Matt (1:33)

Iheartradio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

Le (1:39)

Happy Friday everybody. I was lamenting yesterday when we were trying to put the show together that there is just too damn much news to try to cover. So we've got a bunch of stuff that's interesting in the show today. Ryan and Emily, how are you guys doing?

Matt (1:50)

Hey, good to see you.

Ryan (1:52)

Doing lovely. Great to see you.

Le (1:53)

Lots of Elon updates, some Laura Loomer updates. We got some Gavin Newsom, some the latest with the tariffs. Are they on or off? What does it all mean? Nobody really knows. Some interesting stuff from the Democrats as well as they continue to find themselves a little bit lost in the wilderness. More than a little bit lost in the wilderness, I'd say. So. Lots to get through. Let me go ahead and start with this image. To set the stage for today, we had another starship that you know from Elon's company, SpaceX, that blew up upon launch yesterday. This is a somebody who was a passenger on a commercial flight that took this video. You can see all the debris in the air there. And we were talking beforehand. So this is the second blow up that starship has had this year. The FAA was previously investigating the last one, you know, at least before SpaceX guys basically came in and did like a hostile takeover of the faa. This is. Out of eight starship launches, four of them have failed. So not a great success rate, especially since NASA is effectively pinning the future of the space shuttle program Elon Elon and SpaceX at this point. So any reflections on this guys?

Matt (3:02)

So beautiful.

Ryan (3:04)

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, after the last one, right. They launched investigation and then, you know, Doge was, has been able to shut that investigation down. As producer Mack was pointing out before this show started, the last one had, you know, real repercussions for people who were in the blast zone. The radius of that, of that debris, you know, collapsing back down to earth. And I think it's an awkward time because if you're looking at doing cuts to federal spending such as closing Social Security offices, such as firing 80,000, you know, know, VA workers, which we'll talk about later in the show, to have that paired with sending all this money to Space X and then to have it just blow up in the sky, it's not a great image, not a great look.

Le (3:56)

Yeah. And the investigations of Space X have been not just from the faa, there have also been environmental issues with them not, you know, following compliance and causing damage to the, you know, the area where they're testing these rockets and the surrounding communities. This one caused multiple commercial flights to have to be diverted. The last one also caused, I think around a dozen commercial flights to have to be diverted. Obviously, it's the FAA that's doing all that work. So again, Elon's involvement at the FAA becomes directly, you know, direct conflict there. And you had a couple of Florida airports that had to shut down completely for at least a couple hours while this debris was falling from the sky to avoid any further incidents. So, yeah, as you said, Ryan, not a great look. There's a bunch of other Elon news here to get to this. Probably the most significant from yesterday, which is Trump gathered the cabinet together to let them know Elon Musk is not in charge of hiring and firing. They are. Kyle Cheney here, who's a great fellow in terms of just like the legal ins and outs in particular, he says it was an abrupt admonition that appeared aimed at the mounting legal scrutiny of Musk's power over the government. And what he's pointing to there, Emily, I think, is the fact that, you know, there have been all these. All these court cases. One of them is focused on whether the Office of Personnel Management has the ability to just blanket fire federal employees across the government, not just obviously within their own agency. You know, as part of that, like, obviously, Doge does not technically have the power to. To just blanket fire whoever they want across the entire federal government. So one way to read this that some people are, is, okay, this is Trump actually reining in Elon. Another way to read it is this is the Trump administration trying to position themselves in a stronger way legally, without really changing the dynamics of what they're doing here.

Matt (5:52)

Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely true. I actually think in a weird way, both are true. But this was always an easier. I don't want to call it a loophole, but this was always an easier way to approach the situation. And I think maybe part of it is now they have the whole Cabinet in place, basically. I think maybe Chavez, Darimer, who will get a vote soon. There are a couple outstanding people. But now most of the Cabinet is in place. So you have people who can make those decisions who aren't big balls. And it's like, it always just made more sense to have that. It's, like, legally easier. And Trump. The only other interesting thing in that, I think, was Trump saying now, according to Politico, that these cuts will be done with the scalpel and not the hatchet. So that makes me think it's a little bit of both, that he actually has realized that there's been a lot of, like, sledgehammer, like, rehirings and maybe, like, not. Not the most efficient way of going towards efficiency. And so he's, like, just saying, we've got the Cabinet in place now. Like, you guys are actually in charge of this. Just know that we want cuts. Because the other thing he says, according to the Politico story, is if you don't do the cuts, Elon will do the cuts. So now he's just, like, using Elon Musk as the sort of Damocles, like, hovering over anyone who's out of compliance with the spirit of Doge. And Elon Musk is not, I guess, in charge of Doge. I mean, he's the head of Doge, but he's not the administrator of Doge. It's hard to keep up.

Le (7:18)

Right?

Ryan (7:19)

According to the speech. Yeah.

Le (7:20)

It's like they are in Jersey Doge or something.

Matt (7:24)

Everyone is Doge in their hearts.

Le (7:26)

Yeah.

Ryan (7:27)

And from that, from the outside, it looks like chaos. It looks like. Wait a minute. You know, you told us that you've spent the last four years putting together this, you know, this, this detailed, sophisticated plan, talking to people who know what they're doing. You got former OMB director Russ Vodus back at OMB. He did his project 2025. They're going to come in, they're going to do exactly, exactly what they've wanted to do. And then they do that thing. And then they're like, actually, never mind. We're going to do it a completely different way. And they're talking about, you know, rehiring thousands of USDA employees. I noticed. And they're. A bunch of others are in limbo. Are we. We're on administrative leave, but we can't get in touch with anybody. Are we fired? Are we still going to get our paychecks? Are. Are we coming back? Because you are now acknowledging that what this judge said about our firings, that they were illegal. They are illegal. So am I rehired or am I still fired? How's this. How's this all going to work? Or is it just going to be like the tariffs where you talk about it a lot, do a little bit, and there's a lot of pain for some, in a. In a micro level for some people, but then it all gets flipped and we kind of move on and pretend like it never happened. I don't know.

Le (8:40)

Yeah, that's. That is a great point. I mean, for what it's worth, my personal read of this is that the real message was sent in that public Cabinet meeting where Trump says to all of them, like, if you don't like it, get the hell out. So the message is sent. You better do what Elon wants you to do. But, you know, technically, of course, it's up to you. You're in charge and use the scalpel, not the hatchet. But if you don't do what we want, then get the hell out of here. I mean, that's the way I read it until I see a different posture. You know, to me, some of his language is more about recognition that this is profoundly unpopular. You know, if you look at the polling of, you know, oh, we're slashing the Social Security Administration. And like Ryan said, it's just like, chaos everywhere. And why are we firing all these veterans and people showing up to town halls saying, like, what the hell is going on? This is an attempt to be like, oh, no, no, no, everything's normal. We're doing this in the way that you would want. Because if you poll just like, hey, should the government be cut? And should it be more efficient? People are like, yeah, sure, of course. But when the rubber hits the road and you see, like, oh, the people who are tracking bird flu are gone and planes are crashing into, and I no longer can, you know, reach someone when I'm trying to get something resolved with my Social Security check. Or like in Maine, where now, because they cut the link between the Social Security Administration and the health Services, you now have to go in person to a Social Security office to, like, register your new baby. As if when you have a newborn, you don't have enough on your mind to deal with, they're adding that to the burden as well. So when you see all that chaos and the reality of those cuts, the feel and the political ramification becomes much different than if you just ask people, like, hey, should the government be more efficient? To which most people, you know, overwhelmingly be like, yeah, sure, of course.

