← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
3562 - What is Ukraine Fighting For; Trump's Assault on Puerto Rico w/ Denys Pilash & Alberto Medina
01:23:35
It's Fun Day Monday on the Majority Report On today's show: As Secretary of State Marco Rubio announces the suspension of visas for Palestinian children receiving medical care at the behest of Laura Loomer, we take a brief look at an excerpt from Ken...
Loading summary
Transcript143 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hey, folks, today's episode is brought to you in no small part for one of your companions who's very important to you. Of course we're talking about our cats. We're almost like a full cat show now, aren't we?
- [00:18]
B
Only Doug. Only Brian.
- [00:20]
A
Brian. I am actually like now like really getting along well with my cat because he starts stop peeing everywhere. And so we're much more simpatico and he loves to come in and cuddle with me in the morning. And so I'm much more invested in keeping him healthy these days.
- [00:41]
B
That's good.
- [00:46]
A
But. And how do I do that? Well, I give my cat his favorite cat food. Today's podcast sponsored by Smalls. If you're listening to this show, you know that my cat loved Smalls. You know that Matt's cat loves Smalls. Soon to be there'll be two other cats in the Smalls universe in this Office. To get 60% off your first order, but plus free shipping, head to smalls.com use our promo code Majority for a limited time only. Smalls cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients that you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered straight to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. My cat loves the, what do they call it? Fresh bird, the chicken. But also there's another one with turkey and like chicken liver. And he loves that they also have this like broth that you can sort of like super size. And he loves them hydrated. Yes, it also keeps them very hydrated. That's a good point for an expert. Now, Forbes ranked Small is the best overall cat food. While Buzzfeed says that their cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. Matt's cats love Smalls.
- [02:14]
C
Oh yeah. I mean, especially that little gravy sort of juice that you put on the dry food.
- [02:18]
A
They love it. Smalls has a bunch of amazing treats and snacks you can add to your order. After switching to smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. And that's a big deal. Of course, if you have a picky cat, Smalls has a sampler. So your cat can try everything Smalls has to offer. And the teams at Smalls is so confident that your cat's going to love their product, you can try it risk free. Keep one can of your old cat food, put it right next to the Smalls, see which one your cat goes for. I guarantee you it'll be the Smalls. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve. For a limited time only because you are a Majority Report viewer or listener, you can get 60% off your first smalls order plus free shipping by using our code majority. That's 60% off. When you head to smalls.com use the promo code Majority. Again that's promo code majority for 60% off your first order plus free shipping@smalls.com now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, August 18, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Alberto Medina, writer, editor, advocate for Puerto Rico's decolonization and independence, publisher of the Free Puerto Rico substack. Then Dennis Pillage, activist, editor of the Commons Journal, assistant professor at Kyiv Institute of International Relations. Meanwhile, also on the program, Trump to meet Zelensky and European heads at the White House. This in the wake of a failed meeting with Putin. Trump regime halts visas for injured Gazans upon the demand from Laura Loomer. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis protest to end the Gaza assault. Meanwhile, yesterday, 17 aid seekers killed by Israel. New report Texas Democrats to return to Texas perhaps as early as today. D.C. residents take to the streets to resist the federal troop invasion. Judge rules the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can lay off 80% of its employees. Oklahoma to require a political MAGA loyalty test and vow from teachers transplanted from New York and California. 10,000 striking Air Canada, Air Canada attendants, presumably Canadians, to remain on strike despite a government order to return to work. And Newsmax, just across the wires, pays $67 million to settle a defamation case linked to the 2020 election coverage and their claims against Dominion voting. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is Sunday.
- [06:18]
B
Monday.
- [06:19]
A
Funday.
- [06:21]
C
Hello.
- [06:22]
A
Hello. Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Back to the the insanity that is the Trump administration. Today in D.C. zelensky is coming to the White House with Prime Minister of UK the president of France, the prime minister of Italy, who else? It's going to be a lot of people there. All to make sure that essentially, presumably, Trump will not, I don't know, mock Zelensky's clothing. Is that the idea? Finnish President Alexander Stubb is going to be there. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is going to be there. German Chancellor Merz is going to be there.
- [07:14]
B
That's quite a sight. I mean, I think it's going to be, it's interesting because it's in those European leaders, domestic interests to hug Ukraine in this way and look in opposition to the United States, which, you know, basically the European consensus is that the United States is abandoning Ukraine.
- [07:33]
A
And we will talk a little bit more about that with Dennis Pilash in just a few moments. But first, this. First, let's play this clip. It's a clip from a Ken Burns documentary.
- [07:50]
B
Credit to drop site for finding this.
- [07:52]
A
Yeah, I mean, this is. Well, I mean, I don't know how well known history it is. Certainly. I mean, it was. I certainly had it in my Jewish education when I was a kid. But this is how the US And Congress in particular, stopped a bill during the Holocaust that would admit Jewish refugee children. After Kristallnacht, Britain had allowed 10,000 children, but not their parents, to escape Nazism in what was called the Kindertransport. In February 1939, Democratic Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Republican Congresswoman Edith Norris Rogers of Massachusetts introduced a new bill. The bill says let's let in 10,000 kids between the age of 5 and 14 per year, 1939 and 1940, and let's not count them against the immigration quota system. The first lady backed the bill. Her husband privately offered advice on how it might be passed, but said nothing in public. But the American Legion, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies were all opposed. They had favored some of the 60 bills that had recently been introduced to reduce immigration quotas. It's a xenophobic refusal. I can't explain it because it seems so cruel to me, especially given a country as big as the United States with plenty of space. I do understand. Okay. I mean, I think we get the. The gist. Xenophobia, anti Semitism, you know, from their perspective, racism, it doesn't really matter. I mean, all of those things apply.
- [10:04]
B
At one point in that clip, they recite a quote from someone speaking about how they didn't. They're ugly children and they're going to turn into ugly adults, and we don't want them in the United States.
- [10:14]
A
Basically, it would diminish the purity of the American people. It would slowly, they would take over from the whites. I mean, it's all rhetoric that we hear again today. It's just a different set of people that those bigots are now focused on.
- [10:42]
B
Except this time we're providing the bombs with our tax dollars that are killing these very children and maiming them. So it's even more of a responsibility for us to allow in these Palestinian children who have exhausted health options in other parts of the world and need the United States to step up here. At the very least, we've seen some.
