← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
3653 - Big Oil's $23B Hormuz Exploits; Trump Botches Iran Peace Talks w/ Alex Jacquez, Matt Duss
01:20:39
Loading summary
Transcript189 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hi folks, we got a new sponsor and I've been using this quite a bit lately. It's called plod. It is the Plod Note Pro. It is basically a dedicated AI note taking device that records conversations, automatically organize them into transcripts, into summaries, has different speakers, it will label, gives you action items. I mean my use cases for this. I imagine if you're in business there's a ton of things and if you're a doctor or something like this. But as a parent, very helpful when you go, let's say just hypothetically, I'm not saying I did this. Record your son after he's getting put under for oral surgery. And then also of course the doctor gives you a bunch of instructions and you can record it, organizes it, puts it into a file, then you can send it to your co parent. That's just one use case. But also for me I use it for ideas and whatnot. And the thing is I thought like well why don't I just use my phone for this. But my problem is that when I pick up my phone I do 10 things before I get to the thing that I was going to do and then I forget to do it and your voice memos get lost on there. This is all organized, it's incredible. And it will not only that, it will record long form conversations, there's no battery drain, like I say, no interruptions and it, it can record your phone calls too. Now you need consent at least in third party states or in non third party states but nevertheless you know your mileage will vary on that. It's also encrypt privacy compliant. And if your work involves interviews, meetings, researches, organizing production, any type of conversation oriented type of work, this thing becomes very useful very quickly. Also again like it's a, it's a great mechanism to communicate when you got stuff that you're recording of but you go down to get cat, what do you need for the food? I don't want to, you know, write these notes and send them off. It's so easy. Go to plod. Oh in mine comes on a I got a case. They give it to everybody but sticks on the back of your phone with magnets. Yep. Unless your son takes it because he's upset that you may have recorded him. Go to plod. Plaud AI/majority. Use the code majority for 10% off. Check it out. The link will be in the podcast and YouTube description. Now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, May 27, 2026. My name is Sam Seder, 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, Alex Haquez, chief of policy and advocacy work at Groundwork Collaborative, formal special assistant president for Economic Development, Industrial strategy under the Obama administration. What we can look forward to in the price of oil and food in the coming weeks, months, years. Also on the program today, Matt Duss, executive Vice president, the center for International Policy, the co host of the Undiplomatic podcast on both the failure of the Abraham Accords and the commensurate failure of the Democratic foreign policy establishment and how it's starting to look like they are Personas non grata. Also on the program today, Paxton wins as Republicans scrubbing of his record and their criticisms of him commences. Congressman Al Green, latest APAC victim in Texas. Johnny Garcia wins in Texas, 35th. Meanwhile, Iranians back online as the Internet's been flipped back on there. Meanwhile, that ceasefire, not really a ceasefire anymore. South Carolina legislature rejects gerrymandering probably because they saw how many people came out to vote in the primary and it didn't look good for them. Florida judge lets the new Republican map proceed. Israel once again bombing Gaza, killing 14 while killing 31 in Lebanon. This should make you feel uncomfortable. The CDC has asked for volunteers to help with Ebola screening at airports. Now, to be fair, they're asking CDC employees to go volunteer because apparently all the ones who were trained in this were cut. Protest continues at the New Jersey ICE facility as an AP investigation finds huge rate of suicides in ICE detention centers. Appeals court temporarily blocks the Trump regime from deporting Mahmoud Khalil. And Icelanders will vote over the summer whether to attempt to join the EU to gain protection from the United States. All this and more on today's Majority report.
- [06:22]
B
It is pump day.
- [06:25]
A
Yeah. Why are people saying your mic?
- [06:26]
B
Saying my mic is low. So I want to be able to put my full, the full weight behind my proclamation of there we go, Pump day. It's hump day.
- [06:38]
A
There you go, ladies and gentlemen, it is hump day. We got a lot to get to, obviously these runoffs in Texas yesterday, another one bites the dust. John Cornyn was 20 years ago he was considered an absolute fringe character in the Senate and now he's just not Republican enough for them. He's got no criminal record that we know of, no impeachments, no weird sexual assaults, as far as we know, no affairs.
- [07:25]
B
None of the things that it takes to Republican.
- [07:29]
C
Does he really even want it? You have to ask?
- [07:31]
B
Yeah. And it's amazing. Cornyn. Yes. Like, show some commitment, buddy to the criminality. Corden had apparently the worst showing for an incumbent in a head to head primary or runoff since 1974.
- [07:47]
A
I did not, I did not go too deep into it, but it looks like Paxton got about 40,000 more votes than he did in the primary and Cornyn got like hundreds of thousands of votes less.
- [07:59]
B
It's amazing. It seems like every one of Texas's, if at least the overwhelming majority, 254 counties, swung in the direction of the criminal. Basically the guy that has a litany of corruption issues and investigations was indicted on securities fraud, amongst other things. So total Trump guy.
- [08:24]
A
Total Trump guy. And Republicans seem to be really freaking out about this. And we'll show some examples of what they've had to scrub from the Internet. But here's Paxton and he has gone to the Donald Trump school of nicknaming your opponent. That of course, is James Talarico. And look. Well, let's hear what Paxton had to say.
- [08:50]
D
My opponent is the most extreme radical the Democrats have ever nominated. He's even running a vegan campaign, whatever that is. He goes by a few names that you may all have heard of.
- [09:03]
A
Pause it for one second. Also, I just want to say, like, you know, it's quite clear that Cornyn ran up against a guy with a tremendous amount of charisma and ability to deliver a riveting, emotionally invested speech, whatever that means.
- [09:18]
B
I'm not gonna tell you. I'm just gonna throw it out there.
- [09:21]
A
I've done commercial reads, pre taped commercial reads that have more dynamism than this.
- [09:27]
B
Well, I mean, he's trying to do the Trump nickname thing, but with none of the Trump charisma. And I just like substitute vegan for like gay or some sort of gay slur or effeminate. And you'll probably get a sense of what trying to get out there.
- [09:41]
A
He's going to get more explicit by
- [09:44]
D
a few names that you may all have heard of. Some people know him as Tofu Talariko. Some people call him six gender Jimmy. I've even heard some people call him James Talafrico and others refer to him simply as Low T Talarico. But no matter what you call him, let me you tell, tell you this. James Talerico is a threat to everything we hold dear dear in this state and in this country. He's a threat to our security and our safety. He wants open borders and even said said a welcome mat should be at our southern border. He's a threat to our children. He wants boys and girls, sports, gender mutilation, surgery performed on kids. And when asked what he loved outside of his family and friends, you heard what Brandon Gill said. His first answer was trans kids. That's weird. And that's a radical guy. He's a threat to our prosperity and Texas economy. He said you can't be a Christian if you support the oil and gas industries. Want to raise your tax, he wants to raise your taxes and he won't do a single thing to lower costs for you and your family.
