Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari and Kmele talk hantavirus, Sen. Rand Paul's son's big mistake, AOC 2028 prospects and more notable internet clips.

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

Coming up on todays episode of Suspension of the Rules: Sen. Rand Paul's son's big drunken mistake, a break down of the hantavirus, and this week's notable internet clips including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 2028 prospects . Last but not least, a very good grievance section. It's a very good one!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, Rand Paul's son makes a very big mistake. We talk haunt the virus and some AOC 2028 prospects, along with a few other very interesting clips from the internet. It's a great episode. You guys are going to enjoy it. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Suspension of the Rules podcast. This is a place where we have some level-headed political dialogue, try to disagree amicably,

And talk shit about Rand Paul's son who got hammered and did the worst possible thing you could do. I have two thoughts. First of all, let me introduce this story. This is my favorite cold open ever in the history of suspension of the rules, I think. Because it follows immediately. Let's be level-headed and amicably. Ran Paul's son drunkenly berated lawmaker Mike Lawler at a bar, pointed his finger at him and called him a Jew in front of a reporter.

And there's a lot to talk about here. Everybody's going to be talking about the anti-Semitism and whatever and have debates about that. As a fellow Jew, I'll say, well, Mike Luller's not even a Jew, but as a Jew, yeah, which is the funniest part. As a Jew, I'll say I have a hard time getting worked up about that in this current climate. But what I did feel was, why doesn't this? ever happened to me as a reporter. I've never been sitting at a bar and had an immediate automatic viral slam dunk story just fall into my lap. Like, nobody's ever drunkenly approached me at a bar and

said, hey, I work for the CIA. Let me tell you some secrets. And Ram Paul's son just makes this reporter's day by interrupting what was probably a really boring interview with Mike Lawler and then drunkenly berating him and handing this notice reporter a perfect layup of a story. Do we care about something like this? Camille, you're not allowed to answer. You're in the tank for Rand Paul, so are you. Okay.

Can I answer as Camille? Yeah, sure. Yeah, please. That's a good exercise. Okay. Well, first of all, I find it exceedingly strange that we have to preface our answers with these constructions such as as a

Jew. I don't know why my point of view as a Jew would have to matter as a rational person in the situation. I have to go off the rails there. It's really tough to stay in this character. Wow. Wow. That sounds pretty good. I mean, Ari, I've never heard you sound so bright and honestly. Honestly. Wow. Yeah, I feel like I'm way out of my depth for sure. Let me just briefly, just for our audience, I just want to read an excerpt of this notice story. in full view of this notice reporter, the younger Paul, who introduced himself as the Republican Senator's son, confronted Lawler about Representative Thomas Massey's GOP primary election in Kentucky. Paul said to Lawler, if Massey loses, it's going to be because of your people.

My people, Lawler asked Paul. Yeah, you Jews, Paul responded. Do you think I'm Jewish, Loller ass? I'm not. Oh, wow, I'm so sorry for calling you a Jew, Paul said. He then continued to, on a tirade about how Jews were anti-American. Now, Lawler and his Jewish supporters served Israel more than America. So the story goes on like this for a little while. And then finally, Lawler tried to end the conversation and said, well, you just seem to hate Jews, so there's no point arguing anymore. Paul then shoved his finger in Lawler's face saying, don't put words in my mouth, Mike Lawler. I never said that. He then began to complain about Mike Lawler's push to raise the salt cap and then turned around and flipped off Mike Lawler to which Lawler said, did you just give me

the middle finger, and Paul said, I'm sorry, yeah, I did. I'm just really drunk. I'm going to leave. He then paid his tab and started to walk away and on his way out. He knocked his bar stool down and tripped over it. This is one of the most incredible things I've ever seen. Most incredible straight news reported stories I think I've ever seen. Camille, thoughts?

Anything you want to add to this? I didn't know if I was allowed to comment. I didn't know if I was allowed to comment on this. Yes, it is true. I do know Rand a bit. I would say that we're somewhat friendly, but I think I'm always fair. In this particular case, though,

it seems really important that the kid was drunk. And I actually don't know how old he is, but it says in the story that he was drunk, I do think that that ought to matter in circumstances like this. It also seems appropriate to say, and I think I text this to you as well, Isaac, and this is probably an unpopular opinion.

We probably need to acknowledge that it's sometimes okay to talk about groups in this way and that there are weird double standards and there are all sorts, and it's always crude, it's always ick, but people say categorical things about white people and whites.

And it's, again, always crude. And I think I would just love for there not to be a double standard that doesn't make this okay. What it does in general is say, do you sometimes talk like this? Maybe you should not talk like this. Maybe we should all. do better. You're saying let's not talk about the Jews in

broad stroke terms. We should have the sensitivity we have about that the same way someone might say like, oh, white people are racist. They're all black people, whatever, whatever. Let's get rid of all those categorical generalizations about people based on identity and certainly Rand Paul's son ought to do precisely that. Fair point. I love that. All in on that take. You've got me sold. drunk matters. Like, yeah, matters.

I think it matters like, because he tripped over a bar stool and fell. And I'm like, okay, yeah, he's not just a clumsy guy. He was shit-faced. Does it matter when he's accusing non-Jew lawmakers of being Jews and they're, I mean, that just feels like he got drunk

and his real feelings came to the surface. Yeah, I don't know if the most bombastic accusation is calling somebody a Jew and they're not one is probably more as this person's about what Jews do in general. Yeah. I mean, we're all kind of laughing

because it's like so absurd. You know? Like this idea that it's ridiculous. It was something I could see like a good Jewish screenwriter writing the scene like, you're people like this. And a person's like, what?

Me? Do you think I'm Jewish? And he's like, oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you weren't Jewish. It's like that's such a good classic setup. It's also like pretty terrible. And I think that contrast is funny.

I mean, I'm also a little bit with Camille. that it does kind of matter that he's drunk, but like in as much as like he's acting like an asshole, but I, you know, I guess in Vino Veritasole, as they say. I mean, you get like a discount. It's maybe 20% discount. But it is, it is like kind of revealing of a worldview that is pretty.