- [11:04]
A
Examples of specific children. Palestinian children getting visas to come visit. Ms. Rachel, you know, featured one on her program, a little girl who had lost her limbs. And so, you know, there' swe have seen popular images and apparently Laura Loomer on Friday was outraged this triggered her. Here it is. Here is her tweet exclusive. Despite the US Saying we are not accepting Palestinian refugees into the United States under the Trump administration, I have obtained footage of Palestinians who claim to be refugees from Gaza coming into the United States via San Francisco and Houston and Texas. This month. The Palestinians have traveled from Gaza to the US with the help of a group called Heal Palestine. Literally Heal, because, of course, they're bringing in people who need medical treatment. How did Palestinians get visas under the Trump administration again in the United States? Did the State Department approve this? How do they get out of Gaza? Is Secretary Rubio aware of this? Now she tags Secretary Rubio, and I know that's like, okay, he's going to pay attention to this, right? That's what you're thinking. Who from the State Department is assisting Heal Palestine? Why are any Islamic invaders coming into the US under the Trump administration? These Islamic invaders, of course, are very often children who have been maimed or desperately need medical attention. Who Approved the visas, etc. Etc. This is a national security threat. And in here they play. She plays the video. Look it down below, it is children from Gaza arrive in San Francisco.
- [12:50]
B
Now she's obtained.
- [12:51]
A
Okay, look at these Islamic invaders, these children coming in for cancer treatments or for surgery or something to that effect.
- [13:06]
C
The Loomer unleashed water over top.
- [13:08]
B
Maybe she should chain herself to the doors of the hospital with a Jewish star on herself like she did when she.
- [13:15]
A
Yeah, I think for Twitter.
- [13:17]
B
Oh, sorry, Yellow armband this time. And talk about how she's the real victim for having to see these images of Palestinian children having a smile on their face.
- [13:26]
A
Now, you may ask, like, why are we, like, okay, there's no news story in that. Laura Loomer is an abject Islamophobe and is tweeting that she cannot stand the vision of Palestinian children getting any type of, like, health care or any type of help in this country. Of course, who cares what Laura Loomis says? Oh, it turns out the highest reaches of our government. Do I give you Marco Rubio?
- [14:00]
B
Why did the State Department just announce that they're halting visitor visas for all Gazans coming here? For medical aid. Why would some of these kids, for example, who are coming to hospitals for treatment be a threat?
- [14:13]
D
Well, first of all, it's not just kids. It's a bunch of adults that are accompanying them. Second, we had outreach from multiple officers.
- [14:19]
E
Asking questions really quickly.
- [14:20]
B
The reason that adults are accompanying them in many ways are in part because many of these children have no family left. So sometimes they have one parent that's accompanying them because the rest of their family has been assassinated by Israel in this genocide. And sometimes they have people that are accompanying them that are just trying to get them care. And I also, like, it's just a quick rhetorical note on the use of Gazan. I know it's similar if you're saying, like, New Yorker versus American, but there's this, this concerted effort not to say the word Palestinian that I wish would be rooted out from our media. And it's, it's just something to note.
- [14:58]
C
But.
- [15:01]
D
Adults that are accompanying them. Second, we had outreach from.
- [15:05]
A
I just also, I'm sorry, do we really need to justify why injured children are coming with adults accompanying them? Yeah. First off, we know what happens to kids who come to this country without adults accompanying them. They end up in a cage.
- [15:23]
C
Grotesque.
- [15:24]
A
All right, let's go back a little bit. It's astonishing.
- [15:30]
B
Visas for all Gazans coming here for medical aid. Why would some of these kids, for example, who are coming to hospitals for treatment be a threat?
- [15:39]
D
Well, first of all, it's not just kids. It's a bunch of adults that are accompanying them. Second, we had outreach from multiple congressional offices asking questions about it. And so we're going to reevaluate how those visas are being granted, not just to the children, but how those visas are being granted to the people who are accompanying them and by the way, to some of the organizations that are facilitating it. There is evidence been presented to us by numerous congressional offices that some of the organizations bragging about and involved in acquiring these visas have strong links to terrorist groups like Hamas. And so we are not going to be in partnership with groups that are friendly with Hamas. So we need to, we're going to pause visas. Those. There was just a small number of them issued to children, but they come with adults accompanying them, obviously. And we are going to pause this program and reevaluate how those visas are being vetted and what relationship of any has there been by these organizations to the, to the process of acquiring those visas. We're not going to be in partnership with groups that have links or sympathies.
- [16:35]
B
Towards Hamas Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Oh, no, follow up.
- [16:40]
A
Oh, how about, wait, didn't you do this because Laura Loomer told you to? It's odd that the Rubio doesn't just say like, well, I had to. Laura Loomer told me to do it. So of course, of course we have to stop children for coming and getting health care is Laura Loomer told me. I mean, this is. It's a good thing that we had a. Had him on Face the Nation, though, because he really had to face the Nation with that.
- [17:08]
B
Oh, yeah, Grilled. What is the value of this if you're not going to follow up a statement like that?
- [17:14]
A
What's one shred of evidence that this is, like, somehow linked to Hamas? But even if it was, who cares? I hope Marco Rubio is proud of himself. What a just a worm.
- [17:35]
B
Well, I'm sure he is, because as we've said before the election, it probably should have been seen coming that this administration administration is stacked with Zionists from head to. From the top of the administration to Trump's own donors, who include Mariam Adelson, who basically gave him $100 million to allow for west bank annexation.
- [17:55]
E
In exchange, every member of Congress who.
- [17:57]
C
Supported the withdrawal of UNRWA funding. It's the same thing, the same sort of smear that, oh, it's Hamas, so.
- [18:04]
E
We gotta starve a whole bunch of.
- [18:07]
A
All right, in a moment, we're going to be talking to Dennis Pilosh, editor of the Commons Journal, assistant professor at the Kyiv Institute of International Relations. First, a couple of words from our sponsors. There's lots of multivitamins out there. Ritual, however, is different. They're essential for men. 18 plus. Multivitamin is a science backed and made with traceable and bioavailable key ingredients. They share the source, the supplier, and the scientific research backing each active ingredient so you know what you're putting in your body and why. I have told the story many, many times for a long time. I'd leave my doctor's office, well, actually, you take blood. And then I would find out like a week later, he's like, you're deficient in vitamin D. And I'm like, okay, got it. I will go, I buy a multivitamin, I take it, and then it runs out, and then I never take it again. That was until I got on with ritual. They got one for folks even my age.
- [19:08]
B
Very nice.
