of populace left in the kind of mold of a Bernie Sanders. looks well positioned to win a main Senate seat, which will kind of be, I think, the pinnacle of the midterm cycle for the progressive left if they can get him to Congress. And it's all very interesting to me.

And I'm super, super fascinated by what I think is a populist lefty response to what we've had to endure the last 10 to 12 years from the populace right. it is a signal to the Democratic establishment that their voters, many of whom in their base, have a lot of progressive left predilections,

are determined to rattle the cage of the establishment and send some people they think are going to be fighters and flamethrowers into Congress. The woman who is really, I think, getting the most attention here is the woman who won in New York's 13th District. Daraliza Almost

What? Avila Chevalet Chevalier Daria Liza Avila Chevalier Dac

The last part It's kind of hard The boys Didn't think I'd be able to pronounce her name I guess maybe they were right DAC DAC

AAC There's some stuff coming for sure There is a good nickname for her coming I'm gonna start by just saying

She has some particular policy rhetoric that I find attractive and I understand why is attractive. You know, she focuses a lot on housing issues. I saw a few interviews where she was sort of using the rhetorical device of, you know, I want to spend our money on our babies, not bombs, all stuff I love, especially after watching the last six months of this war in Iran and seeing the price tag of that climb

into the billions of dollars so fast. Just as we got on this call, by the way, right before the show started, push notification. White House has released an $87.6 billion supplemental spending package with $67 billion going to the Pentagon's already nearly $1 trillion budget. When I see a new member of Congress coming in office and say, I really want to spend billions of dollars on people, not the military,

I don't think it's like a lefty, woke, lib thing. I think it is a populist sentiment that makes sense to a lot of normy Americans. And I actually think it makes quite a bit of sense, too, given the enormity of our already wasteful and expansive military budget. So she scores some points with me out of the gate. However, this woman has a remarkable track record. I mean, some of the stuff that she said or some of the things that she has participated in are, I mean, yeah, genuinely shocking or alarming. I don't know exactly, you know, I don't want to like overstate it, but I'll just read into the evidentiary record.

And then I'd like to discuss with you guys. Among other things, she is called for abolishing police, prisons, and borders. She has clarified her position on defunding the police by writing that her vision means ending policing, full stop, period. No more police at all ever. She has retweeted posts saying, yes, literally abolish the border and claim that all deportation is wrong in all circumstances.

She has called the United States a, quote, fucking disgrace, referred to the U.S. as occupied Native American land and joked about wiping her dirty hands on the American flag. She's written face. favorably about communism, which actually isn't that big of a deal to me, but wrote, seized the means of production, called for nationalizing utilities, pharmaceutical companies, seizing all properties from landlords. She has called Joe Biden a rapist and a war criminal and then voted for him. She said, fuck Kamala Harris in response to some of Kamala Harris's policy proposals.

And she also has criticized Bernie Sanders and AOC for being too pro-Israel. She retweeted, a post saying that Israel doesn't exist. She wrote that black and Arab men fetishize ugly, colonizer women. She has mocked soldiers in Israel who cut their hair to create wigs for cancer patients in Gaza. She attended an anti-Israel rally the day after October 7th, not disqualifying to me, but maybe in poor taste. She has addressed some of these comments by saying, I'm actually very sad that much of the way I spoke in that time has really sowed some division here. As anyone knows, in your 20s, you go through a period of very rapid growth. And I am someone who has always sought to center my values and values around dignity and around justice and around

accountability in my fight for my community. I regret the way those values were portrayed on Twitter. I would obviously express them very differently today. Just as a point of clarification, she's 32 now. The post that she was referencing from her 20s were like four years ago. So, you know, I'm a, I get it. good statement that I appreciate, but also, I don't know. She said Russia invaded Ukraine because it was bullied by the United States. She suggested white people should not be in interracial relationships. It's a really long list, guys. I'm trying to understand where the problem is exactly, Isaac. What is it that you object to so strenuously? I mean, if I could imagine this woman

is my hinge match. Not that I'm on hinge, not that I'm looking. But you know. Yeah. Happily married man, Camille Foster. I would say, you know, I think any number of those, all of those statements have different elements of them that, like, offend my sensibilities in different ways. And, you know, I know the progressive, just to put it out there, I know that many audience members and listeners

and readers of ours who identify as progressive or on the left, they've written into me and said they often feel like, I don't give a fair shake to progressive policies and, like, somebody like, this candidate comes along and I focus on these kinds of comments. And I just want to say and reiterate, again, there are many policy proposals, not many, but there are a handful of policy proposals that come out of the progressive left political movement that either resonate with me that I want to see

attempted. I mean, I wrote about this one on Donnie got elected. I was like, I don't live in New York City anymore. And if I did, my feelings would be much more complicated. But I want to see what he does. I am like interested to see, I'm keeping my mind open about what he can do as mayor and if he can have success implementing these progressive policies. This is just fresh on my mind because we just had Tim Urban on the show and I got to interview him last week and he talks in his book, what's wrong with us, about high rung and low rung thinking. And I think to the degree, somebody like Chevalier concerns me, she is a clear member of the low-wrung thinking caucus.

These kinds of tweets do not portray somebody with great discernment in my view, somebody who's level-headed, somebody who can describe or articulate positions she disagrees with in a fair and charitable way and then attack them. Like, I get it. It's social media. It's Twitter, whatever, but, like, it's some pretty intense stuff.

And some stuff that is, like, a very clear, clear policy prescription, the end of all policing, no borders, all deportations are wrong, no matter what. It's not like a squishy, mealy-mouth thing, which is what makes it appealing to some people, but like the policy prescriptions that she's putting out there would be genuinely disastrous for the communities that she's now been elected to serve. In New York 13, she ended all policing. It would not be good. I just want to be really clear about that. So it's bad policy. with like really low-rung thinking attached to it. Again, interested to see what she does as a member of Congress

and how that changes and how much her claims of an evolution are true. But this is a really, I mean, like somebody like this is headed to the United States House now. And Zoraamandani is kingmaking in New York. And the DSA progressive movement is ascendant, whatever you want to call it. It's ascendant. The populist left is ascendant. And yeah, I think there's a huge, huge story. So that's my big monologue to get us going. And I'll toss it to you guys with the first thoughts, first reactions. I mean, this is all pretty fresh. It happened last night. How are you feeling? Talk to me. Let's start with maybe caveatting this representative of a movement by saying that it is one person or she is one person. and there are several democratic socialists or even leftist or progressive candidates who won in New York yesterday. And many of them, I think it's fair to say that a defining line between them is not just belief in the precepts of democratic socialism, but Israel criticism.