It's like, it's pretty. I mean, let me put it like this. After reading this article, do you think the Republican Senator Rand Paul's son hates Jews or not? Well, he says he does. I would say I think he does. I read this article and the conclusion that I leave with is that Rand Paul, who's a Republican Senator, his son seems to kind of hate Jews. And like the reporters reached out to Rand Paul

for comment. They reached out to his son for comment. They didn't get comment, which like great opportunity to say, hey, I'm really sorry. I shouldn't this. I was tuned up. Me and the fellows went out. We were a little banged up. We were talking about APEC. I got carried away. I saw Mike Lauer there. He's Italian, kind of looks Jewish. I don't know. I got confused. I mean, you could throw all sorts of stuff out there. But no, they didn't say anything.

No apology. I don't know. I'm just, I got my eye on Rand Paul's son and maybe just guilty by association a little bit of Rand Paul. That's all I'm going to say. But you read the quote where he says, it sounds like you, Lawler says, it sounds like you hate Jews. To which he responds, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. Very much like Ben Affleck in that scene at Goodwill Hunting.

I'm just like, no, no, I didn't say that. Maybe purportedly. Determined anti-Semites, when you say something like that to them, they generally don't respond with, hey, don't put words in my mouth. They say, well, obviously, that's what they say. I think, like, they probably do. I think that there's a very, very small number of anti-Semites where they're like, oh, you're just saying that you hate Jews.

They're like, yes, that is correct. I am saying that I hate Jews. I think more often than not, the response is like, no, hey, I didn't say that. Wow. I think there's a lot of winked. nodding going on there. So, like, I agree with Isaac here. I think it's really tough to come away from this without any other kind of interpretation

than, like, this guy probably has some, he's harboring some generalizations about the Jewish folk, I think, and many probably not positive. Yeah, maybe he's just, I wouldn't say his feelings, you know that like Pew study? Like, are your feelings warm or cold about this religious group? I would say his feelings were not particularly warm about the Jews is probably how I would put it. All right, well, we've got real news to report. Sorry, that story just popped up in the Tangle Slack right before we got on the show. So I couldn't help myself but talk about it.

I think one of the, you know, one of the ways that I take the temperature of the people of the electorate is just based on what kinds of text messages I'm getting from my friends in any given week, what sorts of stories they're asking me about. It's like, that is my straw poll. I'm the politics guy. so people in my social group, when they have a question about something that's going on, they messaged me like, hey, is this a big deal? Should I care about this? Etc. And so I get a lot of interesting signals just from that immediate social group.

And I would say one of the things that I've gotten the most text messages about in the last few weeks is the hanta virus. Some people, hantavirus, I kind of like the sound of hantavirus more. I've heard it pronounced both ways, which is interesting. I will be saying hanta virus for the foreseeable future. As far as I understand, by the way, both are correct. There's some weird, maybe Ari. I don't know if you've looked into this, but I find it interesting and a compelling signal

that a lot of people have been asking me about this. So I wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about it today. We covered it on the show. Ari wrote the take in today's newsletter and talked about it on the podcast. That came out on Wednesday as we record this. So maybe Ari, you could introduce a little bit of the story. What we know right now kind of where things are,

And then I've got some stuff I want to kind of explore with you guys. Yeah, I'll try to give as high level and basic the details as I can without introducing any of my feelings about it. I'm also saying Hansa virus here. That's the way that I've heard it pronounce most of the time by people who are discussing it who are informed about it. I don't prefer the way that sounds, but I do think that that is just the way that it's pronounced more often than not. The story is basically this. This cruise ship, a very particular small cruise ship, about 150 people were on board. It's called the M.V. Hondias was a Dutch polar expedition cruise, so a smaller set of people going to a specific location for a longer period of time.

Went on its expedition. At one point, a couple of the passengers who had embarked in a port of call in South America, returned to the ship. Later, we discovered, or one of them discovered, had contracted hauntavirus. Fast forwarding a bit, one of those people in the couple that had disembarked ended up dying of the disease. Several of the people disembarked at St. Helena, which is an remote island in the Southern Atlantic. And fast forwarding again to today, what we know is three people have died of the disease. There have been nine confirmed cases, two more suspected based on symptoms, but not confirmed based on tests. as of now, those passengers have been identified and are disembarking in their various home countries. So as relates to the U.S., 18 Americans have disembarked in the United States, and they're being tracked and followed by the CDC.

And that is where we are as of right now. It's interesting kind of being in a moment like this. I think this is probably the first real public health. scare that's reminiscent of COVID in a way where it's just like carrying a lot of social capital. You know, we had monkeypox and bird flu. But I feel like they didn't really break through in the same way. Like this feels, Honda virus is not a novel virus, like the novel coronavirus. But it does feel not, I'd never heard of it.

It feels novel for the public. So everybody's kind of learning about this new thing. We're tracking these people. They're very similar to COVID where it's already international, interestingly, because of the cruise ship dynamics. There's people in America with it. There's people going back to Germany. They're like South Africa. They're traveling all over the world.

So it's like it's touching all corners. And if it were super contagious, it would be like on every continent pretty quickly, basically. And it got me thinking, and I'm interested to hear from you guys. I didn't prepare either of you for this question. So I'll be curious, like, what comes to mind when I'm. immediately ask it, which is like, what did we learn from COVID? From a media perspective, not, it may be a public health perspective you feel inclined, but like, how do you think about approaching a topic like this the same or differently after the experience of going through COVID?

I think like the probably most obvious and interesting different dynamic here, which we talked a little bit about today in the newsletter, is the COVID pandemic drew. incredible alarm from public health officials who very early on were like, this has the potential to be terrible. And I think it's undeniable. Whoever you blame it on, like COVID was terrible.

It shut down, you know, not locked down the country, but it shut down the world for weeks and then impacted the world very negatively for months and years in ways that we're still feeling. And millions of people died from the virus. I mean, it was a very deadly, awful pandemic.

In this case, the public health officials don't seem alarmed. They seem like they're raising the alarm, but I'm not hearing any of them say, this is something you really need to be worried about the public. They feel like the tracking's working. We've got it pretty contained. Like, I wouldn't describe their demeanor as nervous. So I think that's pretty different.

