← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
3615 - Trump's Hegemony Gambit; The Right's Warm Racist Embrace w/ Jeet Heer
01:22:33
Loading summary
Transcript206 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi folks. Today's episode brought to you by my favorite sponsor, sunsetlakeseba day.com use the code. Left is best for 20% off. What do you get 20% off? Well, you know the other day was National Chocolate Day and they have some great Saba Day fudge. They also have Saba Day coffee, Saba Day smokables, pre rolls keef, which you might want to add to your other stuff. They have gummies. They have gummies with teh say and Saba Day, they have gummies with Delta 9. They have gummies that help you sleep. They have tinctures, tinctures that help you sleep. Tinctures that help you relax. Tinctures that help your dog relax. Or dogs. They have all sorts of great products. They are all, they have lotions and salves. All of it is grown without pesticides. They use integrated pest management. They have great farming practices. They practice regenerative farming along with the University of Vermont. They grow this stuff up near Burlington. They're just a great company with great business practices. $20 minimum wage, mostly employee owned and they are movement partners. They've donated tens of thousands of dollars to things like Strike Relief Fund, the Carceral Reform, Refugee Resettlement, Planned Parenthood. The list goes on and on. Great company, great product. What are you waiting for? Have you never tried these guys? Left is best 20 off. And now time for the show.
- [01:55]
B
The.
- [01:55]
A
Majority Report with Sam Cedar. Where every day's casual Friday, that means Monday is casual. Monday, Tuesday casual Tuesday, Wednesday casual hump day, Thursday casual thirst, that's what we call it. And Friday, casual Shabbat. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Friday, October 31, 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, national correspondent or I should say national affairs correspondent at the Nation magazine. Jeet here will be here.
- [03:07]
C
To go.
- [03:07]
A
Over the week that was also on the program today, federal judge in Boston. You heard about this case directly from the Massachusetts attorney general likely to order Trump administration to fund snap. Meanwhile, Trump calls for nuking the filibuster in the Senate to end the shutdown. Senate Republicans are balking at that new breaking report. A U.S. strike against Venezuela is imminent. Trump sets minuscule 7,500 annual limit for refugees entering the U.S. and most of those spots are being reserved by supposed oppressed white South Africaners. Senate Republican mutiny on tariff grows. Doesn't mean anything though. Because that last continuing resolution, or I should say budget deal in the spring, essentially said Congress would have no authority to overthrow those tariffs until 2026, when shocking increases in the ACA exchange rates become clear as day this week. Meanwhile, Trump looking to block student loan forgiveness based on an ideology test. It's bad ideology. In surprise, the centrist D66 beats the far right in Dutch elections. Pentagon training 25,000 Special National Guard to be deployed in all 50 states for civil unrest. In a moment's notice, VW workers in Chattanooga vote for strike authorization while Starbucks workers plan pickets and strike authorization vote to demand their first contract. Texas Supreme Court allows judges to refuse to perform same sex marriages. And lastly, the heartbreaking story of Prince Andrew to be de princed in wake of the Epstein revelations. All this, my whole childhood and more. Ryan had for many years looked up to Prince Andrew as a role model and being a monarch, dream of being a princess.
- [05:50]
D
I thought that's what you wanted. You wanted to marry into the royal family.
- [05:53]
C
You're always talking about marry Prince Andrew.
- [05:55]
D
Yeah.
- [05:57]
C
No, I just always thought.
- [05:59]
A
I never saw any red flags.
- [06:00]
C
He always seemed like a great guy.
- [06:02]
A
Yeah.
- [06:02]
C
Yeah.
- [06:04]
A
Ryan was always looked up to him. It is. It is casual Friday. Emma Viglund wearing a casual sweater.
- [06:18]
B
Mm.
- [06:19]
D
Yeah. It's a miracle I was able to find anything to wear because everything's in boxes. So getting dressed is very stressful these days. But I'm gonna unpack soon. Any day now.
- [06:29]
C
It's also Halloween.
- [06:30]
D
Yes. Very spooky. Hello.
- [06:35]
E
It's a spooky ambiance.
- [06:37]
C
Oh. Oh, thank you for that.
- [06:39]
A
Sounds like you were moving a desk. You know, we gotta be. We got to be careful to some extent because back in the day we used to do the Ken, Ken and Ken show. And anything that we do now, even my saying this sounds like exactly how we would have set up the Ken.
- [06:57]
C
Ken and Ken show.
- [06:58]
A
You can't friggin dress up like anything no more. Maybe we'll get back to that. Maybe in a year or two or something we'll do another iteration of Ken, Ken and Ken. But frankly, too much news. It is too much news out there these days. November 1st is open enrollment. People are going to start signing up for health insurance and they're going to see massive increases in their health insurance for a couple of reasons. The first reason is, of course, is that we have a ridiculous system in this country where for some reason completely adding zero value to health care in any fashion. We have decided that we're going to have middlemen between paying for health care and the citizens who, who pay for that health care and the hospitals. And these middlemen are going to be private insurance insurers who add nothing, nothing to the process.
- [08:16]
D
Equivalent of a mafia man taking a cut as a part of the racket.
- [08:21]
A
Here's the thing. With a mafia man taking a cut, you get ostensibly protection.
- [08:27]
D
Protection, right, like with, with the hell.
- [08:30]
A
The private health insurance system. You don't get cost controls, you don't get more efficiency, you don't get more coverage, you don't get ease of use, you don't get consistency in pricing, you get nothing. You don't get predictability, you get absolutely nothing. The federal government could provide this health insurance and they do it already for maybe a total of over like one third of the country between Medicare and Medicaid at this point. They could provide this health insurance and it would be far more efficient. It would provide cost containment measures, it would be cheaper per capita. When you add up the government and private expenditures as it exists now, it would be a much better system. We don't have that system. That's part of the reason why rates are going up. They're going to go up 18% more or less because of just health care inflation. Perhaps some of that is also like tariffs on medical equipment and whatnot. But they're going to go up an extra 8% because there is such uncertainty in these markets. Because the Republicans are A going to be booting off a lot of people from Medicaid and B, they're going to be cutting back on the subsidies that the government subsidizes in the exchanges, which means that there are going to be less people who are going to even want health insurance. And that means that you're going to have a deterioration of the risk pool because generally healthier people will leave the insurance market. And that means risk pools that have more, more concentration of unhealthy people are more expensive. And insurance companies are in the game of insurance. And so what they do is they hedge their bets by raising rates, let.
- [10:35]
D
Alone what hospitals are going to experience with people coming in for emergency care because they're not getting any preventative care for.