- [19:09]
A
I don't have to be explicit about that, but. And the thing that's great about ritual, there's two things. One, they send it to me every month. I never have to, I never run out and I never forget to take it. And then the other thing is it is very gentle on the stomach so you don't have to. I don't have to like remember that I got to take it but realize like oh, I haven't eaten breakfast so I can't take it. No, you see it, you take it and it reminds me every day that's important for someone like me. But and so it's the most important thing about it, in addition to knowing where the ingredients come from for me is that I take it. It's got omega 3 DHA to support heart and brain health. It's got vitamin D3 to support normal muscle immune function. They're essential for men. 18 plus multivitamin contains 10 key nutrients in two delayed release capsules designed for optimal absorption per day. Like I say, it is gentle on the stomach. It's got a minty essence in every bottle so taking your multis actually becomes enjoyable. It is third party tested for heavy metals and clean label project certified so you know you can trust what you're putting into body. Ritual Multivitamins Vegan non GMO project verified gluten and major allergen free and made traceable. It's HSA and FSA eligible with a seamless checkout experience so you can save when you shop with pre tax dollars. Essential for Men is a quality multivitamin from a company you can actually Trust to get 25% off your first month for a limited time@ritual.com majority that's ritual.com majority 25% off your first month. I'll put the link in the podcast and YouTube description. Also sponsoring the program today. Product I've been using for probably about a decade now, way before they started to become a sponsor. Delete Me. What Delete Me does is it makes it easy and quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everybody vulnerable. Data brokers make a profit off your data. Your data is a commodity. Anybody on the web web can buy your private details and what they end up doing a lot of times is combining that with stuff they bought on the dark web. That leads to identity theft, phishing attempts and sometimes also harassment. Now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. What do data brokers do? Your name, contact info, Social Security number, home address, even information about your family members, your past addresses. They all compiled by data brokers and sold online. I want to thank Delete Me for sponsoring the Majority report and for keeping my stuff safe. Delete me from me and my family members. And it keeps, you know, I, I've been using it for a long time because I didn't want to. It's, we get some hate mail, we get stuff like this and it is a great way to keep your information safe. And what it does is it constantly is going out there. So it's not a one time thing. You get a, they send you an email every month with what they've deleted and where. But also they keep it's an ongoing thing because data brokers repopulate. So I mean I've been on there searching for my stuff and I've actually you can see like the first line of it in the Google search, but then you get to the site and you realize it's gone. Take control of your data. Keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to joinedelete me.com Majority use promo code Majority at checkout. The only way to get 20% off go to JoinDeleteMe.com Majority enter the code majority at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Majority code is majority. We'll put the link in the podcast in YouTube description. Quick break. When we come back, Dennis Pilish, activist, editor of the Commons Journal ACT and assistant professor at the Kiev Institute of International Relations. We'll be right back. It's we are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome the program. Dennis Pilish, editor of the Commons Journal, assistant professor at Kiev Institute of International Relations and Dennis, you were just telling us that at this moment there's air raid sounds in Kiev. Give us a sense of what life has been like over the past couple of years.
- [24:38]
C
Yeah. So the life since Russia has unleashed its attack on Ukraine has been obviously terrible. So the lives of millions of tens of millions of people have been uprooted. Many people had to flee. Many people have actually lost their lives. And just the previous two months, June and July, they have been one of the deadliest by the civilian death toll since the start of the full scale invasion back in February 2022. So in any case, your life is affected here. You live in constant air raid Syrians because at almost every night the majority of Ukrainian cities starting from Kyiv, but not even to mention those that are closer to the front lines like Kharkiv Kryvyi or Dnipro or Polisha, they are constantly shelled, they are attacked by missiles, they are attacked by drones. And while this requests a complete restructuring of your life and accommodating to the wartime conditions, and of course, the constant loss of your friends, your relatives is also something to be reckoned with. So I'm just coming from another funeral. David Chichikan, who was an anarchist, activist and artist with a very straightforward class based art. So he volunteered to the army and he was killed at the front line. And again, this was a person who was completely dedicated to the social liberation of the entire humanity. And he just felt that just like many, many millions of Ukrainians, that there is no other option because we are now put against the force that actually says that Ukraine has no right to exist as an entity, as a separate republic. And that brings total carnage, death, occupation, oppression, lack of any prospects for any liberation struggles, actually. So this is something that we are, we are living constantly in.
- [27:12]
A
It is in our condolences. We mentioned this beforehand for, for his loss. It is difficult for folks in the United States to get a full sort of like, accounting of the perspective of the Ukrainian people in this. I mean, at various times we've been told that this is nothing more than a proxy war between the United States and Russia. That, I mean, there's various, you know, we can get into your perspective on the agenda, Putin's agenda, in waging this, but from your perspective, like, where are the Ukrainian people in this, is this, and how much of the desire to fight will exist, even absent US Support, if it, if that ends up coming to pass? I mean, certainly it has been shaky as of late. Give us a sense of the determination of the Ukrainian people.
- [28:30]
C
So starting with this proxy war narrative, it's quite telling that just recently Russian media outlets have been disseminating this image of a Russian armored personnel carrier waving both Russian and American flags, coming to Ukrainian territory. So maybe it's a proxy war waged by Russians on behalf of Donald Trump. So obviously this is a bit of exaggeration, but ultimately we see that now with a far right president in the US that serves as a sort of, you know, beacon for all the reactionary, authoritarian, xenophobic forces throughout the world. So there is this clear alignment into a sort of a new axis between Washington and Moscow. And in this regard, all this very, you know, like courting the Prussian war criminal, just like Trump was courting Netanyahu and other war criminals. So it's probably that the only type of persons that are really welcome to the U.S. now are war criminals and everyone else is just humiliated. But anyway, so here on the ground with a feeling of ordinary, common, working class Ukrainian people, so obvious situation is quite harsh and grim because no normal person wants to live in a war, no normal person wants to wage a war, no normal person wants to kill or be killed. But we are put into this situation when essentially a stronger far right dictatorship, a very conservative one, very authoritarian one, one that actually brings even on the pretty low standards of post Soviet space in terms of democratic freedoms, a very, very harsh regime of occupation, for instance, again, just an example. So I used to work briefly at the Ukrainian media with journalist Victoria Roshina. So she was arrested illegally on the occupied territories by the Russian occupiers. So she was held in prison without any charges, she was tortured, she was ultimately killed, and she was set up for a prisoner swap. But she never returned home. They returned home, her body with several organs missing, missing just to hide, to conceal the tortures. And only afterwards it was identified. And this is one of the many stories that you actually can come across.
- [31:46]
A
So.