But I've just been thinking about this as we approach it with Tangle, like what did we learn from COVID? How do we do the job better, sort of transmitting this information from public health officials, bringing skepticism of what they're telling us, taking the input of the public, collectively giving this sort of holistic look

at something like a public health issue? I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about that or how you're feeling about it. Yeah, I think the first thing is just really working to remain neutral and reporting and repeating the things that we are the most certain of and leading with that. And in that spirit, I just want to

add a little bit of color to the story and agree with the aspects that you're saying, identify this as something that feels the most similar as a post-COVID pandemic-esque story. The first, the cruise ship dynamic, like that's a sort of made-for-TV kind of thing where we learn about the ship and we're following it along as the passengers are on board. Like, it's irresistible fodder for the cable media ecosystem. The second is the international aspect. And the third is the novelness of it and the deadliness of it. The mortality rate reportedly for this strain of the virus is 40 to 50%.

That's huge. And this hauntavirus is something that a lot of people didn't know about. I mean, something that I didn't know about before the story broke. And then we had to read and learn a lot. This is the only strain of this family of viruses that can be transmitted from personal person. It requires much, much closer contact in order for that to happen. And then COVID-19 did, then other respiratory diseases do. And for that reason, like, that tempers a lot of the, of the reporting, the tenor of the reporting that you're hearing. And to answer your question

directly about what we learned and try to transition to that, just trying to ask, like, are we sure about those things? And why are we sure? And how do we? And how do we? know. Like the two things that I just said that we really have to get more specific knowledge about, I think, are one, that this is the only pontovirus strain that can be transmitted person to person. The papers that I've read all say it's the only known strain to be transmitted person to person. So we should be really careful not to say, as an absolute fact, this is the case. Because if it turns out that there's a mutation or some very poorly understood or extremely extremely rare version of this that can be transmitted person to person.

Us repeating this claim is saying this was the only one is going to cause a lot of decreased trust. So as of right now, it's the only one we know about. The second thing is how it's transmitted. That's something that there isn't a lot of specific knowledge about. From what I've read, nothing confirms this is the mechanism we all know it. The reported just empirical data shows that all of the transmissions have been through close contact. The theory is through aerosolized saliva and not like, I'm breathing 10 feet away from you and you can pick it up,

but like really, really close to the level of I'm spinning in your face. And again, this is just me characterizing. It's not reporting it. But it is to say, like, we aren't certain. So there is a level of detail here that we still have to leave room for so that we can make sure as we know things, we aren't making retractions. Because I think when we look back at what happened over COVID, a thing that caused a lot of alarm and a loss in public trust in reporters and so-called experts.

I think people who were expert. But it was just the overconfidence in the way that things were reported as fact when they were really best understandings at the time that needed to change. I think giving a little bit more respect towards the public to pick up on differences in phrasing is important to say this is what we know, this is what we can believe based on best evidence, and trust that people understand the difference between those things. right now, what we believe based on best evidence is it's the only strain that transmits person to person. It's not very transmittable, but we don't know exactly how, and we aren't certain

that that is the only one. So steadily, that's scary, but it does not, based on everything we know, look to be a virus that is highly contagious. So we can continue without understanding. And then as we learn more, that's going to give us more information on either edge of that thing, then we can adjust. but we have to leave room on the margins for us to adjust the worldviews as we learn. Camille, what do you think we've learned since the COVID pandemic? What lessons for the media to take away? I mean, Ari, I think, gave the kind of rosiest assessment of what we've learned. I mean, I think the truth is that with respect to the media,

I've certainly seen some reporting that's a little hyperbolic and speculative. Is this the most devastating? Is this COVID? Are we doing it again with the, you know, scary music. I've also seen more thoughtful coverage that's a bit more cautious that is doing precisely what Ari said. What I'm really interested in is what public health officials are going to be saying and how frequently they're going to be updating people. I think what Ari said earlier about overconfidence, that certainly was one of the problems with COVID, but more often than that, I think it was actually the reversals and where the recommendation would just change dramatically

without much explanation and without any acknowledgement that the recommendation had been different before, I think that can create a pretty profound sense of uncertainty. It can degrade trust in the institution. And I think to the extent that kind of message happens again here, that would be pretty devastating. So perhaps the reason why I am still waiting to see what U.S. public health officials in particular are saying,

is actually a good thing. I would hope that they're being cautious, selective about the things that they say. Even the perception of them kind of going out front, making a big announcement with kind of a gaggle of doctors there, trying to communicate a sense of, we're the experts,

you can trust us. I think even that might be poorly received in a circumstance where we don't yet have reason for extraordinary concern. I think you wait until there's a set of circumstances that at least give you an indication. that this could be as big as COVID

before you even try to kind of bring out the big guns in that way. So at the moment, folks seem to be being cautious. That's great. I think that's totally appropriate. My hope would be, as we learn more, as Ari was saying, that we would kind of qualify our learning and that we would be careful in the event that there had to be some sort of change or revision

to the guidance that was being given to the public. We'll be right back after this quick break. You know, one of the quotes that I got into the newsletter today, which I passed on to ARIA, a text message that I received from a friend that I think sort of gives us or gave me an interesting pause and consideration about the mindset of the public. I'm just going to read it really quick was everyone I know who has a PhD thinks that haunt the virus is going to be nothing. So I think it's going to be a huge deal.

which I thought it's such a nice little slice of the psyche that we have in kind of the post-COVID world, which I find fascinating. I mean, for so many reasons, like I feel like I could write a whole book about that sentence. One thing I would just say is like, I think the experts on COVID had a decidedly mixed bag, you know, record. They got a lot of things right and they got some big things wrong. And most of what they got wrong to me, in retrospect, feels more like communication errors than scientific errors. And I don't think the lesson that I took away from COVID was like that the experts are wrong about everything. I think there was group think and I think there were dissenting opinions who were silence.

