Deal or No Deal - Ukraine Summit, Part 2: Trump hosts Zelensky, Plus Newsom’s Social Media Gamble

Summary

Podcast Summary: 2WAY Morning Meeting

Episode: Deal or No Deal - Ukraine Summit, Part 2: Trump hosts Zelensky, Plus Newsom’s Social Media Gamble
Date: August 18, 2025
Hosts: Mark Halperin, Sean Spicer, Dan Turrentine

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the high-stakes meetings at the White House, as President Trump hosts Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders in the wake of failed Trump-Putin talks in Alaska. The panel breaks down the potential outcomes of these discussions, the likely terms of an evolving Ukraine deal, and the broader geopolitical ramifications. Later, the hosts pivot to discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom’s notable (and meme-heavy) approach to engaging with Trump online, followed by lightning-round analysis of current political issues and an interactive listener Q&A.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. White House Summit Preview: Trump-Zelensky, European Leaders, and a Fragile Moment

• Day’s Schedule Highlighted:
  • 12:00 PM: European leaders arrive at the White House
  • 1:00 PM: Bilateral Trump-Zelensky meeting (“critical” for setting the day’s tone)
  • Additional multilateral meetings in the afternoon
• Tension Points:
  • Prior confrontations between Trump, Zelensky, and the U.S. Vice President are looming over the new talks.
  • Zelensky is noted for his more formal attire and reportedly diplomatic approach, “trying not to inflame President Trump” by being conciliatory on social media.
• Backdrop:
  • Russia is gaining momentum in the Ukraine war, and there’s speculation about increased European unity in supporting Ukraine.

Memorable Quote:

“We will all know in the first two minutes how the tone is going to go... What is the dynamic in the room?”
—Sean [09:04]

Timestamps

• [03:17] Zelensky’s approach; gift shop mention
• [05:07] Trump’s public statements on Ukraine (“ruled out Ukraine joining NATO or regaining Crimea”)
• [09:04] Importance of meeting’s initial tone

---

2. The Ukraine Deal: Ceasefire, Land, and Security Guarantees

• Emerging Deal Outline:
  • Russia keeps Crimea and some occupied land
  • Ukraine forgoes NATO membership
  • U.S. and NATO provide “security guarantees”—though specifics are vague and may not involve direct troops
• Skepticism Abounds:
  • Hosts agree Putin is unlikely to accept meaningful international oversight or strong security guarantees; expect him to “obfuscate” in final negotiations.
  • Economic support and rebuilding Ukraine—surprisingly absent from most public conversation so far.
• Divergence on Media’s Framing:
  • Hosts criticize media for focusing on “ceasefire fetishization” rather than underlying progress.

Notable Quotes:

“I don't think we're going to get a deal... I can't believe that Putin will buy into this.”
—Sean [14:53]

“None of us like Putin getting an inch of land... but do you agree with me this is shaping up to be, given what's been talked about, not bad for Ukraine under the circumstances?”
—Mark [14:37]

Timestamps

• [06:50] Likelihood that Ukraine cedes land and forgoes NATO
• [13:17] Absence of economic rebuilding discussions
• [14:53] Sean’s skepticism about a deal
• [16:09] Would Trump walk away if Putin stonewalls?

---

3. Sanctions and a “Failed” Summit?

• Pressure and Process:
  • New, stronger sanctions on Russia “could be on in 10 days” if diplomacy fails.
  • Hosts note that Russian intransigence should trigger immediate economic pressure from the U.S./allies.
  • Critique of media fixation on optics vs. substance.

Memorable Quote:

“Who gives a crap if you get peace? If you stop people from killing and end the destruction, what the hell does it matter?”
—Sean [18:14]

Timestamps

• [17:19] Debate over the timing and purpose of sanctions
• [18:13] Details of proposed sanctions and doubts about Putin’s flexibility

---

4. Surprises and Long Shots in the Ukraine Negotiations

• Wildcard Predictions:
  • Dan: “The Germans agree to provide troops as well.” [21:54]
  • Sean: “How you do an Article 5 response... without invoking NATO is going to be the intrigue.” [22:13]
  • Mark: “A massive economic rebuilding fund for Ukraine.” [22:34]

---

5. Gavin Newsom’s Social Media Gamble

• Newsom’s Strategy:
  • Emulates and mocks Trump’s online style with humorous, meme-based posts.
  • Panelists agree he's clearly running for president, signaling crossover appeal and building campaign infrastructure.
  • Newsom is seen as uniquely equipped to execute this sustained digital campaign.

Memorable Quotes:

“If anyone had any doubt, he’s running for president. Let that go.”
—Sean [25:20]

“I never understood why people didn’t do this sooner. I think it’s absolutely phenomenal.”
—Dan [24:50]

Timestamps

• [24:01] Discussion of Newsom’s posts and memes
• [24:50] Praise for Newsom’s digital strategy

---

6. Lightning Round: U.S. Political Hot Topics

• Tariffs: Delays expected, but tariffs will be used as tools in coming years.
• Economic Policy: Inflation and Fed action are in focus as the Jackson Hole meeting approaches.
• Epstein/Maxwell: Speculation about a potential Ghislaine Maxwell pardon and huge backlash.
• D.C. Crime: Trump likely to declare a national emergency over D.C. crime; expansion to other cities predicted.
• Marijuana, Social Security: Debate over whether Trump will act on legalization or regulatory reform.
• Democratic National Committee: DNC’s cash shortfall; predictions that Chair Ken Martin won’t last.

Timestamps

• [27:29] Tariffs
• [28:16] Epstein/Maxwell
• [29:49] Trump’s domestic policy priorities

---

7. Listener Q&A: Party Identity, Term Limits, and Generational Change

• Young Voter Dilemmas: Listeners ask if anyone in the Democratic field is focused on policy over personality and negativity; discussion highlights Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and Pete Buttigieg as “doers” laying groundwork for pragmatic, policy-centered campaigns.
• Term/Age Limits:
  • Strong calls from younger listeners to impose term/age limits on Congress and the presidency.
  • Resistance from hosts (and other political professionals), who argue that term limits increase bureaucratic power and undermine small states.
  • Hosts acknowledge that attitudes are generational and the “same reasons” for resisting term limits may be falling on deaf ears with youth.

Memorable Quote:

“Young people have a very different view of government, what they expect of it. But... the difference for me is I believe [opposing term limits] is very principled.”
—Sean [52:35]

Timestamps

• [34:02] Listener asks about policy-focused Democrats
• [39:44] Listener proposes congressional age/term limits
• [44:22] Further discussion of term limits and party accountability

---

8. Newsom-Trump: Early Stage Campaign Jockeying

• Could sustained Newsom attacks prod Trump or JD Vance into an early response?
  • Hosts speculate Newsom is baiting Trump, and that visibility in these exchanges only benefits Newsom’s profile.
  • “There would be nothing better for Gavin Newsom than if J.D. Vance and Donald Trump start treating him as the leader of the opposition.” —Dan [55:52]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If anyone had any doubt, he’s running for president. Let that go.” —Sean [25:20]
• “We will all know in the first two minutes how the tone is going to go... What is the dynamic in the room?” —Sean [09:04]
• “None of us like Putin getting an inch of land... but do you agree with me this is shaping up to be, given what's been talked about, not bad for Ukraine under the circumstances?” —Mark [14:37]
• “Who gives a crap if you get peace? If you stop people from killing and end the destruction, what the hell does it matter?” —Sean [18:14]
• “I never understood why people didn’t do this sooner. I think it’s absolutely phenomenal.” —Dan [24:50]
• “Young people have a very different view of government, what they expect of it. But... the difference for me is I believe [opposing term limits] is very principled.” —Sean [52:35]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• White House schedule rundown: [02:20]–[03:17]
• Ukraine deal discussion begins: [05:07]
• Deal’s weaknesses and skepticism: [14:53]–[16:09]
• Sanctions as leverage: [17:19]–[18:13]
• Wildcard predictions: [21:54]
• Newsom’s meme warfare: [24:01]
• Domestic political lightning round: [27:29]
• Young voter & term limits Q&A: [34:02], [39:44], [44:22]
• Progressive engagement plea: [56:19]
• Concluding thoughts and show wrap: [59:05]

---

Overall Tone & Takeaways

The conversation blended sharp political analysis with a candid, sometimes playful tone—no-nonsense when discussing geopolitics, wry and engaging when considering the digital culture wars and party intrigue. The panel showed skeptical optimism about diplomatic prospects in Ukraine and clear-eyed recognition of generational and ideological divides in U.S. politics today.