- [10:44]
A
Right. And they're going to, they're going to, and they're going to increase their, their rates because their costs are not, are uncovered. ER is a much more expensive way of dealing with these things. And generally because people haven't had ongoing care, they come in with more acute problems. It's just like you don't get your oil changed every five well three to 7,000 miles. I mean, there's a lot of different. But the bottom line is you don't get your oil changed one day you're going to be driving your car and your engine's going to seize up and it's going to be a lot more expensive. But here is Dr. Oz, who is ostensibly in charge of these things. He is in the Department of Health and Human Services at the cms, essentially in charge of Medicaid and Medicare. And here he is either just completely ignorant as to what's about to happen or out and out lying.
- [11:45]
F
You mentioned at the top that you want medications to be affordable, effective and safe for Americans. We're speaking today on the day that window shopping began in the Affordable Care act program on those marketplaces. And that shows that unless those tax credits are extended those subsidies, the average plan will increase for Americans by somewhere around 115%. Do you believe that Congress should extend those subsidies so that most Americans do not receive significant increases in their premiums?
- [12:12]
A
Where'd you get that 115% number from?
- [12:14]
F
Kaiser Family Foundation.
- [12:15]
A
If they retracted that, that that data was run inappropriately, they changed the messaging on it. Go back and look at the website. Here's the truth. The window shopping is already revealing that the average American is going to pay about who's on the ACA between 104% of poverty level is going to pay $50 positive for one second year. I want you to just listen to what he just said. Pause it for a second there. He said the average American and then he qualified that by saying who is earning between 100 and 104%. Well, the people who are on the ACA are 104% of poverty. The people who are on the ACA make anywhere from just above 133, 133% of poverty up to 400% of poverty. So he's discounting a huge swath, maybe 10 million Americans who are going to be impacted by increases here. He's also wrong about the 115% increases pop up this thing from Kaiser. He misread this thing. Scroll down here. Yeah, there it is. Can we zoom in that? The 114. Well, it's up there. It doesn't matter.
- [13:48]
D
I can read it though.
- [13:49]
A
114% premium payments could more than double on average, rising by 114% in marketplace enrollees who currently receive financial assistance. The ACA is enhanced premium tax credits. So my guess is is that Oz saw like, okay, Kaiser says there's going to be a 26% increase in premiums in the ACA. And that is true. There's an automatic 26% that's baked in just because of medical inflation and then insecurity as to what's going to happen with these premium, with these subsidies. And then if the subsidies don't go through, the final tally is not going to be a 26% increase. It's going to be 114% increase. That is, that's a big number. There are some numbers out there right now.
- [14:56]
C
See where this is.
- [15:01]
A
And these are benchmark plans. If you have a 64 year old. Now, of course 64 year olds are a year out from Medicaid, excuse me, Medicare. And ostensibly the insurance company thinks 64 year olds are going to be possibly the most expensive outside of people who already have any type of preexisting issues. A 64 year old couple in Morganstown, Morgantown, household income of 85k will see their premiums that were at 552 for silver plans, the lowest of the silver plans to $4,826. That's going to increase by 4,000 per month. So that's on the highest end. That's the highest end. New York Times reports. If you're age 27 and your monthly premiums without the extra subsidies, age 27, you make $22,000. It's going to be almost 700 $800 a year increase. If you're age 40 again, $800 a year, age 60, $800 a year if you start. If you make $35,000, it's going to be 100, it's going to be over 1400 dollars extra a year. If you make $65,000 and you're on there, it's going to be anywhere from 80 to $920 monthly increase, monthly $920. If you're age 60 and you make $65,000 a year, you're going to be paying an extra almost $12,000 a year. If you make $95,000, there's not going to be any increase at all for age 27 and 40 and then just basically $8,000. That's without those subsidies. This is going to hit hard. And the Republicans are scrambling now claiming they have a health care plan and they haven't, they haven't had one in over a decade. They tried to vote down the ACA. How many times was it, was it like 50 times? I think they had 50, literally 50 votes.
- [17:40]
D
But John McCain was responsible under Trump, 1.0 for being the vote that didn't allow that to pass. But the secret of like, part of what I'm, you know, is part of the tension here is, is that, I mean, the House Republicans who are this beholden to Trump right now, did they not have concerns about what this is going to mean for them when every single one of them is up in the midterms in around a year and change from now? Like, I mean there the Democrats have to hold firm on this because it's the right thing to do. But if this is the only concession that they get from this shutdown, which is likely to be the longest shutdown in history at the rate that we're going, all you're doing is saving Republicans from themselves here because they're probably terrified about what this means. Like, I saw that KFF analysis said that the average in annual premiums is $888 in 2025. And then the average marketplace consumer is going to be paying 1900, which tracks with those percentages that you mentioned. The Democrats have to get things like in writing assurances on things like rescissions, because what is this for if Trump can just supersede the legislative process and say I'm going to claw back this money willy nilly.
- [19:01]
A
Exactly. And I think that's why the Democrats are actually holding firm, because they are asking for that. And there was a piece about, I can't remember where I read it, but Mark Warner generally like of the ilk of Democrats who would be getting together in forming some type of like gang of Politico. Yeah, 7 or 8 and or 10. I don't know what the swing votes are. Maybe it would be a gang of 12 in this instance and they would get together with five or six other Republicans. They would brand themselves as the moderates and they would come to some type of agreement. But the bottom line is there's no agreement to be had if you can't trust that the agreement's going to be upheld. And that's basically it. So this is going to be, I think I don't know what happens from here, but we'll get a sense. Robin, in my crazy eyes on I am, I pulled up plan options for next year. My individual plan will be $670 per month with a $17.5K deductible. My current plan is 180 per month. That's nuts. And they can try and destroy the, the aca, which they very well may end up doing, but they're going to do it and they're going to have nothing. There's going to be nothing to replace it. All right, in a minute we're going to be talking to Jeet here about this about the snap benefits that case had mentioned earlier. The judge has yet to rule, but it sure sounds like the judge is going to rule that they have to provide this money. It has been set aside in the USDA for emergencies. The USDA is trying to pretend like this money is there for emergencies involving, like natural disasters. And in fact, this is an emergency because you're gonna have 42 million people without nutrition subsidies.
- [21:15]
D
They took that part of the website down, by the way, where they talked about that. That was the role for the emergency contingency fund. The, the USDA took it off their website. Just, just so brazen.
- [21:29]
A
Let's. Oh, I just want to read this before. Two things. One, got an email from listener Ramey. YouTube played an ICE recruitment ad today during. Mr. As you were playing the video, the father and the 16 year old on the way to school just want to alert you to this in case you have any ability to prevent it. We don't. We don't have ability. It's either we get the ads or we don't with YouTube. But I will say this. F ice don't join ice, don't help ice. You can't actually get in their way, but you can be behind them and reminding people of their rights, blowing your whistles and also calling them pigs or other farm animals or yes, you can exercise free speech. Adam also wanted to say that we got an email from the Missoula Trade Guild. Taylor, I've been watching your show for a while. I know there's some people in my hometown that possibly watch your show as well. I'm trying to develop a trading and bartering system in my community to help people save a little money, help build a stronger sense of community, create more local, focused social network. I was wondering if I could possibly call in some time to talk about this project. Feel free to call in anytime at 646-257-3920. But also a great place for stuff like this is to go on the Discord because we have over 15,000 people who are on there at any given time. And I'm sure you'll find people in Missoula. But Google around, look for the Trade Guild Missoula to check that out. All right. Emma, do you want to read this ad? I know you've been using the product. Julie's been using it too. Yes, but why don't you read it since.