Ryan (10:25)

Yeah, that should be an easily winnable fight, right, Emily? Like, from the right, you know, the public thinks that there's waste in government. The public, it's not particularly sympathetic to federal workers in general. To fire federal workers and still wind up on the wrong end of public opinion takes a massive level of incompetence. Really?

Matt (10:48)

Well, I mean, the scalpel versus hatchet dichotomy is interesting because a lot of people on the right were using that. The reverse from Donald Trump, like, the reverse of what he said to justify Doge's chaos. This, like, the callous, like, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Maxim like, this is always. It's necessary, like, you will never, ever scale down the size of the federal government if you don't do it with the hatchet first. And so I guess, in a sense, I'm curious and I should probably talk to some people today and ask around. If they see this now as, like, phase two of Doge, like, they came in with the hatchet and now they can afford to be more precise and targeted. But if it's not true that they got through, like, some type of first phase, which I think most people until yesterday would have said they didn't, then that defeats what everyone thought the purpose of doge was, which was to be this generational opportunity to actually use the hatchet. Because if you use the scalpel, people say you will never, ever scale back the size of Federal. The size of the federal government, because it's too. It gives everybody time to fight back. It gives everybody time to sort of come up with a strategy and you end up just kind of back where you started and trimming around the edges. But Doge was supposed to be like the generational chainsaw opportunity to borrow from Elon's imagery at cpac.

Ryan (12:10)

Yeah. And instead, as always happens, a bunch of Republicans went out on a limb that Trump asked them to go out on, then Trump grabbed their chainsaw and chopped the limb off.

Le (12:21)

Yeah.

Ryan (12:22)

And now there they are explaining how they actually always meant to be at the bottom of the tree with broken legs.

Le (12:28)

That's very relevant to the tariff conversation as well, where, you know, the whiplash of that leaves his defenders, you know, defending every single policy under the sun in an attempt to. To curry favor with him and to, you know, curry favor with a base that's very committed to him, let's say. Ryan, let me have you explain this one because you've been all over this debanking vote that occurred in the Senate. So Laura Loomer here upset because she says every Senate Republican, with the exception of Senator Josh Hawley, just voted to legalize debanking. Now apps like PayPal can get away with banning you for your political views thanks to Senate Republicans who just voted to repeal a rule that made that illegal in December of 2024. And Elon Musk replies, really? Question Laura says, yes, really. Hopefully you can put an end to this. Elon, GOP does not like cfpb. And so they are now just opposing everything CFPB has done, including the good things like implementing a law in 2024 that banned payment platforms like PayPal, Stripe and Venmo from banning people based off their political affiliation. Senate GOP just voted to legalize debanking. They should kill the companion bill off in the House. Ryan, what is going on here?

Ryan (13:37)

Yeah, you think that this show has contrasting perspectives? How about Laura Loomer and I teaming up to try to save this CFPB debanking rule? Like the whole. The whole. It's not even horseshoes, it's like just looping in like a NASCAR track in on itself. So, yeah, so. So Laura Loomer know shared our reporting over at drop site and we covered it here at at Counterpoints. I had reached out to her because she has herself been debanked in 2019. I don't know, you know, what her, you know, far right particular offense was, but PayPal stopped working with her. Venmo canceled her Accounts she can't use. Like Uber Eats. Like, not the Uber Eats. Uber.

Le (14:21)

Uber Eats.

Ryan (14:23)

Basically shut off from all of kind of contemporary app activity. There were even some, like, comical ones that like, the apps don't even exist anymore. What was that one where all the tech bros were on audio talking to each other?

Matt (14:39)

Yeah, Clubhouse.

Ryan (14:40)

She even got banned from Clubhouse. Yeah.

Matt (14:43)

The next big thing.

Ryan (14:44)

Yes. Is Clubhouse even still a thing I forgot about?

Matt (14:46)

I don't think so.

Ryan (14:47)

I guess maybe. Yeah. Anyway, so. And she. And she confirmed. Yeah. And she still actually can't use PayPal and some others. And so the CFPB passed a rule under Biden and under Rohit Chopra that says banks cannot debank over political reasons for ideological reasons. And he said, and, and what? And I'm including in that anybody that does more than 50 million transactions a year. So that, that lumps in PayPal, Zelle, Google Pay, Apple Pay, all, all of these apps. And they all fought this, you know, relentlessly, because they don't want, it's. They don't want to be regulated, period. And so Elon, Elon Musk and WhatsApp Zuckerberg both have been talking about getting a payment app, you know, getting, you know, allowing payments, allowing you to move money through WhatsApp or through your DMs on Twitter or whatever they would.

Matt (15:43)

One of his most important ambitions for Twitter. It's one of the reasons he bought it. He wants it to be X and in everything.

Ryan (15:49)

Yeah, he's been very clear about that. And that they would instantly then be covered under this, under this new regulation. And it would just mean they can't debank people for political reasons. And they'd have to have serious fraud prevention efforts, just like banks are supposed to have and fraud dispute mechanism. So you get, you get scammed. You can, you can, there's a process that you can dispute it. The scams on Twitter now, like, there's just. You're, you're absolutely screwed. Like, you get, you get scammed, you get shut out. You, you better know somebody who can, who can like get your case in front of Elon. Otherwise, you know, you're shut out of your account. And your, the account is going to be controlled by whatever crypto scammers, you know, took it from you. And Rupar got, got caught by that recently. So they don't want that regulation. And so they persuaded the Senate to pass this resolution getting rid of this CFPB rule. And so Josh Hawley voted against it. I've seen Steve Bannon is now engaged on this Question it still has to go over to the House. And so now Democrats just had another one of their members die. Who. So they're what, you're the four seat majority now, so maybe five seat at this point. Democrats, you know, if everybody shows up, they'll all vote no. Republicans only need to find a handful of people, single digits, low single digits to say no. Sorry Musk, like sorry PayPal, like we're going to regulate you here and the regulation is going to say you can't debank people for political reasons. Elon Musk saying really like as this is, as if this is like coming as news to him is it's kind of hilarious.

Le (17:41)

But like when Zuckerberg was on with Rogan pretending like he didn't know what oh, the CFPB I've never even heard of.

Ryan (17:46)

Don't even know what it stands.

Le (17:47)

Why are they even going after me?

Matt (17:48)

This is the first time hearing of.

Ryan (17:50)

This, the first time you're telling me this for the first time. It's very sad. So I think if you're Elon Musk, curious Emily, for your take on this, if you're Elon Musk, you take the L here and you tell the House, do not repeal this rule. This is outrageous because it shows then you're, you can, you can be performatively non conflicted because you're like, okay, yes, this would hurt me but I am willing to let this go through because it's so obvious that conservatives should not be, you know, kicked off of, you know, banking apps just for being conservative. So I'm going to stand up for, I'm going to stand up for this and then in he can figure out down the road how he can, you know, get well, I mean they're destroying carve out for his little coin.

Le (18:35)

They're destroying the cfpb. So.

Ryan (18:37)

Exactly.

Le (18:37)

He doesn't need this in place.

Ryan (18:39)

Right.

Le (18:39)

He's already, they've already like him.

Ryan (18:41)

I would be, if I were him, I would cynically just get behind this and say yeah, don't, don't do this. This is terrible. I mean I, if it hadn't been elevated then he wouldn't have even had to make the choice.