For listeners: This episode is an incisive, up-to-the-minute guide to U.S.-Ukraine-Russia dynamics, Democratic presidential maneuvering, and the simmering divides that shape American politics in 2025—all served with characteristic candor, a touch of irreverence, and audience participation.

---

Transcript

[Mark]

Foreign on this historic day. This is the morning meeting brought to you by two way. Two Way conversations like no other. Thank you for being part of this. We've got a lot to talk about. We'll primarily focus on the meetings at the White House today, which are quite something. And as always, we'll be forward looking because this meeting is based on the network news divisions morning meetings which look to add to what's going to happen next and try to give you some analysis and thoughts. And then of course, if you're in the two way platform, we'd love to have your questions or comments, particularly if you've never been part of the show. So please, if you're here on two way, you'd like to speak to Sean and Dan. Thrill of a lifetime for many. Please raise your hand if you're watching on X or YouTube. You don't raise your hand, but you do have the opportunity to put things in the chat. Don't put smack in the chat. Peace, love and understanding for all. Now, this program also available as a podcast, available shortly after it ends. If you're listening to us on a podcast, thank you for joining. That way available on Apple or Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. MySpace, MySpace. So this weekend, our first weekend as a podcast, we vaulted up to number 12 on amongst all news podcasts and made the top 200amongst all podcasts in the world. Very grateful to you all for being so supportive of it. Here you go. We're currently at number 22. That's great and we're very grateful to you all for helping. But as you can see, we're behind Heather Cox Richardson, which is driving Sean a little batty and Dan is behind Candace Owen. So please get us higher right now. Go subscribe like, continue to listen. Watch us on YouTube if you wish. But if you'd like to listen to us as a podcast on Apple, please do. Let's by the end of the program, let's pass Candace Owen. That's a modest, modest goal. Or Spotify. Wherever, wherever. But again, grateful to you all who've already started listening to the program as a podcast. Two Way Tonight, also available as a podcast. But let's get moving everybody. Right now. As I, as I run through the daybook, I'll ask you to multitask and please enjoy the program as a podcast. Share it with your friends and we'd love to have you be part of consuming the program wherever you'd like.

[Sean]

We're not doing it right now. I'm going to do it right now.

[Mark]

We're not good. Setting a good example. We're not unlike the Democratic National Committee. We're trying to reach you where you are.

[Dan]

Anyway, hopefully we have more money than.

[Mark]

They do today here. August 18th, not a lot going on, but there is at the White House, the president United States pool. Pool call time is now. European leaders are welcomed at the South Portico. That'll be an incredible photo. At 12 o', clock it'll be like the first day of camp. All the European leaders coming. I wonder why some European leaders aren't there, but the right ones are there. For those who have been most active in trying to formulate a policy, that happens at noon. Then one o', clock, President Zelensky comes and he's greeted by the president at the stakeout location. Open press for that. We'll wonder if there's shouted questions. Then bilateral meeting in the Oval. Back to what some might call the scene of confrontation. The last time the President Zelensky was in the Oval Office, you'll recall there was quite a bit of a dust up with the president and the vice president. The vice president is participating in the meetings today, so we'll see if there's tension or jokes. Zelensky is reportedly not wearing a T shirt and jeans, but some sort of.

[Sean]

Jacket, which I've heard he's also, he's also planning on swinging by the the White House gift shop before the meeting, apparently trying to get something nice for the vice president ahead of the meeting and a way to say thank you.

[Mark]

Good idea. There's good stuff in that gift shop, by the way. 2:15 the President goes to the state dining room and meets with the European leaders. That's closed press. 2:30 family photo with all the European leaders. That'll be big. 2:30 and then 3:00', clock President participates in a multilateral meeting with the European leaders in the East Room, which is pooled press. And we don't know what the format for that will be, whether it be making statements or or what. But it's a, it's, you know, there's four or five, maybe six opportunities there for the president to speak. And both Rubio and the special envoy Wyckoff spoke a lot over the weekend on seven different Sunday shows. But there's still a lot of unanswered questions and of course we'll see what progress is made. Today there's conversation about potentially planning a trilateral meeting later in the week. House and Senate still out and there's a federal court hearing at 10. The ACLU is trying to shut down The Alligator Alcatraz immigration detention facility. All right, let's talk about previewing the day. Here is our special correspondent. Everyone setting things up. 104, please. And here we go. We begin with a FOX News alert. President Trump says it's a big day at the White House. In just a few hours, he will welcome Ukrainian President Zelensky and other European leaders just days after his summit with Russia's Putin in Alaska.

[Sean]

We're going to preview a consequential meeting today at the White House, man. And it's going to be a significant one between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.

[Mark]

As President Zelensky arrives in Washington for.

[Dan]

Talks at the White House, Donald Trump.

[Mark]

Has been posting on his truth social platform. He's insisted that Volodymyr Zelensky could end the war with Russia almost immediately if he wanted to, or he can continue to fight. Donald Trump has ruled out Ukraine joining.

[Dan]

NATO or regaining control of Crimea as part of a potential peace agreement with Russia.

[Mark]

His announcement on social media comes ahead of his White House meeting with the Ukraine. Ukrainian leader. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelinsky is expected at the White House later today to help chart a path forward in the wake of those failed talks between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir. Failed talks, everybody, they were failed. Also present will be leaders of five European countries who are part of the so called coalition of the willing that's backing Ukraine against the Russian invasion, that European leaders are uniting to support President Zelensky. Is there a sense that they need to unite almost against President Trump on the Zelensky side of these negotiations or not?

[Dan]

No, I don't think it's against. I think it's very much a team effort which is about saying we've got to now stand, as we always have, shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine with President Zelensky.

[Mark]

We are standing by for these crucial.

[Sean]

Meetings between President Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky. Major European leaders will be there as well.

[Dan]

The news is this.

[Sean]

There are new signs this morning that Russia might be gaining ground in its war on Ukraine.

[Mark]

One more from the morning telly. This is Iowa's own Matt Whitaker, who's the US Ambassador to NATO. On cnbc.

[Sean]

The critique is no ceasefire. That that was supposed to be a precondition. Going into the meeting that didn't happen.

[Dan]

It sounds to me like ultimately Ukraine's going to give up Crimea and Putin's.

[Mark]

Going to get what he wants in terms of, in terms of Ukraine not.

[Sean]

Becoming part of NATO.

[Mark]

Then you say to yourself, why is.

[Dan]

He not going to be. Why does Putin not want him to.

[Sean]

Become part of NATO?