- [23:39]
D
Well, I We would like to thank Oneskin for sponsoring today's episode. Oneskin sent us OS01 face, which is this moisturizer and longevity serum combined into one. And the OS01OS1 sorry I which is the formula that helps treat the delicate skin around the eyes. It's really important to have some of that preventative stuff for things like crow's feet, all of that. I love the texture and the density of the cream. It is not too light, it is not too heavy. And especially as the season starts to change, it's getting a little bit drier here. And look, I don't do the best job sometimes of taking care of my skin in the sun in the summer. Gotta catch up on treating my skin. Right. With one skin.
- [24:32]
A
Julie says that Julia's told me that these are the points that she made. She said there's more elasticity to her skin.
- [24:42]
D
Very nice. Yes.
- [24:44]
A
Has said she has more brightness to her skin.
- [24:50]
D
I feel that too.
- [24:52]
A
And she said she likes the way that it.
- [24:58]
D
Whatever the dispenser, they've got this great dispenser, easy to travel and you know exactly what to do with your skin routine because they lay it out for you. Basically you've got the eye serum, you've got the moisturizer and then, you know, read the instructions on the back and it's very good for sensitive skin. My skin can be really sensitive. I can have redness if you scratch my skin at all. Got a little sometimes.
- [25:27]
A
Who's scratching your skin?
- [25:28]
D
Well, I mean, sometimes that happens, right? If you get a little scratchy or in the heat. I mean, after I work out, my face is a tomato. So it's an absolute joke. But one skin is really easy on my skin. It's dermatologist tested safe for sensitive skin like myself. NEA approved. Delivering powerful results with skin health health in mind. This season, don't just moisturize. Support your skin at the cellular level with one skin for a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code majority at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Majority. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please help us out and tell them the Majority report sent. You try one skin today and again, we will put this in the video and episode descriptions and at majority fm get 15% off one skin with the code majority@www.oneskin.co and again, yes, links down below.
- [26:31]
A
All right, we're going to take quick break. When we come back, we're going to Be talking to Jeet here. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the program Jeet here, who I am happy to report has changed the battery in his smoke detector.
- [27:20]
C
Yeah, it took a couple of days, but we were a little bit concerned.
- [27:25]
A
We were concerned.
- [27:28]
C
Yeah.
- [27:29]
A
Well, you're safe now.
- [27:31]
C
Yeah, we wanted to survive. We managed. We managed to survive.
- [27:34]
A
Okay. All right. Well, I wanted to. Let's just start with. You wrote a piece, I think it was last week, about the Argentinian bailout, which is at this point seems to be somewhere between 40 and 60 billion dollars. Like we don't know exactly how big this thing could balloon to. And I know you just did a podcast about what's going on with Venezuela. There was a report today that a strike on military, military targets in Venezuela could be imminent. People have been talking about this for some time, that the strikes on the boats were sort of some type of prelude to this. Talk about what your sense is that Trump is doing here because there is, there seems to be some plan, I guess, for our southern hemisphere.
- [28:39]
C
I wouldn't say Trump one could talk about plans, but I think that there are instincts and I think that there are factions. And I think both of them have to be kept in mind. One is a sort of like broader, you know, maga, America first foreign policy vision. And I think people misunderstand this because, like Trump himself presented this as, you know, like, I'm anti war. I want to stop World War Three and, you know, taking advantage of the fact that the Democrats stupidly, you know, align themselves with a horrific war in the Middle East. But I mean, the whole America first thing, if you go back to not just Pat Buchanan, but you go back further in history to people like Robert Taft, Charles Lindbergh, even Herbert Hoover, it is a sort of pre Cold War vision of the American right. And it's a specific foreign policy orientation. For much of the 20th century, the Democrats were more oriented towards Europe. People like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, you know, like, they all valued, like Truman, like NATO building up the European alliance. The American right always had a sort of fixation on the Western hemisphere. The idea was, you know, like, let the Europeans fight amongst themselves. It's America's destiny, manifest destiny, to control the Western Hemisphere. And also that the Pacific is America's lake and we have to be expanding out into the Pacific and dominate Asia. And I think like Trump, you know, like, certainly no intellectual, but I think on the broader American right, there's been a return to this thinking partially because the Cold War is over. You know, like Russia now, if you're a Pat Buchanan, like Russia is not the godless communist enemy anymore. It's, you know, Buchanan said like, you know, Putin seems more like a Western Christian man than Barack Obama. And so the idea has always been like, let's disengage from Europe, even disengage from the Middle East a bit. You know, let's have let the Israelis and the Saudis carry out our foreign policy in the Middle east and we can concentrate on the real foe. And I would say more broadly there's an idea that the Western hemisphere includes the United States. Let's bring our real enemy is the enemy within, the enemy at the border. I think it's all tied up with kind of like sort of xenophobia, fear of brown skinned immigrants from the south. And within that orientation you have like different factions. Now with Argentina, I think the person that isn't getting enough attention is not so much Trump as Bessant, you know, who's like sort of coming from, I believe Goldman Sachs or you know, he comes from that sort of world of high finance. And for those guys he has like ties with people who are like, you know, heavily invested in Argentina and would like it to be propped up. And from the point of view of Argentina, this is almost a classic debt trap that they're going to be falling into because they owe a lot of money to the United States, between 40 and 60 billion, as you said. But also the IMF is getting involved and they share the same agenda as the Trump administration. Sort of like tying Argentina down with that and then which will like reinforce this idea of austerity. And in some ways Argentina is the sort of the flip side of Venezuela or of Cuba. Like just as you don't want Cuba to succeed because that would be a bad example, you want Argentina to succeed. So I think that like the sort of Besant, you know, hedge fund faction was able to very play up to this sort of, you know, other currents within MAGA of anti communism, anti socialism and also this idea of hemispheric domination.
- [32:49]
A
And also to enrich themselves.
- [32:51]
C
I mean it's a twofold, right, this.
- [32:54]
A
Is a money grab in Argentina, but also fulfills that obligation. Let me ask you this because I remember and you don't hear much talk about it in his second term, but in his first term wasn't he sort of like always talking about Wilsonian and Wilson being his guy? Maybe I'm misremembering, but Wilson had A very similar sort of. I don't know how exactly similar, but his era was very much about that Pan Americanism. Maybe it was McKinley, but I'm.