Matt (18:53)

I think the cynical calculation is absolutely smart, but I don't know that they're actually going to even bother.

Ryan (19:00)

They're going for everything. They might just repeal the rule and be like, you know what, what are you going to do?

Matt (19:05)

Well and they also have a fairly arcane argument about how the rule actually is. It's like the opposite. You've probably seen this, like they flip it on its head and they say the rule is what allows for the. They say that what they're doing is fighting debanking. Like that's their argument. They have this like, arcane, like, lobbyist crafted, clearly, like tech lobbyist crafted argument.

Ryan (19:26)

And Tim Scott is out saying, well, I've got a bill that's going to ban debanking, but it's like that's treating people like they don't have any idea what they're talking about because there's already. There are laws on the books that are interpreted to mean that you can't discriminate against people on their viewpoints. The CFPB's rule is just implementing that law. So Tim Scott coming and saying he's going to pass a new law means that somebody then has to implement a rule to enforce it. Laws that aren't enforced don't matter. And so what these, what Tim Scott and these other Republicans would want to do is say, well, we're going to pass a law, but we're not going to enforce it. So that way they get to tell their audience that they're with them. But the bank lobbyists are comfortable that the law will never be enforced.

Le (20:15)

Yeah. Because all the agencies that would enforce it are being destroyed.

Matt (20:18)

I'm threatened that you're going to replace me with Laura Loomer. Brian.

Le (20:24)

You're safe.

Ryan (20:25)

We gotta get. We gotta get Laura Loomer on the show.

Le (20:29)

That'd be a good Counterpoints Friday.

Ryan (20:30)

Would we? Is she allowed on YouTube? Like, I like. She's like every.

Le (20:34)

We could just post that one on Rumble only.

Matt (20:37)

That's right.

Ryan (20:38)

Yeah.

Le (20:39)

They can be a Rumble exclusive. Ryan. Ryan and Laura Loomer to team up. That's like, I want to talk to Steve Bannon for similar reasons.

Ryan (20:46)

It is, it is. Whatever she said, I'm sure. I disagree with it. She should not be banned from Uber Eats. Ridiculous.

Le (20:52)

Yep. Yeah.

Matt (20:53)

Too far.

Le (20:54)

I mean, you also, like, there's few people who are actually willing to really stand up to, you know, on any sort of principal. Most of them are busy being like, tariffs are great. You're so brilliant for taking the tariffs off. Tariffs are great. You're so brilliant for taking the tariffs. So to see someone who will, like, stand on any principle is, you know, you got to.

Ryan (21:13)

Yeah, she's got her views and stick with it. Yeah.

Le (21:17)

All right, let's go to some of the latest Doge cuts here that are really significant. Washington Post with a good piece on what's already happening at Social Security, as Jeff Stein puts it here. So, you know, they've slashed a lot of the workforce. They're closing a bunch of offices and people are already feeling that the impact of that. And Ryan, I think you pointed out, this is like, this is a way to cut Social Security effectively without actually cutting Social Security. So this article says wait times for basic phone service have grown in some cases to hours. Cornea employees who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity, delete delays and reviews of disability claims, and hearings before administrative law judges are already starting. Employees at a field office in Indiana have been forced to pick up calls for other offices. When employees said are feeling phone inquiries for an area covering two thirds of the state, the phone quote never stops ringing. Now the employee said phone backups have prevented the staff from processing retirement claims. So, you know, how good is a program? How good is a program for you? Like, how much does it actually exist when you cannot actually get in touch with a human being in order to avail yourself of said program? Like, if you can't get your claims processed, then it's like the program doesn't exist for you effectively.

Ryan (22:29)

Right? It's a way to kill the program, the program through attrition. Because obviously Social Security itself, something like 10,000 plus people a day are dying who are on Social Security. So you're moving them out then, you know, 10, it's fairly automatic to get in to just straight up Social Security. But SSI and ssdi, which are huge components of the program, are implemented by the states through these Disability Determination Services offices and they're kind of run by ssa and those are the places where it takes a long time to get your claims approved. And once you're on, they're kind of always looking for ways to kick you off, like, oh, your bank account went over $2,000 this month. You're, you're out. And then you have to appeal and you try to get back in. And if you can shut those offices down, then you can slow the process of getting new people in or just completely block it and then through attrition, you know, get people out through paperwork violations or death and, and gradually take this program that is the most popular and has reduced poverty by, by more than any other program in world history. And I say this as a huge fan of some communist governments and their anti poverty programs, but nobody has like reduced poverty like Social Security did, like taking it from 90, like a huge, huge like a 90% drop in elderly poverty from the, from pre Social Security to post Social Security.

Matt (24:02)

Not Even Stalin, not even Stalin could do this.

Ryan (24:05)

Can claim credit for that. Yeah. So that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to reverse it by, through. Through attrition.

Matt (24:15)

I don't think that's wrong. I mean, I think that's probably. Well, so I think it's. There's. Ryan and Crystal, you were both talking about this the other night when we were discussing how much austerity, like, featured in Donald Trump's joint address to Congress. Yeah, I think there are, like, real ideological, and Trump may not even be aware of this ideological goals from people like Russ Vote or people in that orbit as it pertains to these programs that are baked into the massive reforms that they want to do. So, like, for example, when Trump says, we're not cutting Medicaid, we're reforming the waste, fraud and abuse, or like, we're rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. You know, you can make all of these cuts to Medicaid, and it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term. So it was Social Security. Like, you can get fraud out of Social Security. It doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term, but it does sort of handicap them. So I think some of that is baked into these, like, broader conservative movement policy designs. I agree with that. I just don't know if Trump. I don't know if it's, like, on Trump's radar.

Ryan (25:25)

I'm sure it's not. And I was, and I was talking to somebody who works in a state DDS office yesterday, and they said that this, this censorship that they've been bizarrely carrying out at SSA offices. And you saw this report that, like, you can't, you already couldn't, you know, go to YouTube on your, like, work computer at, in a lot of places, public schools, lots of places. But they expanded that to, like, all, almost all news sites. And the DDS employee I talked to said that that also caught up their contractor, you know, because there's so much corporate kind of conglomeration and concentration of corporate power that you hit one company, you might hit 75 companies you didn't know were, like, connected to it. So, like, these, these state workers now can't get into their, like, contractor portals to do just the basic work that they have to do to implement the program. And it's like, that's kind of on purpose. Like, that's the goal. Like, they want, they want these workers not to be able to do their work because the Work that they're doing is are things they don't support gradually bringing more people into the program.

Le (26:28)

Yeah, well, and I also think, I mean, the, you know, the State of the Union where he was talking, he was spreading this total lie about the number of people over 200 or whatever who are getting Social Security checks. I mean, that to me is also a way to argue like we're cutting this program because of all the fraud to avoid violating his or avoid the appearance of violating his pledge that he wasn't going to touch Social, Social Security. So, you know, again, this is one of these areas where you see the tug of war between what Trump has positioned himself as politically and what Elon's ideology is, and certainly Russ votes ideology as well. And the Elon ideology seems to be consistently winning out. I mean, this is kind of a somewhat similar. You've got they're firing 80,000 Veterans affairs workers as part of Trump cuts. They say this is sparking a backlash. I mean, many of these people are veterans themselves that work at the Veterans Affairs Administration and certainly critical to, you know, delivering for the promises that we have made to people who have served the country. And Emily, I think politically, these have been some of the more difficult for Republicans to be able to answer when you have people who stand up and are like, how could you be firing all of these tens of thousands of veterans who serve the country? How could you be firing all of these military spouses who are sort of disproportionately on probationary status because the nature of having to move around the country and, you know, depending on where your spouse is being stationed and deployed. And so I think politically, this has been some of the stuff that's been more difficult for Republicans and is part of why Elon had to meet with them this week and assuage some of the Republican caucus concerns about what they're hearing from constituents in their district with regard to Doge?

