00:00:00
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
00:00:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
00:00:08
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
00:00:25
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Turning now to censorship, there's a lot of stuff going on whenever it comes to censorship of anybody who's remotely challenges the Israel consensus here in the US, The CEO of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, now saying that there are AI automatic versions to try and to monitor any alleged act of anti Semitism, using AI to report it to lawyers, to prosecute, to criminalize, and to go after anybody who criticizes the state of Israel.
00:00:59
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say.
00:01:00
Speaker 4: We created something called the Legal Action Network. We've assembled fifty of the top law firms in the United States to create a pro bono cortery of literally like fifty thousand lawyers. And so now when you enter in an incident at ADL, it instantly gets evaluated by our AI systems. Is there a litigation opportunity? And we feed it to the lawyers to evaluate and to find someone to take the case. So it used to be there again, if you had a problem, you picked up the phone and called ADL, and it took us days and days to get back to you. Remember I told you thirty one thousand reports. Now, using generative AI, I am responding instantly. And if you enter that something happened to you. For example, say your kid got bullied at middle or your kid had a teacher at middle school, a social studies teacher who again this oppress or oppressed craziness and held out your kid. You enter it in and our GENAI can literally on the spot generate a letter for you to say, send to LAUSD. That will automatically. Okay, this is the chairman of the Board of Education, This is the Superintendent of schools. This is the name of the principle of that specific school will generate the letter real time and send it out for you and at the same time launch a petition that we can push to the city council and so on and so forth.
00:02:18
Speaker 1: Wow.
00:02:19
Speaker 3: Jenai working with lawyers, fifty thousand lawyers, the Legal Action Network, the Panopticon, Yeah, the literal Panopticon, Surveillance, private surveillance state, which is working behind the scenes, and just to go and show everybody. We just had a long debate about the role of you know, public life, law enforcement, and churches. One of the things that we at least generally kind of agreed on was this idea of the First Amendment and of expressing yourself without being visited, without being visited by police officers. As we often look at videos in the UK or in Germany when people privately post something, let's say, on Facebook and gives it visits from the authority, You're never like you truly will not leave where you're about to see. The mayor of Miami Beach sent police officers, taxpayer dollar police officers to the home of a private US citizen after she criticized the mayor on Facebook over his pro Israel stance.
00:03:13
Speaker 1: Let's watch the video.
00:03:15
Speaker 4: Picture to make sure it's your order.
00:03:16
Speaker 3: Not sure, okay, all right?
00:03:18
Speaker 1: Thanks?
00:03:19
Speaker 4: Is that your account?
00:03:22
Speaker 1: I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer president, so I really don't know how to answer that.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Like I said, America, I agree, we're just trying to see that you we're not talking to the right person. We want to go see the right help you.
00:03:39
Speaker 4: So pretty much, it's just a statement that was made as far as you know, uh.
00:03:45
Speaker 5: Says the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down the theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: The ol g bt Q community in any way.
00:03:56
Speaker 5: Even leave the room when they vote, and on related matters, one to know that you're all welcome clown face, clown face confidence. Pretty you know, I'm not going to answer whether that's me or not. Okay, the concerning part and not concerning for the person who's posting it. Well, we're just trying to preventage somebody else getting agitated or or or agreeing with the statement. We're not saying it's true or not. That guy who consistently calls for the death of our Palestinians that can probably intact somebody to do something radical. That's all we're here to talk about, and we wanted to get your side of it. Was you that posted that to I would think to refrain from posting things like that because that could get something. I appreciate your concern. I appreciate you coming out here. We're going to maintain my Amendment rights to.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: Not answer the question.
00:04:55
Speaker 6: I appreciate it.
00:04:56
Speaker 7: You you as well.
00:04:57
Speaker 3: Thank you, take care shout out to this She handled that exactly. Nothing to say to you without in the presence of a lawyer. Let's can we reiterate this post. This is the post that she was sent a police officer to her door. The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestidians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, even leaves the room when they vote on related matters.
00:05:20
Speaker 1: Wants you to know that you are all welcome here.
00:05:22
Speaker 3: Clown clown clown, that is what she said, standard shit lib stuff, and I just.
00:05:27
Speaker 2: Sent It's just a lefty post, that's it. I mean, there's no even implied threat and nothing.
00:05:33
Speaker 1: It's just a post.