And I think there were perfectly inbound perspectives that were labeled as misinformation and dangerous conspiracies. All of that definitely happened. But I think if we had done everything that the epidemiologists wanted us to do and the public health experts wanted us to do and there was actually buy-in and there was across-the-board support from that in our country, which there was not, probably a lot fewer, many fewer people would have died. And we would have been much better off, maybe not economically in the immediate term, but potentially the longer term. And the virus could have, you know, sort of dissipated quicker. We saw in other countries that there was a down. downside to slowing the curve, you know, flattening the curve early on. Places like South Korea that had really good buy-in got crushed by COVID later because they didn't have the initial wave that gave everybody immunity and changed the dynamics of how the virus would spread later. So there's like, it's really complicated. There are all these different variables. But I didn't, I'm not like in a position now where some Johns Hopkins

epidemiologists who's been studying how viruses mutate for, the last 20 years in a lab or by tracking public health issues is like an idiot now or I trust them less than I trust some contrary an influencer on YouTube. Like, no. And that's not just deference to the experts. I will still have skepticism about those sorts of things. But like, it's just basic common sense. There are people who know how this stuff works and understand it at the most detail-oriented, like, granular level. And then there's the rest of us that sort of read the dumbed down versions of their reports and the knowledge that they've accrued and tried to make sense of it.

And so I am certainly not coming into something like this where I'm going to go listen to, you know, some YouTube host named Isaac Saul and do what he says. Like, that is not the right thing to do. You should listen to the professional public health experts. Like, I still feel in that camp, but there is an emotional appeal to all the PhD people think this isn't going to be a big deal. So I think it's going to be huge. That kind of resonates for me.

And I don't really know how to bridge those two things, which I find interesting. Like, both positions seem compelling to me. I think it's sort of the answer to the opposite question. When you phrased or you framed it to us as what did we learn and the other. question is like what if we not learned or what haven't we solved for? I think identifying the things that we're thinking back to the pandemic, it's all going to come coming, like rushing back. Like for instance, South Korea is a great example because the way that I remember that wasn't that they were punished for flattening the curve early. It was that they were vulnerable to a variant

that came up later. And like I don't know which one of us has the right narratives still. I think the way I remember flattening the curve when it was a theory that was articulated to me was we just don't want a spike that's going to overload the system right now. We want more time. So just spread it out so that the resources don't get overwhelmed. I think a lot of people understood flatten the curve to mean like never let there be a spike at all. And I think like those are sort of tough things to communicate. But again, like the holes in the communication were that the messages weren't ever like really consistent.

which is tough because we're learning about these things in real time. They're developing the right messages they go. And I get it. It makes sense. But at the same time, people have a high expectation for what they want for the communication to be at the time. And now I'm just going to read off like an anonymous email that we got in the staff inbox today, which I think really puts a bow on the question now that we're asking of like, what don't we know? Which is, where's the place to go for this information?

So this reader writes in and asks, or they say, I commend you for cautioning Americans not to be swayed by scared tactics by either side. I'm a science first person, but I'm not sure who to trust. I have faith in the scientific community. I don't have faith in our politicians. I also distrust the American people at large because of how we collectively respond to the pandemic. Maybe my concerns are not warranted, but I'm not sure what sources are you using to just get the facts. I don't know what the sources that everybody can agree on that they want to go to to just get the facts.

there's reasons for anybody on either side of the spectrum to distrust the CDC or the World Health Organization. And that's an unfortunate thing that's come out of the COVID era. And right now, that is the big vulnerability that I think we're staring down in the hauntavirus era. Hopefully it is extremely short. And it's just a warning shot across the bow. But it's also an opportunity to try to level set.

So my hope is that right now we can say, let's look at the CDC, the World Health Organization, compare it to things that other countries are saying, compare it to things that we can read. We found, for Tangle, a lot of primary-sourced studies on POMMed, which you can go find for yourself, that have the data that the CDC is referencing on their site. So you can see them for yourselves.

And then you just see the ones that, when there's consistency, that's a good sign. But hopefully, CDC uses this as an opportunity to model the right communication, and regain that trust back so that we can say if you want the information, go there.

That would be really wonderful, but it's a huge vulnerability right now. Yeah, I mean, just to give a quick plug to a friend of the show who I think does awesome work on this. This is Caitlin Jedalina from your local epidemiologist.

She runs an amazing newsletter. She's plagued Tangle before. She's a former Johns Hopkins epidemiologist who's now kind of an independent writer and almost like in this sort of like journalist slash influencer space as somebody with a very specific expertise, but she is literally an epidemiologist. And I think she's super fair-minded. She, you know, some of my favorite work that she's done has been documenting her experience going into like the Make America Healthy Again movement

and meeting with lots of Trump supporters and RFK junior supporters and kind of dialogueing with them about areas where they see eye and areas where there are differences in trying to bridge the gap. basically out of a recognition that public health experts like her have traditionally come up short on their communication skills and basically how they get through the public. And yeah, throughout the pandemic, she was a super reliable voice who got a ton of things right. And anytime there's like a huge flu outbreak or some new virus or something like this, I'm always reading her newsletter or shooting her text messages, asking her questions. When there was the measles outbreak in Texas, I was going to Texas with an eight-week-old

unvaccinated baby. And so her and I had some back and forth and she gave me like some risk assessments and stuff. Anyway, your local epidemiologist is the newsletter. I, uh, I recommend it. And you can, uh, you can tell her we sent you. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. I want to keep the show moving and get on to our next segment here, which is a new one. This is something I'm really excited for. We've been, we've been thinking about all these fun little segments that we want to introduce into the show to, to bring to. break up the monotony of the headlines and the news cycle a bit. And one of the ones that I'm really excited about is just taking some of the crazy clips from our political world and giving them

a little bit of airtime and convo and reaction right here on the podcast. And I asked John, our wonderful executive producer, to pull together some clips with our social media editor, Russell Nystrom to just keep an eye on the things that were happening in the political space that he felt like might be some good podcast fodder. And they came up with a pretty banger list of three for us for this week that I'm excited to dive into. So I'm going to start by pulling up clip number one. I think, yeah, I think we'll tackle three today. All right. Go ahead. You can play the segment. This is Trump with Kirk Signetti, who's the head coach of the Indies. Indiana University football team.

