The Young Turks - Running On Empty - August 4, 2026

Episode Date: August 5, 2026

The U.S. has reportedly used virtually all of its long-range precision missiles during the Iran war, raising new questions about military readiness as the conflict drags on. Meanwhile, Joe Kent discusses the possibility of a third party during an appearance with Piers Morgan. Elsewhere, Melat Kiros surprised supporters by praising Israel in her post-victory speech after campaigning on her pro-Gaza activism "Thanks to today's sponsors: Get 40% OFF the Ground News Vantage Plan when you sign up at ground.news/tyt Stay informed without the media spin at ground.news/tyt Visit www.sleep.me/tyt to get up to $255 off your Chilipad 2.0 with code TYT Posting a job is easy at upwork.com Use less data, get paid by switching to Noble Mobile: https://go.tyt.com/getnoble Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Joe Kent SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Ken with you today. Joe is not a guest today. He's a guest host with me for the first hour. So it is going to be a fascinating show today.

Joe, we also have elections today. I don't know if that affects your side of the ledger at all. We'll talk about that a little bit later. but huge elections, including in Michigan tonight. And so Joe and I will do the first hour. We'll talk about the Iran war. We're running out of a different kind of missiles now. Is Joe and a couple of others going to start a third party, very interesting conversation.

How much is APEC spent in this cycle already before we even got to the general elections? A lot of amazing topics in the second hour. Elliot Morgan joins me. We're talking about the APEC collapse. And then at 8 o'clock Eastern, the election coverage stars in John. Ida Rola joins us. So it's a guest hosting extravaganza at TYT. So look guys, today, do we have the A-Pact tears mug ready at shopty.com?

We do. Are we gonna drink from it tonight? We don't know. We don't know. But about as big and non-presidential election as there has ever been in my lifetime. That's Abdul al-Said, Haley Stevens race in Michigan. The Republicans lost their stand in Kentucky. It was a valiant fight by Tom Massey, but A-PAC won that one.

Now we're gonna find out what happens on the Democratic side in Michigan. So that's at 8 o'clock Eastern. But let's get started with today's show. So let's go to Iran. Mr. President, this is at least the fifth time you've turned off airstrikes against Iran since April to negotiate. What is your message to the American people who are wondering what has changed? this time, why should it be?

Well, you don't know, I don't know. I think we're gonna maybe get something, but I wanna give them every last chance before decapitation. Here we go again, Trump visiting the Waffle House. We're gonna make peace, we're gonna decapitate them. Joe, I'm gonna ask you about that in a second, but I wanna give you two quotes from Reuters today

that are so important about how we're running out of missiles and get your reaction to that as well. So Reuters reporting today, the US Army has used up much much of its global stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles during its five-month war with Iran, according to three people familiar with the data, raising concerns about the military's readiness for future conflicts. I would imagine so. Here's some details.

The missiles are principally the Army's surface-to-service weapons known as Army tactical missile systems and precision strike missiles. The U.S. has used virtually all of these weapons, according to two other sources. And, of course, the administration says, oh, no, no, no, no, that's nonsense. Of course, that's what they said about casualty figures. That's what they said about defensive missiles. But they say the United States has far more munitions than anyone in the world. Far more than we need.

Our defense companies are at this moment making more munitions than they have ever made before. Well, I wonder why, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record level. So Joe Kent, you were the former director of national counterterrorism. What do you make of this story out of order is that we might be running out of these missiles? Does this sound accurate to you? You know, it's always hard to tell. It sounds accurate to me because for years now, we've been sending these types of weapons systems like they grow on trees to Ukraine, not planning for potentially getting involved into a conventional conflict. So to me, it makes sense that we're running short of some of these more high-end missile systems.

Another possibility, too, is that this was leaked deliberately and it's a bit of misinformation to make it seem like, you know, we're up against some kind of a restraint. in order to strengthen President Trump's hands so we could have that element of surprise to go on the offense. I'm not sure if that's necessarily true. What I think is more likely is that you have people within the Pentagon who are very concerned that we are pursuing conflict with a reckless abandon and they are not being listened to by the administration. So therefore, they are taking the risk and leaking this to the press. Yeah, that's really interesting.

So there's that theory out there that this might portend ground troops. So let me tell the audience a little bit more about that and then come back and analyze it with you. So Reuters further explains the long-range munitions, which this is amazing, which costs more than $1 million each. This is an incredibly expensive war. Are an important part of the military's arsenal allowing accurate strikes from a safety distance. U.S. supplied ATA, CMSUF, tell me how to pronounce that, have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukraine-en-force. to attack targets inside Russia, just as Joe Kent was just telling you. The PRSM is newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMs, which have a shorter

range. Now, a fourth person, they explained familiar with the matter, said that despite the high usage of precision weapons, the US can resupply. Central Command, which oversees US force in the Middle East, has been able to reload from US military supplies around the world, the person said. But that seems to be a whole different problem. Because now we don't have them in places like Asia where, you know, China can take action and we would be very hamstrung, I believe. Again, we'll come back to Joe in a second on that.

They say analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles are being produced at record levels, but caution that supplies might fall short of what is needed for a prolonged war. Before I even get to our shortage on defense missiles, Joe, it first, it seems to me that if they're in a panic to produce, more and more of these missiles, it might be because they're running out. Yeah, that's the common sense. That's why I tend to lean towards there are folks in the Pentagon right now who are looking at what our inventories are and then what our burn rate, meaning how quickly we're firing these things inside of Iran, and then how quickly we're shipping them to Ukraine.

And they're saying, hey, boss, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of War, we don't have enough of these. They're not being listened to. So therefore, they've said, well, now I'm going to take the risk and leak this to the press to hopefully get this through to the president. I am afraid, though, and maybe this is, we'll get to this here in a second, I am afraid, though, that as we run out of attackums and prisms and more sophisticated standoff weapons, that the Pentagon is then going to say to the president,

hey, if you want to continue any kind of military operations, we need to get a foothold inside of Iran or, you know, maybe on one of the islands that Iran controls so that we can shoot some of our less sophisticated weapons systems into Iran. Yeah, that's interesting. So I just learned attack him's in prison, so I feel cooler already. Okay, so in terms of how to pronounce them. But okay, now on to the super serious stuff that you're alluding today. We have 50,000 ground troops ready to go in the region, right?

And Trump was talking about, oh, World War II style attack. And in his mind, remember he's super old. So he might think World War II is like Normandy Beach, right? And so one thing is, hey, we need to be on the land to fire the market. more conventional missiles. Another thing might be, well, look, since we're running out of missiles, let's be more effective because guys on the ground can do can be a lot more effective in getting to the actual targets than these missiles. Have you seen that buzz anywhere else? Is there reason to believe that that this could be marketing in that direction?

I'm very concerned about that, yeah, actually, because if you watch Fox News and you look at the talking heads they're putting forth, you know, General Keene, General Kellogg, these types who've been, you know, screaming for months now that we need to do an Iwo Jima style landing on one of the islands or on the Porta Bonder or a boss. That's what is continuing to be messaged to the president because they know that he is watching Fox News. They know that he is listening, you know, to people like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Dubowitz and these types, who are encouraging the president to escalate. That combined with the Pentagon coming to him and saying, we are running low on the sophisticated munitions.

If you want further military operations, we need to get in closer to use what we have in our inventories. That, to me, could be a lethal combination. Plus the fact that President Trump is clearly frustrated by the fact that the Iranians are not giving him the diplomatic deal that he wants. And he is probably at some point, if he doesn't step back and say, hey, I just got to walk away from this thing, which I pray that he does. I don't think that he's going to do that.

Unfortunately, he's going to be left with more military options. and his military options are going to be limited because of the lack of sophisticated missile systems, which will put us right back at the Pentagon saying, well, all we've got left for you is short range. And for that, we need some kind of a foothold. That's how I think we could stumble blindly into boots on the ground. Yeah, except it's not blind for some people, right, Joe? Because as you mentioned, the Dubowitz of the world, which no one in the real world knows, and it has no effect and no followers and get listened to in D.C. all the time.

time. So I'm gonna ask you a question that's kind of obvious to all of us, but in mainstream media would be scandalous. Why do they listen to Dubowitz? I mean, if he has absolutely zero followers, the neocons like him have been wrong every single time, and they got him into this mess in the first place, why, what's the real reason anybody would listen to a dumb ass like Dubowitz? Well, I understand the skepticism, because had I not been in the Trump administration, I would have who's Mark Dubowitz and why does anybody care what the FDD, you know, think tank that's clearly funded by the Israeli government, who cares what they think? Yet President Trump is told that these are very credible people to listen to.

We have two things kind of working against us. Number one, Miriam Adelson and a lot of the, you know, APEC pro-Israel lobbyists will come into President Trump and they have access to him because they cut sizable checks to his campaign. So they have access to the president and they will say, hey, this is a person that you should listen to. Another problem we have, and this is where the intelligence community really kind of shot itself in the foot in the first Trump administration, because of Russia gate, President Trump is very skeptical of things coming from the intelligence community. So when you'd have people like myself or, you know, D.N. I Gabbard or just a, you know, a person who no one knows their name, who's just a working level analyst come in and brief the president, he's going to have a lot of skepticism. And then he's going to retreat back into the echo chamber where everyone tells him he's great. and, you know, he's a historic president for taking on the Iranians for the first time in 47 years.

And then he's going to listen to, you know, General Kane, General Kellogg, Mark Dubowitz. And that's how we find ourselves in this situation, which I understand it, it does sound completely crazy. And had I not seen it myself firsthand, you know, I wouldn't have to believe that this is how we got here. But here we are. We do have to watch Fox News to see how President Trump's thinking is being influenced for very serious military decisions by people who have, like, the worst of intentions. Yeah, so Joe, I want to get back to the situation on the ground in a second, and then where is Donald Trump going to finally land on the menu at the Waffle House? But first, what you just said is really important, so I want to stay on it for a second. I've never quite figured out, and you worked inside the Trump administration, so obviously

you have better insight into it. Is Donald Trump really that unsophisticated? And he really, when Miriam comes in and says, oh, this Dubowitz guy is, oh, he's the eminent, you know, expert on this. and the Mossad agent comes into the situation room or zooms in, and Netanyahu comes in, and they give him all this load of crap. Does he actually believe it? And is he really that, like, having covered politics, there's no way I would believe any of that.

But I understand that I know way more than President Trump does in terms of policy and the different players in Washington, et cetera. Or is he just transactional? And he thinks, yeah, I know Dupowitz and Miriam don't know a thing about this and are probably lying to me, but Miriam gave me a lot of money and and BB has the tapes. And so which one is it? Is he really that shallow or or is he transactional and he just uses it as an excuse? Let's be honest, running a business means constantly putting out fires and trying to grow at the same time. You don't need more meetings. You don't need more red tape. You need capable people without

the hiring headache. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across 125 plus categories. So you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support up or down without committing to full-time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. With Business Plus, you can access the top one. percent of talent on Upwork.

And with AI-powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place. So you can spend more time running the business. Thousands of growing businesses already trust Upwork to hire flexible, high quality freelance talent for everything from one-off projects to ongoing support. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. Visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is upwork.com to connect with top talent, ready to help your business grow.

That's upwork.com. Upwork.com. This is the question. And so at the beginning of the Trump administration, I believe that Trump was utterly uninterested in getting involved in this war. He understood. And this is the guy who called out Jeb Bush on the debate stage in 2016, you know, regardless of some of the mistakes that were made in the first administration, he didn't get us involved in any new foreign wars. So at the beginning of the administration, when the Israelis came with their pitch about how we needed to go take down the regime, he seemed very uninterested in it.

And then something changed around the spring, early summertime of 2025. And we just didn't have it within us to hold the Israelis back. We could have held them back from the 12-day war. We knew exactly what they wanted. And we had the ability to take away some features of the defense that we give them so that they wouldn't have the capability. to go on the offense against Iran, but we didn't have the will to do it. Trump tried to do, you know, midnight hammer to take it off the table. But then the Israelis just kept coming back and he couldn't say no to them.