- [10:57]
B
And finally he's, yeah, the cost thing is going to be an issue for them. I'm not sure necessarily. This brand of schoolyard bullying paired with the Trump administration sadism as this very the state with a large Latino population has to face ice, harassing their communities and kidnapping their neighbors. I'm not sure that the whole schoolyard bully thing plays in the same way at that point, especially when Trump's at 60% disapproval.
- [11:27]
A
I'm going to be a little bit, you know, listen, wishful thinking. Well, I've seen Texas so many times sound like it's going to be really close. I think it's probably going to be the best shot that Democrats have for a senatorial race in Texas and certainly in my, well, not my lifetime. Lloyd Benston was there. I'm that old. But it's certainly within the past several decades. But who knows? Because I think like the whole schoolyard bully thing seems about as Texas as anything, right? I mean, literally the motto of the state is don't mess with Texas, but we'll see. In the meantime, though, the problem is is that I think for a long time the Republicans thought Ken Paxton had no chance. The guy is so toxic, even our die hard authoritarian followers, psychos are going to have a problem with this guy. So like just a month or two ago they're writing stuff like this by this is from the National Republic Senate Campaign Senatorial Committee Committee. Ken Paxton using taxpayer dollars to buy hotel rooms for donors.
- [12:53]
B
Oh, good to know.
- [12:54]
A
Let's see what else they had. Ken Paxton's lies and incompetence keep piling up back in July. This is in 2025. Ken Paxton in standing in conservatives ways. Oh gosh, Ken. And the statement on Angela Paxton's decision to divorce Ken Paxton. Now, of course, they've literally part of the affair, been scrubbing their website to get rid of all these press releases.
- [13:21]
B
But they were very active in trying to elevate candidates or depress them in these primaries like the Republicans were. Also, it seems like elevating Jasmine Crockett there was reporting about how there was a Republican group that kind of convinced her to run via this campaign of getting her voters to ask her to run. So they didn't succeed there and they did not succeed here.
- [13:44]
A
Now here is Ken Paxton with a wonderful. Is this from his yearbook? Oh, no, actually, I'm sorry. It seems to be great sentence.
- [13:55]
C
The top data point is cell, lower level booking.
- [14:01]
B
Let's see, is his face on a diagonal?
- [14:04]
A
There is some weird stuff going on with this. I think they caught him with a fishing line. Case warrant number 416-819-142015. Fraud, sell securities for over $100,000. Then of course, he's got a second warrant for fraud, sell securities over $100,000. And then investment advisor or representative without registration. Oh, that's. That's nice.
- [14:31]
C
I do have to admit, unfortunately, Ken Paxton is a North Dakotan.
- [14:36]
A
Wow. There you go.
- [14:37]
B
Total carpet bagger.
- [14:39]
A
Carpetbagger. Carpetbagger. Ken.
- [14:42]
B
He also, I forgot about this. I was reading an article about some of litany of issues this morning that in 2013 he was caught on camera stealing in $1,000 pen.
- [14:54]
C
You know, you only have so many chances at a thousand.
- [14:57]
B
I mean so just, it just shows how committed he is to the true MAGA way.
- [15:03]
A
Here is James Talarico on I guess is just a this Ms. Now interview with him talking about Ken Paxton and his attacks on him. What about Texas voters who will who want to know from you on this particular issue, is Ken Paxton telling the truth about you in relation to these issues, especially involving what he was just talking about there, transgender issues involving children?
- [15:39]
E
No.
- [15:39]
F
Ken Paxton is clipping comments, taking them out of context to try to paint a picture, trying to paint me as someone I'm not. You know, Ken Paxton has a criminal record. I have a legislative record over four terms in the Texas House of Representatives where I have brought Democrats and Republicans together to pass more than 60 bipartisan bills to cut property taxes, to raise teacher pay, to lower the cost of housing, prescription drugs and child care across Texas. And I'm going to put that record up against Ken Paxton's criminal record any day of the week. Twice on Sunday, I've called out the extremes in both parties on the right and the left. You know, I've called out Ken Paxton for his blatant illegal corruption. But I also called out President Biden when he failed to secure our southern border. So I'm not interested in going to Washington DC to serve one political party. I'm going to Washington DC to serve the people of Texas. That's the exact opposite of what Ken Paxton does. He serves himself and his billionaire mega donors at the expense of the people of the state.
- [16:46]
A
Now, the interesting thing about this, aside from like, you know, he's. I mean, this is the, this is how he's going to run, I think, is basically like, Ken Paxton's a criminal. This is, this is not too dissimilar from the Jones Roy Moore race in 2021. No, no, I'm sorry. This must have been in 2017 or so when that seat had to be filled because Jeff Sessions was made the Attorney General. That was a special election. You know, if Talarico manages to get in, he's in for six years and that is a lot longer of a time. And Texas moving in, certain to the extent that it's moving purple, you know, he'll be locked in. But I just want to note, like, if you look at the way that the left is responding to Talarico, which is like, okay, the guy's not talking as a partisan, of course, he's running in Texas.
- [17:52]
B
Right.
- [17:53]
A
He's not out there. You know, he's trying to tack towards the middle all well and good. You look at the way the left is responding to that, which is, we need a pickup in Texas, we'll take it. Versus like the way the Democratic establishment, conservative Democrats, near Republicans in many instances are reacting to Platner. It's fascinating.
- [18:21]
B
Yeah.
- [18:21]
A
To. And Abdul Al said. And Abdul Al said.
- [18:25]
B
We'll get to that soon, I'm sure. But I think it's the way that Talarico is tacking to the middle that's important. He's not throwing trans kids under the bus. He's not even, you know, he'll say strong Southern border, but he's not throwing immigrants under the bus. You know, I don't if he's able to talk about the criminality and the cruelty of MAGA and then contrast it with his sort of boy Scout kindness thing. I think it's a poignant message. And I didn't know this or I'd forgotten that Talarika was a part of the team that prosecuted Paxton during his impeachment hearings in the House. So he's trying to use his strength as a strength in this race. Cuz he has intimate knowledge of his corruption.