Think of this, the press conference in 2023, shortly after joining Indiana. Kurt, who's Kurt? Kurt Signetti. Where is Kurt Signetti? Huh? Oh. Come here.

Come here. Kurt Signetti has turned out to be, I believe, I think he's the coach of the last decade because you think of this. It definitely seems like he knows what he's talking about, right? Yeah. All right. So for the podcast listeners who maybe aren't on YouTube,

Trump is looking around the crowd for Indiana University's football coach, Kirk Signetti, who's standing next to him. And he sort of looks over. He says, who's Kurt and looks over him a couple of times. And then Kurt Signetti, who just won a college football national championship, raised his hand and says, I'm Kurt, sir. And then gets a nice big hug from the president. I love this segment because it is.

is the Trump retail, it's like peak Trump retail politician, where he is clearly working a room where he knows nothing. He doesn't know who the head, he doesn't, he's like, who's Kurt, the guy is, their shoulders are literally touching. And he still has the, like, the juice to just get a laugh, to get him the smile, they look warm. And then he just like immediately pivots into this. very clearly somebody wrote him this statement where he's saying that he's like the best football

coach of the last decade and we're like you didn't know who the guy was two seconds ago when your arms were touching so I'm not so sure he's probably right I mean yeah look at that resume holy I don't know if he's right his whoever wrote the speech for him is probably right yes I agree yes all right let let's get to this next clip this is um this is from a Virginia radio, I believe it's public radio, but it's a Virginia radio show, a little bit of controversy around some comments made about Hakeem Jeffries. And I'll just, we'll just play the clip and we'll let you guys react. If Hakeem Jeffries wants to be involved in Virginia politics, then I suggest he does what a bunch of New Yorkers are doing. Leave New York, move down here to

Virginia, run for office down here. You can represent us. If not, get your cotton pick and hands off of Virginia. That's right. Ditto. Yes. Yes to that. Okay. So that is Jen Kiggins, who's saying yes, ditto to get your cotton picking hands off

of Virginia. Jen Diggins is a Republican representative who was on this radio show. Camille, I saw you do a little, I saw you do the Camille head tilt. you're like a, it's like a dog, Camille's kind of, he's definitely evolved from canines. The curiosity of Camille Peaks. There is a very interesting divide about this segment. Obviously, I hear this guy with a southern draw, presumably some white dude on a radio station, Jen Kiggins, white representative, cotton picking hands talking about Hakeem Jeffries, a

black representative, the House minority. Not that race is a construct, it's not real, Camelic. But like in our common vernacular, the limited... A melanated individual. Framing that we're all forced into. He is a person of color.

And I think this seems like a kind of like slave labor reference. Get your cotton picking hands off, Virginia, go back to New York, etc. But not everybody took it that way. way because apparently this is like a pretty common little southern turn of phrase. There was some commentary in the Tangle Slack. We have a number of people from the, I would say, south of the Mason

Dixon line, let's just say, who said, you know, I kind of heard this, Ari, you were in the Slack. You said, this is kind of a filler phrase, older generations sometimes used. One member of our team, who, because of the sensitivity of this topic, I will not name, said, eh, I actually used this phrase a good bit when I was younger growing up in the South. And it wasn't, I mean, I'm sure there's racial connotation to it, but it wasn't like an expressly racially combative term. Gentlemen, thoughts, I'd like to hear how you guys heard that clip or what immediately came to mind. I mean, the head tilt for me is because I know exactly how that's going to be interpreted.

but yes, that is a colloquialism that you will encounter sometimes. And when I hear it, I actually hear Foghorn Leghorn's voice. So, you know, I learned that from cartoons. It was years. I was certainly an adult when I realized, oh, oh, that's where that comes from. That's probably inappropriate. People should probably stop saying that. But the suspicion that most people who say it aren't trying to invoke slavery

and the slave trade or make some reference to the person's race who they're referring to, I think that it's fair and reasonable to give people the kind of benefit of the doubt there just given the fact that this is a part of our speech. I had the same kind of reaction. I thought of Bugs Bunny first.

I remember hearing this phrase in Loney Tunes cartoons. I even put a kind of slack of like Bugs Bunny like using the phrase saying, now just wait a cotton pick and minute. That's like a thing that Bugs Bunny said. I'm quoting Bugs Bunny like he's a person, but I think I'll refrain from elaborating anymore and just stand behind the opinions of a strong black man

such as Camille, let you do my thinking for me. There's some qualifications there, but sure. That was very much sad to get a reaction. And you gave me none, so commend you. for that. I mean, this has to be, I guess I'm a woke lib. We've got to retire this phrase. I don't disagree. There is a direct, this isn't like, like, inextricably linked from slavery, I would say, cotton picking. I don't know. I just think the important thing here is like, who is being wounded? The reality is that when we start to police speech in this way,

He's like, well, wait, we should be offended by this. Do we know, do you know like Camp Town Racers and a bunch of other songs that we sung as children that the original versions of them are, I mean, unbelievably bad, like really, really, really bad? Does that mean that we should stop singing them now and that children should stop singing them going forward because of the history associated with them? I mean, we can do that if we want to, but we're not really saving anyone when we do that. We're just being puritanical. And I think in this particular instance,

I don't know that we need to be puritanical. We know what he was trying to say. Should people try to be a little bit more sophisticated, fine. But no one is being let out of subjugation because we police our language a little bit more forcefully in a context like this. We do have good alternatives, though.

We could just say, there are great alternatives. Dadgum's great. Yeah. You know what, Camio, of all the things you said, I think that last part is the most. compelling to me, like, who's being wounded? What do we gain from kind of policing this sort of interaction? Because nobody's mad at the radio host. Everybody's mad at the Republican representative

who said, like, ditto, I agree. She didn't even say it. Yeah. Right. The expectation is that she should, in this public radio thing, say to the host, who's clearly giving her some friendly, some friendly interview, like, I don't think you should use that expression anymore, which is, And yeah, you have to have a very certain high standard of what's like socially unacceptable in order to interject in a way like that. I think there's a lot of social complication in policing somebody else's language. And she clearly chose not to do anything other than just say, yeah, I totally agree. And even her, you can hear, I think there's some awkwardness for her you can almost pick up on

where it's like she recognizes she's backed into a corner. bad if I police this guy's language, bad if I just agree with what he's saying, kind of, oh, yeah, ditto, what you said. And just like interview over. Yeah. All right, let's get to our last clip here, which is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There are a lot of people who would like you to run for president in 2020. Apparently, some of them are here.