And for the life of me, I don't know why. I don't think he is, you know, foolish enough to think that these people are going to give him great military advice. Like he understood that, you know, adventures in the Middle East are a disaster. He understood the size of Iran. He didn't listen to Bolton before when Bolton was trying to get us to go to war with Iran. So something happened. And I don't know if it's just transactional.

I don't know if he thought that he could get away of just taking Miriam Adelson's money and she wouldn't come calling for it. I don't know if, and I've talked about this publicly before, I do think we have to factor in the assassination attempts against President Trump, the breaches in his security.

You had a guy like Charlie Kirk who for a very long time was very pro-Israel. And then in the last several months of his life, he was against the Iran war. He was against us, you know, getting further involved in the Iran war. He's publicly assassinated. And the next thing you know,

we're getting involved in the Iran war. I do think it's a fact of potentially those things. Trump being told that, hey, you're historic, you're the only guy that can get this done. Venezuela built false confidence that we could just go in and take out one leader and a whole country would fall.

And this again, where they did a good job of isolating President Trump in that echo chamber. And none of this would happen if senior Israeli officials and Israeli donors didn't basically have unfettered access to members of the cabinet and to President Trump himself. If he was just listening to his intelligence community and a lot of his appointees, I believe that we never would have gotten into this position,

unless there is something else there, unless there is some unavoidable factor that compelled President Trump to take this action. Yeah, so look, I want the audience to be aware. Obviously, we're not inside Donald Trump's head. We're speculating on factors that we see in public, right? And so everybody can make their own decisions on why you think that he did what he did. And for me, you know, I interpreted slightly different than you, Joe, not that different, but, but one of them, for me, the clear most important part was the change before he was against

going into these giant wars in the Middle East. I mean, you could say that that was wildly imperfect. And from a left-wing perspective, I say, boy, was it imperfect, right? But he very clearly said, no endless giant wars in the Middle East. And then he changed his mind on it. And it was after one of Netanyahu's visits. So of the plethora of things that you mentioned, I think that they're all true. Everybody can weigh the different factors in different ways.

But I think Netanyahu told him something about my guess, it's just a guess, is that they have information on him. That's why he was so panicked about the Epstein files and so clearly panicked after he met Nanjah, who was in the visit where Netanyahu got up in the middle of a point. public meeting with Donald Trump and said, I have something for you and looked like he was handing him a letter. Trump, like, recoiled, like in a panic. And they said, oh, it's a recommendation for the peace prize. And he's like, oh, okay. So look, it's a speculation. You speculate anywhere you like at home, right? But we know what the results are. We got into a disastrous

war that no one in America wants. And no one in Iran or no one anyone else in the world wanted except one country, Israel. That is absolutely clear. That is not speculation. And it's obvious that Israel drove us into this war. The question is why did Trump agree? Okay, now let's go back to the state of the war. So now we're also running out of defensive missiles. That's the ones that we've been talking about for the last month or so. And so I want to show you a graph here. We've depleted about 65% of our Patriot missiles. So we had over 2,330. Now we're down to somewhere in the ballpark of 759 to 827. And we have depleted 38% of our THAAD ballistic interceptors down from 452 to 234 to 278.

And we have tomahawks, but you need to, you need to fire them from the ships, right? So these missiles, the defensive missiles, offensive missiles were talking about you could fire from anywhere. The tomahawks have to be from the ships, and then the other more conventional weapons, as Joe explained earlier, have to be from on the ground inside Iran. So that requires the ground troops. There's so many things that are going wrong here. For example, U.S. produces only 183 interceptors per year. So it would take three and a half years just to catch up on the ones we've already used up, let alone the ones that are ahead. And final quote is from Colonel Steve Ganyard retired Marine Corps.

He said, we've been shooting so many patriots, so many thads, so many of these exquisite missiles that the industrial base just can't catch up and the magazines are going down. And if you're Chinese and you're thinking, if we're going to make a move on Taiwan, maybe it's time to do it now because the US is losing at a very rapid rate, the kinds of missiles they could shoot against China if China invaded Taiwan. So Joe, how concerned are you about how much we've depleted our defensive and offensive missiles from across the world and that if something some other conflict pops up that we won't be able to to match our adversaries i'm very concerned about it i mean this this war that we engaged in in iran

and the way that the iranians were able to hit our bases in the region and the way that they've been able to stop us from imposing our will on them pretty much destroyed the myth that the united states military especially on a conventional fight like we understood that during the war on terror we You know, it didn't go well for us because we're not good at fighting insurgencies and it's hard for us to navigate these cultures and find all the terrorists. We kind of got a buy on that. But conventional warfare was supposed to be our thing. You don't mess with us. We can, you know, project power, et cetera.

And this was a lot of the logic and rationale that people in the intelligence and defense community used for us being involved in Ukraine. It was like, hey, this is the cutting edge of war. We got to be here to see how it's going to take place. We did. We invested all that money. And apparently we didn't like send any note takers or learn any lessons. because the Iranians clearly were paying attention, and they just basically annihilated the myth

that America can go anywhere and do anything and force its will on different countries or different groups of people. So obviously Taiwan is a big concern, but then also another thing that we did is we kind of destroyed the concept of American security guarantees. We told all the Gulf states that,

hey, if you settle your transactions in the dollar, if you let us put our bases here, you don't really need to have that much defense or military because you got Uncle Sam in your, backyard. We are the security guarantees. Well, I mean, how well is that working out for the Gulf States? They've gotten absolutely hammered by the Iranians. So the amount of just, I think, lost to our prestige and just the threat of American force that we're suffering from now because of this war, I don't even think we've begun to scratch the surface of that. And then now all of our

enemies, they probably get better intelligence that we see right now just in, you know, the press reporting, they probably understand that, hey, if we're going to make a move, let's let the Americans get even more overextended and then we'll make our move. And a lot of the people who we were saying that, hey, we're your allies or were your not official allies, but we're kind of your allies like the Taiwanese, they've got to be reassessing the situation as well. So again, I just think the damage that this is done to American prestige, it's just, it's hard to measure how much damage that's truly done. And again, the American people have to ask, like, what for? What do we lose 18 lives for? What have we spent $100?

hundreds of billions of dollars for what have we lost American prestige, the damage that's been done to the petro dollar, the long-term ramifications that that's going to have. You know, at the end of this, when we take ledger, I mean, the American people are going to say, like, we got absolutely nothing out of this, which is a completely and totally foolish war. So I hope Trump sees that and realizes the sooner he gets out of this deal, the better off he'll be. He just picks up and leaves. He makes a business decision. It stops listening to that echo chamber we were just talking about. Yeah. So before I end on the Trump's final decision, I want to real quick go.

through a couple of things you mentioned. So Taiwan, do you think there's a realistic chance that China is going to go and take Taiwan? China doesn't seem like they have a strategy of really leaning on their military. They seem to do a lot more soft power. So what's your take on that? I think I agree with you. I think it would be soft power. And I think especially now, Taiwan's not going to have a lot of options because Taiwan just saw how well we defended the Gulf states. And so I think when the Chinese go to the Taiwanese and they say, hey, like, let's come up with the deal here. Let's come up with the way that economically this works out for all of us. I think the Taiwanese are going to be much more inclined to take that deal as opposed to saying,

no, I think we'll rely on some of the hardware we've purchased from the Americans or been given from the Americans, and now we're ready to fight a prolonged conflict with China. Whereas a couple years ago, they might have thought, okay, well, if we do that, then we're going to get, you know, a fleet of American military hardware, you know, parked in our backyard that's going to help defend us. They know that that's probably not going to happen. now because we're stretched too thin, but also even if it did, just the limitations that we've put on display for the world of our $1.5 trillion military has really exposed us and anybody that we're trying to bring over to our side with just military, you know, military might or a security guarantee. So it's not that we're so much worried about Taiwan getting militarily taken over

by China. We're more worried that they're going to slip into China's sphere of influence because they know that we can't really defend them. Is that relatively right? Yeah, that would be my big concern right now. Yeah, all right, that makes sense. Now in terms of the Gulf states, yeah, they learned a lesson, don't have American bases, it makes you more vulnerable, not less vulnerable, America can't defend you, and by the way, does it has no interest in defending you, will be obsessed with defending Israel instead. They learn that lesson the hard way, but is it intractable at this point?

So UAE is so enmeshed with Israel, I don't know that they could ever get out, the Saudis, the Moroccans, so many of those countries, Jordan, are pretty much run by Israel. Can they extract themselves from Israel and the U.S. and go into different relationships and partnerships? Or is that basically too late at this point? I don't think it's too late. And I think a lot of this is already happening behind the scenes. I think the Emirates might be the exception because, like you said, they're pretty intertwined with the Israelis. And they're also pretty aggressive against the Iranians on their own.

So, but the rest of the Gulf states, I really think that they are hedging. I think that they saw the Americans, we can't defend them. And so I think that they will tell us what we want to hear to our faces. But I believe because they live in the region, they've already got relationships that they've been keeping, you know, on the back burner. I think that those relationships are going to start to slowly sort themselves out. I think a big myth we have here in America is that we tell ourselves we have to be there. Like if we're not there as the superpower, then everything.

is just going to, you know, you know, explode and turn into chaos and terrorism. I don't believe that to be true. I think that these countries, these states, these groups of people have been able to live with each other long before America showed up to call the shots. And I think whenever it is that we're done with this, that will take place. Iran is already emerging as a regional power. Iran's going to be a regional power. I think the countries in the region are starting to recognize that as well. And we can fight a long and bloody protracial. war that's going to be horrible for us and then come to the same conclusion, or we can just accept that new reality now and focus on what's actually important to us for the region.

If we really look at what's important to the American people from the Middle East, it's keeping the Straits of Hormuz, the Bob Al-Mandib open so that we can ship energy out of there and so there isn't massive energy crises or spikes in the energy market. That's really the main issue. And then we need to have decent relationships with everyone there, sort of a genuine terrorist threat, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, et cetera, pops up and they intend to heart. harm us here in America, that we can partner with someone there and we can get heads up. We can do intelligence sharing and limited counterterrorism.

That's really it. That's the only thing that we should be worried about right now. And if President Trump would just focus on those things, we would be able to really advance, you know, the agenda of the American people. But unfortunately, as you've pointed out, we keep listening to the Israeli lobby. And the Israelis want us engaged fighting Iran in a long and brutal conflict for as long as it takes to overthrow that regime. And the Israelis don't care if that takes 20, 30 years.

They don't, they don't care. As long as there's a bloody conflict going on where we're fighting, we're bleeding, we're paying. And Iran can't actually go on the offense against Israel. The Israelis and their surrogates in America are happy with that. Yeah. And by the offense, of course, it's actually defense of Palestinians and Gaza and Lebanese and southern Lebanon. And that would prevent Israel from taking more land for greater Israel. And obviously, they can't counten instead.

Last military question. Have drones just fundamentally changed warfare going forward? And so should we rethink our entire military strategy given that really we end up war with almost any country, they're going to drone the hell out of us? And then what's the point of all of our sophisticated equipment? Yeah, 100%. I mean, look, for us to not have seen this from how involved we were in Ukraine,

but shame on us, a lot of people should be losing their jobs right now because they didn't predict how warfare has changed. But the problem is Washington, D.C. is ran by these, by in large, the defense industrial base, the military industrial complex. It's ran by these big defense companies that make a lot of money on selling aircraft carriers, you know, battleships, destroyers, Abrams, battle tanks, these big weapon systems. And so we haven't updated that whatsoever to the new battlefield. And so we do need to look at the way that we fund, the way that we man, train, and equip our entire military. and it's not going to cost as much money. We're going to need a lot more redundant systems.

And then we're also going to need to understand that we really just can't go marching in to different countries. We had a hard enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan with just simple IEDs. But the drones have completely changed the game for smaller, less powerful countries to defend their own borders and for them to conduct attacks.