[Mark]

Because maybe he wants to keep going later. What do you think of that? Well, as you know, NATO is the strongest military alliance ever on the planet. So, I mean, obviously that is a strong incentive. And Ukraine does want to be in NATO. All 32 members would have to agree to that ascension if that were to happen. But you know what? What's very clear that came out of Friday is, is that there is something here to work with. Ukraine's going to have to agree to any deal. It's not going to be a great deal for either side. Russia is not going to get everything they want. Ukraine's not going to get everything they want. But at the same time, we're going to end the tens of thousands of soldiers and, quite frankly, civilians that are dying every week. I mean, it is just catastrophic, the humanity. And so I think, you know, we have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And at some point in time, see if a deal can be had. Okay. The president and Zelensky both have been on Twitter or Truth Social and X quite a bit. The president tweeting, or on Truth Social, rather, saying they're not going to be part of Ukraine, they're going to NATO. They're going to have to give up some land. Some things never change, as the president writes, and of course, continuing to blame everything on Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Zelensky on X. I think the main thing to say about being put up the two tweets, but they're long. The main thing is he's being very conciliatory. He's trying, he's learned a lesson to not inflame President Trump and advance the meeting and do anything that would appear ungrateful. And even though people are in my business are calling the summit on Friday failed, and even though they're looking for signs of division between the president and Ukraine and Europe, in fact, this meeting, I think, represents a fair amount of unity. So, guys, let's start with just previewing the day. Don't get out ahead of today. Sean, what should people look for in this series of meetings at the White House?

[Sean]

Well, I think obviously, based on last time, this initial spray in the Oval Office is going to be critical. What is the tone? What does the president say? How long does it last? So right off the bat, I think the president said the other day when he was about to meet with Putin that he'd know in the first two minutes, I think we will all know in the first two minutes, how the tone is going to go based on that initial pool spray, when the press comes into the Oval Office and sees them interacting, how is the dynamic in the room? What is the, you know, not. Not just in terms of words, but in terms of posture, etc. So that. That's the first thing I'm going to look for is how that goes. Because, look, all that other part, the. Everything on that schedule is predicated on how that first part goes. We saw it in Alaska. Do they, you know, it can get blown up real quick, and we obviously saw that with that first Zelensky meeting. So how this thing kicks off is going to be everything.

[Mark]

Okay, Dan, what are you looking for.

[Dan]

To dovetail with Sean? I think just Trump's patience is. Is Trump patient enough to say, okay, we are maybe narrowing the funnel towards a deal, but it's got to be a good deal, or is he impatient to say, hey, look, just give up a little more land and this may be over, and the Ukrainians see it, you know, and the Europeans a little differently. And then to Sean's point, does the tension start filling the room pretty fast? So I'm looking at Trump's patience today.

[Sean]

Yeah. Look at the sequencing of those events. That's important. Right. The European leaders, everyone keeps talking about them, they're going to come help. They're not. They're not part of it until after what's going on with Zelensky. So that tone and tenor out of the gate is going to be critical because they don't get a shot at Trump until after Zelensky and Trump do. What are his initial comments? You saw how he let in on those truths early this morning. Does he lead the meeting by saying, we all know you're gonna have to give up this and that's gonna set. Or does he stand and say, you know, we've gotta stand with Ukraine? I mean, so I think, like I said, you're gonna know everything in the first 60 seconds to two minutes of that meeting.

[Dan]

Well, and those truths are. Those truths are back to where we were before, which is almost. He is publicly trying to soften Zelinsky up. Like he. He is throwing some jabs at him before they've even gotten in the room.

[Mark]

Yeah. All right, again, if you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. A quick break for some breaking news. On another topic. The MSNBC just announced what their new name is going to be after the split from. From Universal, from Comcast. So, Dan, you first guess what they're going to be called Don't Peak. Guess what their new name is going to be because it can't be MSNBC because they're not.

[Dan]

Yeah, yeah. The Ms. Is Microsoft. So national news.

[Mark]

Exactly. So you'd think they get rid of the Ms. Because it makes no sense. Yeah. Microsoft, but it's their brand. So Sean, Ms. News. It, it's very close. Sean. You're one guess Ms. News is very close, but it's not quite right.

[Sean]

Oh, I, I was gonna go completely. I was gonna be like Blue Star.

[Mark]

Yeah.

[Dan]

But it's not Blue Sky News.

[Mark]

It's, it's about the worst name I could imagine. I hope they didn't pay a lot for it. Ms. Now Ms. Now then seem like the name of a network to me. Anyway, let's talk about the deal. What strikes me, as Brit Hume would say he loves that expression with intro. What strikes me. What strikes me is the deal seems better for Ukraine than has commonly been discussed for years because Putin's getting the land that pretty much everybody said he was going to get. Now there's some details to work out there, but Ukraine is getting US and NATO country support. That's pretty security guarantees is pretty extensive, I think, based on what's been said so far. Now, the one thing that surprises me, Dan, I want you to talk about your view of the deal, but there has not been a lot of talk of economics. I thought a big piece of this would build off the US Ukraine deal that Scott Bessant negotiated and that Europe would be saying we're going to rebuild Ukraine, we're going to going to bring you into the EU effectively. But I'm surprised that there's almost no, I've heard almost no talk of that. Dan, what's your view of where the deal is headed, if there is one?

[Dan]

Well, I think there's no talk of economic security because you can't really get to that until you have the national security, the actual integrity of the land. Then you can talk about rebuilding and what's going to happen. And so you are right, Mark. I mean I said this last week. I thought it was remarkable that Trump it was reported last week in the Wall Street Journal that Trump pledge the United States would provide part of the security guarantee. Now today they're saying, oh, it won't be troops, it'll be logistics such as airplane transportation, weaponry, I assume intelligence since we were basically sitting in the Kremlin leading up to the war. We've got pretty good intelligence that is remarkable. I mean that is the United States Having some skin in the game and providing some support. Sounds like British troops may be on the ground. So I think the last part of this then becomes that Putin wants some sort of control over the Ukrainian government, which obviously is a non starter. So I agree with you, Mark. I think this really comes down to does you, does Russia get a little bit of the land that it doesn't currently control that it could not get on the battlefield, or it might take another year to get on the battlefield that I think there's just that, that Ukraine does not want to give it. You know, they've lost so many lives defending it and Russia's like, that's what it might take for us to stop, Sean.

[Mark]

None of us, none of us like Putin getting an inch of land. So let's be clear about that. I'm not being cynical about it or cavalier about it. But, but do you agree with me that this is shaping up to be given where we, what's been talked about, it's not bad for Ukraine under the circumstances.

[Sean]

Yeah, I agree. If, if the agreement as described holds, that's probably the best case scenario. I, and this is why I'm going to veer off and say this. I don't think we're going to get a deal because I actually think that Putin is not going to ever allow a peacekeeping force that. I mean we've, it's always been about the land and then the security apparatus that the follow on. I don't think, I think that he is going to obfuscate. When we get down to the details, they'll get to the land and then I'll say, but I'm only going to allow 500 or something like that. I mean, yeah, yeah. And so I don't mean to be cynical and I hope I'm wrong on this one. I am surprised for all of these reasons and I do believe at the end of the day Putin is going to find some reason to object to say no. And then trying to get Trump to throw up his hands because Trump has said, at some point, I just can't do it anymore. So I think that we're going to get there. It's gonna get to the five yard line, everybody's gonna think it's great. We're all gonna clap each other's, everyone's gonna clap and pat each other on the back. Look, like I said, I wanna be clear. I hope I'm wrong on this. I can't believe that Putin will buy into this.

[Dan]

And do you think though that if that's the Question, though, Sean, is that, is Trump desperate for the deal? Would he walk away if they get close to the five?

[Mark]

Okay, yes, he will do that. Just yes or no, Sean, Will there be a three way meeting this week or soon?

[Dan]

No, Dan, I don't see Putin agreeing to it.