- [19:09]
A
I think what we're gonna see is at least a decent amount of people just not go out and vote on the Republican side. And then it just becomes how much voter interference are we gonna see in terms of ice, which I think you can't underestimate. But we will have more to say about this in the coming months, without a doubt. A couple of words from our sponsor and then we'll be talking to Alex Haquez, chief of policy advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. Everybody has a can't miss fitness training hack. Well, I don't, But a lot of people do. And you know, everybody thinks it's like the silver bullet. That's how I used to feel about hair growth products. Just a lot of hype. But what changed for me was was literally just starting to take Nutrafol. They wanted us to sponsor the program years and years ago. They sent us some product. Nobody in the office needed it at the time or wanted it. Then a couple years ago, I felt like I was starting to thin and I started taking it in part because you said you had a friend who had taken it and my girlfriend knew somebody who had taken it successfully. It is physician formulated, it's clinically tested, it's recommended by dermatologists and it's not, you know, it's not drugs supplement. So I tried it and I've had great success. And now Nutrafol offers hair growth supplements tailored for men at every age. Because the root causes of hair thinning change over time, your routine should too. Nutrafol for men ages 18 to 49 to help improve their hair growth and achieve thicker, fuller hair in three to six months. And new neutral fall men 50 plus, which is what I am taking now. And it came a little bit late based upon my age. I gotta tell you, the first and only hair growth product specifically formulated for men 50 plus. I have seen a marked difference in the amount of hair I shed based upon my towel test and also just the thickness of my hair is maintained. Adding Nutrafol to your daily routines. Easy. You order online, no prescription needed, automated deliveries, free shipping to keep you on track. Plus, with Nutrafol subscription you can save up to 20% and get added perks to support your hair growth journey. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement. It is trusted by over one and a half million people, including me. Start Nutrafol today. Make the hat optional. Visit nutrafol.com Enter promo code TMR10 for $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. Find out why Nutrafol is the best selling hair growth supplement brand@nutrafol.com spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code tmr10 that's nutrafol.com promo code tmr10. Also, we'll put the information in the podcast and YouTube descriptions, of course, as always. Also, one of my early dilemmas when we started this show was merch. I didn't want to have a merch shop. I thought it would be too much of a pain in the butt. It's not a huge money maker. Particularly you know, we use, we wanted to use union labor, wanted to have a US material, etc. Etc. And I'm like, then it's going to be just too much of a pain in the ass. How do we update it? How do we keep track of it, how we do all this? What if we sell it offline? Exact on and on and on. And then of course we found the answer. Shopify. Shopify was a all in one solution. It is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. 10% of all E commerce in the United States from household names to brands. Just getting started. It's super easy to do. You get started with your own design studio. They have hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify helps you build beautiful online store to match your brand style. Or if your brand style is not beautiful, you can match that like we did. You get the word out. They have a marketing team behind you essentially easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. And what if I get stuck? Well, Shopify is always around to share advice. They have award winning 24. 7 customer support. You can tackle all those tasks in one place. Inventory to payments to analytics and more. You don't need to save multiple websites or try and figure out which platform is hosting the tool that you need. Everything all in one place making your life easier and your business operations smoother. And they also have that shop pay button that's used by millions of businesses around the world. It's why Shopify is the best converting checkout on the planet also helps boost conversions. That means less carts going abandoned and more sales for you. It is time to turn those what ifs into hello with Shopify Today. Sign up for $1 per month trial and start selling at shopify.com/mainior. Go to shopify.com/mainorior shopify.com/mainor majority. Check it out. All right, quick break. When we come back, Alex Haquez, Chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative on what we can expect in terms of oil prices, food prices, all sorts of inflation. We'll be right back after this. Sa. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on THE Majority Report, it is a pleasure to welcome to the program Alex Haquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, former special assistant to the president of the economic development and Industrial strategy under the Obama administration. Alex, welcome to the program.
- [26:36]
G
Thanks for having me
- [26:40]
A
there. For a couple of minutes this weekend, seemed like there was going to be some type of deal with Iran. And then I think all of the people who surround President Trump said, you can't do this because everyone's going to realize that you lost this war and that Iran is double the strength that it was before and we're going to have a permanent, it seems like a permanent rise in oil prices. Where are we with this? And because you've written this piece about the windfall profits for oil companies, let's start there because I'm not convinced that they aren't saying like just keep going for it because they're just making money hand over fist because of this.
- [27:30]
G
If they aren't saying to keep going for it, they're at least not pushing for any changes right now. I think repeatedly the Trump administration has said that because the United States is a major oil and gas producer, because the United States actually is self sufficient in terms of volume and the amount of oil that it produces, that we are able to weather this storm better than other countries. And what we've seen is, of course, quite the opposite right now. And since really the cease fire conversation started, oil's been hovering about $100 a barrel, depending on your measurement and on the day. And gas has been, has been continually rising. We're now sitting around 454, 55, getting up close to $5 in several states. And over and over, the Trump administration is saying, well, we're just going to drill, drill, baby, drill and get out of this ourselves. And what the oil companies are saying is, no, we're not. We're going to take that cash that they're getting from selling their oil for $100 a barrel and they're going to give it back to shareholders. And this is a common kind of thread that we've seen over the last several years happen in the wake of the Ukraine invasion that really they're like you said, they're making money hand over fist right now. It's hard to blame them entirely. Certainly they didn't press the big $5 a gallon gas button that President Trump did, but certainly are not making it any more or any less pain consumers right now who are really struggling at the pump.
- [28:53]
A
Wait, you know, as this, like, as this went on and it became clear, like, oh, this is fantastic for them because they're just getting this premium without a single dollar more invested in whatever they're doing. And they've been explicit, like, we're not going to expand our refining capacity, we're not going to do any of this. I mean, it really honestly is like, it's like the podcast business. We put out this product every day. If 5 million people showed up tomorrow to become members, it's not gonna cost us any more to produce this. That's not happening. But I could see that it would be in my best interest to try and figure out a way to get those 5 million more viewers to come in. Like, are they not, like how much of their lobbying. I just can't. It's hard for me not to imagine, like there isn't some crossover between sort of the military industrial complex and Big oil. I mean, he went in and told Big Oil, if you, if you give me money, I'm going to make you guys very, very wealthy. There has to be some lobbying around the, around the, they obviously didn't press the button like you say, but there has to be some strong encouragement from them. Like, I would keep at this for a little bit longer.
- [30:11]
G
I think there's certainly been lobbying by the oil companies in particular to counter what President Trump was saying earlier in his term where he really wanted che gas and cheap oil. And this upset them quite a bit. And these are, these are guys who, and they're mostly guys who are traditionally would be some of Trump's strongest supporters. And so they've certainly been lobbying to try to get that barrel price up. And they are definitely not going to be investing anymore as certainly if the kind of trajectory stays right now where those longer term prices are still down, they're going to keep collecting profits. And of course they have close, close ties to the administration all over the place, including right at the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Interior as well, who are big oil boosters.
- [31:01]
A
And I'm sorry, I would just, lastly, I would imagine from their perspective, Iran taking a toll from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, they got to be all for it, right? I mean, because it's going to increase the cost of oil coming out of the, the, the Gulf there, but it's not going to increase their costs and their oil is going to cost exactly the same to pull out of the ground and ship to wherever it is.
- [31:31]
B
And they're not investing in production capacity right now either.
- [31:34]
D
Right?
- [31:34]
B
I mean, sorry, Sam, go on.
- [31:36]
A
Yeah, no, but that's the point.
- [31:37]
B
The point is.
- [31:37]
G
Yeah, yeah, for the United States specifically, I mean we import of course, very little to the United States through, directly through the Strait of Hormuz and certainly we don't export a ton through it either. And so we are in a, or our oil companies are in a favorable environment in so much that it's not their tankers or their insurance who are going to take the hits. They are just going to reap the rewards of that mechanically higher price that we were going to get if the passage through the street over moves becomes more dangerous and if those tolls are imposed on a go forward basis.
- [32:12]
B
If you could just tell us a little bit more about what groundwork found too, about what the profits actually look like, who the players that are going to benefit the most in particular. And I guess, I mean even if you can expand it more broadly to how Trump has shifted from what you're saying from low cost, all this stuff to talking about how American oil companies are going to get rich, which is true. But he seems to completely not have object permanence about, you know, like voters.