Same thing with the ballistic missile game. I mean, we can't even get the vast majority of our ships close to Iran because we're worried about their ballistic missile capability. And the way that this war has emboldened, the Iranians, as you pointed out. Now the Iranians can act in a defensive manner. They can go on the offense now to defend their proxies in Hezbollah, whereas before they had to keep all that support kind of covert, kind of clandestine, they had to sneak around. Now, because they've been empowered and they've been emboldened, they have this ballistic missile capability and this drone

capability. They can say, hey, now we're going to call some shots here. If you mess with southern Lebanon and you mess with Hezbollah, we're going to come after you. And now you're not just dealing with guys of RPGs or guys with Katusha Rock. Now you're dealing with the threat of ballistic missiles raining down on you. So the ramifications from this war, again, I think we've just started to scratch the surface on. And drones, ballistics, that's changing the game entirely. And I guarantee you that there's gonna be a lot of people fighting that in Washington, D.C. because those weapon systems are much cheaper to manufacture than an armada of ships or, you know, a division of tanks.

Yep. Now, the final question is the hardest one, which is where do you think Trump lands at the end of all this? of all this. I mean, I know no one knows, and he probably doesn't even know, but, you know, he says, you know, annihilation, decapitation, World War II, then he turns around, says they're smart, we're going to negotiate, everything's going to be fine. Today, Scott Besson is saying a deal is imminent. The markets are ecstatic. They skyrocket back up. What's your sense here? What's his final decision? Do we go in and do a giant attack possibly including ground troops, or does he sign a peace deal and get out?

I'm very concerned because President Trump has it in his head that he needs like one of two things to get out of here. He either needs a military victory. And I think even he knows that that just isn't feasible because he tried that at the beginning of the war. That's why we had the MOU. That's why we've had all the pauses. He knows he can't get a military victory the way that we're fighting right now. He doesn't want to take any more losses. But also then he's blocked because in his own head, he wants like a piece of paper.

he wants a declaration he wants a signed deal from the iranians and i just don't think the iranians are going to give this to him had we not killed the supreme leader uh i think that this would have been possible however we killed the supreme leader there was a rally around the flag effect we did the tragic strike of the little girl's school and so now you have the iranian people many of whom probably really didn't like the regime before this war started they are now galvanized they are emboldened they are not going to let any of the moderates inside of iran cut a deal with us i just i don't see that happening, that the Iranians give us the deal that we want. So what President Trump needs to do is he needs to have the clarity that he had briefly this weekend, whoever he spoke to

this weekend that got the big strike called off. I hope he keeps talking to whoever that was, whether that was someone in the Gulf or someone else. And he just goes one step further. He says, we're just going to remove ourselves from the situation. And then we're going to quietly use sanctions relief as a tool to get the Straits of Hormuz open and kind of sort things back out quietly. But if he remains stuck in this situation where he wants the Iranians to give him something, that's just not going to happen. And I fear right now the Iranians are deliberating and saying, you know what, are we going to wait around for this guy to kind of jerk us around again and to attack us when we're supposed to be negotiating? Because we've already burned through a bunch of

that goodwill. And the Iranians have shown that they are willing to go on the offense, like when they did the strikes against Jordan with the ballistic missiles. And so I think there's two schools of thought in Iran right now, unfortunately. One is, to slowly strangle the Straits of Hormuz, the Bob al-Mandib, and to make us feel the pain here at the pump back home and domestically and politically that will hurt Trump. But then I think there's also a lot of other guys in Iran right now, probably the IRGC, a lot of their military folks are saying, enough of this. If we don't punch these guys back hard right now, they're going to keep coming. Let's bring on the big fight. Let's hit them. Let's hit them hard. Let's make them try and put boots on the ground. And let's actually fight them. Let's have the fight right now. I don't think there's anybody seriously advocating to give President Trump a deal. So it's going to take it. him, you know, kind of sobering up and stepping back and saying, like, I've just got to walk away from this entire thing. I fear that he can't do that because I think if he could do it, he would do

it by now. I pray that I'm wrong. If he says I'm leaving tomorrow, then, you know, I will give him, I'll give him a lot of credit because if right now, if President Trump says we're leaving right now and this whole thing, you know, it didn't work out the way I wanted it to, and I'm not going to take the bait that many, most American presidents have taken since the end of World War II. We tend to double and triple down on foolish wars like we did in Vietnam, like we did on the war on terror, even when the leaders realize that it's futile and we shouldn't be continuing to burn lives, we have a bad, bad habit of doubling and tripling down on failure with like the gamblers fallacy, the sunk cost fallacy. If President Trump can extract himself from that trap,

I think he does deserve a lot of credit. I'm skeptical just because of all the different pressure systems that are around him from the Israeli lobby and from the warhawks. But that's kind of the decision he has to make. He has to do it on his own. He has to make the decision to leave. otherwise we're getting sucked further into this. So Joe, I'm forced to ask another question because you said something surprising there. So you don't think the Iranians will give them any like signed agreement because they've agreed to get rid of their non-existent nuclear weapons program half a dozen times already. They've agreed to open up the straight of hormones under some circumstances half a dozen times already.

So to me that seems like a really easy deal. And Iran doesn't lose anything from that deal, especially if they get the three billion from the Gulf and the sanctions relief. And I would say further, if I'm on Iran's side, I just got to get America to leave. And then if Israel wants to keep going, yeah, okay, now we could reengage with Israel without America involved. So that's why I'm a little bit surprised that they wouldn't sign anything. You think even under those circumstances, they're not likely to give us a deal we can sign?

I think if we unfreeze the assets up front, which I don't know, I don't think President Trump politically can do that. I think he might as well just do. I think he might as well get our guys out then unfreeze the assets if they agree to, you know, take the minds of the Straits of Formuz, et cetera. The last time at the MOU, when we didn't unfreeze the assets right away, we let the Iranians get all the oil that they had already preloaded on the water. We let them get that out of the Straits of Hormuz.

And so that was a big cash payday for the Iranians, several billion. I don't remember off the top of my head. They don't have the oil on the water. right now. So us just simply removing the blockade is not a good incentive for the Iranians. And I don't think they would take that. I think you're right. If we said, hey, we will now unfreeze all the assets, then I think the Iranians might be inclined. I just, if President Trump says he's going to do that and sign that, he is going to take a lot of flack from, you know, the lobby that will turn up their efforts to say that, you know, he just gave Iran a worse deal than the JCPOA. They know how to

play to President Trump's ego. Because if he signs something like that, they're going to say it's way worse the JCPOA because on paper it would give up more money than the JCPOA did. So short of that, I just don't think a deal exists. The deal that Trump wants on paper that Trump would find acceptable, I don't think the Iranians are even really willing to meet him halfway because they can't, because of what we did to the Supreme Leader and because of, you know, Manab, the little girl's school and the fact that we've been the aggressor on multiple occasions. All right, that sounds depressing. Okay, let's see how it turns out. Let's hope for the best.

So when we come back, we're going to ask Joe about a potential third party with Tucker Carlson, Tom Massey, Marjor Taley, Taylor Green, and Joe Ken. Is that going to happen? We'll tell you when we return. Let's go to our members on tyt.com. Electic, eclectic rights in high, all fingers crossed. I'm ready to say, down goes APEC, down goes APEC tonight if Haley Stephen loses. Yeah, I don't want to jinx. anything, we don't know for sure, but if she loses and Abdul wins, it is going to be festive

at the TYT studios. I'll tell you that right now. Bloded ego, they've spent an ungodly amount of money there. We'll talk about a little bit later in the show. Israel's bloated ego says Israel's intel is called propaganda. We do have ultimate leverage over Israel, but are conveniently refusing to use it. We need to cut Israel off totally immediately to save ourselves and the rest of the planet, I don't, and I don't think anybody else should give a crap what happens to Israel anymore. I think everything you said is super obvious except to people in Washington. Everybody in media would find what you said outrageous and 98% of Americans would find it eminently reasonable.

And the media figures claim, I don't know how we could ever let, you know, put pressure on Israel. I don't know, take their money away. They're like, oh no, that would be anti-Semitic to not give all of your money to Israel. So there's just a bunch of liars. Everybody else realizes what's going on. See Andrews 22 says, happy Tuesday, TYT family. All the love from the mountains.

Really trying to get caught up on the news after the forest fires, the flooding. And just really not liking the state of our country, L.O.L. Hope everyone's healthy, safe, and having a great day. Well, that's the situation we're all in. Nothing ever helps you guys. We're all obsessed with what's going to help Israel. All right. We'll be right back.

All right, back on TYT, Jank Huger, Joe Kent, with you guys, former national counterterrorism director, and also commander Cody. Who's our commander there? Somebody who just joined and became a young tourist member at t.com slash join. You guys are part of the show, and we love that. Let's go to the next story. Extraordinary photograph that emerged over the weekend, and you were in this picture. It was at Tucker Carlson's home.

You're in there with Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey, Tucker. What was this? There is word that you're all planning, as Marjorie Talley Green put it, a new political movement. Could this involve establishing a new party? So that was yesterday. Today we're back together again on the Young Turks that appears Morgan. So Joe, tell us, could it potentially be a new third party? Certainly could.

I mean, when I got together with Tucker, with Thomas Massey, Marjorie Taylor Green, as we were just kind of comparing notes, most of us came. the conclusion that most Americans that we talk to, they're sick of the Republicans, they're sick of the Democrats. Now, most of us, you know, have been in Trump world for quite some time. All of us kind of had our own, you know, break, to put it politely, with the Trump administration. And even a lot of, like, hardcore Trump supporters right now, they feel very betrayed. I mean, one of the core tenets of President Trump's agenda was no more endless wars.

We felt, I mean, I became a Trump supporter in 16 when Trump went after Jeff Bush on the debate stage because I served and fought in Iraq, lots, lots of friends there, we have all come to our own conclusions that, look, this is not working. And the confines of the traditional Republican Party, the traditional Democrat Party, most people are just sick of that. And so we do think that there is, I would say from, you know, a lot of your viewers, from people who find themselves, you know, more on the left, people who find themselves more on the right, we don't think the current political system is working just because of the results on the ground. No matter who we vote for, we get another war in the Middle East.

No matter who we vote for, APAC and these major donors, most of whom most Americans don't even know, they dictate the policy that sends our best young men and women off to go fight and die in foreign battlefields. They make our taxes go up, and then they give us nothing back in return, but more debt and more wars. And so I do think there is a growing hunger in this country

to have a very basic and very simple agenda that says that we're not going to get involved in our foreign wars. We're not going to let foreign lobbies dictate our foreign policy, and we're going to address the needs of the American people. So that was the gist of what we were discussing there, and how that's going to look in the future. There's a lot more nuts and bolts work that needs to be done there, because, you know, as I think you understand,

running as a third-party candidate is challenging, not impossible, but it is very challenging. But that's kind of the consensus that we came to that the current system just simply doesn't work, and we have to find something new to save our country. So speaking of our audience, we're actually asking our audience both on t.com and on our YouTube channels post section. Should Tucker Carlson, Joe Camp, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Tom Massey form an independent third party that is truly America first? Just yes or no?

I'm curious what our audience is going to say about that. But to your point, Joe, let me skip ahead the graphic six here. Let me show you the favorable and unfavorable for the Republican and Democratic parties. They're actually very similar. is 58 to 40 and 59 to 39 in the two different parties, nearly identical. And in the old days, it would have been 58% favorable, 40% unfavorable, but now it's reversed. It's 58% unfavorable for the Republicans and 59% unfavorable for the Democrats. So, and now 45% of voters are independents.

They're larger than the Republican or the Democratic parties. Almost never talked about mainstream media. Mainstream media loves the fake fights of the unit party and how they all somehow magically come to the same conclusion as Joe pointed out there. But Joe, if you guys did this party, would it be just for the presidential elections or could there be other seats that you guys are on for? I think there definitely could be other seats. I think focusing, though, actually on the executive branch is probably the most pressing issue because the president. president has the most control over our foreign policy, all the other issues that the uniparty likes us to fight about, the president actually doesn't have a lot of unilateral authority over.