- [33:32]
D
Well, he's been obsessed with McKinley recently.
- [33:36]
C
Even more banning in the first.
- [33:41]
A
In the first term, because that would sort of make some sense. The idea that, like, you know, we're going to deal with our part of the world and looking upon everything that's happening anywhere from Central America to Latin America is just sort of like, that's where we get our resources.
- [33:58]
C
Whether it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, the other aspect of this is the sort of new resource war that sort of opened up with batteries and solar. And it's easy for people around Trump to play to that reptilian part of his brain, because Trump has a very primitive understanding of economic wealth. Economic wealth is like gold, oil, minerals. So if you want to have Trump going anywhere, they kept him in Afghanistan by saying, Mr. President, they're like these rare minerals in Afghanistan. That's why we got to keep our troops there. Right. Trump always said we were stupid to go into Iraq and we didn't even keep the oil. Take the oil. So I think with Venezuela and also Argentina, there is a kind of promise of these sort of resource wealth, which particularly in a sort of competition with China, is becoming increasingly important. Because I think China's domination of rare earth minerals is actually a genuine strategic weakness of the United States. Although, you know, like, in reality, it's a weakness. Not. I mean, it shows the primitive understanding here. The China's rare earth dominance is a matter of production. Like, they know how to. They have the manufacturing capacity to, like, refine these things and make them into technology. But, like, for Trump's primitive mind, it is like, let's get the gold, let's get the minerals. Let's. Let's mine this stuff and put it in a bag and carry it back home. Let's be prospectors now with Venezuela, I think so in Argentina, as I said, Passant is the sort of, I think the hidden hand. Here in Venezuela, I think it's very interestingly, Marco Rubio and the kind of Florida Republicans and I think one thing, one way to understand. So Trump is. He's gone from being a New York guy to being a Florida guy. And Florida is increasingly the sort of center of gravity of the Republican Party. And Marco Rubio is as much a part of this as Desantis, and even more so because Rubio has a real, you know, is a very powerful figure. And For Rubio, he's a traditional neocon, you know, like he had been the favorite of the sort of traditional hawkish Republicans. And for him, Venezuela is a way of creating a bridge between that sort of older George W. Bush, militaristic Republican and Trump because it's a way of like, you know, selling like a war that would be very appealing to the sort of, you know, Dick Cheney national security ghouls, but selling it to Trump because it has this advantage of like hemispheric domination. We're going after the supposed drugs, so we're going to deal with this sort of, you know, problem of fentanyl and of drug overdoses.
- [36:44]
A
But it's all oil.
- [36:46]
C
Ridiculously like it's a total lie. Right. Venezuela does not actually give. America is not a source of fentanyl.
- [36:54]
D
But it's a combination of two of the most failed policies of the past, I don't know, hundred years, the war on drugs and the war on terror. And the reason that I think that's important to emphasize is because there is a great piece by Ida Chavez in Capital and Empire, which is a sub SAC now, where basically she talks about how the under Trump, the intelligence community there was a draft and Politico reported on this of the Trump administration's national defense strategy which downplayed China on their list of threats, focusing returning focus on, quote, defending the homeland and hemispheric security, which adds to what you're saying. But her piece argues that basically this is an admission that China has won the war or the Cold War in the battle for things like rare earths and those resources like China is so far ahead on that front that this retrenchment to the Western Hemisphere is in part an admission that China has won. And it's almost a. We're an acceptance of a multipolar polarity that even though this is bloody and insane here and going after Venezuela and being offensive like this is psychotic at the very. There is underneath that a recognition that this is not going to. We are not the world's superpower anymore, basically.
- [38:20]
C
Yeah, I don't know. And one has actually seen that in a sort of meeting with Xi where like P. Tech said something very significant, which is, you know, we're working towards a balance of power in Asia, which is not the traditional American foreign policy, which is that the United States has to have hegemony in Asia as in everywhere else. I think that it's pretty clear that that what Ayna Shava says is exactly right. And in fact hegseth in that sort of big meeting of military. He brought all the generals in to, I think, Virginia. And one of the things that was really all about this change of orientation, the idea of great power competition with China, which Trump had previously promoted, is being downsized to this. And I think the other aspect is the sort of military display as a way of, you know, reaffirming power or, you know, dealing with failed masculinity, which one also sees in Hegseth with, you know, like, our generals are too fat and we need to exercise. But I mean, exactly as you say. Like, you know, like Trump has said, and this is a very honest statement on his part. United States has not won a war since 1945. And usually what you do is when you can't win wars, you have small little wars. But, you know, Theodore Roosevelt called splendid little wars where, you know, you got. Go after Grenada. You know, I was gonna say Grenada.
- [39:44]
A
We won Grenada. And we also.
- [39:47]
C
Come on, We.
- [39:48]
A
We also arrested. Gosh, what was his name? Yeah, exactly. Noriega.
- [39:56]
C
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But those wars, I mean, like, you know, George Bush Sr. Said, with invading Panama, we finally beat that Vietnam thing. You know, like, we showed that we're tough by invading, like, a very small country that is also, like, militarily defended in the United States. And, you know, the case of Grenada.
- [40:16]
A
You know, I thought he said that about Kuwait. I mean, the first war was the end of the Vietnam. Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [40:24]
C
He might have said that about Kuwait.
- [40:26]
D
Yeah.
- [40:26]
A
But here's the other thing that we should, I think, deserves mention. I don't. While Trump may be, like, sort of going much further in possibly attacking Venezuela, you know, everybody. When Juan Guaido, who was ostensibly like a. The head of a coup, essentially was invited to. I was at Joe Biden's State of the. I mean, you know, the.
- [41:02]
D
There has been a democracy panel, like, talk about promoting democracy.
- [41:07]
A
There has been a bipartisan sort of sense of like, we need to have our person in Venezuela, and it is oil, period. End of story. There's nothing else but about Venezuela that this country, they don't. We don't care about the democracy there. We don't care about anything associated with that. We don't care about any of their other imports. We don't. They're not in a particularly strategic location for us. It is oil that is it, bottom line. And both parties have. Have, like, contributed to this notion that.
- [41:48]
B
That.
- [41:50]
A
That Venezuela is a danger to us.