And that looks a lot of different ways depending on the person who's saying it. I'll also say, to caveat a little bit further, Another thing that readers have wrote in to remind us about is that progressivism does not equal socialism. Those are different schools of thought. They often overlap, but democratic socialism or socialism are political ideologies and generally closer to economic ideologies. And progressivism is generally more cultural.

So in that classic four by four grid of political alignments of the cultural, social, the economic, those aren't exactly quite aligned. So there are policies that she may share as a democratic socialist that overlap with other democratic socialists like Claire Valdez, who won, Zoran Madani, who's already mayor in New York, Brian Brad Lander, who also is not a Democratic socialist, but is to the left of the Canada who won in New York yesterday, that aren't always represented by a person like this. I'll also say, like, having said all that, having caveated it to that degree, I think it's going to be interesting to watch how a wing to the left of the Democratic Party leverages its power

relative to the way that the wing of the right party, of the right-ling party, the Republicans, have been able to leverage power pre-Trump and in the early years. I think something that we saw during a Biden's term in office is that the House Freedom Caucus was really good at exerting leverage, and they were able to get a new speaker installed, who's now working very much hand-in-hand with the president. I am not certain, in fact, I'll go farther and say I'm not even optimistic that the left wing of the Democratic Party is going to be able to exert leverage in the same way. I think what we see a lot is that there's very little that cannot be explained in today's politics by effective polarization, that

anti-Israel criticism, bordering on anti-Semitism, if not completely over the line, into anti-Semitism at times, comes from being so opposed to something that you become accidentally in favor of saying something like Hamas is good and we should let anybody into the country if we need to. In fact, everybody that's not America is good and America's bad. It's very easy to get to that kind of situation if you're not careful about how you watch your rhetoric. And I think when we get to the midterms and there is a left version of the Democratic Party that's installed in the House, I'm not so certain that that's going to be able to really do anything once they have another party to oppose. Once it's not just Democrats are running against,

but now play the game. Are you going to unify with your party and unite against the Republicans? Are you going to work to build consensus with centrist? What are you going to do? Are you going to be obstinate? You don't have the same majority that the House freedom caucus had four years ago. So how are you going to exert leverage? I think until we see what those effects are going to be, I'm a little less

up in arms about this candidate or candidates like her and what they may be able to do in Congress. Yeah, there's so much here that I think is interesting. I think the word seismic has been thrown around a lot in analysis of this particular race,

earthquake as well. So seismic earthquake, kind of the same, but different. But say more about that. Yeah, exactly. But it's not just the city of New York. It is also these state races. And I think there were seven DSA candidates who managed to get elected,

well, not elected, but when they're primaries. And you've got the three congressional candidates in New York City proper. I think it is a big deal. But this is also unique to New York in certain respects. I mean, Isaac, you began by mentioning L.A., and I don't think that that's unfair, but the particular concentration, like the DSA having this kind of sweeping success is something that has been building up over years.

They have a lot of infrastructure. They are particularly well organized in the state of New York. And it's interesting to see, you know, very prominent political influencers like Hassan Piker. You know, he's over there in New York. he lives in L.A. His place is in L.A. Like, why aren't you having the same sort of success that you're so excited about there that you're having here? That is a deep blue state as well. And they just don't have the same sort of infrastructure.

So, you know, is this a shot across the bow of the Democratic establishment? Undoubtedly, is this a trend that is worth paying some attention to? Undoubtedly, is the kingmaker moniker for the current mayor of New York City appropriate? I'm not so sure. Yeah, he got three candidates, one of whom is not so unfamiliar and who beat a candidate who didn't really have

kind of deep roots in the district in New York 10. In New York 12, I believe it was. That was a very competitive race and Mamdani did not endorse anyone in that particular race and might have. There was at least one candidate there who was pretty closely aligned

with the DSA, although not quite a DSA candidate. And one might have thought in this race where polling kept suggesting that there was like 30% undecided there was an opportunity to win that seat. To the extent he made endorsements, he made endorsements in districts that were largely safe.

And had he gotten two out of three, we would still be talking about it this morning as kind of a big deal. The fact that he managed to get three out of three or didn't go two for two is a function of him making pretty safe bets. with respect to the kind of candidates he was going to endorse. And in terms of the ramifications for the party broadly,

just to say a little bit more about what's likely to happen in Congress, I think the Freedom Caucus analogy is interesting. The one that I think I've seen more frequently is actually the Tea Party. And even that, I think, doesn't really capture it because it overstates the actual importance of what's taking place now because they just don't have the same sort of heft politically that the Tea Party actually had just yet. But more than that, the real interesting difference here

is that the DSA is not a part of the Democratic Party. The DSA, in many respects, exist to destroy the Democratic Party. This is not a makeover. This is not a transformation. This is in an evolution. This is an attack. This is an assault.

Even reading the tweets and listening to the commentary from a number of prominent Democratic leaders, it sounds like they just lost a political campaign to Republicans in many instances. You certainly have folks like Chris Murphy are like, hey, the voters have decided. He's much more representative of the progressive wing of the party. But even folks like AOC aren't nearly as on board with a lot of this as people might expect. Yeah, it's interesting. I think the framing of DSA and these more progressive candidates,

because like, whatever, it's hard to, I don't want to box them all. You know, the DSA stuff, I think, gets a lot of attention because the word socialist is in it. And it's like, this is, and these people are associating themselves with that political movement, of course, which is why we're talking about it. But Jamal Balman's, what do we even call that, his rallying cry last night? Is socialism in the house? Yeah. I actually made that a little more PG.

I mean, it's, it is, it's clearly aimed at supplanting the current Democratic establishment. And I agree that it's less a, you know, it's an attack. It is a move to take the current leadership and infrastructure that exists in the Democratic Party and replace it with something that's younger, bold. more left, and they think probably, I presume, Zoron, Bernie, AOC, believe better equipped to meet the kind of Trump moment that we're living in. I think that's how they feel personally. Two other interesting lenses that I would just throw out there that I'm thinking about this through. One is something we've talked a ton about on the show, which is the sort of idea that we are in like a post-repercussions

election environment. Ken Paxton, Graham Platner, these people had things on their record, said things publicly. Petty Trump had social media posts that in any other era that we've experienced politically before 2016 were immediately. disqualifying, like without question. And now they're not. And it's just the, for better or for worse, I think I could frame this in a positive way, actually, which is like policy and the actual proposals

people are putting forward, Trump's rhetoric and old social media posts. I can't wait to argue with you, but go ahead. I'm not saying I, I'm not saying, I'm not saying I'm fully bought in on that perspective. I'm just saying you could maybe convince me of that. Like I believe the posts from Graham Platner and the actions of Kempaxon, etc. Like they are clearly signs of bad character in my opinion, bad form.