When you start talking about the social issues that divide America, when you start talking about the more local issues, you've got a lot of control at the state level, for sure. But then you've also got to deal with the House and the Senate. This is why I think a lot of presidents do get wrapped around the axle with foreign policy because anywhere else they want to work, especially in the domestic space, they have to get the consensus of the House, of the Senate, of the states, etc. But then when they go over to foreign policy, they're essentially the king of the world. And that's why the foreign lobbies and the military industrial complex spend so much money lobbying the president on his foreign policy.

And so I think if we started with the executive branch with the presidential election in 2008 and we started forming a broad coalition that doesn't agree on everything, doesn't agree on social issues, doesn't agree on a lot of domestic issues. But we agreed, we're done with the foreign wars, we're done with the foreign lobbying, we're going to work together to do what's right for the American people. I do think we'd have a real chance of putting the Republicans and the Democrats to a side and just focus on this issue. Because, you know, every president says they're going to do all these different things on the domestic side. You know, a lot of people on the MAGA base right now are complaining why President Trump's domestic policies haven't been addressed. And I can tell you why,

because we've spent all of our time, money and effort over on these wars in the Middle East. and it's been the same for multiple presidents over and over again. So I think starting with the presidential run in 2028, that broad coalition, and I think that broad coalition already exists. There was a lot of crossover between Bernie Sanders and between Donald Trump. I've had people point out that I voted for Bernie Sanders at one point in time. And they're like, but then you were a Trump guy. And I'm like, actually, do you realize how much similarity there was between what Bernie Sanders was saying

and what Donald Trump was saying on the stump at the end of the day? because they were both anti-establishment. They both wanted us out of the foreign wars. They wanted to put the American worker first. So I do think there's a lot of potential there. And I think that could eventually spiral down to other down-ticket seats as well. But I think starting with the 2028 to ensure that we get out of the foreign wars is a good starting point. Yeah.

And obviously, I think one of them meant it and the other one didn't. And the proof is a little bit in the pudding. But that's water under the bridge. Now we're going to the future. And I've got some tough questions about that in a sec. But first, just a couple of quick ones here. Who called the meeting? We'd all been texting each other for quite some time and having phone conversations or seeing each other in passing.

We said, hey, let's pick a date. I don't remember exactly who that was. I think we all just decided, hey, Tucker's got a great place up in Maine. And if he'll have us, let's go up there. So we basically, between myself, Marjorie and Thomas, we just kind of invited ourselves over to Tucker's house. and he's a gracious enough host that he fed us dinner and facilitated the conversation. So was there any conversation about who would lead the party? Not quite yet.

I mean, we're going back and forth. And I'd say all of us at one point in time told Tucker he needs to run. And Tucker's been pretty public that he's not going to run. So we all made our pitch to Tucker as to why he should run. And hopefully he wakes up one day and Tucker says he's going to run. I would fully support that. But right now he was mostly just on how we need to. work to build a broader coalition and then look at is it feasible to actually do a third political

party could we get on the ballot in all 50 states because i just remember uh the the kennedy campaign had some real issues of even getting ballot access just a couple years ago so i think the we know conceptually where we're at in terms of like could we put together a movement i think we really could because i think there is a hunger for it in the country but then once we get that movement established would we be, you know, picked apart by procedure and not even be able to get someone on the ballot? Does it make more sense than to run as an insurgent candidate in one of the major political parties? That's the stuff that we're trying to figure out right now. Yeah, okay, that makes sense.

So look, conventional wisdom is to get on the ballot in all 50 states, even if you were able to jump through all the bureaucratic hurdles, which I think that if you put enough effort and money behind it, you probably could, will take at least 10 to 20 million. These days, probably closer to 20 or beyond. So is the plan to raise that from the, if you guys do it from the grassroots? Because on the left, it would be kind of obvious. Our insurgents are not just against APAC,

but against all corporate PAC money. So I don't know if you guys discuss that at all about taking or not taking corporate PAC money and leaning on grassroots or not. We all know, especially, you know, I've ran for Congress unsuccessfully, and Thomas and Margie have been there, we know that the corporate pack money, especially A-PAC, etc., that's how they get you.

I mean, that is how the lobbies end up owning so many of our elected officials. So we all definitely recognize that there is a lot of power in the grassroots. We wouldn't have as much money as anyone in the establishment, but that's okay. We could use social media. There's platforms like yours right here talking to you on the Young Turks. Tucker's got a huge platform. I mean, Marjorie has a pretty huge platform. Thomas does now as well.

So we think that nowadays, with the environment on social media, with unconventional media, we think that we could raise it all from the grassroots. And I think we would have to stick to that commitment because the second you start taking the corporate pack money, then you get across the finish line. But what was it all for? You're not truly in charge anyways.

So I think raising the money from the grassroots and then leveraging, filling in the gaps in money with the tools of social media and having a legitimate grassroots campaign to get us over the finish line as opposed to raising, you know, a billion dollars. That's the way we'd have to go to stay true to the movement. So Joe, any conversations about one of the toughest issues? How do you appeal to the left? Obviously, we've got some significant disagreements, LGBTQ rights, abortion, you know, all the social issues that we've all been fighting over for the last, you know, many decades,

probably our whole lives. So any strategy on how to get passed on an appeal to the left? I think it's, especially for the presidency, I think it is having a very, very simple platform. And it's acknowledging upfront. Like, we are going to disagree on a lot of domestic policy and a lot of social issues. At the end of the day, the president can talk a lot about all those things, but he really doesn't have a lot of power. We do agree that we don't want Israel dictating our foreign policy. We don't want any more foreign wars. We don't want to have to run a massive empire all over the rest of the world.

And so we build a broad coalition that says we agree on these things. And then from there, when we go to make any kind of decisions that are going to affect the divisive issues, that it's going to be more of an open discussion. And we're going to keep the presidency, the executive branch, focused on ensuring that we have the space because we're not involved in all these different foreign wars. We have the space and we have the resources back here in America so that we can sort out all those other domestic issues, relatively down ballot, essentially. So those other issues would be handled in the House, would be handled in the Senate, they'd be handled at the state level. Therefore, if you built this very, very simple platform, but a broad coalition, people could vote top ticket, you know, for the whatever it is, the independent party that wants to keep us out of the foreign wars and stop APEC from calling all the shots. But then down ticket, yeah, if abortions are number one issue as a Republican or as a Democrat, as a pro-life or as pro-choice, then that could affect how they're going to vote in the House or the Senate.

I would even say like your educated voter is going to realize that that abortion in particular is probably more of a state issue at the end of the day. But I think if we can just articulate what the president can truly control in a unilateral fashion and where we agree and we focus on that. Because at the end of the day, I think every American right now who's been active politically, they should realize that when you're talking about the presidency, there is no policy but foreign policy. There's a lot of domestic things Obama wanted to do that those of us on the right were like, oh, he can't do that. It's going to be the end of the world. But then when he got into office, he was too busy overthrowing Syria and Libya and expanding the war in Afghanistan to really get any of that accomplished. Same thing with President Trump in this administration. There was a lot of things that MAGA and the right was really passionate about on the domestic end.

They're not getting a lot of those things. What they are getting is another war in the Middle East. So at the end of the day, until we sort that out, all these other issues that, you know, MSNBC and Fox News want us yelling at each other about actually don't matter. So there is one domestic issue that would matter a lot. And even if the president couldn't do something about it directly, he certainly could put an enormous amount of attention on it. How about getting money out of politics? man i mean i think that that's the reason why these special interest groups like apac have so much power is because they can flood the zone of hundreds of millions of dollars that you know an individual candidate simply can't raise and then americans don't understand why regardless who they vote for they get another foreign war uh or our food is poison or or you pick the issue there's

just so much money in politics that's going to be complicated because of you know supreme court rulings but i i think if you are of the mind that a lot of my friends are in And what used to be MAGA or on the right, we understand that money is really what destroyed the MAGA movement for lack of a better explanation or more in-depth explanation. It was the money from the donors that caused President Trump to get us involved in this disastrous war and probably work against other agendas that he campaigned on as well. So I would agree that we need to figure out a way to get money out of the politics. Again, there's an issue there for Supreme Court ruling.

But I think, again, if us and the left agree on that issue that we would be better off having grassroots campaigns and having candidates actually have to get up in front of the people and articulate what their views are, as opposed to who can get the most money to run the most garbage AI slop ads, that our country would be in a much better spot. Yeah, money also destroyed the Democratic Party. And that's why it's got the disapproval ratings that it does because they never do anything because the corporations tell them not to do anything. And then foreign governments tell them, no, focus on us instead of your own citizens. And they listen. Money talks. And so that's been a huge problem. All right.

Final question is a tough one. So what happens to J.D. Vance in this equation? I mean, look, I like J.D. He's in a tough spot. I mean, his name's on the ticket. And he has had to go along with a lot of what's taken place in this administration. And look, at the end of the day, he is going to have to answer to a lot of those same donors. he was on the ticket. And so unless he changes things drastically, which I don't even know if he has

the power to do, at this point, he's still going to be at the mercy of a lot of the people that are still pulling the strings within the Republican Party. And I think this is just some of the trap of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, because if you lock us into this two-party system, you basically have to pick your side and then, you know, you have to go down with the ship. And that's the position that JD's in right now because President Trump put the ship on the heading, you know, towards the iceberg, for lack of a better metaphor. So look, I personally, I personally like JD. I think he, by and large, has tried to do the right thing in this. But again, he's had to get out there and he's had to advocate for this war. And so he is still

associated with it. And this war is going to have, unfortunately, this war is going to have horrible ramifications to what degree we fully don't know. We're already starting to feel a lot of those effects. And so it's going to be very hard for, you know, J.D. Vance or anybody else who state in the administration to come back out in 2028 and say, trust me this time, guys. Because I just don't think that that's going to be a compelling message to a lot of the first time Trump voters, to the groundswell that President Trump got in 2024 that had him win the popular vote and the electoral college. You know, people aren't going to go with retread promises like, no, no, I mean it this

time. I was kind of against that stuff, but this time you can trust me. I just, even with, you know, a guy like Vance, who I like, I just don't think that's feasible in 2008. Interesting. So it sounds like you guys have kind of given up on JD Vance at this point. I know all of us still personally like him. And I know he's trying to do the right thing. So I wouldn't say we like we fully gave up on him. He's a captive of the two-party system right now. And he's unfortunately a captive of what MAGA has become. So, you know, that's just kind of where we're at.

Okay, that makes sense. All right, guys. So I've got to get, I'm going to get rid of the next ad break because I don't want to lose show here. We've got a limited amount of time. And I'm going to tell our producer, we're saying. skipping ahead to the D block, because I want to get Joe's opinion on this, because it's really interesting. So let's go to this next story. My greatest concern right now is that the state of Israel is losing support all across the political spectrum here in the U.S. And I believe that- Why does that concern now? I think we're leaving a vacuum on the left in the progressive wing to speak to this criticism. in a way that is in line with our values.

Well, that's interesting, Joe. So that's a House candidate in Colorado. She won an improbable victory in the primaries. She's likely going to be the next congresswoman from there. Her name is Mila Curus. But there's a little bit more to it. I want to show you that because it might involve, you know, basically you in a sense.

So let's watch the next clip. I think we're leaving a vacuum on the left in the progressive way. in the progressive wing to speak to this criticism in a way that is in line with our values, to where people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who are raging anti-Semites and white supremacists and Christian nationalists are pretending to care about Palestinian safety, when really it's just masking their overt hatred for Jewish people. You're singing my song. And if we are not presenting our vision of what we believe in with our democratic values that extends not just to the Palestinian people but to the Israeli people and to the Jewish people, you know, that land has a distinctly Jewish character, a distinctly Christian character, a distinctly Muslim character.