Matt (28:12)

Well, my favorite part of that report was at the meeting, Elon Musk handed out his phone number to senators, but not House members, which is actually pretty funny. It reminds me of the Veep line where she can't get something through the Senate. She says, okay, then lift the sewer grate to the House and we'll go over there. So funny, but no. So what's really interesting to me, and I was very surprised to find out by this, that that actually pares it back down to 2019 levels. So in the last several years, the growth of the VA was 80,000 people, which is the last six years the growth of the VA was 80,000 People, which is interesting because it's about a 400,000 person department and they're going to get it back down to around 300,000. But even if that, even if that on paper, you look at it, the politics of it, Crystal, are going to be, I mean, we played that video earlier, what was a few days ago from Roger Wicker. I want to say it was Roger Wicker at a town hall where he was getting specifically confronted on veterans. I was listening to an NPR segment about their local, a local VA outside of Seattle getting hit by this. And you just like when you localize this, it's going to, I don't know that we've actually fully seen the bleeding politically shown up, show up in polling yet because I don't know it's been fully like people haven't reckoned with it. They don't realize, they're still uncertainty as to whether this stuff is permanent or whether it's going to get reversed. People are going to get rehired because we have seen people get rehired. So I don't, I mean if some of this stuff is permanent, the politics of that are going to be extremely difficult for Republicans.

Le (29:50)

Yeah. And also, you know, we're already seeing, and this is a good transition to the next piece about tariffs. We're seeing some real economic warning signs and making massive cuts to the federal government that is going to have an impact not just on those workers, but obviously it reverberates throughout communities, you know, different industries that where federal government funding is important, they just sort of everything is frozen in place. And when you couple that with the tariffs and what's going on there and general sense that there's, you know, a slowdown coming, it can have devastating economic impacts outside of just the direct firings and what that means for individual people's lives. So here's the latest on the tariffs. As of yesterday, we have Trump delaying some tariffs on Mexico and Canada at least for a month. So we get to do this all again in April, guys, don't worry. But basically anything that follow falls under any products that follow fall under the usmca. They're saying the tariffs are not going to apply. And I have a note here about what percentage. So about 50% of Mexican imports, 38% of Canadian imports are covered by that trade agreement. It does create a lot of, I mean, so you still have a significant portion of goods that will be tariffed. And also I was reading about this as well. It's like a little bit complex to even figure out which goods are covered by the tariff. Some things will be straightforward, but some things, you know, where you have different component parts coming from different places, etc. It's actually complicated to figure out which falls under this agreement and which doesn't. So, you know, I saw, I think the markets were reacting pretty positively this morning, but yesterday was a total bloodbath in the market. So, you know, Emily, what do you think about where we are with all of this?

Matt (31:39)

It's hard to know where we are because it's like you don't know if you're in the middle of something until you have some clear idea of what the end would look like. And I don't know what Trump's end is. That's how I feel too, because, yeah, I mean, we talked about this at length the other night, but he has this conflation of his economic goals and his immigration, Fentanyl goals. And it's really obviously confusing for Mexico and Canada at this point. I think he's just like straight up mad at Canada and wants to mess with Canada. But, like, I don't know. I think it's really hard to say what he does going forward because he has gotten some things like, for example, the Honda Civics being made in Indiana rather than Mexico. Like, he's seen some of this stuff start to happen. So does that mean that he sticks with a more targeted version of some of these? That's my best guess. I would say that he ultimately lands on targeted tariffs and can claim a win on the blunt force tariffs by getting Mexico to cooperate with immigration stuff and getting Canada to cooperate with fentanyl and that sort of thing. So I have no idea where it's going, but that's my best guess right now.

Le (32:51)

Ryan, one of what the Canadians think is that he's using this economic warfare against them to try to weaken them so that he can take them over as the 51st state. I mean, that's what they, that's what they believe. Some Trump officials have even effectively said that that is the goal. I mean, do you put much stock in that as that's what's going on here? Because it's so hard to figure out what is actually going on here.

Ryan (33:12)

Yes, I, I do think that that's, that needs to be taken seriously because the United States economy definitely has the power to, you know, shrink the Canadian economy by an absolutely extraordinary amount.

Matt (33:29)

Like, which is already not good, by the way.

Ryan (33:31)

Yeah. And it's, it's, it's crushing. And, you know, we're already crushing the economy now. You know, we, we benefit from trade with Canada. Like we, there's an enormous number of raw materials and resources, you know, wood, paper, you know, energy that come in from Canada to the United States. But our economy is so huge, you know, obviously we can withstand a trade war with Canada. We would, you know, we can outlast them. And so that now the, the question is like is there a Trump in power long enough to like execute on that long term strategy and does he have the ability to kind of see it through? There were people in the 1890s when McKinley was doing this that thought that that was the plan that they were gonna, you know, weaken Canada to the point that we would be able to annex it.

Le (34:27)

So I didn't realize that.

Ryan (34:29)

Yeah, that was, that was part of the thinking. It collapsed really quickly because even in the, you know, in the 1890s people were like, they didn't like paying more price, you know, higher prices. And we had that giant crisis in 1893 that kind of ended that. So yeah, like it wouldn't be new but, but I don't think, you know, just like then I don't know if we have the follow through.

Le (34:54)

This comes as Secretary Bessant yesterday the Treasury Secretary said that cheap goods are not the essence of the American dream, which actually there's, I mean we could do an hour just talking about the reflecting on those comments and what the reality is and what a different version of the American dream because certainly in the neoliberal era, what has been sold to the citizens re in lieu of like high wages, unionization, a manufacturing base, like you know, intact communities, we have been sold that actually cheap goods are thing that we're giving you in exchange for the way we're going to run the economic system. And so in certain sense I'm sympathetic to. Yeah, I agree, I don't think that should be. But that is the value that we've been sold. And if you're going to effectively intentionally raise prices, which is what these tariffs will almost certainly do, then you better have some other things in place to raise wages and you know, restore some other, allow people to be able to buy houses, for example, afford college education, afford health care, or be given, you know, universal health care if you are going to completely reorient things. On, on the contrary, what they have seemed to be pushing towards is if not outright generating a recession, generating a massive slowdown intentionally in consumer spending and in wage growth. So that in using that as the way to, to curb inflation. And so let Me just put this poll up on the screen. I'll get you guys to reflect on all of that. But you've got nearly two in three American saying they think tariffs are going to drive their costs up. That includes a majority of Republicans. Those numbers have moved substantially in just a month period of time. So you can see here, even among Republicans, you've got 51% saying, yeah, they're going to cause costs to go up, only 19% saying they'll go down, 18% saying, no impact. And overall, 67% of people say, yeah, this is going to cause prices to go up. And, you know, only 12% say they will cause them to go down. And 12% saying no impact here. So very lopsided in terms of how people, how people expect these tariffs to affect their lives at a time when obviously, Emily, inflation has been, you know, a core part of the political story and political upset during the Biden administration that helps usher Trump into power. Trump promises very much like we're going to get prices under control, etc. And right now people feel like, well, actually your policy is pushing in the exact opposite direction.