I think that's clear and that matters. But it just strikes me that we now have another candidate. in New York 13, another set of candidates who have these things on their track record, these public comments, these social media posts, that in any other era would be a huge, huge deal. And in this era, they don't really matter.

The second thing, I just have to just, I can't help myself, but I just need to make note of this. Like, the all-powerful A-PAC Jews, they couldn't stop Chevalier. They couldn't stop Dan Goldman from losing his seat. They couldn't stop Zohramandani.

It didn't even come up at our meeting yesterday of the Jews when we had it. They weren't even on our radar. If you're at all on that beat, if you're at all drinking that, just please do me a favor and just like don't just consider the times APEC is successful. Just take in moments like this when they get absolutely steamrolled. This idea of this foreign Jewish conglomerate that's working behind the scenes. and has all this power. It's like they flex their muscles sometimes successfully.

They also, like any other political organization, get completely destroyed and run over other times. This is a great example of the latter. And I just file it in your brain for later. The next time Apex is involved in some election where the pro-Israel person they want to win actually wins and everybody starts talking about how they control all of Congress and our country is being run by a foreign nation.

Just like they couldn't stop a woman. from being elected who said that we should have no police and no borders and called Joe Biden a rapist and said all these rather extreme things that are probably really unpopular with most people.

She still got elected. Despite their best efforts, they did try very hard to stop her and they couldn't do it. So just quickly, on the policy front, I mean, the stuff that I show you to me is like the kind of lightning rod

just because she unseated the chair of the Hispanic congressional caucus she won a race people that did not think she was going to win and she has this sort of baggage that didn't seem to stop her but like on the issues just some stuff that I jotted down

that I think is worth calling out she has a housing platform platform with national tenant protections. She wants to expand Section 8, a 5% cap on annual rent increases for large landlords. She committed to signing the Homes Act on day one, which should actually facilitate the building of affordable public housing, something that I support personally. She supports Medicare for All, which is becoming increasingly popular with, again, it's sort of back in the ecosystem, something that we're talking about. Police reform, many police reforms out there that I support.

Immigration rights, or immigrant rights, excuse me, opposes U.S. military intervention abroad. Obviously, she has a very long history of pro-Palestinian activism, which is what drew the attention of APEC. Just like, you know, there are actual positions here outside of all the social media baggage that she ran on that are clearly very popular with New Yorkers

because they just elected Zeramam Dani they just elected her, they just sent these two other candidates to their primaries and by, you know, basically rubber stamp them through to Congress. Like, we got to, we have to engage with that at some point.

And the Democratic establishment has to engage with that at some point. Like they're going to need to play ball on some of this stuff. to keep their base from turning against them. And I think that is the, that is probably a thing that's like the most direct response to Trump. If I'm a Democratic voter or progressive voter,

I'm watching the first 18 months of Trump's presidency in horror because of what he's doing as a Democrat or a liberal, if that were like my framework. I mean, I'm mortified by some things he's doing even not being in that framework. But if I was in that framework, I definitely would. But the second order thought I would have is like, what the hell? Like, why can't we do this?

Like, where's our president? Like, why did Joe Biden's presidency seem so sleepy, as Donald Trump might put it? Like, where was our fighter bending the rules, working around Congress, executive action? You know, I think progressives, Democrats, even middle of the road establishment, Democrats, are getting really hungry for that. And I think they're going to be interested in candidates like this increasingly who promise that sort of come in, break glass, do stuff that people say you can't do to make it work and make it happen. And that, to me, is going to be a lasting consequence of Trump. I totally agree. It's a thing that is as much a dissatisfaction with the way Democrats have been responding to Trump as it is a dissatisfaction with Trump, if not more so.

I think Trump's lasting legacy after he's out of office may be the way that he just dominates attention. And we wrote about this last week. If you take a tally of all the things that were Trump's signature issues as he came into office, like performing efficiency in government, tariffs, being able to resolve the border, immigration, deportation, he's one for four. He was able to really control the border. but what has he been able to accomplish in terms of deportations? And that's a less popular issue now than it was when he was in office.

In addition tariffs, nothing's happening. His ability to reform government spending, kind of a joke, honestly. So if the goal is get attention, then he's doing a great job. But if the goal is actually to move the needle in any way, much less convincing. And so if that's the lesson a lot of these candidates are taking from this, that they just need to dominate attention and do in a way that's like Trump, it's going to be pretty bad times for their agendas if they're trying to push forward with the same playbook that Trump's using. Because we're not seeing it working. If they're trying to use it to oppose Democrats and light a fire under their own party, then maybe that's something. I might end up repeating myself and saying I'm a little bit skeptical that they're going to be able to exert that leverage just based on the congressional makeup when they're in office.

but it's definitely, definitely a signal about dissatisfaction with the way Democrats are opposing Trump. And if anything, I think that's going to be the most immediate ramifications is just the attention economy battlefront is going to change in a way after November if these Democrats win, which they probably will in the general. And that is probably going to be the thing that we're going to be talking about in November, not like what the policies are specifically, but the attention economy and the way that. that war is being progressing. Really quick, before we get off this, Ari, I want to ask just a quick follow-up. And Camille, feel free to jump in here too. When I was talking earlier about this idea that, like, maybe we should put the social media posts aside.

You could argue, you could frame it to me as let's focus on the policies people are putting forward, not the crap that they're saying on social media four, five, six, seven, years ago in their 20s, as one might put it. The way they were portrayed, yeah. Yeah, and I don't want to just dismiss that framing out of hand. I think there's something there that's compelling. Like, I've said a lot of really dumb shit in my life. Sure.

And if I ever ran for office on sincerely held views with fleshed out policy positions and a bunch of people drudged up all the stupid things I've said on Twitter or like jokes I made that were a little on the edge on this podcast or whatever, I would feel some sense of like that's unfair or lack of fair. around that. You seem to say, you were saying, I can't wait to argue with you about that. I'm just curious to maybe get your flesh-out thoughts there.

And I can tee up Camille a little bit too and be pretty quick with this, which is the way that she responded to those things that she said on social media was not to distance herself away from the things that she said. I mean, I was guffawing while you were describing the statement because it was very passive voice.