It's a land that has seen bloodshed for centuries. And we, I think, are doing a disservice to the people of that region by not offering our progressive vision. in a in a way that isn't immediately swatted down as, you know, bigoted or anti-Semitic. And that's going to require a lot of conversations, a lot of hard conversations. There will be things that we learn, things that there will be missteps and mistakes made. But as long as we're continuing that conversation, we are at the very least presenting an actual vision in line with our values that can combat and hopefully silence a lot of the anti-Semitic. that's coming from the right, because we're leaving that vacuum wide open right now if we are afraid to have these conversations. Okay, two different things there. One is she ran a very pro-Palestinian anti-Israel campaign,

and now she seems to have completely changed the way that she's framing the issue. She backpedaled on that. I'll get to that in a second. But the second thing was directly related to someone you spent the weekend with Tucker Carlson there. It seemed like Joe, she was saying those of us on the left opposed to Israel are doing it for the right reasons, but those of you on the right that are opposed to funding Israel more, their funding of their wars, or doing it for the wrong reasons because you guys are anti-Semitic and you're pretending to care. Well, how do you respond to that? Yeah, I just think that's such an old talking point at this point. I just think that that would have worked a couple years ago saying that, hey, anyone who even brings up a concern with Israel's influence on our foreign. foreign policy is only doing so because they're they're deeply anti-Semitic and i kind of feel like she's insulting um her own voters she's saying hey you know democrats i think you guys are still dumb enough

to fall for this whole like white nationalist uh anti-semitic insult they i'm you know she's just assuming that every democrat voter is going to say well i can't be with the racist i can't be of the anti-semitic so therefore i'll do whatever you say when the reality this is my prediction i don't know But I'm guessing that if she appealed heavily to the Democrat base and won the primary because of her stance on, you know, the Israeli lobby and what's taking place in Gaza, she won based on that. That was probably a huge reason. And then she probably had the D-Triple C come to her and say, hey, look, the Republicans are going to smoke you because A-PAC is going to pump all the money into the Republicans on the come November. So you better change your tune and you better start making promises. And this speaks to the money in politics that we were just talking about.

So scaring her with the general election and all the money that APEC's going to give to the Republicans just got her out there basically to do that struggle session to say that, well, you know, you better not go against Israel. Otherwise, you'll be an anti-Semite or a racist or white nationalist or whatever. Yeah, so she did get a lot of flag from the left on that. So that's, you know, the first issue we brought up. So let me be fair to her and give her statement after the interview. So she, you know, went back a little bit on what she said there. and she, who's a graphic five, she put out on X. I fumbled this line plain and simple,

to be clear, my foreign policy priorities ending Israel's occupation, apartheid and genocide in Palestine. I also reject the notion that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and it's important that we distinguish the two in order to combat actual anti-Semitism. I've always been opposed to any form of ethno-s supremacy, and I refuse to vote for any of our tax dollars to go to any government that discriminates on that basis. And obviously Israel does, that's me adding that. I was being asked about rising anti-Semitism in this interview, and I was trying to say that my concern is that while voters across the political spectrum wake up to Israel's atrocities and our government's complicity in it, the Democratic Party is failing to meet this moment.

And when the party refused to lead morally on this issue, they are letting anti-Semites on the right co-opt the movement for Palestinian liberation while giving fodder to A-PAC talking points. So she basically tries to withdraw the first part of the statement about, oh my God, we really got to be most concerned about Israel. She doesn't seem to retract too much that you guys are anti-Semites. So, all right, but Joe, look, there's a real concern on the left that this is all a trick by you guys, you Tucker, Tom Massey, MTG, etc. That, okay, maybe you are against Israel, you agree with us. Maybe you do care about American sovereignty. I think that sounds very believable, incredible.

But that once you're in charge that you guys are going to do, you know, pull the bond. out and go or take the mask off in a Scooby-Doo moment and go, just kidding, we're white nationalists, and that's the direction we're going. So how do you address that concern? You know, I think nowadays with social media, I think people can make their own assessments if they just take a look at the things that, you know, all of us have said in public life. All of us have been in public life for quite some time. I think if they got to know us essentially, they would understand that that's just not true. but also I think this speaks to building a broad political coalition because if the true goal is to break free from the Republican Democrat, you know, false choice, then I think we are all going to have to stick with the things that we agree on.

But then form a coalition where basically there is power sharing where we do say, hey, you know, the Republicans aren't going to get everything they want when it comes to taxes and social issues and neither are the Democrats. We're going to have to compromise on those things. but there is going to be some form of power sharing and some sort of an agreement where we do say, hey, the most important thing is that we get our crazy foreign policy under control so we can sort out the rest of this. We can focus on the things that actually unite us, which I think there's more topics that unite us than there are that divide us.

I think a lot of the division is play acting. And look, there are a lot of social issues that I feel passionately about that people on the left feel passionate about. And we're going to disagree. But at the end of the day, goal is to make sure the person sitting in the White House isn't going to be at the behest of any foreign government, Israel or any others, or the military industrial complex, and the desire isn't to continue to prop up the empire and keep us in these never-ending wars, then I do think

that we can actually build a real winning political coalition that takes the country back. And then, again, by making sure that we get our foreign policy house in order that gives us the space to actually have real debates, real discussions about how. how now we are going to actually fix our country on the domestic end. Yeah, so look, I got one last question for you in this regard. But just from my point of view, this whole calling, oh, we're for Israel, you know, against funding Israel for the right reasons, but the other side is anti-Semites is disgusting. And it's exactly what mainstream media used.

That's why Margaret Hoover jumped in and said, oh, you're singing my song. But she'd sing that song about the left wing too. And not she would. We've seen mainstream media say it about the left wing over and over again, whether it's us, it's Hassan Piker or whoever it might be. So just to use the mainstream and the establishment talking points against either side is not at all helpful to the cause of getting to the right policy on this issue. So I vehemently disagree with her on that. I think it's insulting, it's unnecessary, and I don't think it's true.

I don't think that you guys are like, you know, ha ha, just kidding, it wasn't about Israel. We secretly hate Jews. I've never, I haven't seen that inclination. There's no reason. And it's the same thing they say about us, guys, snap out of it, right? And we can't keep using the talking points of the establishment against one another. Otherwise, we'll never have enough unity to win on this issue. But my point of view on that is clear.

But Joe, even if you get past all of that, right? There is one issue. And even if you say, hey, you know what, on the domestic issues. We're just gonna find a way to leave it aside, let the states handle it, let the Congress fight over, but the executive branch is gonna stay out of it, right? Maybe doable, that's kind of interesting, right? But I think where the rubber hits the road, and I don't know again if you and Tucker and Massey and MTG talked about it over the weekend, is immigration.

So that one's, that was really tough because that's where the executive branch is relevant, right? And it does get to some of these issues in a legitimate way, rather than the, that's the executive branch is relevant, right? the illegitimate way of calling each other's racist or other words that are not helpful, right? So what do you do with the issue of immigration? I mean, look, I think when President Trump won on his platform of actually having American sovereignty, I think there was a lot to that. And again, I think this is where there is some overlap in a lot of the things that Bernie Sanders has been saying for quite some time about how open borders is, you know, essentially a Koch brothers, a corporate scam.

to undercut working class people. So I do think there's a lot of common ground there. There is a lot of details that we do have to work out. Obviously, people on the right, we're not going to want to go back to, you know, the more open borders like Biden had. I don't think most people on the left wanted that either. That's why I think there were so many crossover votes in 2024

in President Trump's favor on the immigration issue. But I do think this is another issue that I don't have all the answers for right now. But I think if we're looking at sovereignty and doing what's right for Americans, citizens that are here right now, especially American workers who are who are having their jobs taken away because it's more profitable for big corporations to bring in, you know, either H-1B visas, for example, or illegal immigrants to do less skilled labor. I do think there is a lot of common ground that we can find right there. So that is an issue that I think if we sat down and

we talked real, real policy, I think we would end up finding more common ground on, but that's something that we probably have to sit down at the table at and kind of hammer out what are what's acceptable for both sides. You know, again, I'll chip in here with with my thoughts on it. Look, we do have some real significant disagreements on social policy issues. But I think the exercise of trying to find common ground could be super interesting. Like if you guys go through with it and you really do reach out to the left, first of all, that instantly eliminates any, positions of, you know, regarding race, et cetera, because you're not going to be able to get anyone on the left if it's, you know, not inclusive on issues of race, gender, identity, etc.

But the parameters of that conversation and how you sort out, how you find common ground, I mean, I don't know that I would support anything like that and the devil's always in the details. And Joe, there's no way of knowing until we actually have those super hard conversations. And are there some red lines that we can't cross or you can't cross or both? But would you almost look forward to that process of trying to sort out those differences? Or is that going to be kind of brutal? I look forward to it because I do think when you sit down with real people and not like talking heads that are reciting partisan talking points. I think we're going to find more common ground.

I just believe that because, you know, we all exist in. this society and we all go through the majority of our day dealing with people who we might not even know what their politics are or we know that we disagree with them and we have members like that in our own families. So I think, you know, there are some hard line issues and there are going to be hard conversations, but I would look forward to it. And I think it'd be healthy for the country. And I think at the end of the day, once we cut through, you know, a lot of the partisan talking points, I do think that we probably would find more common ground. And these issues wouldn't be as explosive as we think that they are.

All right. Super interesting. Joe Kent, former National Counterterrorism Director, um, head in America and left the Trump administration on grounds of principle, opposing the Iran war. Really appreciate you coming on the show and hosting it with me today. And certainly a lot of very interesting and maybe even historic issues that we

covered today. So, uh, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Thanks much for having me. I really appreciate it and thanks for having me as a co-host. Yeah, absolutely. All right, guys, when we return, Elliot Morgan is going to join us. And as we discuss all these really weighty and important issues,

the economy might collapse altogether because of AI. And now one of the wealthiest men in the world is saying, watch out, buckle up, race for impact. This is going to get terrible. So we'll explain that when we return. Hey, Andrew, what's up? Hey, Jank, you ready to make the switch? Yeah, I guess.

I promise it's easy. Universal, basic, and you get income. Yeah, you keep saying that. But you sure I'm gonna have coverage? Of course you will. You think I would have bad service? I'm Andrew Yang, of course I have good service. Alright, let's try.

But I'm so bad at tech, so... Wait. Should I do this thing of the hashtag business? Andrew, you're still on, right? Yep. Oh, I see it. You create it. Oh, wait, I don't see.

Oh, yeah, I do see it. Here we go. I actually did not realize that. that you'd be searching in real time, but I love it. How much do people actually normally say? Yeah, the average American is going to save between $500 and $1,000 a year on Noble. Yeah, no. You know what I'm going to do, Andrew?

Are you ready to become a Noble member? The two buttons are do it and go back. There's no going back. We're doing it. We're doing it. Here we go, Noble Mobile. Oh, my gosh, I just called you and are you now on Noble and not Verizon? Why didn't you tell me it was going to be super easy?

I know, man. Now you just stay away from your phone and watch the money roll in. I can do that. You got a phone, yeah. Jank, you still there? Andrew? Oh, well, at least I got an Oblemone. It was really just one take.

The whole thing is wild. It's in my shoes. Hi, I'm Brett Ehrlich with Breaking News with Brett Ehrlich. This is Breaking News with Brett Ehrlich. Hi, Red Ehrlich here. According to EPA head Scott Pruitt, climate change is not happening. happening. He cited a meme on Facebook he saw. When pressed to back up this source, he said

it must be accurate because the watermark said it was made by a scientist. So your move, truth. At TYT, our mission is to boldly pursue truth, challenge the establishment, and drive positive change. At a time when corporate capture of our media, our government, and our politics is nearly absolute. Everyday working people need a champion to fight for them and a push back against the powerful interests that threaten our democracy itself. At TYT, we're proudly progressive and call out corruption and duplicity wherever we see it, from Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else. And unlike mainstream news media outlets, we're not beholden to corporate advertisers to defense contractors, to Wall Street, or to Big Pharma. We only have to answer to our

audience and for nearly two decades. We've accomplished that by delivering honest, timely, and insightful perspectives on the day's news without fear or favor or concern for whose toes we might step on or which powerful elites we might offend. And while we're super serious about the news, we also manage to do it in a way that is fun and lighthearted. We can do this together and serve our audience. And yes, have fun doing it. People have died. for us to have the chance to vote. So there's just the beginning of a much bigger fight over the president's desire to interfere in the midterm elections. He's deploying multiple strategies using every tool available and testing out each one of them.