- [41:55]
C
Yeah, no, absolutely. And one is actually seeing this in the sort of opposition to Trump, such as it is with The Democrats, because I think on the one hand, someone like Schumer and Jeffries are very reluctant to talk about it. They don't talk about it unless asked. And when they are asked, their main objection is, like, you know, like, why is there no congressional participation oversight? They basically want to be able to rubber stamp this. And. Yeah, no, it's totally a bipartisan thing. I mean, this goes back to Emma's point. You have created bipartisanly over the last 30 years this or even more, this infrastructure of a war on drugs and a war on terror. And this allows any president, including Trump, to unilaterally launch these kinds of wars on behalf of stopping drugs or stopping what they now called narco terrorism. So the idea drugs and terrorism are somehow conflated. So, yeah, no, it's absolutely the case. And in some ways, I mean, that's the other appeal of sort of like, going after Venezuela. It's a kind of war where you can get a bipartisan consensus for, you know, and coming at a period where the United States has been suffering a lot of, like, basically either lost or things are not going as they planned. You know, certainly the war in Gaza is very unpopular across the political spectrum in the United States and in Ukraine. I mean, you know, although one can support the justice of the Ukrainian cause, it's absolutely the case that, you know, that that war is not going very well either. So in some ways, I mean, I do see, like, Venezuela as, like, you know, how can the empire get its mojo back? How can we prove, you know, we can still kick ass, you know, take prisoners and. But even so, like, it seems like, in a lot of ways, a disastrous policy. And I'm really shocked now. I shouldn't be shocked, but I mean, like, it's really something that Democrats are not saying more about this blowing up of votes. Oh, that's the other thing.
- [44:04]
A
Like, I was just gonna say, what. What are we doing? And there is, you know, I like to think that I am over. I have been over for years the idea that the media is going to sort of like, without being having their hands held and pulled down a certain road, are going to make an argument, particularly against the. The use of any type of military force without the Democrats doing this. But the idea that we have now randomly killed, I don't know, 50 people and have been so public about it, you know, obviously we've killed hundreds of thousands in the context of a war, and. But we. The administration has been bragging about this basically every day. They've been putting out the video Footage of it. We still are getting reports from like Trinidad or Tobago. Like, people are wondering where their husband is. He went out for fishing and he hasn't shown up. I mean, it's unbelievable. And you know, we played a clip the other day. I think it was where Trump joined together the concept of, you know, I think it was when he was in Japan addressing the, the naval base where he said, you know, the liberal Democrats, you know, radical Democrats, they're complaining about me blowing up the boats. And also we're going to be putting you guys speaking to the military into cities. And like, the idea that in his mind those two things are proximate, I find very nerve wracking this, of course, coming a day or two after we now know the Pentagon is developing rapid reaction forces to go into each state with 500 people to fight, you know, civil unrest. Basically, you know, developing a Kent State plan, I guess, is really what it's coming down to. But let's pivot for a second from that to what's going on in New York City, because I think it probably we would have seen it either way. But certainly Trump is going to be very excited at the idea that he's going to be able to send troops into New York City after Mamdani gets elected. And I think, you know, I would anticipate we're not going to see that until next spring or so after he's inaugurated if he wins. But before we get there, your thoughts about this race in New York City? People should be get, you know, people should be early voting right now. And if not, if you have already canvas and call for Mamdani, but go ahead, Jeep.
- [47:15]
C
Yeah, I think the main interest of the race is just how much there continues to be a freakout over Mamdani. And like, you know, like, particularly like, I mean, like Andrew Cuomo is like not gonna losing graciously on this. Like, he's, he's like going in on a really ugly way, you know, like, you know, talking about like 9, 11, you know, that like incredible AI ad which I guess they took down and they blamed on a junior staffer, but still like, like, you know, one of the most, you know, like you would have to go back to Birth of a Nation to find something so explicitly racist. But I mean, I think that this is sort of, and also, I have to add, like, you know, just the sort of incredible curlishness of the Democratic establishment where like Jeffries endorsed Madani but wouldn't say his name and actually spent most of his time criticizing him in the endorsement. I think Schumer still has not said Schumer.
- [48:15]
D
Yesterday we played it yesterday. He ran away from a question asking him from Manu Raju, are you going to vote for. For Mamdani? And he basically walked away. And Raju was like, the election is next week. Like, voting has already started. And he won't answer the question. He said, we're still having conversations. Who's buying this anymore? And who is this for, other than the Zionist donor class? Seriously? Or billionaire donor class?
- [48:43]
C
Yeah, no, that's exactly it. And also I'd mentioned Hillary Clinton, who has said, you know, she will not. I don't.
- [48:53]
A
Hillary Clinton.
- [48:54]
D
Clinton.
- [48:54]
A
This is number 16. This is fascinating. I mean, does Bill Clinton.
- [49:01]
D
Senator from New York. I just like the reason I say that is because you'll, you'll understand why that's relevant when she. In her response here.
- [49:09]
A
And does Bill Clinton not still have his. His office in. In Harlem?
- [49:16]
C
Bill Clinton endorsed Cuomo in the primary.
- [49:20]
D
Yeah, this was embarrassing. I guess this was a. Where was she on this?
- [49:25]
A
Called the Unholy Pod.
- [49:27]
D
Okay.
- [49:29]
A
My line is two Jews on the news.
- [49:32]
D
Okay, cool. She was asked here yesterday on the Unholy podcast about whether or not Mamdani poses a threat to Jewish people in New York City.
- [49:42]
B
Next week in this city, it does seem like Mamdani will become mayor. I'm going to ask this quite bluntly. Do the Jews in this city have a reason to be concerned? And we'll have to see what happens. I hope not. The fact that this is someone who talks about, you know, doesn't denounce a slogan, globalize the intifada. What are your thoughts when you think of that? I do not believe that we are able to predict what's going to happen. I don't. I can't sit here and tell you I can only hope that there will be a. Whatever happens in the election and, you know, it hasn't occurred yet, so everybody should go out and vote. But it is important, you know, to deal with whatever the reality is next Wednesday, whatever it is, and for people to play as constructive a role as possible in making sure that, you know, we don't face the kind of, you know, worries and concerns that have been expressed.
- [50:45]
A
If you had a vote in this city, would you vote for Zoran Mumtani?
- [50:50]
B
You know what? I don't vote in this city. I'm not involved in it. I have not been at all even asked to be involved in it, and I have not chosen to be involved in it. I will be there the day after and everybody else should be, too, no matter what happens.
- [51:07]
D
What do you mean? The day after this is just.
- [51:10]
A
Absolutely. I mean, I want to put a pin in this aspect of the conversation as we go forward here, but because you're talking about Cuomo. But this is this type of, like, deployment of fake anti Semitism in anti Semitism, innuendo. Okay. Which has been going on, you know, really increasingly over the past two years, in particular, because of what Israel's. The genocide Israel has been involved in. But this type of stuff, it is about to blow up in the faces of everyone who actually genuinely cares about anti Semitism and had some skin in the game in this. We'll talk about that in a moment. But I want to put a pin in that. But it's disgusting what they're doing.