- [31:48]
C
But on the other hand, of course, people are really tired with the war and with all the hardships of the war. And again, as you can predict, the ruling classes everywhere, they want to put all the burden of the war on the shoulders of laboring people, the working people. So of course it's disproportionately, really affecting working people here. And yes, as no one else in the world, Ukrainians would love to see peace in Ukraine. But unfortunately, on the other side, on the side of the Russian aggressors, there was no real desire for, you know, like bona fide real peace talks, some talks that would actually take into account the interests of Ukrainians. So it was just the language of the ultimatums. It's sort of, you know, like maximalist demands, no compromises. So even what we hear now what is rumored to be inside the so called, you know, like, peace proposals. So it's again, that Ukraine should give up more land, even that land that isn't occupied by the Russians at this moment. And instead it gets nothing, it gets no security guarantees. And again, we can remind that Russia had lots of agreements with Ukraine, as it were, actually preserving sort of borders, sovereignty. And of course, the most prominent of these ones were the Budapest accords. So when Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons left after the Soviet Union, Russia as well as the US guaranteed its territorial integrity, sovereignty. And ultimately Russia was the one that broke it up. And now you can see that they have like full almost full free hands given by the far right administration in the United States. So in this situation, of course, it seems that there is not so much room for alternatives because still Ukrainians, they are both tired of the war, they want peace, but they don't want to cede more and more, not just land, it's not about the territory so much as it's about the people, those people who will be left out under the occupation or the people who will probably never return to their homes in such a scenario. So this is indicated by the opinion polls that Ukrainians both want a peaceful solution, a solution grounded on some diplomatic terms. But they aren't going to give up, you know, more million and millions of people to a rather brutal oppressor. And again, now Ukraine is constantly blackmailed by Trump and his cronies. It will be completely cut off of aid. And again, in this broader sense, you could see another example of imperialist and neocolonialist economic colonialist thinking with a so called rare minerals deal. And it seems that, yes, both Trump and Putin and the ruling classes behind them, they are very eager to collaborate in looting Ukrainian natural resources and in actually trying to decide the fate of Ukrainians without the Ukrainians even, not even near the table. So that's why many people have really invoked these parallels with what happened to Czechoslovakia in Munich in 1938 when the Western allies just gave it up to Nazi Germany. And then Chamberlain was like waving, I brought you peace. But ultimately this peace was just a prologue to the really worst nightmare in the world history, Second World War and all the atrocities that were committed by Nazis and their allies in that war. So, yeah, we have not much room to do. And still Ukrainians recall 2022, when again, many were predicting that Ukraine is said to be destroyed very quickly by this overwhelming military power by Putin's Russia or Putin's Russia. And at that point, Ukraine had almost no Western aid, actually military aid. It was mostly, and it's still mostly operating old Soviet equipment. And still Ukraine managed to halt the, the Russian invasion.
- [37:55]
A
I just, I just want to make a point. There is, I think that people forget this, that the U.S. it wasn't until like, like a week or two or three after the invasion that there was even any talk of providing additional aid to Ukraine in terms of weaponry, because I think there was a sense, I mean, Biden, in the months leading up to the invasion kept issuing warnings. It did not seem that Europe was even taking it seriously. You know, I think the attack was in February and maybe as early, even as late as December he was warning and Europe was not responding. And I think frankly there was, as far as, you know, to the extent that I have no particular insight other than watching the behavior of the administration, that they were surprised and that Europe was surprised at Ukraine's ability to fight back. And then the obligation of fulfilling the obligation, both from the Budapest accords and also just in general understanding the potential threat was when they started to provide weaponry. But let me ask you, you mentioned that the working class in Ukraine, like in most of these scenarios, are bearing the brunt of fighting this war. How much were, how would you characterize the protests that we saw about three weeks ago in the wake of Zelensky essentially propagating a new law that inhibits the independence of Ukraine's anti corruption entities?
- [39:51]
C
Yeah, so this was widely regarded as the first, you know, like huge protest in Ukraine in times of the full scale invasion and the martial law that obviously was introduced. But actually there were local pockets of protests throughout the country by, for different reasons you could find health care workers protesting the closure of their institutions. It is also happening, albeit it's quite, you know, like obvious that in times of war when so many people need help for their physical and mental health, you need to expand the network of the medical facilities. But instead the government is run by this neoliberal logic of optimization, cuts and austerity and everything is. Yeah. So such examples or examples when people were protesting for that their local administrations were spending money for some nonsense items instead of actually strengthening the defense of the country or making everything that is also quite necessary in times of war. There were protests about again, preserving some cultural institutions. But this law that was introduced, and it was like passed in a handful of minutes in the parliament without any proper discussion, without any communication to the people. It wasn't the first law that was put forward in such a way. So we've seen a couple of laws that were curbing, for instance, some of the labor and social rights in Ukraine were also passed in quite similar manner. So without proper discussion, without even explaining for the people why it's needed to help the bosses to fire you, you know, in a more easier manner, how it will help the resistance and the war effort. Yeah. So people ultimately got really fed up by this way of really obliterating the dependence in this case not just of the, these anti corruption bodies, but of the parliament itself. So the parliament is just, you know, like nodding whatever the presidential vertical says. And it's not even about the executive power, not about the cabinet of ministers, it's about the office of the president, it is, you know, not so checked. You can say unchecked body. And people really are frustrated by this way of dealing with challenges in contemporary Ukraine, with this concentration of power and with lack of real public discussion. And you should take into account that Ukraine hasn't fully, you know, descended into sort of this oligarchic autocracy that is quite widespread in the post Soviet space, partially because of the traditions of mass mobilizations. For every couple of years we had mass protests triggered by different things. And this was something that helped to check, to keep the power in check. Yes. So now you could see again, a very spontaneous protest by mostly young people, many of them. Maybe this was their first experience of being politicized, of being part of a mass street mobilization, because they lived through the COVID restrictions and then through the full scale invasion. So obviously there were no mass gatherings of people. And you could see that actually they had this pretext that we are protesting against this particular law. But they were actually expressing their broader discontent and their broader desire for keeping democratic institutions and democratic discussions in touch. Because this is something that we really also are fighting for, to preserve not just some abstract republic, abstract Ukraine, but Ukraine that is actually run by the people and where people have their say and where people have the right to protest and where people can really get their elected officials to accountability. So again, corruption and in general, this system of oligarchic capitalism that is predominant in our region. So this is something that obviously everyone is discontent with and everyone wants to get rid. So again, in times of war, this is aggravating the already dire situation. And as we mentioned, that you see that the working class people, they are both at the core of the resistance, you could say, because most of the people in the military, they come either from industrial cities. Yes. Or from the countryside. These are working class people, but also those working class people who are essential workers who keep the country afloat. So just to recall the railway workers who actually never stopped the railway. And this helped millions of people to flee to safer places. And also that kept the humanitarian aid coming and saving human lives. And you could say the same about healthcare workers, about rescuers, about lots and lots of people who are really the bulk of the this, you know, like.