You're damn right. We're going to have ICE surround the polls come November. It's to stop people from voting. Tucker Carlson, a terrible friend. Back on the Young Turks, the online news show, Jake Huger, Captain Morgan's in the house. Elliot Morgan's here. And we've got Sneakers, 1966, too.

Thank you for joining through t.com slash join. Anybody who's a young turks member is one of us. We're not the Young Turks, you're the Young Turks, so I love this community. All right, so we've got a lot to get to, Elliot. Let's start with this one. Let me start with the thing that I'm most curious about because I sat here with an investicle Jeremy Grantham, who you might know.

He told me that we're staring in the face of an AI bubble and therefore a economic collapse potentially. If you look at the data, it would be compatible with history for the peak to be very soon. Everything is in line. This is, I think, the biggest investment bubble in American history. What's your perspective on that? He's right. I don't want to jump to conclusions as much as I want to explain reasonings that lead up to conclusions.

I'm at a stage of my life that I want to help people understand cause-effect relationships. So that's Ray Dalio. He is one of the best investors in world history, one of the wealthiest men alive. He also predicted the 2008 economic collapse. And he's now warning, watch out, buckle up, brace for impact, because this bubble's going to blow. So, Elliot, there's a lot more where that came from. Tell us all about it. Yeah, we're going to dive into more of Dahlia's predictions in just a second. But first, we should probably check in on how the market is actually doing right now. So the Trump administration, including Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, are stating that a deal with Iran is within reach, which might sound kind of familiar.

But as it turns out, investors are literally buying what the Trump administration is selling. So both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average topped prior records. The NASDAQ 100 rose about 3%. Brent crude fell below $80. And a financial markets economist also stated, from watching the stock market zoom higher over the past three sessions, you wouldn't think there's anything wrong with the world. I could probably name one or two things wrong with it.

But now let's hear more from Dahlia. And first, we're going to watch them explain exactly how these bubbles actually start. What they call a bubble is when the price goes up a lot and companies do very well. And then it collapses. And that has implications for the economy. It has implications for the markets. Like 1929 bubble, okay, or the 2000 bubble, okay, which is the dot-com bubble. Does it impact real people as well?

Because you said the economy. Did 1929 bubble bursting impact real people? Yes, the Great Depression follow. Because what happens is there's a new technology that comes along that's revolutionary. The dot-com bubble, which was 2000, all the stuff that we have that's wonderful new technology. People get into that technology. They say that's miraculous. I can bet on that.

I'm sure it's going to be successful. And then they bet on it. And sometimes they borrow money to bet on it. and they lose sight that the price of it matters. So it goes up and up and it's everybody's thing, you know. Okay, so now we understand a little bit more about how market bubbles start. Now let's learn how they actually end up bursting. Wealth is not the same as money.

So you see a lot of people getting wealthy, but you can't spend the wealth. You have to sell the wealth to get money because you can only spend money, right? So what happens is when they need money for one reason or another, tax is change or interest rates go up and so they have to pay their debt service and so on. There is a pricking of the bubble so that what happens is it falls. And when that happens, people lose money. And as they start to lose money, the process works in reverse because when they made a lot of money, they have a lot of collateral, right? They can go borrow money because they're worth a lot. And that compounds on its way up.

And then when it comes down the other way, it works the other way. Okay, now you got to pay your debt. And so then you have to start to sell assets. And then there's less demand for things, right? So there's less demands because if you're losing money because you put some money in the stock market and the company and so on, you're going to spend less. And as you spend less, then somebody else's income goes down, right? Yeah, Dahlio also pointed out another big problem to worry about, which is that these bubbles are especially worrisome, and this should definitely sound familiar, during times of extreme wealth inequality. We also have some other things that are going on that happen around the same time.

A big gap between the rich and the poor, and which also means the left and the right, the politics of it, right? Just as we have now. When you have the downturn, then you have people. at each other's throat. So if we take politics, what you see is this, that they don't have enough money. The governments don't have enough money. We have big budget deficits. Okay, where do you get the money from in order to pay those bills? The UK has had, I think, six out of the last seven years, there's been a new prime minister. And because there's not enough money for the government, and so what you start to see is people come in with their claims, but there's this, how do we get the money? And then people run who have money, they say.

say, I don't want to be in this tax zone that's going to be. And then they leave. And so there's a domestic political problem that is not people compromising the same way they used to compromise. Right. Okay, scary stuff. So, Jenk, I want to get your thoughts here. But as I understand it, only about the, I think, top 10% of U.S. households own the vast majority of equities. And so it can be kind of easy for people to just let this stuff go in one ear and out the other. But like Dalliope, pointed out this stuff has affected working class people historically. So what do you make of all of this? Yeah. So I think that the top 10% of about 90% of the stock market.

So, but the 10% affects the rest of us through our 401ks and pensions that invest into the stock market. And obviously any amount that an average person loses is much more devastating than even if a super wealthy person lose a quarter of their wealth. they're still going to have an enormous amount of money. But much more importantly, the amount of jobs you lose and how it devastates the economy is what's the most important. Well, that's about 12, 13 million jobs in the 2008 crash. And they weren't banker jobs. The bankers got bailed out and paid their bonuses.

And so it was actually the average guy who suffered the most, of course, as always, right? So now, Elliot, I also interviewed Ray Dalio a while back a couple of years ago. You could find it up on YouTube. And one of the things I asked them that compounds this problem was, okay, yes, there were different times that it looked like the economy was on the ropes who couldn't get out. But then the Federal Reserve would normally come in. And in the beginning, they just printed money, and that magically got them out of a lot of these buses, but you can't print too much money.

And then they started buying toxic assets that happened in 2008. And then it happened a couple of times after that as well. And we don't really know what that means. They buy it from banks and some of it is worth some money and then they wind up selling it. And then the Fed makes a profit, which doesn't make any sense at all. But some of it is actually toxic and they can't sell it or they do sell it at a great loss. In which case, the Federal Reserve has lost money. Again, this is just nonsensical talk.

They're just doing things that don't make any sense. And it's not just me saying, it's Ray Dalio, again, one of the greatest investors in world history saying it. And then when I asked them about it, okay, but what happens in the next crisis? And here we are on the edge of the next crisis. And he said, I think we're out of bullets. I don't think the Federal Reserve can just buy their way out of this situation. And so, yeah, if we're all right about this bubble, and by the way, Elliot, it should be noted, Wall Street, almost everyone on Wall Street disagrees with us. So whether it's Ray Dalio, some of the top experts in the world or us here that are not in the financial world, but are looking at it and going, that looks

mental, right? When I talk to reporters and analysts inside Wall Street, they're in their own bubble. And what they're saying is, and this is usually what they say right before it collapse, no, this one's different. It can't go wrong. And I'm like, oh, God, oh, no, okay. So I ask, why can't it go wrong? They say, no, no, this time there's just too much money.

People have too much money, and they don't know where to put it. So where else are they going to put it? I'm like, I don't know. Treasuries under their pillow, real estate. There's a lot of different places you could put money if there's a crisis. So I think they're in La La Land. Maybe we're all wrong in Wall Street's right. But yeah, if it turns out that Dahlio's right and some of the top experts that are

equally waving giant red flags are right, yeah, we will have a massive economic collapse and it'll cost an unreal number of jobs. jobs. Yeah, I mean, I'm a millennial, and I feel like I, it's like a rerun, and I've seen this program before, and it's not my favorite. And I also think that when there's all this talk going on right now about, you know, which I know we're going to get to in a little bit, but like, why DSA candidates are doing well. And there seems to be this sort of like resurgence of a red scare thing. I think this is a great example of why, because people, especially young people, have watched time and time again, the economy start to just completely fall off the rails,

And then usually, of course, who bails him out is working class people. So it's just kind of exhausting. And I think people have a right to sort of just be like, okay, I'm tired of hearing about how it's going to burst or not burst. How does it affect me? But the reality is it does. And I think it's just kind of wearisome after a while. Yeah, well, look, I think you're right to bring that up because I think there's going to be political consequences too. There's going to be a rage in this country.

And I'm worried it's going to be a rage larger than any we've seen before. Because we've had enough of this. We've seen this now so many times and every time they're wrong and we're right and they tell us in a patronizing way that we're wrong. And by the way, guys, if you're wondering, well, so who's right and who's wrong? Okay, Ray's an amazing investor. He's very forward-looking, but, you know, he's against the consensus on Wall Street. Can the entire consensus be wrong? Well, it's been wrong many times, right?

The entire consensus was wrong in 2008 and in 2000 and in the Great Depression and many other times. So how can you tell who's right and who's wrong? Well, Ray Dalio and Warren Buffett got to be great investors by doing the opposite of conventional wisdom. Why? Because conventional wisdom is very, very often wrong. And Warren Buffett says something really simply. He says, every time he's asked, how did you amass this great fortune and you're just a rando from Nebraska, right? And he said, look, it's actually relatively simple. It's just that people can't get themselves to do it. You buy low, you sell high. But when everybody's selling, everybody panics and nobody buys low, they sell low. And when everyone's buying, like today, nobody thinks, oh, this is too high. They're like,

oh, everybody else is buying and they get FOMO. If you're missing out, I'm going to buy, I'm going to buy, I'm going to buy. And they can't help themselves as human emotions that get involved. So that's why these bubbles get created and that's why they pop. And final thing on this, Elliott is, Ray Dalio said something there that I don't want you guys to sleep on. So when the 2008 crash happened, we were on the air because we're ancient and we've been around forever. We're oldest as old as time. And I spent a solid two years explaining to people to exhaustion. The housing market was the trigger, but collateral was the gun, right?

So if you make a simple bet and you go, okay, I think the chargers are going to win and you have $10 and you bet $10 and you lose it, that's a personal tragedy, but it doesn't affect anything. else. But if you borrowed $10 million to make that betting, you don't have the $10 million, what usually happens, especially in the Wall Street in the financial world, is it creates a series of dominoes, right? And that's why all the banks fell at the same time in 2008. So, and so I don't want to freak you out more, but recently there was a story we covered about they've now loosened the collateral requirements. So don't worry, you could. borrow more and more and leverage yourself up. And when disaster hits, that leverage is going to be the weapon that destroys our economy. Yeah, it makes me feel really good about my student loans.

So I think that's the one silver lining here, I guess. You're going, okay, well, at least everything else is going to tank. So I have nothing to worry about. Great stuff. Well, I mean, look, if you borrowed a lot of money and then you get a massive inflation, Well, one of the upsides will be like, well, sorry. Oops. What can you do? Okay. But please do not plan for that.

No. So but you do have to brace for impact, guys. We are very worried about it. And so I don't know what you can do, but make sure you're prepared because things can get pretty bad. All right. We're going to take a quick break here. We'll be right back with more potentially harmful economic news. All right, let's go to Super Chat.

James Kelly writes in a couple times. Oh, no, one time. And this is the one millionth reason why we need to get money out of politics. I fear that they're looking into Rubio for 2032. Oh, definitely. No, no, the establishment wants Marco Rubio, period, period. Okay. And so they would love like a Pete Buttigieg versus Marco Rubio.

That would be an establishment dream come true. You lose either way. But I think they're mistaken. I don't think the Republicans are going to pick Rubio at all, but we'll see. Make it make sense. Says, well, this is example A, why don't you start a war without congressional approval and public support? Mr. President is, this is what happens when you don't go in with the full weight of the U.S. war machine. Well, the full weight of the U.S. voters and the system that we have is the real issue, in my opinion.