- [32:45]
G
It's exactly right. And the big players here are the ones you've heard of. It's Exxon, it's Shell, it's Chevron. They are doing well. They are doing phenomenally well. And we'll see particularly in their second quarter earnings when a lot of these realized profits are really going to be hitting just in the first quarter. We had Exxon had a bit of a derivative issue, but have recently disclosed they expected internal nearly $9 billion in profits. We've seen Shell post a $7 billion, $6.9 billion profits in Q1 and they're expecting to double and even triple those in the two and quarter. Three will be phenomenal for these companies. And the stock market is showing it. We talk about how consumer sentiment is the lowest it's ever been, but the stock market is higher than it's ever been. And it's really, it's those big tech companies that are spending on data centers, these big oil companies. If you see Exxon is up 28% over just since the year began. They're up 40% since year over year. And they're taking almost all of this cash. And to your point, Emma, they're not reinvesting it in new production. They are not certainly not giving it back to consumers in any sort of way, but distributing nearly all of that in buybacks. We're seeing probably a $20 billion buyback plan from, from Exxon and from Chevron and $3 billion a month from, from Shell as well. So a lot of cash returning to shareholders from, from this war so far. And it'll only be more the longer that it drags on.
- [34:20]
A
And I would imagine, and some of the biggest shareholders of those companies are the CEO, the cfo, the CEO, half a dozen other people in the C suite board of directors. I mean, this is, I mean, when we talk about shareholders, yes, there's a lot of shareholders, but the biggest ones are in control of the company and are going to reap the rewards of their, like, little side project, which is, you know, why they're or how their compensation is completely tied to the value of the stock. Right. I mean. All right, well, let's, let me also ask this. Do we have a sense of like, what, what the costs are going to be for oil? Like, how far out now can we be confident and say, like we're not getting back down to $3 a gallon for at least this amount of time? A and B, what will that do for renewables if we get an administration in a couple years from now that is not overtly hostile to some type of renewable energy?
- [35:38]
G
Yeah. So this is going to take years to fully resolve, particularly to the point where it was back before the war started. And again, all of this is contingent on, on the war ending and for passage through the Strait of Hormuz to reopen and return to normal, which again, all things are go completely back to normal, will still take months for that refining capacity, for the tanker capacity to ramp back up and for that flow to be resumed. But if you look at the eia, this is the Energy Information Administration with the Department of Energy, this is the Trump administration right now putting these numbers out. They don't see crude oil falling back below $80 a barrel until 2027. And they don't see gas returning to $3 a gallon anytime in their forecasts and think it will be more fully elevated in that 350 range for four months now and through the end of the year, certainly. And so what you've seen is all of these forecasts have been contingent on the war ending. And there's one from, I think Morgan Stanley or Goldman says the strait will reopen by June 1 because the markets could not handle it. If it does not and June 1st is, is on Monday, we're looking at five days here. This negotiation on a, on an end of the war does not, I don't know, depending on the hour, the minute does not seem to be taking shape. And so I think we could see some real pressure in the market, physical shortages in the next few days at least according to the analysts, if things don't break through.
- [37:11]
A
Lastly, I know you've got to run the sort of like knock on effects of the inflation. Obviously we're going to see it through oil. Oil implicates a lot of things. But we're going to start having food issues because of the lack of nitrogen and its implications for fertilizer. We may see also issues in terms of like chips. What can you tell us about what we can expect across the board and when we're going to start to see the impacts of that from an inflation perspective?
- [37:46]
G
Yeah, so we've already seen the first order impacts. Right. We've seen two of the hottest inflation prints that we've seen since 2022, just in the last two months. And the next one's going to be hotter. We're seeing the price pressures from energy. They're of course directly impacting your gasoline bill. But the thing about oil is it gets turned into diesel.
- [38:07]
A
Diesel.
- [38:07]
G
And diesel is what all the trucks that carry all the goods and a lot of the food. About 80% of the food in the US is distributed by truck. And so when those costs go up, that's going to feed through the supply chains down to the consumer as well. And so you see food at home, the category in the CPI report was up past 3% last month. That's expected to get more and more expensive. And for that inflation to go up, one as you see the cost of that diesel diffused through the supply chain as well as the cost of fertilizer really hitting farmers in the spring planting season. So when they harvest those crops in the fall, they'll get hit with another food shock and cost shock as well. It's not just oil, it's not just gas. You mentioned semiconductors too. Again, another industry making a ton of money. But they're bidding up the cost for all of those chips that as we learned during COVID go into just about everything, washing machines, cell phones, anything. Basically anything you buy, electronics has a chip in it. So we're seeing those cost pressures continue to increase. And there's some very valuable gases, helium and neon and others that are also disrupted by the war too, that are going to start putting cost constraints on companies in the coming months too. It's not looking good in the inflation picture right now. We're expecting to see higher inflation for the next several months until again the war ends.
- [39:31]
A
I guess one last question to sort of like add one more element and I guess variable to this. I'm reading a lot about this super El Nino that we may be having this year, which like record breaking El Nino has have you seen and been looking at models as to like what happens if this El Nino hits and how it impacts things like, you know, superstorms and droughts and whatnot. Like, do you have a sense of what the implications of that are?
- [40:16]
G
Yeah, I mean, again, it depends on the severity. And of course we've been seeing with, with the effects of climate change and changing weather patterns, these superstorms getting more and more destructive. But I mean, these are potentially disastrous for again for crops and for food, which you've just been talking about. Earlier predicted to hit California, hit Texas. These are again oil producing states too. And there is energy infrastructure that could potentially be at risk. We've seen in these kinds of superstorms some of the unintended ramifications of the disaster. There was a quartz mine in North Carolina that during the flooding was taken offline. It's the only quartz mine that supplies high end semiconductors right now. We see a transformer station or transformer manufacturing plant get hit by tornadoes in Oklahoma. And so there's real possibilities, one of course, of the human damage and property damage. But further inflationary pressures by storm damage coming further and more uncertainty, I think, think for consumers who are going to be hit by probably rising energy costs from blackouts, higher food costs from the war, from the storm.
- [41:23]
A
She's well, sounds great.
- [41:26]
G
I'll do a sunnier one next time.
- [41:29]
A
Are you going to be able to do you think?
- [41:31]
B
Because I don't think too sunny.
- [41:34]
A
I wouldn't promise something like that. Alex Haquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, thanks so much for your time today. Much appreciated. We're going to link to your piece on the windfall that big oil has racked up during this just one of many implications of this really useless war that Trump has engaged in. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.
- [42:02]
G
Thanks for having me.
- [42:04]
A
All right, folks, quick break and when we come back, we'll be talking about Dusk. Executive vice President, the Center for International Policy, co host of the undiplomatic podcast. Jam.
- [43:03]
H
Sam.