Ryan (37:29)

Emily, while you think on that, let me clean up my McKinley comment real quick because it actually fits in in this. It wasn't that McKinley's tariffs led into and were upended by the 1893 crisis. It was the reverse. There was the 1893 crisis that created this depression, that created this like demand among the American people that you do something about it. And McKinley ran then in 1896 saying, I'm going to do something about this. And the thing I'm going to do is, is tariffs. And so he selected then. And people are like, oh, this actually didn't solve the problem. Like, you were right that there was something wrong, but this didn't fix it. So let's get rid of, let's get rid of these tariffs. So before people drag jump on your.

Le (38:07)

Flipping the timeline there, actually his speech that he gave before the, before an assassin, you know, came and took him out was about how he was rolling back a lot of the tariffs because basically, like, yeah, we, you know, that served its purpose for its time, but we're, we're moving forward in a different direction now.

Matt (38:28)

And Trump, we've talked about this before too, but I think he actually just thrives on the sense of confusion. And I think the reason that even people who follow his moves, his every move when it comes to tariffs don't have a good idea of what's coming next is completely intentional on his behalf because he Legitimately doesn't want Trudeau and Sheinbaum to know either, or China for that matter. But the Besant speech, I pulled it up in front of me. I just wanted to read a little bit more from where he says he starts to talk about the United States finds itself subsidizing the rest of the world's underspending. In defense, this is not just a security issue. The United States also provides reserve assets, serves as a consumer of first and last resort, and absorbs excess supply in the face of insufficient demand. In other countries, domestic models, the system is not sustainable. Then he says access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream. The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this. And so what I thought was particularly interesting about that is it doesn't help you sell higher prices. And what Donald Trump talked about, like, most Americans are going to like that to them sounds like airy in the clouds bs. I really like it because it's not how the conservative movement has talked about these things ever. And it's true. And I think it's sort of interesting. He didn't include families in that calculation and didn't talk about neighborhoods and communities. He just talked about economic mobility and all that sort of thing, which is great, but you know, we could go into a different rabbit hole on that. But most Americans are like, sure, yeah, but These eggs are $10.

Le (40:05)

Yeah.

Matt (40:06)

Cool, man. So Trump pivoted to Biden when he was talking about eggs in the joint address. And you can only coast off of that for so long. I think he's probably fine right now still blaming Biden, but I don't think that lasts much longer politically. I think that is, it only is going to last for a little bit longer for them.

Ryan (40:25)

And think about what actually works to Crystal's point about McKinley getting got by that anarchist who comes in then, Teddy Roosevelt, and he's like, oh, I've got an actual solution here. I'm going to smash corporate power, I'm busting up all of these trusts, and I'm going to raise up regular people. So you went from this kind of fake populism of we're going to do, we're going to do tariffs and he's trying to like, you know, drain off the energy from William Jennings Bryan.

Le (40:50)

Tariffs and imperialism, by the way.

Ryan (40:52)

Tariffs and imperialism, exactly. That. That actually turned out to be just BS and didn't work. When then Roosevelt comes in and takes on corporate power and, and brings in a progressive era launches like government regulation of these, of these corporate entities. And all of a sudden you start getting real economic growth again combined with a loose monetary policy by accidentally finding a whole lot of silver in the west. And which actually proved William Jennings Bryan right, that you did need looser silver policy. But anyway, that's a different part of it.

Matt (41:27)

It's just like crypto. It's just like crypto.

Ryan (41:28)

Yeah, there you go.

Le (41:30)

Some parallels there.

Ryan (41:31)

Yeah, actually.

Le (41:34)

All right, let's move on to a little bit of the. The Democrats here and this. I'm curious for Ryan's reaction, first and foremost to this. So, you know, Al Green did his protests on the floor saying, you know, you have no mandate to cut Medicaid. He's been really on a tear, like, very laser focused on Medicaid in particular, because his district has a lot of Medicaid recipients. So he feels it's quite important to the fortunes of his constituents. And you had Jeffries and other leaders, Catherine Clark and Pete Aguilar, who gathered what they describe as roughly a dozen Democratic disruptors. They were called into a Come to Jesus meeting on Thursday morning. The senior Dem told Axios. This also comes on the heels of a censure vote of Al Green in the House where, you know, it's mostly overwhelmingly, obviously, every Republican voting to censure him. But you did have 10 Democrats cross the aisle, Ryan, to stand up in favor of decorum. So, you know, which is. It just says so much about this party, to be honest with you. But, Ryan, what was your thought about this Come to Jesus meeting over how dare you disrupt the President of the United States?

Ryan (42:49)

And these are all Democrats who are in pretty, you know, Republican leaning districts, had very close elections. So this is, you know, this is them kind of pandering to that, to that constituency. I think the Jesus had a way forward for people, for his flock, his, you know, his disciples, like, Amen, Brother Ryan. Emily can tell us a little bit more about this, but if you have a Come to Jesus meeting and Jesus doesn't actually have any ideas for you, that meeting's gonna break up pretty quickly. Jesus got his power and his charisma and his following because he had ideas about how they were gonna go forward in the world.

Le (43:36)

True.

Ryan (43:37)

I don't think Hakeem Jeffries has any ideas right now. So it's like, come to Hakeem.

Matt (43:42)

Come to Jeffries movie.

Ryan (43:44)

Come to Jeffries. And they're like, okay, Hakeem, tell us. Then you Know what is the path forward? And he's like, I don't know. What are you asking me for? We don't have any power.

Le (43:55)

He's like, I know. We're gonna put out this cringe TikTok video with.

Ryan (43:59)

Why haven't you guys done your TikTok videos yet?

Le (44:02)

Yeah, by the one where they were all scripted doing the same thing. That's what that. That's been. The Democratic Party's in compliance with decorum approach to resistance here from the same.

Matt (44:12)

Can I say that reminds me so much of, like, 2009, 2010, when, like, just the lamest Republicans who are trying to catch up with Democrats after, like, the Facebook election.

Ryan (44:24)

Facebook.

Matt (44:26)

And it's, like, shocking to take a.

Ryan (44:28)

Picture of their breakfast. Yeah, it's.

Matt (44:30)

No, it's true that they would. It's truly shocking to me as someone who grew up in the era where, like, Republicans were the epitome of cringe on social media, that it is now Democrats. And it happened very, very quickly. Like Republicans used to. I mean, I think politics is always pretty cringe on social media, but Republicans used to actually envy the way Democrats were able to speak more like, fluently on social media, and they spoke the language of social media more fluently. And now it's completely reversed. But on this point, about Hakeem Jeffries, he is terrible. He's so, so bad.

Ryan (45:04)

Surprisingly, surprisingly, not the man for the moment.

Le (45:07)

I never thought I'd long for the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, but, I mean, at least the woman has some skills, like, has some, oh, my God flair to her.

Matt (45:17)

Republicans would look at Nancy Pelosi and they would say, what we did with George Santos, this is how they would see it. They. They lost. They actually lost battles because they kicked out George Santos. And they looked out. They looked back on that afterwards, and they were like, nancy Pelosi would never have done that. In the same way that Nancy Pelosi probably would never have forced this, like, struggle session over what Al Green did. I don't think Al Green's optics were great for Democrats, but two things can be true. That could have been a hilarious image of, like, an elderly man waving his cane at the president. And on the other hand, you don't have to have a struggle session to, like, censor him when people want you to be harder on Trump. Like, the optics of both are bad.