The way that these things that I said were portrayed on social media, sorry, you portraying them. So anyway, but also it just reminded me a little bit of the Marjorie Taylor Green. This quote lives in my head forever of, I was allowed to believe things that weren't true. It's just like, if you want to get a little bit of grace, like I got to see some ownership of this here. And the thing that I hold on to with candidates the most is just like the character issue should be primary. Because if you're voting on them on the issues that you agree with them on, in 18 months,

the wheel is going to turn, and the issues are going to be different, and they're going to have to exercise some judgment and how they apply their principles to the situation at hand. And if you're voting for people who are morally flexible or who have demonstrated character that is maybe below the bar from what you would accept from a friend or for yourself, then you can be prepared to be let down when the wheel does turn. I've actually become, as a result of the past 12 years or so,

more concerned about all of this. just kind of reputational stuff that I was at some point in the past. I, of course, am opposed to the kind of gutter, dumpster diving on social media where you find someone quoting rap lyrics at 14 or 16. It's like, see, see? That's terrible. But I think most of what we've seen as the actual controversies with these candidates more recently are things, as you put it, Isaac, that go to character.

And as you put it, Ari, that don't suggest there's actually been a real change of heart. These are ideas that you held fairly recently. You haven't repudiated any of them with any kind of great specificity. Instead, you've alluded to other people characterizing things

that you've said in the wrong sort of way. And the reality is that a lot of these things, and we've seen this before, because it's always the defund the police tweets that come back to haunt people these days. There was a moment. in our politics where that was fine. The same people who are now winning elections with some fanfare and celebration and gasps from the establishment

managed to get a win some years ago when they pushed a lot of this stuff to the forefront of the party and were kind of dictating terms on a lot of the cultural and social issues. Now they're doing it more so on the economic issues, on foreign policy issues in particular, as Israel played such a prominent role in local elections in New York. It's supposed it makes a little more defensible when you have congressional candidates. So I'm concerned about overstating how important social media histories are.

But when they do have implications for your policies, when they do are suggestive of your cultural, not your culture, but when they are suggestive, of your character, then that's stuff that we have to take into account. All right. A hell of a first segment, gentlemen. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to introduce a new segment that I'm calling, What Would You Do?

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. Welcome back to the Suspension of the Rules podcast. I'm trying to introduce a new segment every week that we've never done before. That's my new thing. So I'm calling this one. And may never do again. Yeah.

Yeah, may never do again. I'm calling this one, what would you do? And it involves Tara Palmary, former Tangle podcast guest. We had her on the show just a couple months ago to talk about some of Epstein file stuff. And interesting journalism controversy. Tara, I'll just, you know, state my pre-biases here, been on the show, consider her collegial, somebody in the industry who I've developed a friendship with. We have chats every now and then about collaborating and doing work together.

So, you know, she sort of walked into a controversial decision this week. And I'm going to try and talk about it with as much clear eyes as I can. Before we get in, I'm just going to play the clip. Basically, Tara interviewed Kat Kamik, who's a member of Congress in Florida, about her story and her presentation. on issues related to abortion. And during the interview, Representative Kamik told a story that she's told before publicly about a near-fatal pregnancy complication that she had, despite the fact that she holds

many pro-life views and has advocated for legislation that very much comes down on the anti-abortion side. So I'm just going to quickly play the excerpt of what Tara shared on X, and then we're going to talk about it. Yeah, to give me a second. So, okay. Oh, you got me good on this one. We should be willing to talk about the situations

in these circumstances and these experiences without fear of someone threatening your life. Welcome back to the Tara Palmary show. Kat Kamik is a pro-life maga congresswoman from Florida who asked to come on the Tara Palmary show to talk about her crusade to clean up the rampant sexual abuse on Capitol Hill. I was intrigued because she's a Republican taking on a feminist fight, while her party's

leader, President Trump, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct from at least 26 women. But during the interview, our conversation took an unexpected turn. Kamik described what it was like to face a life-threatening pregnancy complication in Florida, a state with restrictive heartbeat abortion laws. She spoke about needing an emergency. medical procedure, the fear she experienced, and how she believes delays in treatment nearly cost her her life. The conversation became emotional and it impacted me deeply, because it transformed what is often a political debate into a truly personal story. After the interview,

Congresswoman Kamik asked me not to air that portion of our discussion. She said she feared renewed backlash and concerns for her family safety. She has discussed this experience. though publicly before, any interview was conducted on the record without any conditions on the topics we could discuss. I thought really carefully about her request. As a journalist, I often deal with sensitive subjects and I take it very seriously to protect vulnerable sources when appropriate. But Congressman Kamik is a public official discussing a matter that relates directly to one of the most consequential policy debates in the country. ultimately I decided the conversation is in the public interest and that is why I am airing it in full.

Take a listen. Camille Foster, what would you do? This is a great segment. I love this. This one we might have to repeat. I can't take any professional umbrage with her here. She is a journalist. The conversation was, in fact, on the record.

And I always reserve some grace and have on a number of weekends. removed things from interviews that people asked me to because it was kind of personally embarrassing to them or they were just really uncomfortable for other reasons when it wasn't germane to the story that we were talking about. I've done that on more than a few occasions, actually. But with journalists, you're going to give them, not journalists, politicians, elected officials, I think that the rules are a bit different. And it is fair to say that this is relevant to the kind of political conversations and the work that she does. So I can see the justification for including it. All of that said, I am sensitive to the fact that this is a personal story.

And while this is something that she has shared publicly in other contexts, the concern that she expressed for her own safety is the reason for not posting that is something that I'm at least more than a little sensitive to. And for that reason, I could tell you. I could certainly imagine not running the clip, but perhaps characterizing what she said in a way that still communicates this important issue or the important context related to this issue to a wider audience. Ari Weitzman, what would you do? I've sort of moved my opinion a little bit more towards Camille's here, as I've thought about this over time. I think my initial reaction was pretty unambiguous, was like, that's pretty poor form there from Terrapal Mary, somebody who,

if I'm imagining interviews I've done with people, if they said I'm a little, like they had an emotional breakdown in some way, they slipped, they didn't feel comfortable or embarrassed about the way they phrased something, and they said, could we not air that? I think I would be granting those requests just on a personal level that feels like the respectful, normal thing to do. But when you think about it, there are very many exceptions to that. So many that almost the exceptions become greater than the rule. If something does feel like it's in the public interest, if somebody is a public figure, if you think that the exchange is actually valuable, if you enjoyed it as a person giving the interview and you think that it might be

something that's germane to your listeners or video watchers that you think they'd benefit from hearing to, that's a lot of area that those exceptions cover. We've even done something similar with Tangle. We've had people who've given interviews or participated in discussions and didn't like the way the discussions unfolded even though they agreed to be partaking them ahead of time and even agreeing on the subject matter

afterwards they had second thoughts. And that's not really a right that you have to say, actually I didn't like the way that they came out. I didn't like the person I was talking with. Therefore, let's back up. especially as a senator or a member of Congress, sorry, you don't really get to have that leverage when you're subject to an interview. Though I do have to wonder if this were an issue where the interviewer

didn't have an opinion that was counter to the one that was being given by the subject if it would have unfolded differently, which is where my initial gut reaction was coming in. Just putting aside any of the nature of the subject matter, just thinking about it abstractly. if this was something where Tara was agreeing with the person she was interviewing, whether that person was the president or nobody that anybody had ever heard of, would she be

granting a little bit more leeway here? It's hard for me to believe that she wouldn't. So I think there's a little bit of motivation at play here. But ultimately, I do think I kind of line or I fall on the same side as Camille, that like there's not really any lines crossed

here, journalistically or professionally, but you're probably burning a bit of a bridge. So I don't know that she's going to be coming on that show again. And she's probably hurting her standing with her audience a little bit. So that's a calculation she has to make. But I don't know. I think it's defensible.