[Mark]

Yeah, right, so, so I agree with you. I'm very worried that this is all going to fall apart. However, you know, my colleagues spending the weekend calling this a failed meeting in, in Alaska, I respectfully say, bonkers. It was not a failed meeting. Putin's not going to surrender on the tarmac. And I don't mind giving Putin like special flourishes if that'll help get a deal, who cares? But I agree with you, Sean. It's hard for me to see Putin accepting this deal. He killed at least some people overnight, including a kid, according to the Ukrainians. So the other thing that I think people who are skeptical of the President's strategy are underestimating is these sanctions. The toughest sanctions ever could be on in 10 days. Like, he isn't, he isn't taking them off the table forever. He's just trying to not annoy Putin by talking about them now, Dan.

[Dan]

Well, but the only thing, though, Mark, about that is they've been on the table now forever. And he keeps, like at some point, you can't keep saying.

[Mark]

The point is, the point you do it is after Putin walks away from a deal that everybody knows is the best either side.

[Dan]

But I mean, that's, I mean, yes, but no. Which is, to Sean's point, Putin has kind of jerked his chain around, if you want to be generous. What got Putin to agree to meet him in the first place was a sense this may actually happen. Yeah, so, so, no, but I mean, at some point you do, you can't keep pulling the football away. You've got to say, all right, until you're serious, like until you actually sit in the room, we're putting it back on and we're sending, you know, 50 billion of weapons to him.

[Mark]

I agree. But if Sean's right, I have a fairly high degree of confidence based on the conversations I've had, that there will be the toughest sanctions that have ever been imposed on Russia.

[Dan]

Great.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

I agree. I've said this before. I know prior to that first deadline last Friday, what was being talked about and offered up to President Trump was very serious, was very tough. It dealt with the black sort of the fleet, the Russian fleet that was sort of black market version of getting oil and gas out of there. They were very Serious. So I think it's possible it goes back on soon, but I just can't. By everything that you've seen with Putin, the idea that he would agree to this kind of stuff, I just can't see it happening. That being said, I do think we end up in a world where sanctions go on and Trump says, hey, I've tried everything here and maybe we come back at some point, but I just don't. I don't see it defies logic to believe that Putin is going to say, yep, I'll allow you guys to do this follow on force. I'll allow you to create these. I don't want NATO, but I'll allow you to do a fake NATO. It just, it doesn't seem that he'll buy into that. And I will just say this for. To your point about the media coverage, Mark, I was sort of blown away. It's everybody. This has been the problem from Trump day one. They always worry about the process. Oh, my God, the carpet was red. Who gives a crap if you get peace? If you stop people from killing and end the destruction, what the hell does it matter? And yet all of these people have their panties in a wad about. My God, he rolled out the thing. Do you know what a flex it was to see that B2 fly over top? Putin looks up. That wasn't a tip of, of like diplomacy. That was a, hey, buddy, guess what we got coming up your butt if you do this again, you just use it in Iran.

[Dan]

Yeah, I mean, they're. Yes, but which is. His goal was a ceasefire, which he totally abandoned. And then he started repeating some of Putin's talking points. I mean, you got to be fair.

[Mark]

A ceasefire is ridiculous. Public goal, Dan, to fetishize.

[Dan]

He had his own goal was ridiculous.

[Mark]

It was to fetish. First of all, John Bolton points out that if you do a ceasefire, it tends to lock in the. If there's an eventual deal, it locks in the boundaries at the. A ceasefire. And they don't want that, number one. Number two, if you get a ceasefire, as I said many times, Putin will just violate it. It's not worth it. There's no. It might save a few lives and I'm gonna force them all for that. But this fetishization in the press of Trump dropping the ceasefire as opposed to focusing eye on the prize. A peace deal was part of an insane weekend to cover.

[Dan]

But Mark, they were obsessed about it because Trump said, that is my goal. So you can't, you can say it was a stupid goal.

[Mark]

It was Stupid. When it was stupid, it was stupid. When Trump said it, it was stupid. All right, one more topic here and then we're going to switch to a few more things and then get to your questions. I'm so grateful to learn of the influence of this program that when I said something about Putin on Friday, it got a lot of attention. Thank you for that. Just to be clear, I didn't really think they were going to arrest Putin. My point was how incredible it is that this guy is coming to the United States. He's been declared a war criminal. We've had no contact with him, and his first interaction in Face to face with American President was in the United States. I didn't literally think they were going to arrest him. I'll be clear about that. But I wanted to highlight how extraordinary what happened on Friday was. Now, each of you, what's one thing, just an out there thing that you think could be a surprise today or going forward in this that people aren't expecting?

[Dan]

Dan, The Germans agree to provide troops as well.

[Mark]

Good one. That was on my list. Sean.

[Sean]

I'll go back to the financial aspect. I think part of this, I mean, what, what, how you do an Article.

[Mark]

5.

[Sean]

Response so that without invoking NATO is to me sort of the, I mean, Marco Ruby was asked about this yesterday how you sort of incorporate an attack on one as an attack on all without it being formally part of NATO, to me is going to be the intrigue and why the US I just can't believe that Trump would agree to that. I mean, to me, that's going to infuriate maga.

[Mark]

All right, mine is a massive economic rebuilding fund created to put the country back together even if there's no peace deal. But especially if there is. All right, moving on. And again, obviously we'll take your questions on Ukraine comments as you wish. Gavin Newsom and his team have developed a social media strategy that is like no other. They're just mocking Donald Trump's style. You can just start putting these posts up, Paul. It's hard to, it's hard to even read these. But anyway, they respond sometimes to Trump tweets or news. Here's one not even JD Just dance. Vance can save Trump from the disastrous maps war in quotes he has started. And this is in all caps, by the way. Not even his eyeliner lines look as pretty as California quote map lines. He will fail, as he always does. Sad exclamation point. And the peacetime governor, our nation's favorite, will save America once again. Many are now calling Me, Gavin Christopher Columbus Newsome, because of the maps. Thank you for attention to this matter. Gavin Newsom. Next one. This is a picture of J.D. vance. I don't really know what this meme is, but the picture JD Vance looking like, I don't know. What is that? Breakdancing?

[Dan]

Yeah, yeah.

[Mark]

And then, yeah, they've got, they've got their, they've got their AI thing. And here's a picture of Gavin Newsome. Again, I, I'm sorry, for those of you on, on the podcast with, uh.

[Dan]

That'S, uh, Hulk Hogan.

[Mark]

Hulk Hogan Conquer Carlson and, uh, what's his name? Kid Rock, uh, in a portrait with Gavin Newsom. The whole thing. Anyway, lots of these tweets. So this is. Oh, here's another one, the last one. Donald Tiny Hands has written his autobiography this morning. Unfortunately, low iq. He spelled it wrong beta. Soon you will be a fired beta because of my perfect, beautiful maps. Thank you for attention to this matter. It's in response to a true social post that was some sort of typo by Donald Trump. So, Dan, Gavin Newsom's doing a ton of stuff that makes everybody sure he's running for president. A ton of stuff that's getting attention. Ton of stuff that's certainly building up his social media, following an email list. What do you think of this gambit of sustained mocking of Donald Trump's social media style?

[Dan]

I never understood why people didn't do this sooner. I think it's absolutely phenomenal. I think it makes, it makes you laugh.

[Mark]

It.

[Dan]

First of all, I think it will get in Trump's head a little bit. I think it will enrage him to be called Tiny Hands and mocked and made fun of. You're making fun of his style and everything, but it's effective. We're talking about it just the way with Donald Trump we talk about it. I think it's genius. Again, I never understood why, like, Harris or other people didn't do this.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

Well, I, again, I will just say this. If anyone had any doubt, he's running for president.