Le (45:57)

Well, and here's the thing, too. Sorry, Emily, I didn't mean to cut you off, but. No, the thing with Al Green is. Okay, let's say you feel like, oh, the optics were bad of him standing up with his cane and the thing. But you know, what Republicans have figured out, and Trump in particular has figured out, is if you are able to generate controversy in a conversation, which Al Green did, then you can move the political dialogue in the direction that you want. And so what I appreciated about what Al Green did is immediately afterwards, he's escorted out and he says, I am here and I'm willing to stand up and I will take the consequences because they will not cut Medicaid and they will not go after my constituents. And I don't care if they do censure me, I am here to fight. And so now, if Democrats were smart enough to say, yeah, he's right, these Medicaid cuts are outrageous and they're going to be incredibly destructive. Now you switch the conversation to an issue where you are overwhelmingly on the side of the people and it's Republicans who are having to respond. Instead, you have the Democrats forcing some hand wringing conversation about decorum. And meanwhile, you're also pissing off your own base who are like, yes, Al Green, you're a hero. Thank you for doing something. Yes. Jasmine Crockett, who also was called into this meeting, berated for her resistance not being appropriate with decorum. Whatever. I don't think, Ryan, that Democratic leadership has internalized that. It's not just like lefties like you and me who are mad at the establishment Democrats at this point. They have lost the libs, like the heart, like the Democratic base, like the backbone of this party who were in love with Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. They are like, fuck you, Hakeem Jeffries. Screw you. Like, we are disgusted. And I don't think they've reckoned with the fact that it's not just, you know, this group of, like, progressives and lefties that they're used to staring at and used to marginalizing that has. They have gotten crosswise with at this point.

Ryan (48:02)

Yeah, they're lucky that, you know, cnn, msnbc, the New York Times seem okay. You know, they're just, they're just gonna kind of let this. They're just gonna step back and let Hakeem Jeffries just play this thing out. Because as Emily pointed out wisely the other day, that there's a very similar dynamic to the problems that Republican leadership faced during the Tea Party.

Le (48:24)

Yeah.

Ryan (48:25)

And there was an insurgency then. And within, like a cycle or two, they had been wiped. You know, the old guard had basically been been wiped out and sent back to their kind of readout at the Chamber of Commerce. The. What they had though was Fox News, like, you know, sending cameras to every single Tea Party rally. You know, 30 guys in Boehner's district would, would be driving the news for, for that night on Fox. And once, you know, Eric Cantor was beaten, Fox was like all in on the Tea Party movement.

Matt (49:01)

And the left.

Ryan (49:02)

Yeah. Which doesn't have aoc. AOC beat Joe Crowley and became an enemy for several years. Right. If there was a left media that then rallied behind that element, it would own the party by now. But of course, cnn, msnbc, these are like corporate backed media. And there's no overlap between left populism and corporate media where there can be with right populism and corporate media because.

Le (49:32)

They'Re not at odds ultimately with overpower.

Matt (49:34)

But the. What's interesting is that in 2017. Ish. Whatever. Actually I thought, I thought we did see an interesting reception that like the sort of populist left got on corporate media because everybody was together under the banner of the resistance.

Ryan (49:51)

Yeah.

Matt (49:51)

And now there's nothing like that because.

Ryan (49:54)

As long as they were going after Trump.

Matt (49:55)

Right, right, right, exactly. So but now corporate media like Hakeem Jeffries is terrified that the Jasmine Crocketts of the world. And Crockett has been on MSNBC or whatever else, but like they're terrified of the Jasmine Crocketts of the world actually making them look like they've, they're still on the wrong side of the culture war. And so CNN and Hakeem Jeffries right now are going to be really risk averse about platforming populism. Anything that smacks of populism, even if it's coming from like corporate friendly Democrats, because they are like, we need to get back. They don't understand that actually economic left populism is what people want. And if you get rid of cultural populism, like cultural left populism, you're taking down the left economic populists with them. And what's left is really unpopular corporate Democratic bs.

Ryan (50:47)

Right. And Jasmine Crockett doesn't have, doesn't bring forward and she doesn't lead with a class analysis.

Matt (50:52)

Right.

Ryan (50:53)

And so, so there's nothing threatening about that. And she's extremely talented, you know, in the way that she kind of rips apart Republicans and so she makes for great tv and there's nothing threatening there. You that. What was that Marjorie Taylor Greene riff she had? Bleach blonde. I mean that.

Matt (51:08)

Yeah, that's true.

Ryan (51:09)

Yeah, that's really like whatever it was Just nailed that.

Le (51:13)

Yeah.

Ryan (51:14)

But there's nothing threatened to. There's nothing threatening there to call it.

Le (51:17)

She's a little bit of a poly market populist, if you would, because she is, like, crypto backed. Very, like. Like, you know, in terms of her economics. She's.

Ryan (51:25)

I reported in my book squad that, like, crypto people came to her during her first campaign, and it was basically like, I will. We'll wipe you out or we'll support you.

Le (51:36)

Yeah, that was her.

Matt (51:38)

Oh, interesting. I remember that.

Ryan (51:39)

Remember that section? Yeah, that was her. She's like. She's like, what's the. Give me. Give me the damn questionnaire. Yeah, I don't care. And I'm not for crypto. I'm not against it. I don't care. I don't understand it. And if. Just tell me where I need to sign to not get nuked. And that's. You can blame her for that. But it's also. That's a real problem with how our campaigns are financed.

Le (51:58)

True. And they made an example, as you pointed out, of Katie Porter. And after that, it really was just like, basically capitulation. I real quick want to get to. Because this ties in so much, the Gavin Newsom, Charlie Kirk thing before Emily has to jump. You have a hard on at 10 m. Ish. Yeah. All right, so we can get it. We can get a few minutes from you on this. So Gavin Newsom has launched a podcast, God Save Us. Okay. And he's announced a few.

Matt (52:23)

God Save Us.

Le (52:24)

Yeah.

Ryan (52:25)

What's it called? Is it like Gavin, Gavin.

Le (52:28)

I don't know. Gavin. With Gavin.

Ryan (52:30)

Gavin.

Le (52:31)

I don't know. But his. I don't know. I think his first episode, I haven't tracked it that closely. Was just himself, which is kind of appropriate.

Matt (52:39)

He talked about the Menendez brothers, too.

Le (52:41)

Are you serious? Okay. The second episode, he has Charlie Kirk on. And first of all, this was interesting to me. He tells Charlie Kirk what a big fan his son is of him. So let's take a listen to a little bit of that and then we can play the. The piece that has gotten the most attention, which is Gavin Newsome on Trans Girls in Sports.

Ryan (53:01)

Last night, trying to put my son to bed. He's like, no, Dad, I just. What time? What time's Charlie gonna be here? What time? And I'm like, dude, you're in school tomorrow. He's 13. He's like, no, no, this morning. Wakes up at 6 up. Then he's like, I'm coming. I. Like, he literally would not leave the house. Did you let him take off school? No. He did. Of course not. He's not here for a good reason. But the point is, you can't school for like two years once one is the point. Which is you are making a damn dance. I'm kidding. When you go to these college campuses, I love watching your TikTok, which is nice.

Le (53:32)

All right, that's enough of that. But I just wanted to use that as a way to say, like, I'm sorry, Gavin Newsom, you're a bad dad. Like, you should not be letting your kid watch this trash. And also, if you are raising your child with any sort of quote unquote progression values, like maybe reflect on where you went astray, that he is in love with Charlie Kirk.