Yeah. Well, you kind of ruined this segment because I thought you were going to disagree and being at the side of this. I got convinced. I don't know what to say. I initially did disagree. Yeah, you were in pre-pro. Ari was like, I think, just like, as he said,

very unambiguously against publishing it. but now I think three is a party here because I'm going to have to join you guys. That's good. I love that we didn't talk about this before because I was not sure where we would all land. And I hadn't been hot about this too myself. Yeah, there was a little Slack discussion

that we have the debate channel in the Tangle Team Slack. And I dropped this video in a few days ago and Ari gave his initial opinion, which is what prompted me. Because I disagree with him. him to want to bring it up on the show, and then you did an excellent job of moving him a little bit with your monologue there. I mean, look, I would say this. The way I think about it is

stress testing the inverse. Tara doesn't publish the excerpt and her audience finds out, do they feel like they've been deceived? And the answer to me is a clear yes. Like, if she had published this interview, removed this part at Representative Kamik's request, and then it came out that this whole really important section about abortion and this pro-life woman's near-fatal experience, whatever, was like drudged up again and they had this back and forth, and she just requested to pull it and Tara gave it to her, like, I think that would make Tara look pretty bad, actually. And a lot of people who are like lambasting Terri's, and now, I think, are not considering the sort of alternate path she had.

And Representative Kamik puts Terrapalmeri in a terrible position by being open in an on-the-record interview like this and then sort of reneging at the end of the interview and asking. I mean, like, that is just like a terrible position to put somebody in. As already mentioned, I went through something. I mean, this sort of thing happens pretty regularly as a journalist, but probably most notably with Tangle is I hosted this pro-Israel, pro-Palestine debate between two people for our YouTube channel a couple of years ago in the early days after October 7th. And it devolved, despite my best efforts to not allow it to devolve. And after the fact, the person who is sort of taking out a more

pro-Israel stance basically asked me not to publish it. It was just like this wasn't productive. we're not adding anything. There was nothing good that came out of this. I don't think you should put this out. And it wasn't like he had gotten smoked in the debate or anything like that. He was just like, yeah, I thought he looked better than the person we had on sort of representing

their pro-Palestine perspective. I thought he was just like more level-headed and actually addressed the questions and the arguments in clear ways. And I had to tell him like, dude, I can't. I can't not like, that is like you're asking me to do something that is like a moral in my view and sort of violates my ethic.

So I think Tara did the right thing. I think it's uncomfortable that that's the right thing, but I think it puts her in a bad position and to like being asked that by a representative. And so, you know, she risks the career stuff. It's like Tara Palmeri, we'll have a harder time getting interviews with pro-life conservative political figures now,

almost certainly. And that's sort of like the cost that she has to pay. But I don't think it's her fault. And, you know, despite Representative Kamik's suggestion that maybe her life would be put in danger by this coming out, I mean, I don't know the veracity of that. And I suppose that is probably the weightiest thing she said or claimed that I would have to consider if I were in terrorist shoes. But I think ultimately I would have made the same decision. So thanks, guys. Appreciate you. playing the what would you do segment. Do you have one more

thing to add, Ari? I was just going to say that's well said. I don't know. I think you guys make good points and I think it's a complicated issue. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. Well, speaking of complicated issues, we're going to close out today's podcast with

one of the more bizarre and complicated political stories that I've consumed in some time. And that's the story of Tulsi Gabbard and this huge Washington Post exclusive that came out about her relationship to, I don't know how to describe it. I mean, is saying cult the kind of like anti- Hindu bigotry? There is...

Hey, don't ruin my take now. Well, yeah, yeah. There's a sort of closed community that she was a member of. I think that's a fair way to put it, a charitable fair way to put it. And there are these emails that have come out that the leader of this community, this sort of offshoot of a kind of Hindu sect, was communicating regularly with Tulsi Gabbard, and basically pushing her to take up certain political stances,

to say certain things on television, asking her to voice concerns that, seemed like they were germane to this sort of closed community that she was a part of to use her national perch to do that. And she was complying, I think enthusiastically would be a fair way to put it. And it doesn't seem in debate, the Washington Post reporter obtained tens of thousands of emails, took the emails that included instructions the leader of this community was sending to Tulsi Gabbard, line them up with Tulsi Gabbard's public comments and actions as a member of

Congress and could basically draw these sort of one-to-one direct connections between the orders, quote-unquote, that she was receiving and the things that Tulsi Gabbard was saying publicly. So I'll just give one example from the article that I think is kind of representative of the whole for those who haven't read it to sort of give you a taste of it. So at one point, Gabbard receives, the author of this piece says,

I compared the content of the memos that Gabbard was receiving against Gabbard's record in the House and I found unmistakable parallels. The main speaker in a 2014 memo pressed for her to propose legislation penalizing countries with citizens who had fought for the Islamic State

and to issue a statement about it. Get it started in the morning, the person said. You need to be the leader in this regard. Don't dick around, end quote. I found that Gabbard released the statement the following day, and a week after that, she introduced the bill in the House. In October 12, 2015 memo labeled CNN Wolf Blitzer Talking Points final, contained this language about reports that she had been asked by Democratic leadership

not to attend a presidential debate. Quote, it's not a boo-hoo. I don't get to go to the party's situation. Wolf, the reporter then dug up the clip of her appearance that day and found that she had used the line almost verbatim. Quote, the issue here is not about me saying boo-hoo, I'm going to miss the party, end quote. And the story goes on like this, basically lining up these instructions that Tulsi was receiving for everything from public comments to press releases to proposing legislation in Congress with the public record of what she actually did and finding all these connections.

I found it pretty jarring. I think the people who have characterized it in like the most uncharitable ways possible have basically said things like this congresswoman was taking direction from a cult leader and doing his bidding in Congress on the national stage on a regular daily-ish basis. This is like a mortifying revelation.

to have about someone who is in Congress for a decade. I don't quite know that I would go that far. Tulsi Gabbard's team did not deny what I think was undeniable that these things were happening because the emails are there and the public records there, and it seems like they didn't have a real leg to stand on. They responded by characterizing the article and the reporter's framing as anti-Hindu bigotry.