- [46:13]
A
They'Re the key to the infrastructure. Right. So, Dennis, let me just ask you if we could turn just for a moment, because we have running out of time here, but today, Zelensky is meeting in the White House with the heads of state of half a dozen European countries with Trump. Trump has come from the Putin meeting in Alaska on Friday. And all that seems to have come out of that was that the Trump administration has moved from wanting a ceasefire to accepting Putin's desire for a peace agreement. Peace agreement.
- [46:58]
B
Within like five hours of the meeting, he'd change from cease fire to peace agreement, which is notable, right?
- [47:04]
A
Yeah. I mean, well, why articulate for us what the difference would be and why there is suspicion over the idea of a peace agreement versus a ceasefire.
- [47:19]
C
So you could see how the Kremlin has been really sabotaging, rejecting any sort of ceasefire. Yeah. So even the, you know, like stopping shellings of Ukrainian cities and like any civilian objects, civilian infrastructure, and every time they tried to, like to say, ah, what we are going for, you know, like broader peace agreement, immediately, no, no ceasefire. This meant that more and more lives have been taken, more and more people have been killed and they actually want to have this very swift, you know, like, without any proper consideration, so called agreement to actually enforce their very expansionistic terms on, on Ukraine and to actually come to some, you know, like, middle ground, some normalization with the US at the expense of Ukrainians. Yes. So no one cares about the Ukrainians. So we can just like split them up and then exploit them and their natural resources and we will be at the same time admitted back to the, this club of the, you know, like white, white colonizers of the West. Russia actually always tried to be, and always was, albeit it tried to also present itself as somehow antithetical to the, to the west, to make its propaganda for the global south, albeit their treatment of countries that are smaller and weaker than them is no better than the worst cases of Western imperialism. So everything is about the same type of. Yes. So this is actually quite, you know, dangerous because without any other alternative, any other option, when you are like cornered and you had this ultimatum that you should actually agree to the worst terms and you will have some agreements that will rip the country off. So this may be a point of no return, but actually very few people, they actually, they believe that any, you know, real agreement will be reached. So it seems that this will be just maybe another step for embracing like Russia as part of this, like far right conservative networks throughout the world, but it wouldn't really bring any end to the, even to this like, hot phase of hostilities.
- [50:44]
A
Dennis Pilash, editor of Commons Journal, Assistant professor at Kyiv Institute International Relations, thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it. Again, condolences and hope to speak to you again soon.
- [50:59]
C
Thank you so much. Really appreciating. Yestral, thank you.
- [51:03]
A
Thank you. All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, Alberto Medina, writer, editor and of the Free Puerto Rico Substack. We'll be right back after this. Sam. We are back. Sam Seder, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. Pleasure to welcome to the program. Alberta Medina, writer, editor, advocate for Puerto Rico's decolonization and independence and the publisher of Free Puerto Rico on Substack. Alberto, welcome to the program.
- [52:19]
E
Thank you so much for having me. Simone. Emma, great to be here.
- [52:22]
A
Want to get to the question of Puerto Rican independence, which is sort of like always in the background as people start to talk about what the Democrats, if they get back into power and if they decide to exercise that power, how can they build on that power? Puerto Rican statehood is often mentioned within a series of different things they can do. But before we get there, I guess it was about two weeks ago, Donald Trump essentially fired five of the seven members of Puerto Rico's financial Oversight and Management Board. Let's talk about first what this board was. I mean, there's sort of like a frying pan to the fire type of quality of this. And also it seems to me it's another example of a structure that is put in place by Obama and where you would say, well, this is bad, but also contemplate like, what if it's not Obama as president? Like, just hypothetically, what if it was someone crazy like Donald Trump? I mean, where this is where we're at now. But walk us through what is the fomb.
- [53:42]
C
Yeah.
- [53:43]
E
Yeah. So just to give people a little bit of background on why this even came to be and why it's happening, you know, Puerto Rico has been financially and economically vulnerable for a very long time. It got battered by the Great recession. And about 10 years ago, it reached a point where it had accumulated about the $70 billion in public debt. The government of Puerto Rico declared that debt was unpayable. Problem was, Puerto Rico's not a sovereign nation, of course, so it couldn't sort of avail itself of those structures to restructure its debt. And Congress had actually declared decades ago, for reasons we can only guess at, that Puerto Rico could also not enter bankruptcy, could not enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy as U.S. municipalities can. So it had to do something right. Because Puerto Rico had no legal way to restructure its debt. Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican legislature actually tried. It actually passed a law to create sort of a debt restructuring process for itself. And the federal court struck it down because it said the federal Bankruptcy code was what applied, and the federal bankruptcy code did not allow Puerto Rico to do this. So Congress gets involved, Congress legislates, it passes this law, promesa, signed by President Obama.
- [54:50]
A
I'm sorry, can I just add, just for people who don't know what bankruptcy would do at that point, is for the country, what is done for city. I mean, New York City declared bankruptcy back in the 70s. It allows the debtor, in this instance, Puerto Rico, to restructure its debt and essentially pay back creditors like, you know, a fraction of what they owe and allow themselves to get that type of relief so they have room to make investments and they can actually pay, you know, to. To attempt to build themselves out. So you, by stripping the Puerto Rico of the ability, or I should say fundamentally denying the ability of Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy, you are denying them any type of autonomy which is available to other entities, whether it's corporate or individuals or cities or municipalities, to restructure their debt, which is like a fundamental building block of finance.