And there are people who, there are others who would like to run for president in 2020. like you to run for the United States Senate. Senator Schumer's up in 2028. I don't know. It sounded like even more. Should we do it? Do you all move to New York or to other parts of the country? How many would like AOC to stay in Congress? See, they want you to make a move. Yeah. What say you about all of this? You know, it's funny because in this op-ed that Jeff Bezos paid for in the Washington Post. There was this line that you even mentioned earlier about, well, as a potential

2028 contender, X, Y, Z. And in the context of that, it was very clear this was a veiled threat, right? So the elite saying, if you want this job, you just stepped out of line. and we want you to know where the real power is. And it's in the modern day barons who own the post and own the algorithms,

and we're going to, we'll make an example out of you. And what's funny about that is that they assume that my ambition is positional. They assume that my ambition is a title or a seat. and my ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country. Come and go. Senate, House seats, elected officials, come and go. But single-payer health care is forever.

Workers' right for forever, women's rights, all of that. And so anyways, the way, but to a finer point, to your question, is that when you aren't attached, right, when you haven't been, like, fantasizing about being this or that since the time you're seven years old, it is tremendously liberating because I get to wake up every day and say, how am I going to meet the moment? She's running. She is definitely running.

For what? For the Senate or the presidency? For the presidency, I think, actually. So I'll, first of all, I actually, I'm interested to hear from you guys. I have a good sense, I think, of what both you might be thinking or saying. I actually think that's a great answer for what it's worth. I mean, there's like political stuff in there that I would probe if I were on stage with her. But the idea that she cares more about the movement and these sort of things that will live beyond her than she cares about a title, I think that's actually a really nice. I mean, it's clearly a scripted thing that was concocted in the lab. But I like that. I think like I wish more politicians thought about that. Like what sorts of change for the positive vision of my vision for the country can outlive me and are detached from what. what my power, title, or control is.

But, you know, we had this event in Los Angeles in Orange County. When we were on stage, Camille and I were on stage with Alex Thompson, the reporter from Axios, who I got to speak with backstage a bunch, who's like notoriously one of the most well-sourced people in D.C. And he was just saying, she is going to have the biggest war chest

of any sort of rising star in the party going into 2028. And she kind of has her choice about how to navigate that. I think the Senate is a given and I think that she would beat Chuck Schumer. I think she could potentially mop the floor with him in a primary.

I think people are that dissatisfied with his leadership. And he's, you know, I don't know if you ever like watched a Chuck Schumer press conference, but it's not inspired. stuff. It's hard to make it through one,

I'll say that. It's hard to make it through one. And I don't think he's faced real, real, combative challenges. And I think at this stage in his career, he would have a really, really hard time fending her off.

But as I think about the field for 2028, I, you know, aside from Gavin Newsome, maybe, it's hard for me to imagine a more obvious frontrunner for the Democratic Party who,

is representative of the populist moment who could fundraise, who could stand toe to toe with whoever comes up on the other side, whether it's Vance or Rubio or Don Jr. or whatever, I mean, she's got the progressive bona fides, and I think the Democratic base, who typically in the past, in every election

for the last 20 or 30 years, has resisted that shift to the left or tapped out of the election, the general, if it's come down, to a progressive and, you know, a more moderate Republican or something. Like they, this,

the environment is not such that they would refuse to punch a ballot for AOC. I mean, she would get those votes too. So, yeah, a very interesting answer. That was very, very directly not a no,

I'm not running for president in 2028, which I found quite interesting. Hmm. It's the sort of thing, though, Isaac, where she knows that question is coming anytime she's out on public in a context like that.

And I actually would have expected the answer to be a little bit better. It is certainly good that she leaned into policy and talked about the things that she would actually try to achieve on people's behalf. And we can talk about the kind of quality of those ideas another time.

But, you know, AOC as a candidate, statewide, I think it's very different than running for her district in New York. I think that she and Mamdami are certainly very popular. popular with a particular wing of the party. But as it statewide or a national candidate, they're kind of polarizing in certain regards. And given the choice between a more mainstream Democrat, even when it doesn't have the

name recognition, I think plenty of Democrats might actually look the other way. So I'm perhaps a little less bullish on this. But that said, is she a dynamic political figure? Yes, absolutely. Is she certainly like, I'm, I'm really. reminded of Jasmine Crocket's, like, difficulty that she had in Texas. And I think AOC is more sophisticated, more polished than Jasmine Crockett is in a lot of respects. Also, Jasmine Crockett, as we've talked about on the podcast, was actually a more conventional candidate, despite the fact that she had this kind of appeal that made her seem as though she was a member of the squad. So I think that is perhaps a difference, but I also think that the outcome that Jasmine faced as a really, really high-profile Democrat who wasn't able to get the job done against some. who is a little bit viewed as a little bit more conventional might be a bit of a warning for someone like aOC can i just just something really quickly about the statewide stuff here's what i would say

i've actually uh spent a lot of time in more rural parts of new york um my my wife's brother has a house kind of up in the hudson valley and um i've been i've been upstate new york a few times i'm reminded of A. M. Hickman, who's penned a piece for Tangle, who has written, you know, writes his newsletter, the hinterlands from ostensibly rural New York that he moves around quite a bit. It is a hollowed out, pretty dilapidated area all across. I mean, from the Hudson Valley up to Albany through Buffalo, like there are so many places. New York, the wider New York region that have been crushed by deindustrialization that have basically watched the economy fall out that are struggling with, you know,

opioid addiction, that are just sort of representative of the kinds of places that Trump sort of thrived in as an entry point as a politician by delivering the burn it all down populist sentiment. And Chuck Schumer is not capable of that. I mean, has no standing to walk that message into those neighborhoods. And AOC does. I mean, I think on the cultural stuff, which maybe will continue to win the day, she has an uphill battle there. And for sure, by being perceived as being far left and left of Schumer, that's a problem. But on the economics of it, on like the anti-billionaire, anti-corporate power, workers' rights, raise the minimum wage, I think that message lands even in,

Trump country in rural New York. That's my sense of like the temperament and the spot that we're in as a country right now. And I actually disagree a bit. I think that she would win a statewide election pretty well. I think she's different from Mamdani and that she doesn't have the same sort of baggage of the Muslim mayor. in the post 9-11 city, New York, who is, like, in the communist, like, literally in the Communist Party. Like, she can walk out the, I've supported Israel.