[Mark]

Yeah.

[Sean]

Let that go. And I, I, I've, you know, it's, I mean, I get it. It's cute, it's funny. I will say this. It just shows that he, he, of all people, gets it more than others. He's trying to do the podcast. He's doing this. He did the tour, like all of the things that you should be doing to show the base that you can be the alternative and the guy that can take him on. And I think one of the things that you know, he has to get a little credit for is. Remember, you're not necessarily just going up against Trump. I get the base wants to see that in the Democratic Party, so he's smart on that. But he's also fighting a two front war. He's threading in J.D. vance, who is 20, 28, you know, so I think that like if you're a Democrat on the outside, you gotta say, look, this is the kind of guy we want. If you're a donor, you go, wow, look, he's, he's funny, he's taking it on, he's doing the social media, he did the tour. I think he's proving to the Democratic base that I'm the only guy that can do all the things that's necessary.

[Mark]

Yep. I'll say again, even though I'm skeptical about his running, he's got an, he's an aircraft carrier and he has a team and he's got a social media apparatus and he's got the ability to communicate in substack etc like, like he's so far ahead of everybody else in that part of the invisible primary and this is a manifestation of that. If, if Governor Shapiro, Governor Moore, any of these other people beat Boo J, if they tried to launch something like this, they wouldn't be able to sustain it because they just don't have the apparatus.

[Sean]

Okay, so all that being said, agree with everything you just said, then how can you continue to believe he's not running? You don't maintain that kind of a team for fun.

[Mark]

He's, he's not doing it for fun. He's looking at it. But I think in the end his family won't, won't want him to run and he won't. We'll see. Might be wrong, but that's what I think. All right, rapid round. We're going to run through a bunch of stuff. Just give me like your one sentence, one sentence headline of where you think we're headed, not where we are. Where are we headed on these issues, Dan? Tariffs.

[Dan]

Oh, tariffs. More delay.

[Mark]

Sean I think we're going to continue.

[Sean]

To see tariffs used as a tool for everything under the sun in the next three years.

[Mark]

Economic inflation, the Fed, Fed's meeting Jackson Hole this week. The chairman speaks on Friday and we have earnings reports I believe from Target, Walmart and other retailers. So I'm looking to see what, what everybody thinks about inflation at the end of the, by the end of the week. Epstein Maxwell Dan.

[Dan]

Trump White House really doesn't want Congress to come back. John they Got a problem?

[Mark]

Huh? Who is that? You said who? Maxwell. Maxwell pardon. Coming, Dan. D.C. crime.

[Sean]

I said this before just so I'm double down on this. Maxwell pardon will take things to a level that we have not seen before.

[Mark]

I know.

[Sean]

If people think that they were pissed about the Epstein files, a Maxwell pardon will go from Defcon 3 to Defcon 1 in a matter of moments.

[Mark]

You're right. And it will raise the question, why is he doing it? Damn.

[Dan]

Does he do it? Does he do it like when the peace deal is announced? Like the press release goes out the back door at the same time?

[Mark]

Exactly. D.C. d.C. Crime.

[Dan]

I think Trump's going to do the. I think he's going to try to get Congress to approve it. They won't. He's going to declare a national emergency and try to take it longer. And the question now is, what city's next?

[Sean]

Sean, I think this is going to continue to be a source of pride for them in terms of results. You saw Pam Bondi announcing some major statistics over the weekend. They'll continue this push as a proxy between tough on crime and weak on crime.

[Mark]

They're going to finally move into some of the less visible, prominent neighborhoods and start.

[Sean]

Well, they were in Anacostia this weekend. Dan brought it up. They were down there in Ward 8.

[Mark]

They're going to do more in the. In the poor awards.

[Dan]

Well, that, that thing. Oh, yeah, the thing that was posted was the guy saying he hopes they'll come, not that they're there.

[Mark]

What is. What? Name three things will be on the Trump domestic policy agenda from September through the midterms. What are three things that will be a priority for the present? Domestic policy, Dan.

[Dan]

Immigration numbers, picking up more marijuana legalization or what? Reclassification and something. And you think of something on Social Security to protect it for seniors.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

First of all, I continue to believe. I get all the stories. Him finally signing off on marijuana. I've seen this movie before. I don't think he gets there. And by the way, the bigger issue on marijuana is banking.

[Dan]

Like, does step one is reclassifying. Step two is the banking.

[Sean]

I know, but I'm just telling you. I have a hard time telling you that he's going to get there. So here's what I think. Regulatory reform is going to be big on their agenda. That's going to be something that Scott Bessett leaves before he becomes Fed Chair.

[Dan]

I think you're on my thing still. He's still going to be pet chair.

[Sean]

Well, either him or Kevin. Look, I think regulatory reform is going to be it. There's going to be a little bit more on the rescissions package and then I think there will be a fight that will be unsuccessful on what to include in a new reconciliation package.

[Dan]

I was going to say.

[Mark]

So they're going to. So you don't think there'll be one or you do think there'll be one?

[Sean]

I do not, Dan.

[Dan]

I think they're going to try.

[Mark]

Fed chair named in 2025 or 2026. Sean, just need a year. 25.

[Sean]

All I need to know is tell me what happens September meeting.

[Mark]

I just need a year.

[Sean]

I know. And if they cut rates, then it's 2026. If they don't cut rates at that September meeting, it's in 2025.

[Mark]

Dan. 25 or 26.

[Dan]

25. Because inflation picking up. They are now caught in the vice.

[Mark]

Okay. Story I believe in the New York Times or no politico about the DNC's cash falling short. The other Democratic committees are doing okay, better than I thought they'd be doing. But the DNC is way behind the RNC and a lot of fingers being pointed at Chairman Ken Martin. Dan, take the temperature again. Will Ken Martin be the chair on Valentine's Day 2026?

[Dan]

Nope. And by I'm gonna say watch a push for Terry McCulloch to come back.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

The only thing that I don't know, and this is why I have to punt on this question, is what is the mechanism for removing a chair? Because I don't know that he'll resign.

[Dan]

He, he won't be fired. He'll resign.

[Sean]

Right?

[Mark]

Yeah. All right. Now it's. Now it's time for your questions as always, or comments as we bring you in. Please unmute. Tell us when you download it or subscribe to the podcast and what's on your mind. For Sean and Dan, John Sargent, welcome in Swoosh Unmute. Tell us where you are and you subscribe to the podcast. Oh, it would have been probably. Well, the podcast, when you asked for.

[Dan]

It the other day.

[Mark]

Thank you. Started listening. Thank you for that. Just before the election. John. I've always thought of you as a role model. Thank you for that. Do you listen. Do you listen to Apple or Spotify? I'm a Spotify man myself. Yeah. The rapt. At the end of the year, I can't beat it. Yeah. The what at the end of the year? The rap, you know, when they send out your stats and then you realize you are. Yeah. Just how many times have you listened to all too well, it's good. The 10 minute version is good to know at the end of the year. Yeah, probably two or three. Okay. John, welcome. Thank you for joining. Where are you, where are you from? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids. Amazing. Thank you for being here. Tell us what's on your mind for Sean and Dan. Yeah. So I turned 18 in 2016, which. So my entire voting life has been in this Trump, Trump world. And I am, I. My thoughts on Trump are I love his policies. I hate his demeanor. After 2020, I was totally out and then the Democrats brought me back in with all the litigation and all that goodness. So my question for you guys is, is there somebody in the party right now, in the Democrat Party that's going to run on policy, or is this all going to be the get and do some. We're just throwing mud at the other side and then I can't go to my family reunion because it's split right down the middle. Fantastic question. Dan, anyone in your party care about policy?