- [55:54]
E
That's right. And, you know, that would have been a painful process for Puerto Rico, certainly, but it would have been much better than what ended up happening, which is Congress passes this law, PROMESA, signed by President Obama in 2016, which creates a debt restructuring process for Puerto Rico, but it creates the Financial Oversight and Management Board, which Puerto Ricans not very lovingly call La Junta. You know, it's a board of seven unelected members appointed by the President of the United States that are given the power to oversee this debt restructuring process, but are actually given sort of awesome, almost unlimited power over Puerto Rico. Whenever Puerto Rico's legislature passes a law now, they have to basically submit a memo to the board on what the fiscal impact of that law will be. And if the board decides that it doesn't like it, that it doesn't fit into its vision for Puerto Rico's finances, it can strike down a law passed by Puerto Rico's elected legislators. So, you know, it's a very colonial, imperialist entity that on top of that, has basically, you know, tried to restructure the debt by implementing massive austerity on Puerto Rico, by slashing pensions, by cutting funding for public education, for all kinds of public services. And that's what it's done for basically the past 10 years. So with good reasons. You know, most Puerto Ricans do not like the board, but as you say, it is a frying pan into the fire situation. Now, because Donald Trump has not eliminated the board, he has merely fired most of its members. He actually fired A sixth member since I wrote that piece. So there's now only one of seven members on the board. He fired initially all the Democrats. He did fire one Republican who had been appointed by President Obama and had been there since the beginning. So this happens two weeks ago. It happens after a kind of pressure campaign from Laura Loomer and other ultra conservative.
- [57:43]
B
She's the main character in every story now and is dictating largely swaths of U.S. policy. We just opened the show with the fact that her tweet about Palestinian children in Heal Palestine is basically now being translated into the State Department.
- [58:01]
A
Pulling visas.
- [58:02]
B
Pulling visas for kids with no limbs.
- [58:05]
E
Yeah. It seems as though she's running the government and these board members were sort of her latest victims. And one asks themselves, why, right? Why does Laura Loomer suddenly care about Puerto Rico's finances? And, you know, I think the answer that the vulture funds, the hedge funds who bought a lot of Puerto Rico's debt, who have had it and who have been fighting Puerto Rico and the board in court for years now and often losing, because even though they've been profiting massively off of this debt restructuring process, they want to profit even more because of course they do. They sort of figured out a way to get some pressure going, get some of these board members out of the way. And the expectation is that the new members who will be appointed by. By President Trump and, you know, the president appoints these members based on lists of recommendations from mostly the majority in Congress, will be ultra friendly to the bondholders, ultra friendly to these hedge funds, and will implement more. More austerity, and continue to hurt the Puerto Rican people.
- [59:05]
A
I want to. I want to get into that and also get into like the sort of. The sort of the crypto element to this as well. I mean, but I want to just stay at Laura Loomer for one second. I understand the idea of Laura Loomer acting as a conduit for these people. And the chances of, like, Laura Loomer is being sponsored by these bondholders or whatever. I mean that to me, she's functioning like a lobbyist, I guess, on some level, or maybe she isn't. Maybe she. I was like, I can understand that type of dynamic would make sense to me. People who are always in the orbit of the president end up getting approached whether, you know, whoever it is and, you know, represent my interests. What I find fascinating is that why they. Why is she an effective conduit? It just seems. And I know, I know you're not in a position to know that any more than. Than. I don't know, maybe even Trump's chief of staff has any clue as to this. But what is it? Is it just the bondholders? Is it like, who are the financial interests that have been in any way squelched by the fomb? Like, I just, like, like what. What is left? Like what, Like, I'm trying to think of, like, what scenario where it's just sort of like you would put an edict out there. Like, you know, every dollar needs to be repaid but a buck 25 per dollar. Or like I'm trying to figure out what more can these people get and who the. If the. Who these people are has changed slightly with. I know there has been a lot more crypto sort of investment in Puerto Rico over the past half a dozen years or so.
- [61:13]
E
Yeah. And the crypto piece is largely kind of a separate thing of some tax incentives that Puerto Rico passed that attracted a lot of these investors and ultra rich people to move to the island, which is a whole kind of other conversation about the gentrification and displacement. These people buy up sometimes entire city blocks to turn them into Airbnbs. So that's certainly a problem in terms of the debt, but it is a lot of hedge funds like Golden Tree Asset Management that has been especially active in fighting, as I said, Puerto Rico and the board in court. The biggest piece that they're focused on right now is outstanding debt from Prepa, which was Puerto Rico's public power utility before it was privatized, essentially because the board forced its privatization as part of its new fiscal reality for Puerto Rico that it wanted to impose. And the fight really there is that the bondholders want the power bills in Puerto Rico to increase even more. Puerto Rico already pays one of the highest rates, certainly in the United States, perhaps in the world, for electricity. They just want to increase the power bill on Puerto Ricans who 40% live under the poverty line, including 60% of Puerto Rican children. Let's raise their power bill even more so that we can get more money in the coffer so that bondholders can get paid even more. This is sort of the biggest fight right now. It's a fight that they were again, kind of losing in court. So I think they figured, well, if we can't convince the federal judge who's in charge of Puerto Rico's debt restructuring process to approve this deal, let's get rid of these board members, these commissioners. Right. I mean, the board right now doesn't even have quorum for any kinds of negotiations. The federal Judge already said already had to delay a series of deadlines that were coming up in these debt court cases because the board can't operate right now. So I think this is what Trump and Loomer, or really the people behind them, because I don't think either Trump or Loomer really much know or care exactly what happens in Puerto Rico. But they're useful instruments for these folks who, you know, they don't want just 60 cents, 70 cents on the dollar on bonds that they bought a lot of times knowing that it was junk. Right. But I think they foresaw that they were going to be able to profit from it, and that's what they're trying to do right now.
- [63:34]
B
Well, I'm just like fascinated by just the money piece of this. If we could stay for a second. Like, your article cites that McKinsey has made over $100 million or something like that consulting on the debt restructuring. And then you have these members of the board who were appointed by Obama. And it seems like the austerity agenda was going quite well based on, like, it's stated terms. What are the, even the obstacles that the Trump administration is concerned about? Because, look, it looks like the people in Puerto Rico are being immiserated. They don't have their sovereignty. People are getting rich. Like, what more do they want is the question that I'm asking.
- [64:17]
E
Yeah. And I think they want more of their money back on, you know, these bonds that they bought. And it's certainly true that, you know, the board has been a real moneymaker for lawyers, for consultants. The board members themselves don't have a salary, but the staff of the board, including its executive director, as I mentioned in the article right now is Robert Mujica, who was Andrew Cuomo's budget chief in New York when Cuomo was governor. He makes $625,000 a year as the executive director of the Financial Oversight Board. That's a higher salary than the President of the United States. And there's a staff that is obviously getting paid, and then there's this army of lawyers and consultants that they've used over the past decade. The estimates I've seen put the, the costs of the board at 2 billion over the last 10 years. And this is all getting paid for by Puerto Ricans. So even though the law was, and the board was established by Congress, Puerto Rico foots the bill for all of the costs associated with the oversight board. So, you know, it's a particularly cruel insult to injury that even as it is immiserating Puerto Rican Society, we also have to pay for them doing it.