- [52:11]
C
I want us to talk about, like, there's a kind of. This election is really about two competing, different visions of what a multicultural, pluralist America is. Because you see the Zoran's campaign, and, you know, he's doing all these, like, ads in, like, Hindi, in Urdu, in. And in Yiddish, you know, and in all these ads, he's saying the same message. We're all New Yorkers together. We all have an affordability issue. So you're acknowledging it's a pluralistic America with many different people from many different cultures, and we have a commonality and a common purpose. Now, I think Como is a different type of multiculturalism. It's a multiculturalism of fear. And we're familiar with this from the Republican side. There's a famous Republican strategist, Ken Phillips, who's one of the originators of the Southern Strategy and of the appeal to George Wallace, white ethnics. And he said politics is about knowing who hates who. You know, like, if, you know, like, in this neighborhood, you know, the Irish don't like the blacks. That gives you leverage. And Como has always been about that politics. He's always been about knowing who hates who. And I would remind people, and it's a little bit like, you know, shocking language, but Andrew Cuomo, his introduction to political life is 1977. His father was running for mayor of New York against a closeted gay man. Ed Koch and Andrew Cuomo came up with the slogan, vote for Como, not the homo. And there's a continuity between that moment and. And this moment, saying Zoran is an anti Semite, playing to fears the way Hillary Clinton and Cuomo have both been doing. These people are practitioners of the multiculturalism of fear, of using anxiety about racial oppression to sort of hurt People and to turn people against each other. And there cannot be a bigger difference between that and what Zoran is offering is really a choice. Do you want a multiculturalism of hope or do you want a multiculturalism of fear?
- [54:24]
A
And I mean, the idea that, let's say a Jewish Senate candidate in Michigan, that there would be a podcast that would ask a politician, do you think that Palestinians or Muslims living in Michigan should be afraid because this politician running for statewide office is Jewish and supports Israel, do you think they should be afraid? And for like a Hillary Clinton or any type of supposed past or vying for some type of relevance within the Democratic Party now, for anybody in any position of responsibility to even imply that, well, we, we gotta wait and see. I don't know. I mean, anything could happen here.
- [55:21]
D
I mean, the use of the phrase the day after is insane. It's like she's acting like she's back in the streets with her hard hat on after 9 11. Like that. Is that what she's invoking? It is some of the most. When you go back to that Cuomo ad talking about the racism in this race, the Democratic Party really needs to contend with the deeply racist Zionist element in the party. It is a massive, massive threat to, like, we're hearing all this stuff, like we should throw away wokeness or multiculturalism in a certain way, because how are we going to be able to win back the rest of the country with this? It's like, actually multiculturalism and being tolerant of other people is pretty easy to sell. And if you're not the biggest hypocrite on the planets and you're not engaging in some of the most disgusting Islamophobia and bigoted attitudes towards the rock star that has come out of this party in this year.
- [56:18]
C
Yeah, no, no, I would say so. I would add. I mean, I think that, like, obviously the Zionist component is a big part of this. It gives people a license to do this stuff. But it's a broader political vision that I think the Clintons and Como have had from the start. And one sees it, they have always been willing to use identity politics against the left. And Hillary Clinton famously, breaking up the banks will not end racism. I think it's part of the same. They have always had a very cynical willingness to deploy legitimate fears that people have about anti Semitism or racism, but to use it to shore up the status quo. And I think what's striking is just how desperate they are and the extent that they're willing to go to now. I genuinely think this campaign, the Last two weeks. The level of out of control racism is something like it is at the same level as Trump in 2016 in his campaigns. I really don't see how you could say that what Hillary Clinton is doing is any better than, you know, she.
- [57:29]
D
Ran a racist campaign against Obama. She ran.
- [57:31]
C
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. They've always been what. They've always had this sort of cynical willingness to do this. And I think the fact that they are doing it in such lurid terms is a sign of their fear. They are genuinely afraid that they're going to like lose control, not just their party, but their whole status. And I have to say, if I were Hillary Clinton, I would be, because.
- [57:55]
A
I think those fears are justified. I really do think those fears justified. Yeah, we're seeing the same stuff deployed against Platner up in Maine now. Regardless, you know, I'm happy to relitigate this stuff later in the show, but not while Jeet is here. But regardless of whether you think that there is actual sort of concern or not in terms of platin, it is clearly as a tactic not working. I mean, it is clearly not working. Again, I'm happy to litigate this and.
- [58:29]
C
See through it like it's, it's, it's been used. They've, they've used this too often. It's lost its potency and it's actually, they, they've done real damage to this because it actually makes it harder to fight real racism, real anti stuff. That's the perfect boy that cried wolf.
- [58:45]
A
That is the perfect segue because I want to play this from the Heritage foundation now. There has been, particularly since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a deepening riff amongst the sort of, I don't even know what you call this because, you know, the conservative movement and the conservative movement mouthpieces are almost identical. Right. I mean, there is not like the distinction between people who talk about politics on the broad center to the left and their influence is just not as the most probably influential people on the left of center. Center right is probably someone like an Ezra Klein or a Matt Iglesias or those type of people who actually pontificate. But on the right, it's like they're all sort of like they're, they're as important as any politicians in these circles in terms of influencing the right. And so Charlie Kirk, you know, Candace Owen has released a lot of information about how he was supposedly ready to break with the Zionists and he was upset at the Jewish donors and he wasn't going to excommunicate Tucker Carlson, and he wasn't going to excommunicate Candace Owens and he was going to invite them to CPAC and et cetera, et cetera. And this has been sort of like generating more and more heat, particularly in the absence of any information about the assassination that seems to have been just the spigot is completely run dry. And Tucker Carlson recently had Nick Fuentes on. Fuentes has been on this sort of like tour for the past couple of weeks, three or four or five weeks. He was terrified that it was a groiper that had assassinated Charlie Kirk. That was apparent. And then he went on this tour afterwards and hit all sorts of shows. And then this came out yesterday from the head of the Heritage foundation where basically he is saying we are no longer going to police the right in terms of anti Semitism in the name of no longer toeing the line for Israel. And that like there's two things happening here and everything the, you know, Cuomo has been talking about the left is happening on the right and they're just enabling it. Let's watch this clip.
- [61:30]
G
I'll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing. Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti Semitic. And of course, anti Semitism should be condemned. My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first and to America always, when it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with.
- [61:52]
A
Pause it for one, just one second. I want to ask Jeet this. Hey, what comes after first? If it's to Christ first, what comes after first?
- [62:05]
C
Second, Let me do my math here. Second, I think.
- [62:10]
A
Yeah, okay. I just wanted to check. You're good with language, so I wanted to check on that because first I want to tell you this and always I want to tell you that it's not exactly the construct good.