I've worked with moderate Democrats. I have bipartisan legislation. Also, I have, like, the bartender story and the workers' rights story and the Bernie story. You know, I don't know. It feels like a little bit of a different dynamic in terms of, like, the cultural, social thing she would have to overcome to get there. But, I mean, I think we're going to find out. I mean, I think her running for Senate is a given.

I think the question is whether she actually takes a swing for the fences and goes for a presidential bid, which I think would be kind of silly. To be honest, I think doing a six-year term in the Senate and then running if she's like got the long game in mind is the path. But, yeah, interesting. Ari, any thoughts there on the AOC clip? I'll try to edge in quickly. I think you break it down along two lines. So there's the second half of the answer and the first half of the answer. The second half of the answer is a good pivot towards the issues

and away from the question of are you running? In that way, it's apt and polished. I think it's very likely just to kind of rephrase what she said, that she runs for at least the Senate. The question is Senate or president. And I think, I mean, just like she should wipe the floor with Schumer. a Democratic Senate primary in New York across the state, in New York City for sure,

and then across the state. Like Schumer is not a very compelling candidate at this point. I think you can just hang all of the Democrat minority party and the Senate issues on Schumer pretty easily and not entirely unfairly. And I think she would crush him. When it comes to running for a presidential primary nationally as a Democrat, I mean, it's possible.

But I would see her as just the inheritor of the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, fortune of, like, run from the left and lose. I think that would probably... It's hard for me to foresee any other thing. The first part of the answer I thought was a little

was kind of strange. I think she'd try to pivot towards Bezos and get that in there. There's something about me as a as a UChicago grad, and she's giving this speech in Rockefeller Chapel at UChicago, which was founded,

based on a very generous donation from the Rockefeller family, thinking about these robber barons give these huge donations to these giant institutions and then we get to benefit from them. The Washington Post and University of Chicago are different things,

but just thinking about the optics of going after the rich person who's invested heavily into an institution while you're sitting in a chapel that was bought by a rich person who invested into an institution is like it's noticeable to at least, you know, one person, I'm sure several. But I think that would probably be an issue that's representative of what a national run for her would look like, whereas the Senate, I think, is right there.

And I think she'd win for sure. She would belong in a national race, but I would be really skeptical that she would win it. All right. We're coming up on a little over an hour here. So I think it's time for that special part of the show where we get to. to complain a little bit about the mundane things in our lives that are really, really bothering us and then send you guys off. So, John, you can play the music for our grievances section, my friend. The airing of grievances. Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance

on shoe removal. Any takers at first at that? How are we feeling today, gentlemen? Well, I've sort of had this new conception towards how I'm approaching the grievances section, which... Oh, God. I hope I like this. It's essentially a platform to try to get everybody out there to crowdsource the small issues that we have. I discovered this last week when I was like, man, it's so hard to just get a prescription filled for albuterol.

And we got all of these recommendations. And one person even said, you can get this thing. essentially albuterol. It's just like aerosolized and it's at a smaller concentration. You can buy it over the counter and I did that and now I have that. So like, thank you to that reader. Wow. Can I just say just to my, my staff concurrence, it is our audience. Our audience is incredible. Like I, I had a totally similar experience. I made that sort of offhanded comment about the plumbing stuff going on and was like, if anybody knows a good plumber in New Jersey, just like

bullshitting. And then I got like 20 recommendations for really good ethical plumbers in northern New Jersey. And I was like, this is unbelievable. Like we are, I underestimate the, the power of the megaphone, but totally endorsed that statement. And this maybe could just be a space where we solve all the problems in our lives by crowdsourcing ideas. But I like this reformulation. All right. This works, this works really well. And now, now I actually have a grievance for this week. I was hoping you might. Yeah, a problem to solve. All right.

Well, Camille, why don't you got us started that? Well, this is week number two of me with the glasses. And as I mentioned last week, this is a real thing. These are not readers. I'm near and far-sighted to have astigmatism. This is my progressive lenses that I'm wearing now, which apparently also have the transitions thing in there. I essentially just took all the features.

It was like, yes, give me all of the things. It's probably a mistake. I think they're transitioning a little bit. it too much. The progressive thing is hard to actually figure out maybe I should just have two different sets of glasses

although it's hard not see far when you can't see through it. Whatever. The thing that's really bothering me at the moment... You're complaining about transitioning and progressives. It's just really bothering me

at the moment is the reflection of the light on my glasses which it hadn't even occurred to me that that was something I need to worry about. I did get the anti-glare and that's not really working

as advertised. But also the frame is reflective too. So I'm not sure if there's something else I need to do. I think that these are very fetching frames. And I don't want to have to get some other ones that aren't quite so fetching. And I definitely don't want to have to shove stuff in my eyeballs. So maybe someone has some advice because it does feel like in 2026, like this shouldn't be a problem for me.

Like it should be able to deal with the length. You need crowdsourcing of one, which is me as a fellow glasses here. He does podcasts, YouTube stuff. The key is that your light has to be high. You've got to raise the light. That's the only option. I mean, maybe our audience knows a better choice. But yeah, I mean, you can see if I look at the light,

you get the glare, but it's up here. You get a little bit of the shiny forehead, but you're a hat guy, so you'll be fine. Also, I'd make up. That's kind of your only way out, man. I got to say. So it's a geometry problem, really. It's a geometry problem.