[Dan]

Yeah. But I was just going to ask you, as you were saying this, John, what do you think of your governor?

[Mark]

Oh, so I don't know. During COVID I hated her. But then after Covid, I grade on a curve. Not the worst. I think she would. I think she could do it. I think, I think Josh Shapiro for me and Gretchen Whitmer would be two people that I think could actually come out and do it. I don't know, though, if they're gonna be able to get through the primary without just alienating me and any of the moderates.

[Dan]

Well, so I asked, because there's a thing in Axios today about Whitmer and obviously Shapiro I think is in the same bucket of they're not going full throttle at Trump the way Pritzker and Newsom are. They are laying the foundation to go in the opposite, which is we get stuff done. We work with him when it's in our state's interest. We would. And I think what they'll say is we'll work with Republicans when they want to work with us in the country's interest. I don't know where our base will be in three years. I keep saying this. Our party flirts historically with the really progressive, rabid candidate like a Howard Dean or a Bernie Sanders. But we tend to sober up right before voting and go with a safer candidate. Now that may at some point may break. But I would keep an eye on those candidates laying low right now. It's a long way till 2027, John.

[Sean]

I agree with Dan I mean, I think that both of those guys have shown an interest in being more substantive. I would actually put Pete Buttigieg to some degree in that category as well. Let me ask you a question, John. Why are you a Democrat? Like, what. What motivates you to vote?

[Mark]

So I don't, I don't actually know where I am. I'm. And all honesty, probably, and the old. I was raised in that old Republican, George Bush type view. And then I find myself drifting into the America first stuff. But then they lose me when it comes to, like, not supporting Israel. That doesn't make any sense to me. They're our only ally in the area. And so I don't, I don't really know. Like I said, I really find.

[Sean]

What's the number one thing? Like, what is the one issue that you go, that gets me or that loses me?

[Mark]

You got to reduce the size of government. I'm sick of just. It seems like nobody is.

[Sean]

Then you can't vote. I mean, like, I, you know, Republicans are not. Have not been fantastic, you know, I know.

[Mark]

Sounds like crazy. Like, you got, you got to look at it fairly like. John, John, what does the federal government do that you'd like them to do none of or less of? Oh, I'd like them to get a handle on Social Security. I mean, I'm, I'm 28. I know, but what is it? What does that mean to get a handle on it? To actually have a. Like to actually go out and work together and figure it. Figure out how to make it not just make us go bankrupt as we, as we go down the road. It seems like we're wasting so much money on the system that nobody actually wants to touch. And if they all just banded together and did their job, then we could fix the problem. But nobody wants to do it because it's. You win the next election and so you just keep going. Well, I'll take the next one, the next one, the next one until it's a train going to hit us. Besides, besides Social Security, what does the federal government do that you think they should do? Oh, protect our borders, defend us militarily. You got to work on the. I would say the economy. So give us the best shot at trade. And I'm not phrasing it well, but somewhere in there that's good. What about Department of Education? Should that exist? I was homeschooled, so I'm not the right guy to ask. I would say no. I think that should be a state's thing.

[Sean]

John, I hate to tell you this. You're on our side.

[Mark]

I know. I know I am. Who can we get a guy that isn't just the worst in there then in terms of the way he presents himself? You got a candidate you like to be your gut? Your next governor? Mike Douglass or Senator? I don't know. I haven't done enough in the senator. We're a long way like. But you like Duggin. I was very intrigued by him. I reserve the right to change my mind if he goes crazy. But just on the thing that I watched with you, I was very impressed. I love, like, I don't know, phonics. Just speaks right to my. Yeah. If you haven't watched my conversation with my next up, I recommend it to. Super impressive guy. Great record as mayor of Detroit, now running as an independent for governor. And I hadn't really focused on him all that much before, but he. He was very impressive, I thought, in the conversation I had with him. Grateful to you for being part of two Way. Thank you for setting a good example and subscribing to the podcast and please come back. Thank you.

[Dan]

Just keep telling them what to do, Mark.

[Mark]

Yeah. All right, I'm. I'm calling on Leif Erickson Carter against my better judgment, because I'm sure that's not this person's name. Welcome in. Tell us your actual name if you wish, but where you are and. And when you subscribe to the podcast.

[Dan]

Is it. What map is that?

[Mark]

This is Illinois. Okay. Yeah, it is Illinois.

[Sean]

I am from Illinois.

[Mark]

Yeah. And my name is actually Leif Erickson.

[Dan]

Carter, believe it or not.

[Mark]

All right, I believe you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I was skeptical. Just the look on your face made me think it was a big, long con.

[Sean]

No, no, no, no.

[Mark]

It's real. Okay. Welcome in. When did you subscribe to the podcast?

[Sean]

Actually, I haven't yet.

[Dan]

This is my first time being on here. I'm going to when I'm done.

[Mark]

All right, thank you. How'd you. How'd you come. How'd you find yourself on today?

[Sean]

My friend.

[Mark]

My friend Lance, he introduced me to it. Lands from South Carolina.

[Dan]

Yeah. From North Carolina.

[Mark]

North Carolina. North Korea. Yeah. Yeah.

[Dan]

He introduced me to this.

[Mark]

And I find this very interesting.

[Dan]

It's pretty cool.

[Mark]

It's nice to see Sean here.

[Dan]

That's awesome.

[Mark]

Thanks for joining.

[Dan]

It's nice to see everybody else here.

[Mark]

What's on your mind? What's on your mind?

[Dan]

So I've been thinking, and I think.

[Mark]

It would be a smart thing if.

[Dan]

We were to introduce term limits and.

[Sean]

Like an age limit to those who.

[Mark]

Can run in Congress. Because I feel like we're represented by.

[Dan]

A bunch of very old people.

[Mark]

Not.

[Dan]

I'm not trying to be mean.

[Mark]

You know, you know, Trump, Trump's 80.

[Dan]

And he's doing all right.

[Mark]

But, you know, we had, we just got out of Biden and he was.

[Dan]

A complete disaster, in my opinion.

[Sean]

And I feel like when we don't put.

[Mark]

Where, where would you set the limit?

[Dan]

75.

[Mark]

I think 75 would probably be a great plan. You can't, you can't, you can't be president at 75. Or you can't run at 75. Can't run at 75. Okay. Because that's when. All right, let's see. Let's see what youngsters, Sean and Dan think. Sean, what do you think about setting a limit for presidents by age?

[Sean]

So I'm generally opposed to both. Any kind of limits outside of those that the Constitution prescribes. I think that it's. I find what we often do is set cop outs. People have the right to vote or not to vote for somebody. And when they don't like the outcome, like it wasn't like Joe Biden got installed. Well, he kind of did. But the bottom line is that people choose to vote or not, and then when they get worried, they go, well, we should have a term limit. You have a term limit every two years, and you choose to vote for them or not. So I always find that answers like this, to me, I find to be a cop out about whether or not someone's told, look at Eleanor Holmes Norton. The woman is representing D.C. granted, it's D.C. she is, by her own colleague's admission, not really with it anymore. And yet no one's even challenging her. Now, I get it, it's a delegate position for D.C. but yet there's no outcry. I just find it fascinating that you have this issue over and over again and it gets covered up. But I believe at the end of the day, it comes down to voters.

[Dan]

Dan, I don't think there should be term limits because then the bureaucracy tends to run government, which is what you see in most of Europe and even places like California, because the members rotate so fast. The only institutional hold is the staff. I think the idea of an age limit, if I were a Democrat running for president and you wanted to do kind of some sort of popular stunt, introduce a bill that would amend the Constitution to add an age limit, companies do it. Most companies have kind of a soft limit. They don't want executives Serving after a certain age. I think it'd be genius.