- [62:25]
G
First and to America always, when it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington. The Heritage foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians. And we won't start doing that now. We don't take direction from comments on X. Though we are grateful for the robust free speech debate, we also don't take direction from members or Donors, though we are inherently grateful for their support and we're adding more every day. This is the robust debate we invite with our colleagues, our movement friends, our members, and the American public. We will always defend truth, we will always defend America, and we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation. The venomous coalition attacking him, pursuing division, their attempt to cancel him will fail. Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right. I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer either. When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas in debate. And we have seen success in this approach as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left. As my friend Vice President Vance said last night, what I am not okay with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens. And it is important for all of us. I think assuming we are American citizens.
- [64:34]
A
I think we got it here. And he mentions, you know, what's his face right after he says, friends, it's the vile ideas of the left. His ideas we can negotiate with.
- [64:48]
D
Exactly. That's an admission, though, that Christians have.
- [64:51]
C
A. Christians have a right to criticize Israel. Now, what that also means is that non Christians do not. And I think the Heritage foundation people need to remember this. They are the responsible for the Esther Project, which is a sort of infrastructural backbone of like, deporting people, predominantly Muslims, who are like, you know, have been critical of Israel. So it's all of a piece like, you know, we have the right where it's a Christian nation, we're Christian nationalists, we dominate, we have the right to criticize Israel, but we also have the right to deport anyone who criticizes Israel on other grounds. Now, I mean, I don't have time. We have for like, history, but it is, I think one thing people aren't aware of is the fact that like, sort of like hostility towards. There's a long history of anti Zionism on the right, which is like, you know, it has been intertwined with anti Semitism, although also comes from other sources. It's the fact that a lot of Palestinians are Christians and had like, long standing ties with American Christian communities. So in the 1950s, you know, like National Review was very critical of Israel. And in 1950, six National Review and editorial said, like Israel is the only racist state in the modern world. Which is actually was factually untrue. I mean like South Africa, America.
- [66:17]
A
America.
- [66:18]
C
Right, but still, still like it is. Absolutely. But that tradition of right wing anti Zionism fell away after 1967 as a result of sort of political alliances with the sort of neoconservatives, former Cold War liberals who had moved to the right. And also the importance of Israel and the American hegemony. But there's always been that tradition and it's gone through people like Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sober.
- [66:49]
A
Yes.
- [66:50]
C
And in the past you've had, there's a kind of myth that William F. Buckley kind of, you know, kept these people out of the gates. Well, you know, like that's actually like, you know, like, you know, like not to go back to Buckley. But I'd encourage people to read Sam Tanenhaus's biography of Buckley because it totally refutes that Buckley often worked with these Christian, you know, like right wing anti Semites was closely tied with them. Joseph Sober had been the editor there when the heat got too hot, like Buckley wood like separate them up like so he had like actually did fire Sober, but then he continued to pay Sober or give Sober money until Soburn, the end of Soburn's life. And Buckley had been very close with, you know, people like Ravello Oliver, who was a genuine neo Nazi. And so Buckley always had this kind of complicated dance of, you know, like supporting as much of the anti Semitic right as you could, but then like, you know, like distancing when you had to, when it was politically inopportune. I think what has changed is the dynamic that that sort of facade is no longer necessary that you can actually like we're now in a situation where the subtext has become text where like the political right no longer feels like you need a Buckley figure to present a respectable face. And that has led to the, you know, really the triumph of people like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, who I do actually think have like a genuine mass political following and like really do represent the point of view. And you know, like, I have to say, like, it's coming for the left. I think there's a kind of complicated issue, like we have to like on the one hand, like, I mean, like, you know, like someone like Nick Fuentes, Holocaust denier, you know, tell Jews like, you know, move to Israel, this guy's an anti Semite. There's no question, like there's no like tolerance or room for that. But having you know, said that one reason why he and Tucker Carlson can get an audience is that people on the right, including evangelical Christians, are like, looking at what's happening in Israel and saying, like, why are we supporting this? How is this in America's national interest? And so these are. Bipartisan consensus in support of this genocide has created an opening for, you know, like, genuinely fascistic, you know, Nazi movement, like, which is like. And that the political center has like, not only through its like, unquestioning Zionism, like, created an opening where like, that politics has a space, but they're also further legitimizing it by like using this sort of smear of anti Semitism against someone like Mamdani, who is not an anti Semite, and using it more broadly against the left. And that also discredits the idea that this is, as I said before, this is the classic story of the boy who cried wolf. There are wolves out there, but they have often, like, cried wolf in many cases where there are no wolves. And that is like, sort of taken away, like the ability of anyone to trust them when they cry wolf.
- [69:54]
A
I mean, this is, I think we are about to get in. This is, this is a really important thing because there's a lot of times where people want to create some type of like, transpartisan relationship with people who are supporting the similar issues. I have a problem with Israel. They have a problem with Israel. We can work together. The problem is, is that they're not showing up to the party just with their issue with Israel. They're also showing up with this anti Semitism and, you know, racism. I mean, it's the anti, the relationship between the anti Semitism and the racism is pretty tight.
- [70:43]
D
And one, be.
- [70:46]
A
Very, very careful. This is what you were talking about. People have to be very, very careful. It's one thing to sort of like, allow the support for Israel to be undercut on the right. I'm very happy for that to happen because I want it to happen across the, the, the, the, the country. I mean, but you, you cannot create an alliance with people like this because you're allowing something incredibly dangerous and toxic into the room. And they can do their work on their own on, on the parts that you agree with. But this is a real problem because they're unleashing a hellstorm on the right when they're no longer sort of like tamping down the antisemitism because they want to sort of protect Israel, all bets are off.
- [71:37]
D
And it just goes back to the Hillary Clinton piece. I want to just like the Democrats choosing to punt on making the case for multiculturalism within the context of Israel and instead leaning into heavy, heavy, heavy Islamophobia, it makes it harder to make a multicultural, like democratic case for Greater Israel, which is the only reality that is going to ever happen, which is one democratic state. There are 700,000 settlers in the West Bank. If you want to get them all out, then you want to talk about the two state solution. Okay, whatever. But the Democrats punting on making that case has enabled this. So that the, basically the foreign government argument that you're hearing from the right, they're basically talking about Jews as infiltrators. Like, this is where I really want people to stop using some of this framing here, because that is where it's leading here. Israel is in many ways an arm of the United States. And if we're talking about it in that context as like our colonial outposts or as our military aircraft in the Middle east, it's a lot easier for people to understand this is a problem of imperialism and militarism. But the people that are normalizing, Marjorie Taylor Greene, are using this framing. And it's not one of like, that is about broader humanity. It is about like, it's pitting different groups against one another. And that is what is so scary. So that's a long addendum to what Sam said, but I wanted to get that in.