- [65:30]
A
I just want to explain to people about this issue about the bonds because when people hear like, oh, they're getting $0.70 return on their dollar, the whole, if I am not mistaken, Puerto Rican bonds, I'm thinking now 10, 15 years ago were returning north of 10% in terms of, of dividends, you know, maybe, maybe up to 15%. They were very, very lucrative. And they also completely tax free because they're outside of any bounds of like a state or municipality. So you're getting these massive returns and the risk associated with them is that, I mean, that's why you're theoretically getting those returns. And a savvy investor knows that. And what they're trying to do is change the, essentially the rules of the game, which is you get big returns for a high risk thing. And now what they're trying to do is completely eliminate the risk by taking over the entities and extracting the money, their returns from the average Puerto Rican.
- [66:47]
E
Yeah, yeah, that's right. And yeah, Puerto Rico's bonds have always been a huge, huge moneymaker. They are triple tax exempt. This is another decision that Congress made back in the day, supposedly, right, to foster investment in Puerto Rico and to allow Puerto Rico to use this as a tool for economic development. Of course, that is part of what led to this $70 billion debt trap that Puerto Rico found itself in. But it's really, it all comes down to, to Congress and the US Government getting to make the rules. Right. When it comes to Puerto Rico and the folks who know how to move pieces within the US Government, whether that's through Laura Loomer or that's through legislation, they get to use those rules to their advantage. So when we talk about Puerto Rico being a colony, this is what colonies are for, right? It's for economic exploitation. It's not going to look like, you know, gold and silver mines like it used to in the, in the 18th and 19th century. Right. This is what colonialism looks like in Puerto rico in the 21st century. You know, it's bonds, it's the Jones act, finance, all of these. Yeah, yeah, it's all of these sometimes kind of bureaucratic, technocratic things that are hard to wrap your head around and you gotta keep a lot of numbers in your head. But this is how, you know, Puerto Rico is abused and exploited in 2025.
- [68:08]
A
So the sort of the, I guess the natural next question is like, how does Puerto Rico get out from under this lack of autonomy and get the rights for some type of autonomy or self determination. Some people suggest statehood, then there's some representation for Puerto Rico. You had a piece sort of delineating the difference between Washington, the question of statehood for Washington D.C. which is now being occupied by essentially federal militia, I don't know what else to call them. And in Puerto Rico address that. And maybe we should start just like with sort of the polling because to the extent that we have a sense of what the Puerto Ricans feel about this, it's difficult to really assess. I mean, I think that sort of broadly speaking there is an inclination towards statehood, but it's not as strong and obvious, I think as some of the polling or you would suggest that some of the polling shows.
- [69:25]
E
Yeah, yeah. And you know, this has been a very difficult and very complicated question for a long time. Puerto Rico has voted seven times on its political status, you know, going back to 1967. All of these non binding votes with, you know, different kinds of ballot designs and questions and boycotts, you know, especially in recent years. And we have seen a huge change, especially in the last few years as Puerto Rico's crises have intensified. So in 2024, in last year's election, there was another one of these votes and statehood did get 59% of the vote. But independence and sovereign free association, which is a form of independence in which Puerto Rico would then negotiate a bilateral compact with the United states. So those two sovereign options combined for 41%, 42% of the vote, which is a dramatic increase from the kind of single digit support that independents would get in these elections previously. And I should note that those numbers are only the numbers if you do not count the hundreds of thousands of blank ballots and spoiled ballots from people who just objected to this process, who sort of as a protest vote left the ballot blank or sometimes wrote Free Palestine on the, on the ballot or Free Puerto Rico. So, so that's kind of where, where we are right now. You know, the independence movement has been growing by, by leaps and bounds, I think in part.
- [70:49]
A
Let me just ask you one question on that. So the, because that's a weird way of tabulating this. If you have 100% of the vote and let's say 25% of the vote is the ballots left blank. It's, you can't then just take the remaining 75% and assess and pretend that's the hundred percent, right? I mean that's, that's what was done there. That's not how most sort of like things are done. It would be, maybe it got a plurality, but it didn't necessarily get a majority.
- [71:27]
E
That's right. And actually, if you account for the blank ballot, statehood got under 50%. I believe it was. It was 48, 49%. And this is what's happened with these votes because, you know, so a lot of Puerto Ricans think of them as a joke. Now, again, there's been seven of them. None of them have been considered, you know, treated as binding by Congress. Congress has ignored the results. I mean, statehood got 59%, you know, by some accounts. Right. Last year. Who's talking about statehood right now in the US or about actually doing this or listening to the will of the Puerto Rican people, as it's often put. It's not happening at all because I think most people understand the political reality that it just can't happen in Congress, that it can't get 60 votes in the Senate, just as, you know, statehood for Washington, D.C. can't. I think, if anything, D.C. statehood is slightly more likely than Puerto Rican statehood, but not likely at all. And that's been the case for a long time. We've seen it in recent years when there has been some legislation that either never even makes it out of committee or certainly doesn't make it to the Senate. So I think this is what people need to understand about the question of Puerto Rico status. And I think, you know, progressives especially have had a little bit of a blind spot here and have often said one or two things. Either it's not our place to take a position. This is up to Puerto Ricans. You know, they should decide and whatever they want will do. But of course, that's not true because it's all up to Congress and what can pass in Congress. So I think what that does is sort of perpetuate the colonial status because it doesn't address the fundamental reality that Congress is in charge of Puerto Rico, including of Puerto Rico's political fate, or they'll sort of, you know, do this push for statehood, which again, does not address the reality that to my mind, and I think to most people who think about it for a couple of minutes, like there's no way to get to 60 votes in the center for Puerto Rico statehood, but also on a political, ideological level, especially for progressives and folks on the left, and it's really fitting, I think, to be having this conversation after a conversation about Ukraine. When it comes to. To something like Ukraine, I think we understand very well the need to preserve national sovereignty. Right. And I think we understand that it would be an injustice of Russia just finished invading Ukraine, and then, you know, added it to the Russian Federation and gave it all of its voting rights and, and all of its representation. I don't believe that that would be a just and decolonial outcome for, for Ukraine. Well, I don't think statehood is a just and decolonial outcome for, for Puerto Rico because it would mean that the United States got to invade a nation as it did in 1898, keep it as a possession for 125 plus years at this point, and then permanently annex it and keep it forever. And I think that's at the heart of the difference between the D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood questions. You know, D.C. is an American city of, you know, Americans who by a constitutional quirk really, you know, don't have full political rights and representation. Puerto Rico is a nation, a Latin American and Caribbean nation that was invaded and occupied by the United States, has been kept as a possession, as a colony. And I think if you invade a place, the right thing to do is free it, not keep it.