And then one, R.E.1, Whitesman, managing editor of reetangle.com, that's our website in case he had a one of wrong. He surprised me because he's typically antagonistic toward organized religion posture, antagonistic towards organized religion posture, I say with confidence from the chest, the record will show, found this sweet spot of empathy that I'd like to explore a little bit because Ari came out and had a surprisingly charitable take, I think given that sometimes antagonistic posture towards organized religion.

And he said, it's not weird for people to take advice from a religious leader. I think he'll let me speak for myself here, I think. Okay. I'm on the call. I'm right here. And I would say, like, you will not catch these criticisms on me for sure. Like, I definitely am not a person who's a member of any sort of sect that tells me what to say. otherwise I wouldn't be interrupting you right now.

But it's definitely not a cult, whatever it is. Whatever I'm in, you could call it a commune, but it's not a cult. But I just think if we change some of these terms here, I think Gabbard's team is actually kind of right. Like almost verbatim, I think that she's got a really good point. Because what do you call it when somebody takes advice from somebody and follows their guidance right away? Do you call that cult leadership, or do you call that taking the instruction of an advisor?

Now, this is not a person on their political team, but it's certainly not uncommon for somebody to seek guidance for how to position something that they want to say. Usually outside of your team, it's less common, but politically it's very, very common for aides or campaign managers or chiefs of staff to tell you this is the message they are message. It's also not very uncommon to say, I'm a member of a small group that practices some religion or worship in a certain way, and that group has a leader and a structure. Would that feel different if we're talking about Catholicism, if we're talking about a parishioner, if we're talking about Jesus Christ and Church of Latter-day Saints, which is a very structured

Christian sect. I don't know if that's going to throw anybody off, but form of Christianity, whatever you have. It's fine. I think when we think about, like, I don't think you get to pick and choose, really, if you're okay with some people taking direction from priests or parishioners or leaders based on what religion it is. It's either somebody is part of a religion. They want to go to this person for guidance. They're allowed to get that guidance or they're not. And I think like this is not the way I would conduct my business, but at the same time, this isn't like a new thing. I don't think you can

call this a cult. The thing that she's involved with is the self-realization fellowship. It's like a Hindu-ish spiritual organization, but it's from like the 1920s. It's not exactly a new, very small thing that she's a member of. It's like an established spiritual tradition. So the fact that she's taking these instructions very close to verbatim, yeah, I think like it's probably a bad look for her. But at the same time, I would struggle to find a principle that I hold that I'm like, I'm against that. Let me interject. just quickly. Butler's followers practice a form of Hinduism that involves the devotion to a single D.D., in their case, Krishna, and certain expectations around meditation, yoga, and diet.

Some former members, however, have called the group a cult and said disciples were isolated from the outside world, characterizations the group has denied. Former devotees have been telling me for weeks that Butler controlled his followers' major life decisions demanded total obedience and secrecy. They said he spent years working to extend his reach into politics, and they suspected Gabbard's rise in Washington was the culmination of that effort. If you take that reporting at face value, that feels a little bit different to me than somebody calling their pastor to seek guidance about how to approach, you know, an abortion bill or something of the like.

Yeah. And I think it's something that I would not want to be a member of this. And I would join you in criticism of the way that this sect is structured. I would also be critical of the way other religious groups structure. themselves top down in ways. I think you'll find a lot of people who used to be members of the church of the LDS church who would characterize that as a cult or certain churches that they were in

what does certain parishes as cult like. So it's not as if this is exactly new and or sorry, it's not as if this is unique to Gabbard. That is sort of the extent of my point. I'm not defending this as a thing that is good and that other people should be a member of or that this person, Butler, was a good, non-shady character. I'm just saying, if you're going to be tolerant of religion,

like, it's a really, really fuzzy line to say something is a cult in one hand and not in another. And I think in this set, based on what we know, and even if you believe everything in this reporting, the worst thing, the worst thing that Gabbard did that the post uncovered at the direction of Butler was following talking points verbatim. that's the worst thing. I have a hard time getting my blood up about that. I mean, I took a look at this story,

and I think you actually make some salient points, Ari. Specifically, that very devout religious people in a kind of close-knit community, you're regularly consulting with a man or woman of faith who leads your community. I could see that. I think what is characterized, in the post, and some of that is, you know, editorializing in certain ways.

It seems a lot more sinister than that. And the thing that stands out in those memos is the way that she's kind of derided. And also this rather determined effort, it seems, to evade identifying the person who's actually giving these instructions. You know, the memos themselves do appear to be authentic. They're not disputing that. The memo's authorship is disputed. So we don't know who is supposed to have authored some of these instructions and pieces of guidance for Tulsi.

But what's in them is real. And the similarities between her public statements and what's in the memos is real. And that does feel important. And I think it's appropriate to say, you know, is this illegal? No, it doesn't appear to be illegal. It doesn't appear to be the kind of maximalist thing that Isaac mentioned earlier that she was receiving instructions and guidance on how to do things by some sort of foreign actor. That's not what's going on here.

But I will say that, you know, aside from it just being a little concerning if someone has too close, an undisclosed relationship with someone in this capacity, it's likely to be uncomfortable for voters, but I actually think that it's worth talking about the weird fake influencer campaign that they were running, that she had these bots and anonymous accounts, this army of them, that in these memos, Tulsi is actively talking about it. It sounds like she had full knowledge of it. At one point, asks, like, why aren't we out there getting our message out using the,

fake influencers that are supposed to give this appearance of there being kind of a grassroots support for something that she's doing or saying. Like that is actually a... That's actually concerning in a way that may have legal implications. I think that might be a violation of the Hatch Act. Like, who's paying for these bots? Who's responsible for organizing this campaign? Is she using any resources whatsoever coming out of her own office?

Those are legitimate questions. and again, potentially criminal and not merely something that is, you know, perhaps personally embarrassing or perhaps suggest that there's a kind of cultish element to this story. It's, I suppose it's possible that maybe the reason for the tough talk and the belittling that seems to be in these memos is what you might expect from like a James Carville. It's almost a caricature to talk about the tough talking campaign advisor who's in your corner and tell you, no, boy, that's bullshit. You can't do that. You got to get toughen up.