Pakistan American for liberation rights, and I want to ask Joe Kennedy, if he had a chance of look at the U.S. Middle East policy and is it solely driven by Israeli interests? And will recent conflicts lead Arab nations to unite with Iran, ultimately isolating Israel for good? Well, he kind of answered that when he was on. And he said, yeah, they will probably start to back away from us and certainly from Israel, except for United Arab Emirates that's too intertwined. And yes, it is solely driven by Israeli interest. He continues, all these pro-Israel, their anti-Semort word, is just a weaponized tool they used to continue.

to promote anti-Palestine, anti-T-State solution, and directly spreading more Islamophobia, this behavior pattern is clear. He's right about that. That's why you shouldn't use words like that when you're talking about the left or the right. It doesn't help anyone. Woman A-AF on YouTube member section says, few stand on the backs of many, and that happens all the time. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Elliot with you guys. We do have the election coverage that's going to start in half an hour.

We've got five states that are voting. I'll tell you all about it at 8 o'clock. Lockhe Eastern, but the most important race, one of the most important races, honestly, of our lifetime is the Michigan Senate race. Abdul al-Said versus Haley Stevens, America versus Israel, title match. So that's tonight. We do have our A-PAC tiers mug ready to go at shopty.com, but two, two, two, I don't want to jinx it. Hold on. Let's see how it goes. And then I want to tell you about our allies Upwork.

Upwork is a one-stop platform to find hire and pay expert freelancers. across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. So whether you're looking for a job or you're posting a job that your company needs and it's a freelancer job, these are the guys to go to.

We always try to get your sponsors that wind up helping you in your business. So visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com to connect with a top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upw-w-rk.com. All right. So now let's go to our next story and we've got a video for that as well. Why bring pro-arvering to this? He just can't help himself.

Okay. But now we've got a real big issue on our hands. We already bailed out Argentina and their currency. Now we're going to go help the Japanese with their currency. There's good reasons for it, as you're going to see in this segment, but there's also reasons to be concerned. How much can we continue to help others as our situation deteriorates? But if we don't help Japan, we might be in a bind because it might cause our situation

to get worse, not better. So a lot to go over here. Elliot, tell us all the facts. Yeah, great situation all around. So the yen has hit its lowest worth in 40 years. The Japanese government has been doing everything it can to fix the problem, but to no avail. This is because Japan has both a huge debt load, but they also have been spending aggressively. So the United States technically bailed out Japan, but we are also basically bailing out ourselves.

And here's why. So far, Japan's interventions have had limited effect and raised the prospect that Japan might sell significant portions of its large pile of US Treasuries to fund further intervention. Japan is the largest foreign holder of US Treasuries with more than $1.1 trillion in holdings. Now, by selling treasuries, Japan could push down their price, and that could ultimately raise borrowing costs for the US government. Already, the yield on US Treasuries have climbed in recent weeks on concerns about inflation. So if you're scratching your head or dozing off at the mention of yields, let's explain that a little bit further.

So the 30-year treasury yield, which is an indicator of what it would cost the federal government to borrow money for three decades, rose 0.11 percentage points to 5.22% last Wednesday. Its largest one-day increase in more than a year and its highest level since 2007. And higher yields would mean higher borrowing costs across the economy. Also, this is not only about Japan. So moves in the yen also influence other Asian currencies, such as the South. Korean one. So supporting the yen can reduce the risk that other Asian countries would come under intense pressure and need to sell their own dollar reserves to prop up their currencies. Now, a photographer caught a picture of Treasury Secretary Scott Besson's notes, okay, and they indicated that the

US bought five to ten million dollars worth of the yen, but that that has not been confirmed yet, excuse me, billion. And in case you're wondering what our federal debt is looking like at the moment, U.S. debt hit $39.84 trillion and now cost over $1 trillion in annual interest, a figure that is nearly triple 2020 levels, and has surpassed defense spending. That is insane. Things are now so bad that even Steve Bannon is calling out the Trump administration for not fixing the federal debt. The entire effort of Scott Bessent with the Japanese can be bowled down to one thing. We need the Japanese to continue to finance the massive deficits of the United States government. United States government is going to run a $2 trillion deficit this year.

Finally on Bloomberg the other day, they had Wall Street starting to complain about it. I think starting to reach out to the Secretary of Treasury about the unsustainability of these deficits in perpetuity. about the refinancing of the total debt and the financing of these deficits and what it's going to mean, particularly crowding out of capital for other sources. Right now we have the Japanese, I think, on over a trillion dollars, we can't have them dump those treasuries. And guess what? We need them to finance more.

We need them to buy more because the two trillion dollar deficits come from where they come from. the guns and butter strategy. We have, I believe, I say this as a veteran that I consider myself a hawk out of control defense spending. Yep, you could say that. Now, Jank, am I misunderstanding this? It just seems like this in addition to the previous story is more of an indicator that much of our economy is just very fragile. And I think that goes back also to what we were talking about, where people are feeling it in their pocketbooks and they're trying to make ends meet. And then they're turning on the news.

And they're seeing that also the government is needing to kind of bail out some people so that they can't collapse, which would cause us to collapse. So we have to take that money. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul essentially. Am I getting that correct? Yeah, but I think it's worse than that. So I think there's two different issues, right? So there's the imminent collapse that we talked about earlier in the show. And this could add to that. I'll come back and explain that. And then there's the ongoing problem that we have. The ongoing problem we have is this, by, where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is suffering. And so that one is not talked about much in the news because people in Washington, New York are obscenely wealthy. And so almost everybody in media is obscenely wealthy and, well, at least not in digital media, but in television, in other parts of media. So they barely ever interact with real people and the congressmen are the same way, right?

So they keep going, well, what do you mean? And of course, famously Pam Bondi going, Dow's over 50,000. Guys, now the Dow's over 53,000. So the bubble grows and grows. So to them, they don't get it. They're like, my accounts are going up astronomically every year. So they're adding 20% of their wealth, 30% some years, 10%, 35%. So they just keep getting wealthier and wealthier.

Meanwhile, in the real world, nobody can afford a house. We're not getting any of that money. And wages are low. And they've got you working at a place where you could barely survive. And that's how the invisible hand of the market has gotten to a point where corporations have seized all of the power. And they've used it to redirect wealth to the top, to themselves, for their top executives. and for the rest of us, they've got us at substance levels because they feel that it is inefficient to pay you anything more than what you can survive on.

Well, that way you're never going to be able to accumulate enough money to buy a house. You can accumulate enough money to buy a car because they need you to have transportation to get to work, right? But they don't need you to own a house. In fact, if you rent a house, you're more indebted and hence cannot leave your job. If health care is tied to your job, you're more indebted to that. company and cannot extract yourself from that company. All this is designed to give corporations more power, and that has been happening for decade after decade.

So that's the oppression that we all live under. But now added on top of that is this bubble. So in the last segment, we talked about how there's a massive AI bubble and even some of the wealthiest investors in the world are saying, watch out like Ray Dalio, this thing's going to burst. And now you add this story we're doing here. So in good times, if you're flush with cash, for example, in the 1990s, it's not impossible. In the 1990s, we had a great economy that was humming along, and we could bail out Argentina

and Japan and maybe do a war, still get away with it. But now we're at about nearly $40 trillion in debt. And you know, look, Steve Bannon in that clip is generally right. It pains me to say that, but it's true. Was he right in the past or were the Republicans right in the past and war after war after war? No. Now they say, oh, we're sorry about that, but then Trump comes in and does another disastrous war. Yes, he loses a part of his base, but two-thirds of his base is still saying, yeah, pile

up more debt. And then they complain about debt later. I'm glad you mentioned cutting the Pentagon. They never mean it, they never do it, right? But it's good that some of their voters believe that's happening. They say they're going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. They had this whole giant doge thing. And it was a giant scam.

They couldn't find the $35 billion in oil subsidies. That's a robbery. Every year we get robbed of $35 billion and handed to the most profitable companies in the world. And then finally, of course, they do nothing but tax cuts for the rich. Trump added $8 trillion to the debt just on tax cuts for the rich in his two terms alone, let alone everything else and obviously the disastrous wars in the Middle East. come back to Japan on this issue. So look, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, Elliot, as you explained there.

So if we help out the Japanese and Bessent is wrong, and he might not even genuinely believe it. He just might be doing it because he feels like he has to because of the economic emergency that they're in. But if he's wrong about the strength of the yen and it continues to collapse, well, that's going to cause us a lot of problems because we just bought a lot of yen, right? So that's going to add to our economic woes, our budget woes. But if we don't help them with the yen, they're going to have to sell their U.S.

treasuries. They have an enormous amount of U.S. treasuries. And when they do, that affects the market and that affects the price of those treasuries. And now all of a sudden we have to pay more for our debt. So then our debt goes up. So we're damned if we do, damn if we don't, because we put ourselves in a situation where we We already gave all the money to the incredibly wealthy, it's already gone. We already gave it to Israel and the endless wars, it's already gone.

So now Japan finds itself in an intractable problem and we're now also in an intractable problem. And Elliot, I wish I had the answers for how to get out of that, but I don't and I think that we're gonna get the collapse before we get to any answers. Yeah, I mean, I think the silver lining here at least is, you know, hopefully Pam Bondi is happy. So we got that going for us. And to your point earlier about when we had a good economy, we also had a great economy after World War II,

where I think around the 40s and 50s, we had a top marginal tax rate of 94% because we were actually taxing the rich and we had an absolutely booming economy that was doing great. But for some reason, we don't have the desire anymore to go back and actually do what worked because somewhere around the late 70s,

we sort of got on this neoliberal capitalism train and we refused to get off of it. So now not only are people not able to afford having a home, when they do afford a car and they go to work, they can get fired because they're getting replaced by AI, which is evidently going to be a bubble that could come back to haunt all of us anyway. So it doesn't seem like a system that is working perfectly, but I'm sure everyone in Washington, D.C. knows exactly what they're doing. Now, that's the funniest thing of all. Elliot does comedy, but the idea of the people in Washington know what they're doing is, hi Larry's, and obviously he's kidding, we're all doomed. Okay, so all right, we're gonna take a quick break here.

Enjoy that. And when we come back, more civil war within Democratic Party. The Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You wouldn't be high by any chance, would you? All right, back on TYT. So gonna go to members on tyat.com. JLR 1951 wrote in something interesting about the poll we're having today.

The poll was, hey, should Tuck Carlson, MTG, Massey, and Kent start a new party, yes or no. And he wrote in, many voted yes on the TYT poll question. I hope you realize that by voting yes, you just ended the progressive agenda. No, no, no, no, this is important. I didn't, we didn't ask, are you going to vote for them? We asked, should they form a third party, right? Remember, if they do form a third party and they do not get the anyone on the left or independents to join and they just run as right wingers, they're going to take votes away

from who? The Republican Party. So like, you should be rooting for that party either way. To me, that's just elementary political strategy. But I just want you guys to keep in mind and to be clear about what the question is. Should they form or not if you're going to vote for it? Nerd Ferguson says too much of the defense budget was diverted to testosterone replacement therapy. That's actually somewhat true.

That's a story we actually covered. Hegzeth thinks that he and apparently the others in the Department of War are not manly enough and they need testosterone replacement therapy. Dragon with a flag in, writes, and Susan Collins keeps running these ads that end by saying she's the most bipartisan senator in Washington. I don't think that's the flex she thinks it is. By the way, we didn't get the APAC story today. We'll do it for you tomorrow. Susan Collins is one of the biggest recipients of APAC money in this cycle. Of course.