- [43:32]
A
We are back. Sam Seder, Emma Vigeland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the program the executive vice President, the Center for International Policy, and co host of the Undiplomatic podcast, Matt Duss. Matt, thanks for joining us. You just wrote a piece in the Foreign Policy magazine how the Abraham Accords fueled a new era of conflict and timed it. I don't know if you're in talks with the. The president about his call for. Yes, for everybody in the region to join if he decides to have peace.
- [44:17]
B
What do you call it? A mandatory request.
- [44:19]
A
A mandatory request.
- [44:22]
E
Amazing.
- [44:24]
A
Tell us for people who don't know, give us the history of the Abraham Accords. And as we talk, too, we're going to bring up the fact that they're right now of all times. There feels like there is a big push for a dramatic change in the democratic foreign policy machine. But we'll get there because part of this story is the Biden administration sort of just accepting all of this.
- [44:57]
E
Right. Yeah. So thank you. Great to see you both, as always. So the Abraham Accord signed In August of 2020, initially an agreement, you know, allegedly air quotes brokered by Jared Kushner, as if Jared, you know, Jared, I guess, showed up kind of at the last minute to. To dot some I's and cross some T's. But it was an agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel, who had had a kind of behind the scenes relationship for some years already. But it was a way for them to bring that relationship out into the open. It was called a peace and normalization agreement, which was somewhat strange given that the UAE had never actually been at war with Israel. Bahrain quickly joined that, and there was a big, you know, signing ceremony on the White House lawn. Obviously, Donald Trump loves the idea of being a peacemaker, but there were lots of questions about it from the very beginning. Is it actually a peace deal? What is it achieving? It seemed to me and a lot of others that, okay, this is just kind of an agreement for Israel and the United States to be able to sell more weapons to authoritarian regimes like the Emiratis, like the Bahrainis. It creates more markets for Israeli tech, and it creates new wells of capital for those firms as well. You had a number of other countries joining the agreement afterward. The Biden administration, for its part, when it came into office in January 2021, initially held it at sort of arm's length. Their response was, okay, this is kind of interesting. But as they did on many things, eventually they just kind of picked up the ball from Trump and decided to embrace the policy and treat the accords as a framework for building a new and stable architecture in the Middle East. With the United States still deeply invol, the kind of big prize there was seen as Saudi Arabia. The idea that if you get Saudi to sign a normalization agreement with Israel, this would be this huge prize that Joe Biden could claim as part of his legacy. But of course, one of the big problems with the agreement from its beginning was that it was clearly an effort to marginalize the Palestinian issue. Benjamin Netanyahu has always argued, going back decades, that, okay, the Palestinian issue is overblown. People don't really care about it. Israel doesn't need to deal with this issue before it makes peace and builds relationships with the rest of the region. And this agreement did seem to demonstrate his theory of the case, at least as far as the UAE and Bahrain and a few other countries were concerned. But it clearly was not the case with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia had all along made clear and continues to make clear that they cannot move forward with any kind of normalization agreement with Israel unless and until there is real movement on, on the Palestinian issue, which, of course, this Israeli government is completely unwilling to do at all.
- [47:47]
B
When we had Mohammed Ali Shabani on, he kind of drew a distinction between the Saudi incentives and, say, the incentives of the uae. One, as the UAE being more of a less interested in territorial integrity and more interested in being a place where Western capital can park its money and, and you can have a vacation destination, and all this kind of shady money can flow through the uae. But Saudi Arabia, obviously much larger country, has a different, I think, incentive structure from their leadership. Can you lay that out? And also, even in that context, discuss the rivalry between the UAE and the Saudis?
- [48:36]
E
Yeah, no, this is a really interesting point. So, yes, I mean, Saudi Arabia, first of all, is in a very different place from the uae. UAE is a very small country. It has made itself a kind of player in the region in large part because of an alliance with Saudi Arabia. That alliance has cooled significantly over the past few years. If you remember, during the first Trump administration, you had the Saudis and the Emiratis working together essentially to blockade Qatar. Now Qatar has pulled much closer to the Saudis, and the Emiratis are pulling, you know, staying close to Israel. So there are a lot of different moving pieces in the region. But another really key distinction here is that, as you noted, the Emiratis, yes, they want to be a place where Westerners, and including Israelis can come for vacation and take lots of selfies on these fancy hotels with, like, ski slopes indoors. I mean, crazy, you know, crazy stuff. A source, basically a laundromat for ill gotten gains from around the world. That is something they are doing. But they saw the Abraham Accords, among other things, as a way into Washington's good graces, essentially by normalizing their relations with Israel. And this is something that is true for all the countries that have signed on. They understood that the main prize of the Abraham Accords was not a relationship with Israel. The main prize of the Abraham Accords was kind of making themselves a part of Israel's lobbying coalition here in Washington and getting goodies that way. The Saudis, for their part, their calculation is different. The Saudis have historically seen themselves as, you know, the key voice for the Arab world and for the Muslim world, given the fact that Saudi Arabia hosts the two most important Muslim holy sites in Mecca and Medina. So they are much more sensitive
- [50:28]
G
to
- [50:28]
E
the view of their own public and to global Muslim publics and Arab publics around the world about what the view would be if they moved forward to warming relations with Israel while the occupation, the apartheid and now the genocide were still ongoing.
- [50:47]
A
And isn't it part of it also like a key difference is that the UAE has no like, population. Yeah, like, I mean like they have a population, but there's like the, something like 80 to 90% of the people who live there are not from there. As opposed to like Saudi Arabia. Like they have an Arab population that has lived that lives in, in the region that was born there and like far more sort of, I would imagine, although it seems, you know, based upon what we saw in Gaza and the reaction from the Saudis, maybe more disconnected than it has been in 50 years, 75 years. But they're still somewhat connected to the Palestinian people, at least in terms of like being of the region and having some type of history within, you know, family members and et cetera, et cetera. I would imagine that that has to act on like domestic pressures.
- [51:56]
E
Yeah, that is right. I mean for both cultural, historical, political reasons, Saudi Arabia has been much more of a player in this. And as you noted, UAE is relatively small. They've got a small population. It is not, as I said, not a democracy. But by virtue of their enormous energy wealth, they're able to subsidize a pretty decent standard of living for their own very small population. With the understanding of, you know, we're going to take care of you, but don't complain about, you know, the emir and the way he chooses to rule. That's not your business. You've got a lot of guest workers. That, that's not, you know, a Lot of those foreigners that you're talking about are, you know, guest workers from South Asia and East Asia. That's true of the Gulf countries in general. There are a lot of those foreign workers that come to Saudi Arabia as well. But given the very, very small population. Population, the ratios are much, much different in uae.
- [52:47]
A
I'm also just sort of struck. I mean, as we get into, like, the. The Biden administration, where there's ostensibly experts, right? I mean, like, Jared Kushner and Witkoff was not there the first time around, but they're just. They're. They're golf buddies, essentially. Like, I mean, that's their qualification of being there. But ostensibly we had experts in the Biden administration. Joe Biden, his entire core brand proposition, at least the way he perceived it, was to be the foreign policy guy. Having sat chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for, I don't know, decades maybe, how could they forget that the fundamental issue in that region was the relationship between the existence of Israel, the way it came into existence, the way it expanded, and the Palestinian people. Like, how could you ally that the whole region? It seems to me, essentially arrogance. It's shocking.