00:05:34
Speaker 3: And I just made a whole diatribe about liberal protest culture and all that. However, what I do accept is we do need to live together in some respect, and yes, even cringe posting on the Internet in any respect is deeply accepted, especially whenever it is about a mayor. I mean, it's just so insane because this, this, and this. You know, I just talked about the normalization of crazy norms. This is the part of the issue we are watching. The normalization just is rapidly getting stepped up.
00:06:05
Speaker 1: Here.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: We can all debate on when it all started, but especially whenever it comes to politically sensitive speech targeted at public officials, and by breaking open that you have created an environment here where I mean, even being visited by a police officer is the definition of chilling. Whenever it comes to political space, there's no getting around it.
00:06:27
Speaker 1: Like period, end of story. This is a local matter.
00:06:30
Speaker 3: Where as a citizen you have every right to be able to criticize your public officials. And this is the fundamental problem is that with AI and you have like let's say corporate censorship legal let's say harassment was probably call it that. On top of multiple locality, state and now federal whenever it comes to the Trump administration of the DOJ, well, this becomes like a full on entity. I just spent all this time criticizing BLM, which I believed embodied that for multiple times during the Biden years and under democratic presidencies. Well, I think this has now effectively happen with the so called anti Semitism industrial complex, where the DOJ, the ADL, and these mayors, local cops, and lawyers all together are creating the exact same effect here. Yeah, and that's really dangerous.
00:07:17
Speaker 2: And once you accept it. For so they the way they started was with pro Palestinian protesters who were immigrancy had mak Mukhalil, who was a Green card holder, but you know, he was the first high profile one that they went after, and they felt like the combination of pro Palestine speech plus immigrant status was like the lowest hanging fruit. And they've expanded out from there, so it doesn't stay with pro Palestinian speech. And that's why you know this memo that Ken Klipstein is reported on that classifies anyone who is anti capitalist, anti Christian protests that they're all considered domestic terrorists. What is to stop them from coming to your door? If you just post something critical, anti capitalist about the administration, that is the predicate that's being set to your point though, I mean, this is the way the federal government has focused on this. Pam Bondi spoke at this Israeli American Council proudly telling the story of how she got involved in this school matter at Florida State where I don't know if you guys remember this. I think we played it and talked about it on the Shoe There's School of the School the show There we go. There was a guy who had an IDF T shirt on in the gym. There was a lady who came up to him. I think she did, you know, put her hand on him. But they made it like, oh my god, he was assaulted. Blah blah blah blah blah. And the federal government got involved in this frickin thing. And now Pam Bondi is out lying about the incident and bragging about it. Let's take a listen to that.
00:08:45
Speaker 6: I want to tell you a story right here in Florida. You've probably heard of it. It's not a crime of great violence, but in my opinion, it's a crime of great significance. I give college presidents my personal self and I say, if you need anything, call me. My phone rang one day. I was sitting in an office and it was the president of Florida State University and he said, something just happened. Yeah, a young woman, a student, through her phone cursed attacked a young student, a young man, a male student, who was playing basketball because he was wearing an id up shirt. She was a student, he was a student. I spent the next few hours on the phone. I call my US attorney, I call the state attorney, call law enforcement. And I guess she saw it went through the system as it should, and she now has kicked out a Florida State University. But little things are the big things, and do sends a strong message that you can't behave that way anymore in our country.
00:09:56
Speaker 2: So rather than working on I don't know, maybe like releasing that ein files, instead, the Attorney General of the United States of America is spending hours of her time to get this college student kicked out for this genuinely minor incident. And in fraction, she.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: Tweeted about it instantly whenever it happened. Yeah, we covered it all here at the time. You're exactly right whenever it comes to the Epstein's story and why so many people are so upset about their handling of it. They can do whatever they want when they want to. Don't forget that coffee shop incident. That actually that one really gets me more than anyone, because we're talking about they had whatever right.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: It was a distasteful name. I wouldn't have done the name.
00:10:37
Speaker 3: We can criticize the tactic, Okay, however, you're a private business. And what ended up happening was like some alleged discrimination, and the DOJ was like, we're going to sue this coffee shop down into the ground, right using federal civil rights raw, federal civil rights rights law over what is obviously a local incident. And in that case, in particular, what they were doing is trying to make this message that it's only going to be on the side of pro Israel activism. The one thing that we did also want to show everybody is this Miriam Adelson question where she was asked at this conference, how do you buy an exercise influence over politicians in the US, And she gets very squarely.