Ryan (53:53)

To me, I wouldn't want to ban my kids from watching Charlie Kirk or anybody, but I would do a lot of deep self reflection about what I had done.

Le (54:03)

There is no way to get them there. I have an 11 year old son, almost 12. No way in hell I would let him watch any of that kind of trash. No way. No way.

Ryan (54:13)

Is. It's an interesting. Yeah. Because YouTube is such a mess. You go from Minecraft and then you're quickly. You're into this, you know, right. Manosphere stuff.

Le (54:21)

True. Absolutely true.

Matt (54:24)

I mean, there's something, any, any replacement. Well, I don't have children, so I don't have to make this decision. But what if they're watching us?

Ryan (54:33)

John Piker.

Matt (54:35)

Yeah, I would, I mean, I would be all for that. I think it's like the. I do work with a lot of like younger people because I'm in that like, right wing world of like, student stuff. And what, what I find is the reason they're drawn to people like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro is this. They feel like they're getting a moral clarity from it. And actually a lot of them watch Hasan Piker too, because they like watching people who aren't like mushy middle centrists. They like watching people who tell them something and are utterly convinced of it because it makes them feel like they're listening to something. That's true. So I have no idea what path Gavin Newsom's son is on, but I think the podcast is really interesting for the exact reason we were just talking about with Jasmine Crockett, which is that Gavin Newsom is totally the type of person who, like, he can. He's going to pivot. He's such a chameleon. He's at like, he's smart enough to know that you have to look transparent and authentic and like, Kamala Harris could have gone on Joe Rogan and shot herself in the foot by just looking like a robot. Like, she went on Call Her Daddy. And it didn't really make a dent because she just was Kamala Harris, like, talking to Lester Holt when she was on Call Her Daddy. Like, it was just. There was nothing authentic about it. It was same, like, same old political robotics. But he's at least smart enough to know that you got to try to just look down to earth like you're shooting the shit with Charlie, but he can't. He's not going to be able to be a chameleon on economics. He can do it on culture stuff, but he's not going to be able to do it on corporate stuff.

Le (56:10)

Well, and he's smart enough to realize, like, oh, I got to do a podcast, you know, I got.

Matt (56:15)

I got to be relatable. That's the lowest common denominator.

Le (56:18)

He's not smart enough to recognize that. So when I saw he had Charlie Kirk on, and I think he has some other right wing guests booked next, I can't remember who it is, but Rick Caruso maybe, I don't know. I was like, oh, well, if he has him on and he fights with him, liberals are gonna love that because Gavin is capable. I mean, he did the Ron DeSantis debate. Democratic base voters never loved him more than when he did that. And he has the capability to then when I see that actually this was like a hot stone massage interview. Like, you don't understand where the base of the Democratic Party is right now, because you may think this is smart positioning, you know, with regard to, like, you know, taking the L, so to speak, on trans girls in sports, throwing them under the bus, whatever. You may think that's smart positioning for a general election. You got a primary to get through first. And right now he's sort of placing the same bet of, like, the Hakeem Jeffries of the world and leaping past where the Democratic base is to where he thinks the quote unquote, moderate middle will ultimately be. Well, to your point, Emily, you know, totally, totally skipping up because, you know, he's a corporate backed guy, corporate donor guy. He's. There's no way he's going to move on economics to any sort of a populist piece. So instead, what does he got to do? He's got to like, throw trans people under the bus, throw immigrants under the bus, et cetera. But I think this is so misreading the moment in terms of what the Democratic base needs to say wants to see that. It was honestly a little bit astonishing to me that he was this tone deaf.

Matt (57:53)

Well, I just put up on the screen to your point. This. He chose to tweet this excerpt with the line, no one believes pornography should be taught in schools, obviously, but that's not why 4,000 plus books have been banned. The Republican Party has been on a banning bench. I disagree with that, but whatever. It's so interesting to me that he chose to post that excerpt because I feel like he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He's trying to throw red meat at the Democratic base and then also create clickbait on the right. You know, like, he is trying to use this.

Le (58:23)

Where's the red. Where's the red meat for the Democratic base? That part I didn't see.

Matt (58:27)

The Republican Party has been on a banning binge, right? Like, he's trying to, like, pump up the left. Like, yeah, the Republicans are book banners and Gavin Newsom is. He's holding the line while he's talking, you know, about cultural issues, like transports in a different way.

Le (58:44)

What did you think of all this, Ryan?

Ryan (58:46)

In this clip, he didn't actually hold the line. It was like he didn't know where he was yet. In the clip, he's like, but he.

Matt (58:53)

Posted it in a way that made it look like he did.

Le (58:55)

Right?

Ryan (58:56)

In the clip, though, he's like, there shouldn't be pornography in the schools. We all agree with that. And then Charlie Kirk's like, okay, then I'll show you some books that are pornographic and have pornographic images in them, and you agree we should remove those. And then he goes back to, well, I don't really want the government making those decisions. Right? Which is like, well, you just said that the government shouldn't allow, you know, pornography in schools. Like, so should they or shouldn't they? So you come like a voter watching that from both sides would be like, well, we're not not actually sure where you stand on this question yet. You know, like, it should be an easy one. Be like, like if. Because if, if you say that there shouldn't be pornography in schools, like you just said that, that's your position, then obviously you have to take it out of there. If, if somebody identifies one that fits that category when they come back and they're like, well, the Bible should be banned and so should this Bill O'Reilly book, and so should Toni Morrison, then you slam them as, like, extremist nut jobs.

Le (59:57)

Right?

Ryan (59:57)

But. But he, it's I don't know. It's. I don't know, and I don't quite know why he can't, like, just make that little concession.

Le (60:04)

Yeah, well, here's. Here's why I'm a little bit grateful that Gavin Newsom has misread the moment to this extent. Because I think right now, liberals just want someone who's gonna, like, put up a fight. Like, that's just. That's it. Right. It's very inchoate. They're very disappointed in leadership. They want to see someone match the energy of the moment. And the people, by and large, who are matching the energy of the moment are on the left. Then you have some people who are like, you know, a Jasmine Crockett who. Look, I've appreciated that she's been out there fighting. And like you said, Ryan, she's really talented. But there is a danger that you end up with someone like a Gavin or a Pete who are political. Like, they're good at being sort of like, political debate bros who use their willingness to directly challenge Republicans as a way to Trojan horse in yet another standard neoliberal establishment agenda. Like liberals, I think, would be very susceptible to that right now. If you just see someone who is, like a normal Democrat, but who is willing to fight with the Charlie Kirk, who's willing to tell him to their face to go on Fox News and, like, hold their own 19 waters in 2017. Right. And the specific policy issues come sort of secondary. So I think there's a real, you know, possibility that you end up with a Democratic primary where someone who is able to sort of posture as a fighter but then just really is upholding the status quo is what the liberal base wants. So I am grateful to Gavin Newsom for you know, just having this very, like, basically capitulating to Charlie Kirk in this conversation and not going down the path of posturing like he's going to be some renegade fighter for, you know, any sort of, like, populist or different principle than has reigned in the Democratic Party and been a total failure for years and years, because I do think he would be one of those candidates that, look, he's a talented guy in a certain respect, and I think he. There would be a real danger of him being able to win in a Democratic primary and then just basically be, you know, Kamala Harris or whatever.

Matt (62:03)

I've got to run, guys.