- [53:59]
E
Yeah, you're right. I mean, arrogance, ideology. You know, Joe Biden, I think his reputation as certainly he believed himself to be a great foreign policy expert, but he was a foreign policy. He was a foreign policy expert from, you know, the late 80s and early 90s. And. And he's kind of trapped in amber, I think, with that understanding of the region. Anyone who's ever heard him talk about the Middle east or talk about Israel and Palestine has almost certainly heard him talk about his first trip to Israel, where he met with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Like, he cannot stop talking about that meeting. He constantly brings it up. And again, it's like his understanding of the region is trapped in this moment. He's always. He's also always been one of these people who really does himself downplay the significance of the Palestinian issue. He, you know, he had, you know, Peter Beinert wrote a really good profile of him on these issues a few years ago, where there's.
- [54:51]
A
Right before he came in, I remember that. And it became sort of apocryphal. I mean, in the sense that it was. It ended up being dead on. Too dead on, in many respects.
- [55:04]
D
Right?
- [55:04]
E
Too dead on. And there was a line that Joe Biden has reportedly used about the Palestinians, one I find very offensive, as should most people. It is never get yourself crucified on a small cross. The meaning of that was like you know, if you're gonna, you know, don't waste time on these small peripheral issues. And I think that shows how deeply misguided Joe Biden's policy was, how deeply he misunderstood the region despite his own judgment of himself as an expert. And I think his approach to the region and to this issue in particular reflects that misunderstanding. You know, you also had other people around him, like Brett McGurk, someone who himself never really paid much attention to the Israeli Palestinian issue, was always much closer to the Gulf, which played a role in Iraq, but someone who was also kind of politically and ideologically inclined to just downplay the importance of the Palestinian issue. Then you had others around like Jake Sullivan, like Tony Blinken, longtime staffers who just tended to reflect whatever Joe Biden wanted. And I think, you know, we saw when they came in, as I said, they held the Abraham Accords at arm's length. But once Joe Biden decided, hey, I could be the president who gets this big Saudi Israeli normalization, won't that be amazing? I'll be the first president since Carter to kind of do something like this. And once he decided he wanted that, then his administration spent, in my view, wasted a lot of time trying to achieve that. And what was even more baffling to me is after October 7th, I would have hoped that they would have taken a moment to say, okay, this theory of regional security, the idea that we're going to marginalize the Palestinian issue, has clearly not worked. We need to rethink this. Instead, they just doubled down. Of course, we all saw them do what they do, just backing Israel to the hilt with the devastating years long assault on Gaza. And they doubled down in support of part of a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which in my view was never going to happen even before October 7th and was super never going to happen after October 7th, because once again, the Saudis have been very, very clear that they cannot do this in the absence of any real tangible movement toward Palestinian liberation. And this Israeli government is not going to do anything like this.
- [57:23]
B
Can you speak a little bit more about the Biden administration and even the Trump administrator? Maybe less so, but really the Biden administration's kind of reliance on these large scale peace agreements, I mean, NATO is an obvious example where he kind of tripled down on NATO and the idea that we should bethese military alliances are the core base of our foreign policy versus what we see with China, that they're making these more individualized kind of hybrid agreements with some of these states and a lot of it has less to do with military defense, more technology sharing and stuff like that. But that seems to be, I think a real point of demarcation and it's part of how the United look. It makes it seem like the US is a declining empire with outdated tactics. Is the US a declining empire without tactics?
- [58:25]
E
I have very bad news or good news, depending how you feel about empire. But yes, no, I mean, that's right. I mean it all. I think you can look to this, this line that Joe Biden was using as soon as he took office. America is back. America is back, baby. We've gotten past this weird little hiccup with that Donald Trump guy and America is back running the world. We're doing, you know, we're as, you know, whether it's NATO, whether it's Aukus, this agreement with the uk, with Australia, and this was also the kind of logic that underlay this effort to build the Saudi Israeli normalization. It was a way of using military to military relationships, security and America as ultimately a security guarantor, as a way to sustain its role as the global hegemon. This is over. This was already over. I mean the world is already changing. But again, Joe Biden, I mean he's not even a man of the post Cold War. He is a man of the Cold War. This is where his habits of mind were formed. And you know, you mentioned China. And I think it's important to note going back to the Middle east for a moment for some folks in the administration, particularly Jake Sullivan, I think that China was, we know that for the Biden administration, even though they did spend a lot of time on the Middle east, ultimately China was their focus. They understood this is true.
- [59:43]
A
The Obama administration too. Right? I mean that's what the whole pivot to Asia thing happened. That's what the TPP was about. I mean the whole we had moved our Navy essentially to the Pacific in the early 2010s.
- [59:59]
E
Well, I think Obama the pivot to Asia. I think Obama understood that we were well over invested in the Middle east and he was correct. And but I think it was, it was not until the first Trump administration where we saw, you know, the idea of this great power competition between the US and China really, really starkly being defined as this is the new threat, this is the new defining, this is what will define American foreign policy now and into the future. And again, this is yet another policy area in which the Biden administration simply picked up the ball from the Trump administration and moved forward with it. And so you see the Way that the Biden administration approached the Middle east was, in part an effort to box China out of the region. Now, this is bizarre because, you know, China has no interest in replacing the United States as the regional security guarantor. Why in the world would they, you know, they've watched the United States trip over itself and bleed resources, time and attention and credibility in this region for decades. Why would they want a piece of that? And yet this is this kind of frantic effort, you know, to kind of, you know, keep China out of the region is what, you know, defined the first Trump administration and even more so the Biden administration.
- [61:19]
A
I can't help but think, well, there's two things. I have another question for you. But as we talk about this, because, you know, we just had Alex Haquez on to talk about the enormous windfall American oil companies are making, really. I mean, international oil companies that don't deal with the Gulf and that most of that oil goes to China. But because it's all in the market, the. As the prices increase, because of the constrained supply, it increases for everybody, even if you spend the exact same amount pulling it out of the ground and refining it. It. But it seems to me that, you know, and I'm sure over the years this has come up when we've spoken. Gary Hart, I interviewed him in 2004, was talking about, he and I think it was Rudman, were chairing a 21st century threat. And they assembled people around a room and they went around and everybody said, non state actors, international terrorism. And one person said China. And everybody sort of laughed. They reconvened like three or four months later. That same person said China. Everybody sort of laughed. That person never came back. It was Lyn Cheney. And it seems to me that much of what we saw with, I'm sorry, he convened this back in 2001, one, right before. In the summer before bin Laden attacked. And it seems to me that, like, Iraq was very much oriented towards our having control of the oil and projecting onto China a need to have a greater presence in the Middle east because they needed fuel, literally, to fuel their economic growth, which we were terrified of. And now, of course, they have, like, they've maintained the amount of fuel that they need from there and just built alternate energy sources and almost like just did this parallel thing where they just. It's like we're living in a different planet. They just basically left the planet Earth and went somewhere else, essentially.