You got to get in there and bust. And at this point, actually, Carville is doing that in public on X routinely. But this feels a little bit more sinister than that. And again, I don't know, for sure. I would have loved to see more

explicit sourcing in this Wapos story. But what we do have is is what, almost thousands of pages? Well, it's tens of thousands of emails and it's one woman who worked closely with Gabbard and this sect and came out and basically, I mean, she's like the whistleblower on it who went on the record. I mean, they're using

her real name and the story. Yeah. And just a quick clarification just to be as precise as possible. She actually was not alleging that there were, that it was bot activity. It was real people pretending, creating several fake Twitter accounts and Twitter names or whatever. And as a group, as an organization, they were operating one person operating multiple accounts under pseudonyms. Sock puppets more than bots. Yes. Yeah, exactly. Because there were real people behind them.

And in the memos, what they're doing, what the email show is them communicating to each other and Tulsi talking about and all of them like explaining how they should be responding to different people online. and it's a good reminder that, you know, Twitter is not and has never been real life. And the people who have like, dad, Christian, father of three in their profile with like an avatar that looks vaguely photoshopped are probably not real people. He's in the Philippines. Yeah. Yeah, on the internet. No, I think that's all good and fair. I mean, I think maybe the thing that perturbed me the most and got my blood up, Ari, to,

use your expression, which just the I think the anti, saying that this is an example of anti-Hindu bigotry, the story, it really bugs me. And, I mean, A, because, I mean, I think it's bullshit, first of all, just like, I don't think

the reporting, like, Ari, I take your point that if maybe we subbed in pastor for cult leader or whatever, then, like, our reactions would be a little bit different. But I actually think there's a, meaningful distinction between those two things and our reaction should be different. And I think if, you know, to your point, if it was about an extremist small sect insulated church leader under the Christian faith instructing somebody verbatim like this, a member of Congress, actually my reaction

would be really similar. I don't think it being a Hindu sect had anything to do with it. I think it's like the nature of the community as it was described in the article. So that bothered me. And the other reason to bother me is like there is actual religious bigotry in Congress. Representative Andy Ogles, Republican from Tennessee, Muslims don't belong in American society. Pluralism is a lie. Representative Randy Fine, if they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one. We need more Islamophobia, not less. Fear of Islam is rational. Representative Brandon Gill, no more Muslims immigrating to America. I mean, This is stuff, that's, that is anti-Muslim bigotry.

That's what, that's what actual religious bigotry looks like in practice. And so when, and I'm not saying you're saying this, Ari, because I think your framing is they have a point that we would treat this differently if it were a different religious leader. And I think that's a fair framing. But I think it's like, it is the thing I get mad about when Jews are accusing people of anti-Semitism when I don't think they're being anti-Semitic. I'm like, you are degrading. the word and sucking meaning out of it. And like, this is not what bigotry, this reporting is not what bigotry looks like.

Like, that's what bigotry looks like toward a religion. And so, yeah, that part annoyed me to the point where I was like, okay, not only do they not have a defense for this, but the one that they're using feels incredibly disingenuous to me. Okay, I get that. I think that's true. Like, there's real bigotry and this wasn't really a piece that focused on what the religion was as much as the level of control in it.

So I see that. I think the thing that felt accurate about saying, this is actually an example of anti-Hindu bigotry, is probably more applicable to the way people are responding to the story than the story itself, because I think my response of like, I think this would feel different if it were a different religion that the sect is underneath

applies to the people that are reacting to it, less the way the reporter source the material on the way the post around the story. I do think there's a story here. I mean, if I were a person who was working on this beat or somebody entangle was able to uncover the source and follow up on it, this is definitely information that you'd want to put out to the public. This person is in the highest level of government, and they're getting a lot of very close direction from somebody that we did not elect nor was appointed by a person we elected.

I understand. But we do offer the people in government a lot of discretion over the people that they go to for advice. And it is a blurry line over how much there's unfair influence, undue influence, versus influence that's something that they're willingly receiving. And I'm just saying, my point narrowly is that we should probably be a little bit more willing to accept the autonomy of the person who's the subject of the advice for what they're willing to receive. So if she wants to be a member of this group,

I would have off-call a lot of things that I would criticize about it, but it's a free country, man, and she wants to practice her religion. Those are the people she wants to get advice from. I'm not seeing anything illegal on the way she's getting this advice, maybe in the way that they're talking about using their network. But in that regard, I would probably use it to inform the way, way I think about Gabbard's judgment, but I don't know.

I have a hard time adjusting my framework of who she is as a person because of it. Gentlemen, a classic 75-minute tear-down-the-ceiling episode, all great stuff. But we got to let our audience go. I got to let you guys go. I've got a dinner with our newly hired member of the Tangle team, who I'm excited to introduce to our audience soon, because I think she's. She's going to be a voice that you guys are hearing at some point. So I think it's time to do our grievances and wrap this thing up.

John, if you want to play the music, let's get after it. The airing of grievances. Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal. I am going to go last because I have a little bit of a tour-to-force callback grievance that I'm excited to share today. And I feel confident about taking us home. So I'll give the floor to you two gentlemen to get us going. Okay, I'll go first and I'll distract us a lot. Okay.

If I felt a little bit too inclusive there, I'll just go completely the other way for my grievance. And I'll say, I really don't like that the nation of Turkey is making us change the way they pronounce their name. And I'm not playing. I'm sorry. Do you know about this? Do you know about this?

No. I know the spelling and the, yeah, it's a thing. Camille, Turkey has requested that their English spelling and pronunciation be changed to T-U-R-K-I with, sorry, K-I-Y-E with an accent over it to indicate its pronunciation. So it should be pronounced, Turquia, or Turquia, or Turquia. I'm not exactly sure, because it's not English. It's like Turkic. It's close, but we don't really have...

Those accents in English, the closest we get is the accent that you see in Spanish or French that shows you which syllable to stress in vowel sounds. That's something that's informative to an English user. But you don't get to choose the way other countries say your name. And in fact, if you look at the way ever, no one does. Like just poor Germany. In every language, they're different. Like, they're Germany to us, they're Deutschland to them.

They're Tedesco in Italian. And I don't even know where they got that for. but nobody's ever been able to call the shots on how they get to be called in other languages. And I get that they don't want to be associated with the fat, dumb bird that we eat for Thanksgiving. But that's not really your call. You put something out in the world and then people have to adjust to it. I've been watching the World Cup games on Telemundo. And in Telemundo, Turkey is just Turquia with like the Spanish pronunciation.

They don't get to do the thing. They don't have to do the thing Turkey said that we need to do in the U.S. or in English-speaking countries. They get to use the Spanish version. So why is it different for us? And why is it different for, like, China? China probably wouldn't want to be called the porcelain dish, but, like, that's the word in English. Hungary probably doesn't want to be called Hungary.

They probably go with Magyar. Like, that's their name. But that's easy to say in English, but that's not what we call them. So sorry. And is Ari Weitzman, is that an Armenian last name? No, no. It's German. It means wheat farmer.