All right. We'll be right back. All right. Back on the online news network, TYT. Jake Ugarly and Morgan with you guys. Now we've got a fascinating news story for you all. So Rokana is taking on a lot of the Democratic Party, and he just got him to a little bit of a tuffel.

thing with Dan Goldman. Dan Goldman is a current congressman, but he just lost his primary, so he will no longer be in the house. And they had a fight over why he lost. And you know what? This one might surprise you, Elliot, because I might disagree with Rokana and partly agree with Dan Goldman. And I don't agree with Goldman's policies, but it's complicated. It's nuanced, because there's some chance they're both right. So tell us what the fight's about. Yeah, I think nuance is definitely the right word. So this all began over the weekend when Rokana made a claim that the recent success of all these DSA candidates is primarily due to the economy. People are upset at an unfair political and economic system.

They can't afford gas. They can't afford food. Young people can't afford to buy a home or get a job. So this did not sit well with Representative Dan Goldman, who lost earlier this year to Brad Lander. He took to X and said, this is wrong, Rokana. three of us who lost and NYC had very progressive records, including supporting Medicare for all, and we had the overwhelming support of actual working families, labor unions, public housing, residents, and immigrant communities. That's because we all have gone to battle for those

communities and offered practical and meaningful solutions that could actually get passed in a system that requires bipartisanship. So to that, Roe made a pretty lengthy, though I would contend, a very polite response. He wrote on X, quote tweeting it, Dan, losing is hard. I lost twice. I lost to Tom Lantos when I ran the first anti-Iraq war primary in the nation in 2003. I was disappointed. I got 19% Lantos 71% even though the district was overwhelmingly opposed to the war. Lantos said, quote, young man, unless you're a movie star, you can't just get up and run. You need to do far more work in the community. It's a lesson I internalized. Then I lost to Mike Honda in 2014. I had glowing NYT profiles and tech leaders endorsing me. Honda had the PTA moms. He said to me after the race, Roe, there are far more PTA moms in the district than tech leaders. a lesson I've never forgotten, especially as I took heat supporting a California billionaire tax. So here's where it gets a little interesting. He goes on to say, my point is why not reflect on the lesson voters were sending upset about APEC, about money going to foreign wars, about food and gas prices up because of Middle East conflicts. You have a long career ahead of you.

We need everyone on the playing field. Maybe the loss will make you a voice calling for an end of the occupation or a Palestinian state. You could help make a difference in what happened to you and not being served coffee was disgusting and wrong and I'd called it out on CNN when it happened. I hope you'll think about what voters were saying and helped to be a part of a new generation that helps bring about a just peace. So Dan Goldman, however, is not buying that response. And he again replied, saying, thank you, Roe. I know why I lost.

And it's not because of the economic concerns of working families, which was the centerpiece of my campaign. In addition to being uniquely qualified and situated to hold Donald Trump accountable, nor is it because of the war in Iran, which I aggressively opposed from its beginning. I put forward a tax policy that would stop billionaires from using a massive tax avoidance loophole and would generate $30 billion in revenue per year, more than enough to pay for universal healthcare, universal child care, which is one of the pillars of the dad's caucus I co-founded in 2023. Then he goes on to say, as you well know, Republicans are adamantly opposed to raising taxes,

but despite that, I've gotten very positive feedback from many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As you also well know, there is no way to pass any of our legislative priorities next term unless we get some Republican support. And I know you know this, since you were the very first Democrat to co-sponsor my bill, which I appreciate. The voters in my district prioritized a different issue, and I respect their decision. But let's not pretend that the outcome of my race, or Adriano's, or NY7, was because of economic concerns of working families struggling mightily to make ends meet. So obviously, the different issue or the different issue voters prioritized. is according to Goldman, Israel. And for what it's worth, Conn replied to Goldman and encouraged him

to continue pursuing his tax policy, which he is a big supporter of. None of this, however, answers the question at the heart of this very mild and I would say pretty respectful exchange, which is, are voters drawn to DSA candidates more because they're disgusted by the economy or because they're disgusted by three years of watching a live streamed genocide by Israel. Personally, I think two things can be true at once. And I'm not entirely sure, that both of these things are actually mutually exclusive. As kind of seem to imply, people are fed up with an administration whose priorities seem to be completely out of whack with the American citizenry.

So I want to get your take on this jank, but as I see it, both the economy and Israel do seem to be massive issues for the foreseeable future. I don't see that changing. And when everyone, whether you're like a hardcore Zionist or a scary lefty, like when you're all suffering economically, Israel does seem to be an issue that could cause voters to break one way or another. But what are your thoughts? Yeah, I think they're definitely interrelated. I'm going to explain that in a second. But if you, what's your guts say on, was it mainly Israel or mainly the economy for the voters when they went to go? And by the way, Goldman lost by a lot.

And he was a darling of the Democratic establishment. Some thought that he was going to run for president. That's what they were grooming him for. And so that was a big blow to the establishment. And Brad Lander beat him by, what, 30 points or so. Oh, my take was absolutely. It had something to do with Israel. And also, I think the general zeitgeist at that time in New York, you had incredibly popular candidates who had been making themselves very well known for their stance with Israel. And I think people are listening and going, yeah, actually, you don't sound as scary as the mainstream media has been making you out to sound.

And so it's become a bit of like a shiboleth a little bit. Like if you support APEC, if you support Israel, it's a signifier. People know where you stand once you do that. And I think they're turning the other way. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that Goldman is right that it was more Israel. But he's really wrong when he doesn't understand why, right? So the genocide is terrible enough.

The war that they dragged us into is doubly terrible. I mean, meaning not twice as bad as genocide, but it compounded our problems. It created two giant problems for us. But I don't think that that's the main reason. I think that Israel is a proxy for corruption. So yes, they're voting on the issue of Israel, but what that's saying to them is, if you're going to work for Israel instead of us, you're probably also going to work for the corporate packs you're taking money from and not us.

We just can't trust you. So I think that's what the Dan Goldman's of the world can't countenance. I don't know if they don't understand that concept. They've never heard of that. Because remember, guys, they're in a bubble. Like, in their bubble, they're all angels. And then these radical anti-Semites are trying to tear down poor Israel and poor Dan Goldman. And they won't even give them coffee.

And it's the savages that are the problem, right? So it's possible that he truly believes that. But do they not see that, hey, brother, if you are working for a different country, instead of our country, can you not see how we might think that you're also working for Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson instead of us? And so he might be genuine about universal child care. That doesn't affect corporation quite as much also, but we still don't have it, right? But anything that corporate donors don't want the pass, never, ever passes.

So Elliot, my sense is he's so I have great policy positions on economic issues. And I think the voter said, yeah, but we don't believe you. We don't think you're gonna pass any of those or even try to pass them because we think that you work for your donors and not us. Does that make sense as the core of the issue? It makes total sense and not to go too nerdy this late on a Friday or no, it's a Tuesday, never mind, man, I got my hopes up. I guess I'm so excited about the election.

But there is a philosopher from the 20th century named Bodriard and he talked about the idea of there's a signified and a signifier and they do not oftentimes match up. And so when people hear Israel or they hear APEC, someone like Goldman can go, oh, that's just that fringe folks on those lefties. That's what that's all about. That's just the genocide. It's just the actual stuff that's happened over the past few years. But for a lot of other folks, I think, like you're saying, when they hear Israel or they hear APEC, they're thinking pack money in general.

And they're thinking corruption in general. And they're thinking you're doing the bidding of not the American people, but whoever it is, whether it's APEC or any other super PAC. So I think there's a disconnect in the minds of a lot of people where when people stay, Israel, they're not just talking about the country. They're talking about their own politicians that they are ostensibly electing to act in their own best interests, instead acting in the interests of a foreign country. Yeah. And so one more now. This is potentially more controversial. First, you said Dan Goldman might be thinking it's just a genocide. If you're thinking a genocide is just a genocide, that might be good enough reason to lose, right? And I think that he probably

does think that way. He certainly has shown that he votes that way. And whenever he's on TV, he seems to be mainly defending Israel, et cetera. And again, it's not just about Dan Goldman. It's about the establishment at large. So he's an avatar for it at this point, and especially because he lost, but there are much worse guys like Josh Godheimer and Muscovitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et cetera, let alone the other side filled with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, the late Lindsay Graham were huge warmongers. But Elliot, when you get to the issues that some of the DSA candidates won have, right, so for example, abolishing prisons, abolishing the Senate, defunding the police.

So that has gotten a ton of attention in the press afterwards. And I think that what the press is trying to do is say, oh, they, these are lunatic left radicals, and they won because in New York and apparently in Colorado, they want to abolish prisons. No, no, and that's a different thing than what Rokano or Dan Goldman is saying. Dan Goldman is saying it's because of Israel. The press is so protective of Israel. They're like, no, no, no, it's not even Israel. No way.

No, no, it's because they're foaming at the mouth. People in New York want to abolish prisons and let all the prisoners out. So that's a trick by mainstream media. That's clear. But to me, and here's where the question comes, Elliot, do you think that anybody even knew? I'm not sure a single voter knew these obscure policy planks of DSA about abolishing prisons or the Senate. I don't think that they got talked about on the campaign trail at all. And I don't think that any of the voters were voting based on that despite what you see on television.

Or am I wrong? No, no, no. A lot of people love these DSA positions and it helped them win. What's your take? I mean, you know, it's a good question because when it comes to these sort of the parts of the DSA platform, I think that first of all, you're right about the mainstream media. Like, they're implanting an image in people's minds. If you say abolish prisons or defund the police, the image that comes to people's mind is, oh, you're going to have criminals room in the streets and you're going to have no one to protect you because the police are all gone. However, those policies have actual weight behind them.

And there's a reason that they exist on the platform at all. They're not just about abolishing or getting rid of things. They're about restructuring and kind of starting from the ground up so that you can take care of a lot of the systemic oppression that happens as a result of things like the police force, et cetera, et cetera. But in terms of the actual campaign, I don't recall anybody talking about abolishing the prisons. I think this is a great example of the media going, hey, you just need to be really scared about these people. And because they have this position and this other position, we're going to combine them in your minds so that you're extra scary and you make sure that you keep voting. for the establishment and I don't think people are falling for it anymore. Yeah, no, I don't think so either.

And you know, is so Francesco Hong is doing really well in the gubernatorial race in Wisconsin. It has to be noted for the record every time that gubernatorial is a hilarious word. And so now they're asking you about an old post she had about canceling Thanksgiving. I mean, is anybody really running uncancelling Thanksgiving? But of course not. That has nothing to do with their agenda. They're just trying to smear her, in my opinion. But, you know, I have an opinion that, no, I don't agree with those policies.

And I don't think it's helpful to have those policies. Do you think it matters one way or another, whether they have those policies or helpful, harmful, or neutral? I don't think it matters one single bit. I think that they're trying to kind of take woke 1.0 back off the shelf and dust it off and try to do the same thing that was going. on 10 years ago. They're just directing it at the left. But I don't think we're in woke 1.0 anymore. We're in Woke 2.0. And I don't think people are super concerned about some tweet from 10 years ago. Like, I shuddered to think what I posted 10 years ago. People change and they grow. And I think people are aware of that. Not me. I nailed it in everything I ever wrote or said. I've never made us step.

All right, guys. Thank you, Elliot. You're awesome. Check them out on Rebel headquarters. And when we come back, dun dun dun dun dun title fight America versus Israel election night right back. Tired of the doom scroll, you're not alone. The entire system is designed to keep you glued to your screen while the billionaire owners of big wireless profit from every minute you're on it.

But what if you could break that cycle and get rewarded for it? Our partners at Noble Mobile Mobile have a revolutionary idea. They pay you to use your phone less. On their No Bull plan, you get unlimited data for just $50 a month. That's an awesome deal. But the data you don't use, you get it as cash back. It's a fundamentally different model, one that incentivizes you to look up from your phone and spend more time doing things that bring you joy.

So save money, break free from the grind, and take control back from big wireless. And by switching to Noble, you're directly supporting TYT in our mission of bringing you honest, honest independent news. So give Noble a try and make the switch today. Visit noblemobile.com slash t-y-t. That's noblemobile.com slash t-y-t.