[Mark]

Lance, welcome back. How are you guys friends?

[Sean]

Actually, we met through the Kennedy campaign. We worked on it together.

[Mark]

So, Lance, when did you subscribe? When do you subscribe to the podcast? What's the approximate date?

[Sean]

Sometime around back before the election in August.

[Mark]

Now, the podcast didn't exist then, Lance.

[Dan]

No, no.

[Mark]

I know, but you got to go to Apple or you got to go to Spotify and subscribe to the podcast. Please.

[Dan]

Can I ask both of you guys if you met on Kennedy's campaign? It's kind of a. We haven't talked about it, but Friday afternoon, Kennedy said, like, I'm not going to run for president. Do you guys believe them? And do you support.

[Sean]

I haven't made my decision on whether or not I would support it, but I don't think. I don't believe that. I don't.

[Mark]

Lance, what's on your mind today? And thank you for recruiting for the show.

[Sean]

What's on my mind today is basically what Leif brought up, that we have to have term limits. And I do think we have to have a age limit, like the next 30 years, because once you implement term limits, the past terms don't count. And the reason why I say we have to have term limits is because we have to have, is because the election that people, they should be facing, candidates should be facing elections based upon their performance on how they have served and basically what they're doing. It's kind of like Kathy Hochul. And I don't know if they should not have fallen for it, to Sean's point, but she was like, she was going to not do the Tolane project. Well, not the, the tolls or whatever, what was going on there in New York. And then she changed her position after the election. So, like, it's like there is no incentive of them to have trust. There's no incentive of them to basically listen to the demands of the people essentially and like, implement those policies once they were elected.

[Mark]

I don't remember, and I'm embarrassed to say I don't. Did Kennedy support term limits when he ran for president? Yes, he did for Congress. What. What were the limits he proposed? Anybody know?

[Sean]

He was not.

[Mark]

He never specified, Never specified. All right. All right, thank you. Both you guys already sort of addressed the. The general issue, but either you want to comment on what Lance said, I.

[Dan]

Do think that when politicians do something as blatant as Hulkle, they tend to pay a price. I, I disagree that they ignore the voters and they don't care like V is in the toilet right now because she's done stuff like that. I mean, it, it vote. The. The electorate tends to punish people who do that.

[Mark]

Dan. Paul, can we dip into cnn? Listen to New York Times David Sanger talking about the summit. He will exploit every division. He already has exploited these divisions. And we're getting word from Moscow or Fred Blykin there. You know, almost unbridled glee inside the.

[Sean]

Kremlin right now at the path things have taken. The one thing that's being floated that at this point is a little amorphous is the idea of security guarantees.

[Dan]

He must have been listening to you, Mark.

[Sean]

I guess my question to you is by whom? And how would that practically take effect? What are some of the options on the table?

[Mark]

Great question, because we don't really know what this looks like. The idea of a security guarantee is pretty straightforward. The Russians have violated every written commitment they've had before not to invade Ukraine. And by my count, they've had three. Okay, but the idea here is put some kind of force in Ukraine, certainly made up of European nations.

[Sean]

There are also members of NATO, but.

[Mark]

It wouldn't be a NATO badged force. And the question is, would the United States join that?

[Sean]

Now, President Trump said for the first time over the weekend that he was.

[Mark]

Open to that, and he told the Europeans that. But he didn't say whether he was open to putting U.S. forces in or just providing U.S. intelligence, which would be enormously helpful. You know, the U.S. has got satellite capabilities that none of the Europeans do. Targeting information, other intel. It's not clear what form it would take. And it's also not clear how big a force this is. Is this a peacekeeping force? Is it just what they call a tripwire force so that the Russians would know they'd have to kill Europeans on their way to getting into Ukraine? Not clear what it is. Also not clear exactly what requirements they would have to respond. Is it Article 5, like, guarantees even though Ukraine will not be part of NATO, some kind of collective security?

[Sean]

We just don't know.

[Mark]

But we are watching. I know you are watching. David Zanger, great to see you. Great piece overnight as well. Thank you. All right, breaking news out of you.

[Sean]

And killed the third.

[Mark]

All right, Anthony, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are when you subscribe to the podcast and what's on your mind.

[Dan]

For Sean and Dan, I've been following.

[Mark]

You guys for about a couple weeks. I shaved my hair. So that's, that's, that's a whole. Nother question. Two questions for both of you guys. So first time I came on here, I, I said I was a left lean independent.

[Sean]

I am.

[Mark]

But I also tend to agree somewhere along the, I guess I agree some with some things Trump does. So one thing I have is on the Ukraine situation. I honestly think that, that, that that situation is just there isn't going to.

[Dan]

Be a deal made there because there's.

[Mark]

Just so much on both sides that people want.

[Sean]

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Another thing too would be on the term limits. I do think we should have term.

[Mark]

Limits for both Supreme Court justices, for senators, because there's just too much, there's.

[Dan]

So many old people in there.

[Sean]

And I think we need younger people.

[Mark]

That actually have better ideas than, than there is right now. What's an example of a young person you think has good ideas who's in politics? Honestly, this may sound kind of weird, but I, maybe Rokahana is one, but I don't know how. I think he's in his 50s.

[Sean]

JD Vance is interesting.

[Mark]

How old is he again? 50?

[Sean]

49?

[Mark]

41. 41. 51.

[Sean]

He might even be 40. I'm trying to remember if he has his had had his 41st birthday yet. Okay, so he would be our, he.

[Mark]

Would be a very, if he became president. He'd probably one of our youngest.

[Dan]

He's 41. Turned it August 2nd.

[Sean]

So I just think, yeah, Rokahan.

[Mark]

But I honestly think at the.

[Sean]

Definitely not aoc.

[Mark]

Definitely. I'm not talking about definitely not aoc. That's, that's one.

[Dan]

So I saw a funny hat this weekend that said make AOC a bartender again. I had never, I had never seen that before.

[Mark]

Dan, thoughts?

[Dan]

I mean, I, I, again, I, to me, I don't like the idea of term limits because I, I just the, what you see around the world is the bureaucracy runs the government because if there is something to be said that a member learns about the, the, the levers of power, they learn about, they form an agenda. They get the experience about how to actually effectuate change. And I think when you're only there for such a short period of time, it's really hard to do that. I look at Virginia with only one term, governors. I think it'd be better if they were able to serve two terms. You just get more done.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

Yeah, I mean, I actually that's a great point. I mean Virginia, where we have a term limit for our governor is just a horrendous thing. By the time they, they're immediately a lame Duck, Obviously you can run non consecutively, as Terry McAuliffe tried to do. But even if you look at some of the state legislators that Dan pointed out, Florida, California, it's all a game of musical chairs. You run for an office, then you run for the Senate, then you do something. I mean, it's, it just creates a system where the staff is empowered, everybody's running for something at all times. And it also, coming from a small state, it undermines small states because seniority is what takes a state like Rhode Island. You know, back when I was growing up, we had Claybourne Powell and John Chaffee. Those guys both grew to be very powerful in their respective parties and it benefited the state. They wouldn't have been able to do that to get that sort of seniority, you know, from, from if that wasn't the case. So I, for a million reasons, as I previously stated, and as I said more generally, I find it to be a cop out. It's. You have a term limit, you know, and if you don't like the person, you get out and you do it. And you've seen everything from someone like Eric Canor, who was defeated in a primary, Tom Foley back in the day. So you can vote people out if you're really upset.