I like Magaari. I just want to be on the record. I think it is unfortunate that it is a political opinion because it has been politicized, and it is something that is seen as a right-me-talking point out. Just legitimately, it's not the way that, like, I'm against autonomous, or sorry, autocratic, top-down language prescriptions. I'm always top-up.

We get to choose the way we make our statements. The guy who invented the GIF says it has to, be pronounced Jif and he doesn't get control of it. Sorry, it's out in the world we get to choose. So it's the same rules for everybody. Sorry. All right, man. A little anti-Turkish bigotry to wrap the show on.

It's all good, man. I'm fine. Turkish people is not your fault. There's some Turkish. Do we have to change that as well? If you have a problem with what Ari just said, feel free to email us. Will at reetangle.com.

W-I-L-L-Ridtangle.com. We're probably going to spell it. I don't know what we're going to do in the newsletter. It's a tough one. We'll have to spell that. Yeah, you're going to, this is going to be really tough for you. I don't, you know, the fewer accents from a typing speed perspective, the better for me. So I might follow you on this journey.

Camille, I presume yours isn't as granular as that might be. No, no, but I suppose every two to three weeks, I come back to my, the pain of my frequent travels and some frustration associated with it. and this is one of those weeks. I almost feel a little bad about this because JetBlue has been having some challenges of late and there's rumored that they may be next to fall. But that is where I do most of my coast-to-coast flying, primarily because the SF to New York corridor or route

actually has these mint planes. So you get to sit in the front cabin and they feed you. And oftentimes it's a little easier to sleep there since I'm mostly flying at night. And yeah, I get these awards. specifically these passes that allow me to upgrade my flight, and I had a bunch of them. And I wanted to use them for my wife and my two children, who I was putting on a plane yesterday morning to fly back to California without me. And they would not let me do it.

Because you weren't on the flight. I was not on the flight, correct. Now, I'm on a flight two days later. I'm just not flying back with them. I understand that there are rules about this sort of thing. But for multiple years, I've been at the top tier of your frequent flyer programs. Is it really so insane to have someone for management, get involved, and just say, you know what, we're going to take care of this person who's spending tens of thousands of dollars per year on air travel with us because that's the right thing to do here. I don't know why people say we're out of touch. It's so relatable. It hasn't happened. It hasn't happened. Listen, I'm conveying my suffering here.

My suffering. Yeah. I will say that most of the flights, and this is the hardest part, are actually me in a coach seat and not in the vent cabin. Oh. Which, again, it's very difficult. I'm so sorry. You know what?

If you flew as much as me, you would be sorry, genuinely. It's hard. It is hard. I will say, I will say, I will say, I will say truthfully. what you do is insane and I would not survive it I don't know how you do it you literally have two cross-country flights a week

and you're sleep deprived sometimes more and your schedule is totally insane I don't know how you work all the things you do I have so much respect for you and you are also such a douchebag it's incredible I love it so my love

you're such a complex person. It's beautiful. The Mint Awards on JetBlue. They won't fly my kids without me. Let me speak to your manager. Do you know why? Let me speak to your manager. Bring us home. All right. Really nice. So a couple weeks ago, you guys might remember, I had this long drawn-out grievance about this new rule. They implemented on my street where we were no longer allowed to turn left. There's a main. Street. My house is right on the corner. The people waiting, it's a two-lane road, people waiting to turn left were causing big traffic jam. And so they put up these signs and a little barricade

in the middle of the street that said, no more left turns, can't go here. So for me, that meant I had to circle the block to get home and basically add two or three minutes to every drive home I had from this one particular direction, which is a very common direction to come home. So I was pissed. My house is right at the left turn intersection, and it's a very long street. So you have to go down a really long block and then come all the way around, then wait through a light cycle, then turn right and come up the other end. And then it's a big hill you have to climb to get to my house all the way at the end of the street. It was annoying, you know, very privileged problem to have, but annoying.

And yeah, yeah. And I'd been living with this for the last couple weeks. And something interesting happened. I kind of started to like it. Now, listen, not to not see this coming. Not the no left turn, not the no left turn. That was still a little bit annoying. But the new change did noticeably reduce the amount of traffic on my street.

Wow. There were way fewer people coming down the road to go to the train station. I'm outside constantly with Omri, who's always in the front yard. Like, you know, he's a year and a half. He's running in all directions with a total abandon for his own safety. He has no idea what he's doing. There's always cars coming. And it was just like kind of less stressful, quieter.

And I was sort of like, oh, maybe this is worth it. And I'm like looking at the traffic, whatever, thinking like, it seems like it's getting a little bit better without people turning left, you know? Like maybe they are clearing up the traffic on this main thoroughfare. And those traffic nerds who I was. speaking negatively about on this show, maybe they were right, despite me saying they had a fake job and fake expertise. So I was like, you know, trying to resist the feeling, but having a hard time not noticing what was happening. And then this weekend, I come outside with Omri,

and they're tearing down the signs and all the barricades. They're abandoning the whole plan. They're just allowing, they're going back to how it was, allowing the left. The moment that I started to be like, Oh, this is a good thing. I like this. They've complete, I don't know what happened. There must have been some horrible community meeting where a bunch of MES showed up and Bush and used with more free time.

Yeah, Mize Meas me with more free time. Or the traffic nerds who I'm talking about observed and studied what happened, they didn't actually think it made a difference. But yeah, the moment they won me over, they've completely reversed course, all the traffic's back, my street's busy again, the traffic jams are happening. I can turn left to get home quicker, and I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore.

And now I think this is right to live with. No, no, I observe the rules, though many people jump the little rubber barricade they put out there. Now, I will say, maybe slight chance that they're about to just replace what was a rubber barricade with like a concrete permanent one. But the only reason I don't think that's what's happening is they literally put up no turn,

like the red circle with the cross left turn signs, like street signs, and they rip those out too. And so I think it's over. I think the experiment's done. And so my new grievance is that I now can turn left to get home, which it's terrible. People should not be allowed to turn left at this intersection. And I'm going to write a letter to the community organizers

and tell them I feel that way. Wait, are you more mad now or were you more mad before? No, I was more mad before, definitely. That seems right, yeah. feel I'm like a spurn lover now, you know? Like I fell for something. I became attached to it. I accepted it.

And then it got taken from me. And here we are. So that's my movement. And in order to see if it does, you'll have to listen to the next thrilling installment of this podcast about whatever it is that we talk about. Yeah. All right, gentlemen. Thanks for being here.

Ari Weitzman, hope to see you next week or maybe not. I don't know. It depends what the Turkish do with me for sure. Yeah. in that part that is. Sorry, guys. Sorry. Camille Foster, thanks for being here. Gentlemen, we'll see you next time.

Yeah. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. 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 Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul.

Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.