- [73:08]
C
Yeah, no, no, no, no, I agree on all points. And yeah, I mean, I do think that one has to understand like the, you know, all the sort of talk about the Israel lobby, which does exist, but it exists within a framework of American empire. And you know, America's support of Israel has always been a part of, you know, like a larger product of regional domination. I mean, like Joe Biden said it best, you know, like, if Israel didn't exist, America would have to create it. I have to create it because it is America's attack dog in the region. You know, like on the sort of like colonial outpost. I mean, like when I was in Israel, like, you know, like it's a very striking thing to actually go to the sort of like these settlements which are like, you know, like, like sort of New Jersey suburbs, like planted like, like in this like, you know, Middle Eastern country. You know, like not unlike the sort of American military bases where you can get like, you know, burger King and McDonald's in, in Kuwait or whatever. Like, like Israel is a giant aircraft carrier for the United States. And unless, you know, like, unless we deal with this issue of empire and with people like, you know, Hillary Clinton, who are have been lifelong servants of empire, you know, like, there's no way out of this, like, nightmare. And it is exactly right that, like, you know, like, unless you deal with this like the people like Carson Fuentes who are genuine, like, fascists, they will come to the fore because they will be able to exploit all the contradictions of liberalism, which are genuine contradictions. Tucker Carlson and Fuentes are not wrong when they say liberals are hypocritical. They say they support human rights, but they're supporting Gaza. Liberals have created a situation where people like Tucker Carlson can score points off them. And, like, I'm sorry, shame on you if that happens.
- [75:02]
A
Jeed here. Always a pleasure. Is that the right word?
- [75:08]
C
Sorry, I couldn't have happier days.
- [75:12]
A
It's certainly enlightening. Maybe in less dark times it would be more of a pleasure, but those are the times we live in right now. So we will link, of course, to your pieces in the nation and to your podcast, the Time of Monsters, which, in fact, it very much is. Appreciate coming on.
- [75:39]
C
All right, folks, great to be on.
- [75:41]
D
Thanks, chief. It's pretty bad, so. It's pretty bad.
- [75:53]
A
Well, time for the fun half.
- [75:55]
E
Need a little bit of encouragement.
- [75:56]
C
How about this? We will win.
- [76:02]
A
Thanks. Thanks. Thank you.
- [76:05]
D
I was like a warm blanket.
- [76:06]
A
Yes.
- [76:07]
D
Wow. Chuck is here for us.
- [76:10]
A
We are safe, folks. The cavalry has arrived or is en route. They're just waiting for their metavan to come and and get them on.
- [76:24]
D
We have our starting quarterback to lead us to victory, and his name is Blake Bortles. That was more for Brian.
- [76:34]
A
It was good.
- [76:35]
C
It was pretty good. It was very good.
- [76:36]
D
He's notoriously, you know, bad quarterback that got a big overpaid contract. So that's Chuck Schumer.
- [76:41]
A
He said he'd rather be ripping cigarettes.
- [76:43]
C
On a construction site.
- [76:47]
D
We will win. Well, all right, all right.
- [76:50]
A
We got a campaign. That's it for the free show, folks. You can join us in the fun half by becoming a member@jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get the free half free of commercials, we also get the fun half. Then you can IM us during the fun half, the app everybody can use. But when you become a member, one of the member features is maybe the only member feature is that you can. I am the show now. We are developing more stuff for the members, but social media. Social media. So stick around. Who knows?
- [77:35]
D
Reminder about the M Majority shirts, too.
- [77:37]
A
Oh, right. We've got the new slate gray and the light blue Emma Jordy shirts.
- [77:45]
D
They're limited time in the time through the third. So you've got a few more days to order. Preorder the limited edition and majority merch on shop.
- [77:55]
A
Majorityreportradio.com and what a gift this is. Now is the time to buy your Christmas gifts, right? This is the way you do it. And you got a buddy who listens to the show across the country. This is the what you do. You get the, you get the shirt, you hold on to it and you ship it. Also just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Matt.
- [78:26]
E
Actually, this week on Left Recording, we covered similar ground in terms of this split between fascists and anti Semites. On the right over the question of Israel or adjacent to that question with Candace Owens versus Steven Crowder. Where Steven Crowder is, he's breathy. Like when you talk to him. Sam, about Candace Owens. Admittedly, I agree with Steven here suggesting that Trump had Charlie Kirk killed and then gave him a boulevard. So we got deep into that with YouTube philosopher Michael Burns. Candace Owens basically said he like MLK, like they kill you and then they give you a. The name of street after you. Yeah, it's pretty fun. Pretty fun stuff going on on the right. So check that out. Patreon.com.
- [79:15]
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. It's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now. But I think around 18 months out, we're going to 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. Fun Half. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. Nomi Keen, you did it. Fun half.
- [80:02]
D
Let's go, Brandon.
- [80:03]
E
Let's go, Brandon.
- [80:04]
A
Fun hack. Bradley, you want to say hello?
- [80:09]
C
Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.
- [80:12]
A
It's all the boys today.
- [80:13]
D
Fundamentally false. No. I'm sorry.
- [80:15]
F
Women.
- [80:16]
A
Stop talking for a second.
- [80:18]
D
Let me finish. Where is this coming from?
- [80:20]
A
Dude, dude, you want to smoke this C. Yes.
- [80:27]
D
Hi.
- [80:28]
A
Me? Yes. Is this me?
- [80:35]
C
Is it me?
- [80:36]
A
It is you. Is this me?
- [80:40]
D
Hello?
- [80:41]
A
Is this me? I think it is you.
- [80:42]
C
Who is you?
- [80:46]
B
Every.
- [80:46]
A
Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'M gonna go start Lupid. Though common sense says. Of course.
- [80:58]
D
Gobbledygook.
- [80:59]
A
We nailed him.
- [81:01]
D
So what's 79 plus 21?
- [81:03]
A
Challenge. Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1 0, 85 0, 11 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.
- [81:12]
E
For instance.
- [81:13]
D
$3,400. $1900.
- [81:15]
A
5, 4, $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.
- [81:21]
D
Actually. You're making me think less.
- [81:22]
A
But let me say this. You call it satire.
- [81:26]
G
Sam goes satire on top of it all.
- [81:29]
D
Yeah. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do.
- [81:34]
A
Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We seen you. All right, folks, folks, folks.
- [81:44]
D
It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.
- [81:47]
C
Yeah.
- [81:47]
A
Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.
- [81:54]
D
But you should know.
- [81:57]
A
People just don't.
- [81:57]
E
Like to entertain ideas anymore.
- [81:59]
A
I have a question. Who cares?
- [82:03]
E
Our chat is enabled, folks.
- [82:05]
C
I love it.
- [82:06]
D
I do love that.
- [82:09]
A
Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump.
- [82:11]
C
I'm losing it, bro.
- [82:15]
A
Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.
- [82:22]
D
Outrageous.
- [82:22]
A
Like, what is wrong with you?
- [82:25]
C
Love you.
- [82:26]
F
Bye.
- [82:28]
C
Love you.
- [82:29]
D
Bye.
- [82:29]
A
Bye.