- [74:41]
A
What would be the mechanism for independence? I mean, if statehood needs 60 votes in the Senate, is there a mechanism? What would be the mechanism for Puerto Rican sovereignty?
- [74:57]
E
Yeah, and, you know, I think there's a couple of different ways that it could happen. Probably the easiest and most realistic way is through an act of Congress, because again, legally, Congress has full authority over Puerto Rico under the territorial clause of the Constitution. You know, the UN could get, certainly get involved. And for the last 40 years, the United nations has passed, at least the special Decolonization Committee of the United nations has passed resolutions affirming Puerto Rico's right to decolonization and independence. Independence that has not sort of made it to the General assembly or really had much impact. And I think most of us know the challenge of getting the UN to have any real impact on some of these issues. But that is certainly another possibility. Puerto Rico could establish its own sort of status convention or kind of a constitutional convention like body and come to the determination of, you know, we've decided we want sovereignty. That's our demand. Take that demand to Congress. I still think that would have to end up in some, in some legislation. But, you know, the push could come that way from the Puerto Rican people. But, you know, many of us, and the work that I and my organization do in Congress especially is recognizing that Congress has a huge role to play here and that it actually is easier to get to 60 votes for independence, we believe, I believe, than to statehood. Because even if it is for, you know, frankly, racist and unjust reasons, there are many Republicans who, you know, would support Puerto Rico's independence because it means, hey, we don't have this threat of statehood and new Democratic senators, you know, and we don't have to keep sending tens of billions of dollars a year to these poor brown people in the Caribbean, you know, we're not going to have 3 million new Latino voters as just what statehood would mean. Right. I mean, think about where the country is right now. Think about especially the anti Latino politics that are at the heart of politics in the United States arguably for a very long time, but especially right now. Does statehood really seem like political possibility in the near or medium term? I certainly don't think so. And as long as we keep pretending that it might be, just because it might sound good to say, like, oh, let's give Puerto Ricans equal rights, the kind of colonial status that allows Trump to now take over Puerto Rico essentially through this port firing will continue.
- [77:27]
A
Well, I mean, I think we all have to wait for Laura Loomer to weigh in on this question if we really want any type of resolution. So. Well, Alberto Medina, we will link to your substack free Puerto Rico, as well as your piece in the Jacobin on Trump's hostile takeover of the island and specifically in terms of like, the finances on the financial Oversight and Management Board. Really appreciate your time today. And again, we'll just keep looking at Laura Loomer's Twitter feed to see what, you know, what we're all going to be doing over the course, course of the next months and years. So appreciate, appreciate your time.
- [78:16]
E
Thanks so much.
- [78:18]
B
Thank you.
- [78:19]
A
All right, folks, that completes the first half of our program today, which of course went late. This show 15 years ago was.
- [78:33]
B
Set.
- [78:33]
A
Up to be 45 minutes in the first half and then 45 minutes in the second half half. And it's just mission creep after mission creep. We won't rest, folks. It's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member. Even though I, you know, we end up like doing the whole show in the first. Give you like three shows for free every day, it seems like. But you can become a member@jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you know, you get the free show, free of commercial. We also get the fun half, which is also like three times the size that it was supposed to be. And back then you get a DVD of who's the Caboose if you became a member.
- [79:17]
B
Wow.
- [79:17]
A
We don't even do that anymore. I mean, you mean DVDs. Yeah, exactly. I'm Stuck with like boxes and boxes of DVDs. Bless you.
- [79:29]
B
Thank you.
- [79:31]
A
Also, don't forget, just coffee. Fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. You can buy the Majority Report blend. Matt, Left reckoning. Left an equity. Yeah.
- [79:46]
E
Left recording. We had a Sunday show. Patreon.com left reckoning.
- [79:50]
C
We had.
- [79:51]
A
We talked about Hakeem Jeffries being unable to not only endorse.
- [79:56]
E
Endorse Azora Mamdani, but also unable to call out sort of market failures and actors trying to get the mantle of who really champions the free market these days in a kind of pointless way.
- [80:07]
A
Also, North Texas DSA and Rio Grande.
- [80:10]
E
Valley DSA members checked in, so we.
- [80:13]
A
Have an interview with them from Chicago last weekend.
- [80:16]
E
Patreon.com directly get access to the show.
- [80:19]
A
See you in the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program. What is up, everyone? No. Mickey, you did it. Fun half.
- [81:04]
B
Let's go, Brandon.
- [81:05]
A
Let's go, Brandon. Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello?
- [81:11]
C
Sorry to disappoint everyone.
- [81:12]
A
I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.
- [81:15]
B
Fundamentally false. No. I'm sorry.
- [81:17]
E
Women.
- [81:18]
A
Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.
- [81:20]
C
Where is this coming from? Dude?
- [81:22]
A
But. Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A. Yes. Hi, is this me?
- [81:31]
C
Is this me?
- [81:32]
A
Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you. If it's me. Hello, if it's me. I think it is you who is you. No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?
- [81:51]
B
Sports.
- [81:51]
A
We can discuss free market markets and.
- [81:53]
D
We can discuss capitalism.
- [81:55]
A
I'm gonna go snow white. Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says of course.
- [82:00]
B
Gobbledygook.
- [82:01]
A
We nailed him.
- [82:02]
B
So what's 79 plus 21?
- [82:04]
A
Challenge. Man.
- [82:05]
D
I'm positively quivering.
- [82:07]
A
I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1 085, 011 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.
- [82:14]
E
For instance.
- [82:14]
B
3, $419,000.
- [82:16]
A
5, 4, $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.
- [82:22]
B
Actually. You're making me think less.
- [82:24]
A
But let me say this poop, call it satire. Sam goes satire on top of it all. My favorite part about you is just.
- [82:33]
B
Like every day, all day, like everything you do.
- [82:35]
A
Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.
- [82:46]
B
It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.
- [82:49]
A
Yeah, sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know.
- [82:55]
C
But you should know.
- [82:58]
A
People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it.
- [83:07]
B
I do love that.
- [83:10]
A
Got to jump. Got to be quick. I got to jump. Jump.
- [83:13]
C
I'm losing it, bro.
- [83:16]
A
Two o', clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.
- [83:23]
B
Outrageous.
- [83:24]
A
Like, what is wrong with you? Love you, Bye.
- [83:29]
C
Love you.
- [83:31]
A
Bye. Bye.