00:11:19
Speaker 1: Let's take a lesson Miri.
00:11:21
Speaker 7: You and Sheldon created a lot of relationship over the years with politicians at the state level, especially at the federal level. I want you to share with everyone why is it so important? And how do you do it? Again, writing checks is part of it, but there is more than writing just checks. So how do you do it?
00:11:45
Speaker 1: Can you allow me not to answer?
00:11:48
Speaker 7: You choose?
00:11:51
Speaker 4: I want to be truthful, and there are so many things that I don't want to talk about.
00:11:57
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, we don't want specific but that's okay.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: Wow, incredible, that all incredible. He asked the same question the other guys sitting there. Who's a billionaire? Heim Saban I think is his name, And he also was like, yeah, I don't really want to get into that, yeah, because.
00:12:12
Speaker 3: You know, it would be too distasteful for us to all hear out of the mouth of what kind of.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: People our leaders are.
00:12:17
Speaker 3: It's disgusting, terrible to me, it's just amazing they still hold these conferences if cameras don't cameras and microphones don't exist, So it's just it's it's I don't know. At the same time, it's crazy and it feels crushing on the other. At the you know, we do have a moment of more heightened awareness and people around this issue that the propaganda has never worked more than ever, So maybe in the long run it will all work out.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: So John Sapiro, who is the governor of Pennsylvania and who was famously vetted to be a potential VP pick for Kamala Harris, and there's been all kinds of talk of him potential twenty twenty eight contender. He's popular in the state of Pennsylvania, Will you know, certainly give him that. He is now out with the book where he talks about how upset he was about the VP vetting process. And by the way, for context here, what the Harris people had put out about why they didn't want Josh Shapiro on the ticket was that he seemed more about like himself. He was like measuring the drapes, very way too ambitious and not a team player. And I have to say that they look pretty vindicated with these with what he's putting out now about how this process went. In any case, what he was particularly upset about put this up on the screen is they apparently asked him if he had been a double agent for Israel. Quote was she kidding? I told her how offensive the question was. Okay, So let's keep in mind that Josh Shapiro, by his own words, volunteered with the IDF, wrote, you know, has written all kinds of like pretty wild anti Palestinian stuff. He also worked for a while in information, like in public affairs at the Israeli embassy. So it would honestly be irresponsible not to ask whether it was Israel or any other country. You worked for their military and you worked for their embassy. It is incumbent on you. If you're going to be Vice president of the United States, you have to answer that question. We also have now gotten information that they asked Tim Wallas the same question, by the way, about China, because he had had extensive time in China and some you know, I can't remember all there was like an entanglement with someone who was a Chinese official.
00:14:30
Speaker 1: Whatever, or it was genuinely weird, like he did spend a lot of time in China.
00:14:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, he did. He spent a lot of time, So they asked him the same question. So it's not like they were just like picking on Josh Shapiro. But that is the way that he took it. Let's put d two up on the screen, so he says their discussion was especially tense when Harris asked Shapiro if he would apologize for some of his comments about protesters at the University of Pennsylvania, ho had built encampments to decry Israel's military campaign in Gaza. He was very aggressive in terms of the democratic side and like, you know, condemning the protester and cracking down on them as governor of the state. This one also just like sort of cracked me up. The other thing he complained about was that their questions were not substantive. Put the next one up on the screen. He said, it nagged at me that their questions weren't really about substance, he wrote, Rather, they were questioning my ideology, my approach, and my worldview. That seems pretty substantive, Like what are we talking about? Weren't about substance? What was he expecting them to ask? It was out of bounds that they wanted to know about his ideology, his approach, and his worldview. Kind of kind of wild. And then let's put the last one up on the screen. So this is Harris, he wrote, described her own experience as vice president, Stark term saying she had a rough time in a position that had little autonomy or executive authority. I was surprised by how much she seemed to dislike the role, he wrote. She noted her chief of staff would be giving me my directions, lamented that the vice president didn't have a private bathroom in their office, and how difficult it was for her at times not to have a voice in the decision. And I believe that that Kamala was not happy in that role. And you know there were lots of leaks to that effect during the Biden administration. But pretty, I mean, this is pretty.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: There's no heroes.