- [63:30]
E
Right.
- [63:30]
A
We did.
- [63:31]
E
We helped China become energy independent to a great extent, or at least, you know, massively invest in renewables. Yes.
- [63:39]
A
And, and we are still operating under this premise that somehow all of the wind and solar that they've built, the sun's going to go away and the wind's going to stop blowing, and they're going to need more than, you know, 20% of the world's oil supply, when in fact, all they're going to need is a diminishing amount each each year, it seems like.
- [64:00]
E
Right. You know, and it's interesting hearing because I remember, you know, reading about the Hart Rudman project because if you remember, you know, again, in the, you know, in the 90s, after the end of the Cold War, the kind of US Foreign policy establishment was kind of casting about for, like, okay, what defines us? What's the enemy that defines us? What's it going to be? The Soviet Union's gone and there was definitely a movement and Lyn Cheney was not just one voice. She may have been just one voice in that room, but there were definitely folks who were ready for China to kind of slot in where the Soviet Union had been. If you remember the crisis in Hainan island, where the crash of the US Surveillance planes very early in the George W. Bush administration, you know, things were in play for, you know, then all of a sudden 911 happened and everyone's like, whoop, nope, we're slotting terrorism in. We'll get to China later. But this, you know, was kind of simmering just under the surface for a long time.
- [64:55]
A
Yeah. I remember even in the aughts, you know, anti Chinese political ads that they would just crop up every now and then. We certainly discussed with frustration during the Biden administration their failure to get back into a deal with Iran. And at that time, I just seem to remember, like, befuddlement. And in retrospect, are you, like, reassessing the Biden administration's failure to get back into that deal rather than just being incompetence, but more like not interested. And because of their orientation towards the Abraham Accords and all that that implied,
- [65:47]
E
I think, that, I mean, first of all, I mean, there's two things. One is there were people, you know, people I mentioned, like Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken, both played major roles in getting that agreement under Obama. But the fact is, you know, Biden clearly was not that invested. I mean, he was not invested in two of Obama's most important foreign policy initiatives, the agreement Iran and the opening with Cuba, both of which he essentially just tanked. Both horrible decisions. Because once again, Joe Biden is actually bad at foreign policy. Okay, I think so. I don't know whether it's a reassessment. I think I was very critical and frankly baffled and really pissed off about Biden's decision, first of all to slow walk the return to the JCPOA. Let's remember he wrote a piece in October of 2020 laying out pretty unequivocally how he was going to rejoin the Iranian.
- [66:38]
A
Yeah, that's why, that's why, that's what was so bizarre about it.
- [66:41]
E
And all of a sudden they get into office and they're deciding, oh, they're going to take their time and get a longer and stronger deal. And like, what are you talking about? You've just been elected, you've got all this political capital to use, rejoin the deal, work out some details later. But instead, you know, they hit the brakes. They felt like, oh no, we got it, we have all these hawkish Democrats, we've got to appease and blah blah, blah. Just you know, both wrong on the policy and the politics. And again they ultimate they waited. And meanwhile Iran had an election. The team that had negotiated the agreement with Obama was out. A much more hardline team was in. That team had watched the first few months of Biden's presidency and decided quite reasonably, yeah, we probably can't trust Joe Biden given that he was literally elected, having promised to rejoin this deal and then didn't do it. And so that's basically how we lost a really important non proliferation agreement with Iran and put us on the path to this war. Right now
- [67:38]
A
let's turn to that cadre of foreign policy advisors. In the course of like three or four days, you know, Ben Rhodes has come out with a piece that we need to turn the page on those people. He's been, I think, think articulating that for some time. Chris Van Hollen came out with a editorial which both said that we was explicit about changing our foreign policy stance towards Israel and by implication those who had fashioned the existing policy that we had under the last Democratic administration. And Brian Schatz, who I am less confident in where he will be from day to day, frankly on this stuff, but certainly as a bellwether, because this is a guy who I think has aspirations to lead the Democrats in the Senate, also said both Democrats primary voters won't trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues. He's talking about Israel, especially if as a legislator he or she voted to send Netanyahu bombs even as his government imposed a total blockade On Gaza, again, they sort of using the Netanyahu, not Israel hedge, but whatever. But he goes on to say, nor will they support any candidate who plans to reenlist senior Democratic decision makers who whitewashed the truth during the Biden administration and refused to acknowledge their complicity. Like they're speaking specifically about Jake Sullivan, about McGurk, others who were in that cadre and have led us to sort of like this, you know, multi year disaster. What's your sense about how sort of like, real this is?
- [69:49]
E
Yeah, my sense, it is very real. I think that is not the first time I've heard that from a member of Congress. That is the first time I've seen it published in that way. It will not be the last. I mean, I think just as you noted coming from for shots, and then Van Hollen in a more detailed op ed, shots was a tweet, and then Holland as part of that New York Times op ed. But both two leading Democrats, two relatively young leading Democrats. And Van Hollen in particular has been a leader on foreign policy and particularly on the issue of Israel and Palestine. But as I said, this is something that I have heard from members of Congress and from, you know, foreign policy professionals, Democratic progressive foreign policy professionals all over the place. These people who carried out this policy. And I think what's important about what Van Hollen wrote, it wasn't just that the policy was bad, is that they. They whitewashed it, they lied about it. This is a point I. And others.
- [70:43]
A
That was Shatz.
- [70:44]
E
Who said that it was Shatz. I'm sorry, who? Yes, Well, I think there was something to that.
- [70:49]
A
I think Van Hollen said something similar. I mean, I think those actually, they may have both used the exact same words there practically.
- [70:56]
E
Right. And I do think that's really important because, I mean, again, the policy was bad enough. I think what. What really, you know, makes it, you know, another offense, in addition, was the fact that they stood up there at the lectern day after day after day and misled and gaslit and lied about what was happening on the ground, which everyone could see, you know, on their phones all the time. And yet they refused to acknowledge the reality of this genocide.
- [71:23]
A
Yep. Well, I guess hope springs eternal.
- [71:27]
B
It'll be interesting to see how that analysis carries over to Kamala Harris, Harris's impending presidential run. That's just one thing I just want to flag here because she's leading in the polls right now among Democratic primary voters. That doesn't mean anything. But I do think if this is kind of a consensus opinion amongst top Senate Democrats as they're trying to angle with Schumer likely being, you know, going away. I don't know. Just something to note.
- [71:56]
E
Yep.
- [71:58]
A
Matt Duss, executive vice president, the center for International Policy, co host of the Undiplomatic podcast, which we will link to. Thanks so much for your time. Always a pleasure. Really appreciate your insights.
- [72:10]
E
Always glad to.
- [72:10]
F
Thank you.
- [72:11]
B
Thanks, Matt.
- [72:12]
A
All right, folks, let's take a quick break. Head into the fun half. I before somebody IMs in, I will make a self correction. I used the word apocryphal. Did not mean to use that word. I used it in the context of Peter Beinhardt's piece. And what I meant to say was prescient or some version of that.