[Mark]

Anthony, thank you. All I'll say, and we'll bring Dan in, is I've always had the same attitude about term limits you guys have. But, but I'll just say this and try to say in a neutral way. I, I think there's a, There's a dynamic here that's troubling to me or unsettling that veteran political opera. The two of you just give the same list of reasons why you're opposed to term limits that people like you have been giving for 30 years. And more and more young people are saying no, that make. That doesn't compute for us. So again, I'm not being critical of you. It's just an interesting dynamic because you two are representative of pretty much everyone we know. Bipartisan, experienced operatives who've been in politics decades, almost all of whom say it's a bad idea. And the reasons you give are perfectly reasonable reasons. And they're reasons I've heard and often given myself for decades. But I can't help but notice that younger people look at you saying stuff like, well, you're gonna run for a different office, or it empowers the staff or it empowers the lobbyists, and they're like, doesn't matter. That's the status quo.

[Sean]

Oh, right, right. And I appreciate that. I get it. I mean, young people right now don't care in the sense that they want change, they want results. I get it. But look at AOC herself. She defeated Joe Crowley, right? I mean, it's, my point is, that's why I'm saying I don't disagree. I think young people have a very different view of government, what they expect of it. But that doesn't mean that I think. But the difference for me is I believe it's very principled.

[Mark]

I know you do. I wouldn't say you weren't.

[Dan]

But I also think, Sean, to my point, you look at the leadership of both parties and look at how old they all are. I mean, at least on our side of the aisle, the congressional leadership is all, I mean the committee chairs, everything, you know, Schumer, they're all so old. And if you're a young person, you're just.

[Sean]

But I also, but here, here's the point that I would make. Look at Donald Trump. The guy is 79 years old. He acts like a 50 year old right to me, if we hadn't had him, and he is for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, he has enacted more change over. Frankly, we just passed the 200 day mark. I wrote a column about this in my newsletter on Friday that like the biggest problem to Mark's question before is that they've accomplished so much in the first six months, they've got to start going, what, what do we, what else can we do? But this has been a bevy of change that no one but Donald Trump could have done. And I would have hate to have think that a term limit or an age limit would have prevented somebody like him from coming in.

[Dan]

Welcome in, Speaker.

[Mark]

Speaking of young people, Dan, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are, what's on your mind.

[Dan]

Seven people.

[Mark]

That's.

[Dan]

What's that People in the chat think I'm, I'm 47. I'm not like 60 here, folks.

[Mark]

Dude, dude, I know the way you just said 60. Take that out of your mouth.

[Sean]

Dan, by the way, get off my lawn.

[Mark]

Right, Dan, go ahead. Thank you for joining.

[Dan]

Well, I'm really excited to be on when Sean and I agree today about Gavin Newsom.

[Mark]

Yeah, I mean I'm really happy with the way Newsom's taking Trump on this.

[Dan]

Is what, you know, a lot of.

[Mark]

People that, you know, think the way I do want Democrats to behave, you.

[Dan]

Know, to go straight at him. I guess my question to you guys.

[Mark]

Is if Newsom continues, you Know what.

[Dan]

He'S doing right now? Will there be a Republican response this early on attacking him, hence starting kind of an early campaign?

[Mark]

Yeah, great question. Great question, Dan. Sean.

[Sean]

Well, you know, it's interesting that Dan said earlier, you know, that maybe it gets under Trump's skin. You saw how he also brought in JD JD Is the likely one to have to go after him, Right. Does he start taking him on? I could see this playing out either way. One is, I think JD could have fun with it. He has the same kind of. I mean, he's witty, he's intellectual. So he could equally go toe to toe with Gavin Newsom. But I also think that there's an aspect of credibility if you're jd do you really want to elevate Gavin Newsom as your, your sort of likely opponent, if you will, and so there's something to be said for ignoring him, Dan.

[Mark]

I can only imagine how much Gavin Newsom would love if they came after him. Right?

[Dan]

I think he is absolutely trying to bait Trump because Trump's MO Is not to ignore. He doesn't. I don't care how big the fly is. You hit him and he comes at you hard. And I think Newsom's begging for it. And there would be nothing better for Gavin Newsom than if J.D. vance and Donald Trump start treating him as the leader of the opposition.

[Mark]

Yeah. Other. Dan, could you, before you go, encourage your fellow progressives to be more active on this platform? I would love that. I would love that.

[Dan]

Sure.

[Mark]

Oh, God. No, I don't. I mean, right now, give, like giving him passion.

[Dan]

You need more coffee this morning. You're very tame.

[Mark]

Given him passion. 30 second speech about why progressives should raise their hand and participate more on two ways. Okay, guys, you guys got to come.

[Dan]

On here because I need help.

[Mark]

I need help, you know, in the chat, talking to these guys.

[Dan]

So, yeah, all the progressive, my progressive.

[Mark]

Friends, come on here. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you for being part of the platform. Sean, what do you have this evening?

[Sean]

Well, obviously this is. We're going to talk about the Ukraine and, and the, the meeting today. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer, the head of the London center, is going to come on and give us his take. So that, that's it. And then tomorrow, by the way, KT McFarland's gonna join us, so I have a feeling we're gonna be talking about this for quite some time this week.

[Mark]

Yeah, Megan McCain is still on holiday. Well deserved. So she's not on today or this week. She'll be back Next week, I believe two way tonight, special time if you want to join live 4pm Eastern time on the two way platform, 4pm It'll stream normally 6pm Eastern on YouTube and the podcast. And tonight a special guest. One of the longest serving national security figures in modern Washington history. Worked in the Pentagon in the 1960s and the Nixon White House. Worked for McNamara at the Pentagon, worked for Kissinger and Nixon at the National Security Council, then worked with Madeleine Albright, served in the Clinton administration and a variety of positions. Has dealt with a lot of issues related to Eastern Europe and Europe. My dad, Morton Halperin will be my guest at 6 4pm and then 6pm tonight to talk about all the stuff that happened at the White House and where we're likely headed, what the options will be for the United States and Europeans and then again, reminder, really so grateful to you for support of the platform in general. Important that you go to your podcast preferred podcast platform or YouTube or all of them Spotify or Apple podcasts and subscribe this program now available as a podcast, not live, but immediately after, almost immediately after the program. And same with Two Way Tonight, both doing very well on the podcast charts. But we'd like to do better. So please, if you're listening to us now in whatever platform you enjoy, please subscribe, like share, download, whatever you can do to boost the numbers so we can demonstrate our broad support from the Two Way community like no other. And again, if you'd like to demonstrate your support another way and become a sponsor of this program or Two Way tonight or any of other shows, shoot us an email. Sponsors TV we can explain to you how our sponsorships differ from your normal type of sponsorship. So please send us an email Sponsors Dan, closing remarks about tonight I just.

[Dan]

I love days like this when history is potentially made. It's just, it's awesome. Can't wait to see what happens.

[Mark]

Sean, do you have a clear schedule so you can watch the whole thing or you're gonna have to multitask and catch up later this.

[Sean]

Well, actually I will be listening. Yeah, I'm. I mean, we'll see. That's why I'm saying it'll be interesting what happens after that first pool spray. But I will be glued.

[Mark]

Yeah, I have zooms literally from the minute this ends till 4 o' clock straight through, no breaks. So one, I'm not sure what I'm gonna do about food, but number two, I will be multitasking. So if you're one of the many, many people on Zooms with me coming up today. Please be careful. If you find me distracted, say hey, Mark, Mark, Mark. Pay attention. Stop watching the White House pool feed. Thank you all for being part of the two way community. Thank you for watching us here on the two way platform and YouTube. No smack in the chat. Even on Spotify, which seems to encourage smack. I'm not sure it's their business model. Please, no smack in the chat. Whether you're listening to us, watching us. Have a great day, everybody. We'll see in 23 hours right here.