Le (62:05)

All right, thank you.

Ryan (62:08)

You want to play the last. There was one more clip, right?

Le (62:11)

Yeah, I got one more. This is the trans girls in sports. I can get Your reaction to this on the other side, this is the one that made the most post news here.

Ryan (62:19)

Like, you right now should come out and be like, you know what, the young man who's about to win the state championship in the long jump in female sports, that's. That that shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out and say, no, no, and I appreciate, but like, would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports? Well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. So that's easy to call out the unfairness of that. There's also a humility and grace, you know, that, that these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety, depression. And the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well. So both things I can hold in my hand. How can we address this issue with the kind of decency that I think, you know, is inherent in you but not always expressed?

Le (63:04)

What do you think of that, Ryan?

Ryan (63:06)

I mean, I think they're getting closer to an answer on this question that keeps bedeviling them. I mean, I think think the first answer should always be, you're raising this, like, distraction of an issue that affects, like, you know, 0.01% of the population because you don't want people to pay attention to the fact that you're, you know, robbing them blind. Like, I think that's. You should always remind people of that fact. You also don't want to look like you're dodging the question because it is something that some people care about. And if you look like you're dodging it, you know, you got to give some answer. You obviously don't want to be embrace the kind of transphobic language of misgendering people the way that Kirk insists on doing in that conversation. But I do think that Democrats have no chance to win on this question. Like, three or four years ago, I wrote a story about a poll and a memo that the Transgender Law center had been circulating that, you know, very, very, very pro trans organization that was like, we've done polling, we've done focus grouping. The numbers on this are just absolutely abysmal. Like, the public and there's. And every argument that we made on behalf of our position made the public less likely, not more likely to support our position. So, like, you're, you're just, you're not going to win. No amount of pushing on this issue is going to get you to a place where you're winning. And so then when you lose on that issue, you end up losing on a whole slew of other issues as well. And so I think his point about the fairness, it's so then what do you do? And I think the prison question is an interesting question one too. And so if Democrats, you know, Democrats say, look, there's. They don't like when people say there's only two genders. But then if that's the case, why should there be only two divisions? You know, men's prison, women's prison or men's sports. Women's sports. You know, maybe there needs to be, you know, CIS men, CIS women and, and, and like non binary.

Le (65:26)

Yeah.

Ryan (65:26)

Category. Or if when it comes to prison, like trans men and trans women are segregated.

Le (65:33)

Yeah.

Ryan (65:33)

CIS women, CIS men. Like, this is something that we can think about as a society in a, in a respectful way that, that gives dignity to people and, but, but also like absorbs how people feel about it and aren't going to. And are not going to change no matter what. According to like, like all of the polling and focus grouping and conversations and common sense. Where do you come down on it?

Le (65:58)

Yeah, I mean, I think everything you said is reasonable. Where I get upset is, you know, you had, immediately after the election, you had a few members of Congress that were like, oh, well, the problem for the Democratic Party is they just need to like surrender on, you know, this issue in particular. And because the polling is so bad and, and like, I get that the polling is bad, but it ignores a few things. I mean, first of all, it ignores how bad the polling is for Republicans on certain, you know, issues, especially like Donald Trump pardoning violent January sixers who beat up cops. Really unpopular, like extremely unpopular. You know, taking over Greenland, really unpopular. Even core parts of his economic agenda right now on tariffs, really, really unpopular. Cutting Social Security, cutting Medicaid, really unpopular. And so where I get very skeptical is when you have people like Gavin Newsom who think that this is all. It's very convenient for them to say, like, oh, we just need to basically sort of throw these vulnerable people under the bus. And that's the key back to Democratic party because it allows them to continue operating as they were. It allows them to keep taking big money, you know, from donors. It allows them to keep pushing a really status quo agenda in terms of economics. And the other piece where I worry is, you know, Republicans initially postured like, oh, well, we only care about trans kids. Like, if you're an adult, do whatever you want. Of course the free country Et cetera, et cetera. Now you've got a law up in Texas where people who identify as trans could be prosecuted for fraud. So that's. The other piece is like, I think.

Ryan (67:40)

There'S a feeling Sarah McBride, the congresswoman from Delaware.

Le (67:44)

Yeah.

Ryan (67:44)

Is, you know, being called a man by her and she's an adult. So, yes, this, like, claim that they only care about kids and adults should be able to make the choices that they want to make because he lied by their actual reality.

Le (68:00)

I reject the idea that this issue is actually the reason why Democrats are struggling. I think it has much more to do with selling out the working class. And so if you're an cancer doesn't lead with, like, there's literally like a dozen trans girls in sports in the entire country. And so if you're fixated on this, you are not definitionally, like, thinking about the issues that actually impact millions and millions of Americans. And then it's not that important to me ultimately, where you fall on this particular issue, because I do think it is a challenging one. I don't think that, you know, the sort of, like, binary works for everything. I think there is a question of fairness. I think it could even vary sport to sport what the right answer ultimately looks like. But if you are foregrounding this as, like, the central party for the Democratic Party, that's where I have an issue. And that's, I think, the camp that Gavin Newsom very much falls into.

Ryan (68:50)

Yeah, but, like, what. What you said is, like, was not what they were saying before. Like, before they were drawing a very hard line on this, rather than saying, yeah, this is open for discussion. We need to figure all those of all of this out.

Le (69:04)

I think they're probably ultimately going to say, like, this isn't something for states and localities to work out. And I don't have any problem with that answer. What I do have a problem with is, first of all, the, you know, the misgendering and the just instinct to sort of throw this, like, oh, this group's a problem for us. So we're just going to throw them under the bus. Oh, immigration is. We're just going to throw that under the bus rather than actually making a case for your views and ideals. And there's so much of an instinct in the Democratic Party right now to just capitulate on any area where they're, you know, where they're underwater, polling wise. And that is not how the Republican Party operates at all. Like, not even a little. It's certainly not how Donald Trump operates at all. So I think it is just like wildly learning the wrong lessons from the last election.

Ryan (69:50)

Yeah.

Le (69:52)

Well, Ryan, thank you so much for spending some time with us this morning. And it was a pleasure. Yes, indeed. I'm sure they're gonna be like 18 million more stories that break over the weekend that Sagar and I will struggle to squeeze into a show on Monday. If anything truly huge breaks. We will make sure to cover it over the weekend then. Guys, enjoy your Friday. Enjoy your weekend and soccer and I will see you guys on Monday with the best All Inclusive Vacation Deals to Mexico and the Caribbean Booking your getaway with Cheap Caribbean Vacations means you have more freedom to do your deal. Whether you want to enjoy snorkeling, endless margaritas and more, or simply soak up the sun and sand in a tropical parad, Cheap Caribbean Vacations has your deal for that Plan and book the exact getaway you want at exactly the right price for you by using our exclusive budget Beach Finder. Or find a featured all inclusive package to Ocean by H10Hotels and do your.

Ryan (70:41)

Deal@Cheapcaribbean.Com do you own a business that's ready to thrive? It's time to let Intuit QuickBooks take things like unpaid invoices and tracking expenses off your plate so you can take things to the next level. Intuit QuickBooks is an all in one business platform that can help with those day to day tasks like invoicing and expenses. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit QuickBooks your way to Money Money Movement services are provided by Intuit Payments, Inc. Licensed as a money Transmitter by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past.

Le (71:26)

Discover is accepted at 99% of places.

Ryan (71:29)

To take credit cards nationwide and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report.