- [72:37]
B
I can't believe you can catch that in.
- [72:38]
C
Should have said unilateral.
- [72:41]
A
Nobody im'd about it.
- [72:43]
B
Okay.
- [72:43]
A
Which I found shocking. I believe you've been prescient. Nobody I am about. Did he write it or not? I don't get what you're saying. Nobody. I am ed about it, but I just. It was bothering me good self, Scout.
- [73:06]
C
It was a unilateral editorial by Peter Bonner.
- [73:09]
A
Exactly. Well, I made a unilateral decision to correct myself without any other input. Uday and Kusay Lutnick. I almost did, but didn't want to make you look like a dumb dummy. Incidentally, I think Sam, I think you meant prophetic. Yes. I could have meant a prophetic or prescient. Yes. But the whole point was to avoid this conversation. Folks, you can help support us with what we do here, which is just pedantry and mockingness being really mean. If you want to join us in being the mean girls. Yes. Yeah. Join the smug club.
- [74:00]
B
Honestly, merch idea.
- [74:03]
A
Should at least be the smug half. Yeah.
- [74:05]
C
Right.
- [74:06]
B
No, Smug club is because.
- [74:07]
F
Because.
- [74:07]
B
Because Crowders.
- [74:08]
A
Yeah. No, I get it.
- [74:09]
B
Oh, you get it?
- [74:10]
A
Oh, he gets it.
- [74:11]
B
I didn't know if it would pre. You were that in the.
- [74:13]
A
He was being smug. No, I was a big Steven Crowder fan before back in the day. Who I want to thank you again for really saving me from the. Right.
- [74:23]
E
It wasn't.
- [74:24]
A
It wasn't until. It wasn't until Brian saw me show up for that debate where he's like, wait, why won't Crowder debate him? I put my gun away. Everything I thought. Right. Everything. Yeah. Brian was sitting at his computer with his chest holster.
- [74:38]
G
Yeah.
- [74:38]
A
And he was sitting there going like, why is Crowder running? Has this all been a lie? And he put his gun down. I canceled my pec implant surgery.
- [74:47]
B
It's a video of Michael Jackson with someone's holding a gun and he. He pushes it down. That was Sam to you. No more violence anymore.
- [74:57]
A
Chris Burdick says apocryphal mistake was a result of your hubris after using Lynn Chaney correctly.
- [75:03]
B
I couldn't tell which one it was.
- [75:05]
A
No, it was Lynn Chaney. It was, you know, the mom.
- [75:07]
H
Mom.
- [75:08]
B
There you go. You have a lot of bravery to attempt it. That's my, that's, you know, that's my observation. You still, you know what I should,
- [75:17]
A
you know what I should do is I really should just say Lady Cheney.
- [75:20]
B
Just say the mom. Yeah, the mom or the daughter.
- [75:24]
A
Lady Cheney. Right. So that anybody can. It doesn't matter.
- [75:28]
B
Right.
- [75:28]
A
Lady Cheney, Cheney the senior. Lady Cheney, the junior. Either the rhino's wife or the rhino's daughter. Yeah.
- [75:35]
B
All women look the same to me, folks.
- [75:38]
A
It's your support that can help this show keep on keeping on. You can become a member by going to jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. And you can IMs like all these people who are just absolutely focused on my admission of using the word apocryphal incorrectly. Join the MajorityReport.com Also, don't forget, just Coffee.co OP, Fair Trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off and you can buy the majority report blend. Matt, what's happening on the Matt Leckian media universe?
- [76:15]
C
There's a brand new left reckoning. Yesterday we talked about not only the Trump administration saying that it's a vibe session, but also some quantitative liberals that still think Biden got a short shrift by people's attitudes towards the economy, which I would contend are negative for a reason. And we also talked about Jasmine Crockett, you know, for instance, doing crypto shout outs and celebrating Hasan Piker being subpoenaed. So dodged a bullet with that one, folks.
- [76:47]
A
She also came out for the challenger, the APAC challenger who unseated Al Green, was it? Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. And yeah, going around for Bell too, as well.
- [77:00]
C
Embarrass. Just a true embarrassment, really. What a waste of a weaponized narcissism.
- [77:07]
B
Or, or I would say, fine, weaponized narcissism, but she, I would. She has some, some political talent, but it's just like, you know, God.
- [77:15]
C
So there's some rock in certain Democratic circles that leads to. I don't Know some.
- [77:21]
E
Something like that,
- [77:24]
A
folks. See you in the fun half. You are in for it. All right, folks. 6, 4, 6, 2, 5, 7, 3, 9, 2, 0. See you in the fun. Are you ready? Who sent us this?
- [77:47]
H
Alpha males are back, back, back, back, back Boy is back and the alpha males are back, back Just as delicious
- [77:55]
A
as you could imagine the alpha males
- [77:57]
H
are back, back, back, back, back Boy, back and the alpha males are back, back, back, back Just wanna degrade the white man Alpha Mal.
- [78:08]
G
Back, back I take all of it
- [78:10]
H
to my clothes Alpha males are back, back, back, back Snowflake says what? The alpha males are.
- [78:18]
A
You are a madman.
- [78:20]
H
And the alpha males are back, back.
- [78:23]
B
Oh, no.
- [78:24]
A
Sam Cedar.
- [78:24]
E
What a. Whoa.
- [78:25]
A
What a nightmare. Yeah, or a couple of them. Just put them in rotation.
- [78:31]
G
DJ, dinner.
- [78:32]
C
Well, the problem with those is they're like 45 seconds long, so I don't
- [78:35]
E
know if there are enough breaks.
- [78:37]
D
That's nonsense.
- [78:39]
A
See, white people doing drugs that look worse than normal white people. And all white people look disgusting.
- [78:44]
H
And the alpha males psycho them.
- [78:52]
A
Snowflake says, what? What, what, what, what, what, what. Next?
- [79:01]
H
Us.
- [79:01]
A
What
- [79:04]
H
a hell of a lot of bank. A hell of a lot of bank A hell of a lot of bank. Okay, I'm making stupid money. Hell of hell of a lot of bank. A hell of a lot of bank. All lives matter.
- [79:25]
A
Have you tried doing an impression on a crazy college campus? I. I think that there's no reason why reasonable people across the divide can't
- [79:34]
H
all agree with this. Psych. And the alpha males are back, back, back, back, back, back and the Africans are black, black, black, black, black, African and the alpha males are black, black, black, black, black, black and the Africa.
- [79:54]
A
When you see Donald Trump out there, doesn't a little part of you think that America deserves to be taken over by jihadists? Keeping it 100 can't knock the hustle. Come on.
- [80:03]
H
Them things I do for the bigger game plan.
- [80:07]
A
By the way, it's my birthday. My birthday. Happy birthday to me, Jew boy. I have a thought experiment for you.
- [80:16]
H
And the alpha males are back, back Africans are black, black, black Alpha males are black, black Africans are back, back
- [80:25]
A
Come on, come on, come on. Someone needs to pay the price for blasphemy around here. I am a total.