There's nothing you can do. Light reflects off of glasses. And I don't think, I actually don't think. I actually don't think that we've solved that scientifically. Though if our audience has an answer to that, I will maybe retire or something. I will just quit. But, yeah. All right.

All right. Let's hear it, man. Yeah. I think my grievance is going to be, again, canine in nature. So I'm passing on a grievance for a member of my household, which is Callie. Dog is recovering from her ACL repair very well and very happy. with the comments that we got from readers discussing what that would be like. At this point now, we're on to a new thing that we have to,

I've been trying to think this is a problem that we probably don't have to solve, but now I'm not so sure. She has this, do you guys know what lapomas are? No. It's essentially just a fatty cell tumor. It's like completely benign. It's just like fat cells get masses into older dogs. And if you pet an older dog and you feel a lump, it's usually lipoma or lipoma.

and it's only an issue if it's uncomfortable for their movement. Callie has one on her side. She's another near her breastplate and one like kind of back on her hip and they don't bother her. But she also has one in a place that every vet that I've talked to is like, I've never seen a Lopoma there. Theoretically possible, but that's really weird, which is right at the tip of her right front paw pat. So it now protrudes past.

to her paw pad, so she doesn't walk on her pad anymore. She walks on this tumor, and it's not very comfortable for her. Because the pad has evolved to develop to walk on terrains. Like a fatty skin lump isn't. So we've been thinking, I've been watching her walk and she seems to be okay. Now that she's recovering from the ACL surgery, she's noticeably starting to favor that forlum a little bit. And I'm like, I don't want to have to put you through another surgery, my friend.

but like it seems like maybe it's the right call at this point to have to do that and I really don't want to have to make that call like I've tried to do the things where you put things on the paws to like wax them up or put like baby socks or like moccasins that you can buy

and they just come off. She just takes them off right away. So like that's just a non-starter and I've tried a bunch so I'm not optimistic that we're going to find the one that works now but like I don't know like I think it would be helpful for her. but I don't want to have to part her through another surgery. So what do I do?

It's just such a grievance that I wish somebody would solve. That is, I feel like we just broke new ground. A dog, a grievance from a dog read out loud on the show. Callie has transmitted herself into the podcast. Well, Ari was just visiting in New Jersey. I actually got to see, he came by my house with Callie, and I got to see the dog's paw, which was intense. It is a growth.

It is a kind of scary looking thing. So I hope Callie's okay. I'm rooting for her always. I don't know what the answer to that is. I'm pro dogs and shoes, though, so that would be cool. All right, my grievance is very straightforward. Uber sucks, and I think it's over. Podcast over.

Yeah. If you want to sponsor us and change my mind, I'll take your money. Uber. But currently, I think that you suck. I think that Uber is one of the great downfalls of any app. It is more expensive, longer weight, less reliable. And just like maybe also, I was going to say weirder drivers, but that's probably not true. Just like, I've had some weird interactions in Uber recently that I wasn't crazy about. And like, I'm an Uber. I am like the guy who chats it up with basically every Uber driver I have. I'm not a headphones and quiet guy.

I am like a what's up? Where are you from? And I'm just like, they're getting a little weirder. But really my issue is Uber compared to Lyft this morning, I got new, I was about to calling Uber from my home to go to Newark Penn Station. It was like $50 for a 20 minute ride. And I was like, that seems insanely expensive. And then I pull it up on Lyft and it's $31.

And it got there five minutes quicker. The Uber weight was nine minutes. The lift weight was four minutes. So I ordered the lift. It showed up. Everything's gravy. I arrive in Philadelphia. I opened my phone to call an Uber.

It's a 10-minute wait. And it's like $33 or something to get from the Amtrak station of my office in Philly. I walk outside. There's a line of taxi cabs. I get in one of the cabs and I get a ride down to the office and it's $15 and I pay them and we have a nice chat. And it's over. And I'm like, this is broken. Something about their model has broken.

I've tweeted about this like a few months ago. Almost everywhere I go now, it is more convenient for me to walk out of airports, bus stations, train stations, and walk into a taxi cab line and get in a cab. It will be less time waiting and cheaper to get wherever I'm going than it is to go to the app ride pickup and order an Uber. and if I am using an app, it's almost always Lyft. I don't know what happened, but they're very close to being on my like done shit list. I'm not using this company anymore. Am I alone?

Similar experiences for anybody else? Yeah, I know this experience too. And I think it goes to what a friend of the show, Derek Thompson, has talked about, as the death of the millennial lifestyle subsidy, which is this theory that Lyft and Uber were propped up by having all of this VC money to put out this product that they were losing money on every time somebody used it.

But if they could just get users and show growth in user-based, and they could then grow the company and eventually turn a profit once they had their entire operation up and running. And now that they're at the point where they have to start posting profits, or this was several years ago, when they're at the point where they had to start posting profits, then the prices went up, which meant you could position the understanding of this VC money

as a subsidy to people, who would use this, aka like millennials, people who want to solve problems that kind of they, there existed solutions for using a smartphone. So like DoorDash, um, food apps like that, like grocery drop-offs, all of those things that helped to subsidize the millennial lifestyle were easier with VC money. And now that they have to start posting profits, you're paying the real price for those things. And unfortunately, you know, unless somebody wants to reinvent the wheel and get more VC money, that just might be the way it goes. And we're back in the, the taxis.

Yeah. Although it sounds like Lyft is a little bit better, it sounds like. I mean, I don't even know if I have Lyft installed. Yeah, I was going to say... I think it varies based on location. I was going to ask Camille his opinion that I remember that he Uber's helicopters around the Uy-S. He blates it.

Maybe he wasn't some person. Different app. Different app. Just waiting for the VC money dries up for them. I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm still waiting to give a my try on the app where you get armed security guards as your drivers.

That's like the coolest app I've ever heard. I can't remember its name, but I'm going to do that at some point and write a story about it. All right, gentlemen, thanks for being here. It was a great hang and we'll see you guys next week. All right. Cheers. Peace.

Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wolk. 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 readtangle.com.