00:16:10
Speaker 2: Incredibly, of course not. Yeah, I mean this is incredibly lame from Josh Shapiro though, and like I said, really does sort of validate the reasons that the Hairs team had given for why he wasn't ultimately picked.
00:16:23
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I don't know, because at the same time, I think, in retrospect, I think Walts was a disastrous pick. He was a horrible debate. He basically brought nothing to the ticket.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: Look at him.
00:16:32
Speaker 3: I mean he's so weak that he has to basically drop out of the race. Immediately and can't even defend his own record in the state. And even now with the way he's handling Minnesota, I don't think any even the Libs are mad at him, and the right is mad at him. He's got nobody who was standing up.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: So he was a joke. I always thought he was an idiot.
00:16:49
Speaker 3: But you know, whenever you look at Josh Shapiro, the appealing part was not only the state of Pennsylvania, which you know she did lose by relatively small margin. It wasn't like it was a blowout. Whenever it came to the statewide election. It may have actually been worth putting up with if you had thought that it was going to do anything.
00:17:05
Speaker 1: I think, though, the.
00:17:06
Speaker 3: Case being made is that look at how these people are all.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: Divas, you know, in the way that they act.
00:17:12
Speaker 3: And like they have the victim comp Like even Kamala she's bitching about how the vice president's office doesn't have.
00:17:18
Speaker 8: A bathroom, like oh yeah, like I give a fuck whether you'd be to go to the bathroom in your private office or not, all right, And then whenever it comes to Josh Shapiro, he's like, oh, well, they were so mean to me because he's mad that they didn't come and try to offer him the role on a silver right in a way, like he wanted them to beg for him to take the job, and what they.
00:17:40
Speaker 2: Said is he was like measuring the drapes basically and like being very assertive about like what he wanted the vice presidential role to be, and they we'll, like, screw you.
00:17:48
Speaker 3: But you know, in a way I sympathize in that, like he they needed him, I think a little bit more than she needed or she needed him more than he needed her.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: Like he's still fine enough, governor.
00:17:58
Speaker 2: I mean, honestly, it kind of dodged a bullet.
00:18:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, he obviously because look at Wallt's Walts's a disast, right, he looks like a joke is out now.
00:18:05
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, I don't think Shapiro is going to win a twenty twenty eight primary, but he's still in his head, is holding onto that hope.
00:18:10
Speaker 3: For sure, for sure, but you know, at the very least, like he gets to survive, you know, if you if you take it out four years, like the fact that the sitting the vice presidential Democratic candidate who previously was like somebody you know who actually had some sort of political juice had to not run for reelection should make you seriously reassess, like the way that that entire thing went down from a pure political talent perspective, and the fact now that you know, for him dodging the bullet. What I think, though, is so bad about this book is it's all personal, and it just reveals that these people don't care about really anything.
00:18:45
Speaker 1: It's for him, It's.
00:18:45
Speaker 3: All about the slights that are all perceived, etc. Even Kamala's book was just the gallery of all of the perceived slights and how people let her down, and she was never in a position where she actually failed the public. Like, if you're a Democrat, you should be serious with this woman, like actually furious for the way she ran her campaign.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: If you're like, oh my god, Trump is so bad, it's like it's her fault, guys, I just don't get it.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, I don't. It's not all her fault, right, but you cannot avoid laying some blame at her feet. And this was the thing I never understood with the Hillary either. It's like, I mean that one really is all her fault. By and large, you are the most proximate cause of the Trump era, and I just never felt like there was a reckoning with that, and it's that's becas you know, accountability. So let's put let's put D six up on the screen because this gets to what you're speaking about with this Kamala Harris situation. So she's still imagining that she's going to run for president. And the headline here from Axios is Dems divide over Harris surfaces as she looks like twenty twenty eight contender. One top Democrat told Axios, Kamala has not accepted that she's not running yet. And I mean the that is wild to me. That is wild to me because and I know where it comes from. It's because number one, she has whoever around her that you know, when you have consultants and aids around you, they stand a financially profit off of your run, even if you'd lose, because Kamala Harris would raise money and she'd do a thing and they'd get a cut of her adviys and whatever. So they have a vested interest. And then genuinely, there's a lot of affection for her in the black community. So when she travels around and she sees these crowds of people who are you know, like genuinely admire her and appreciate her and all of that that continues to sort of like fill her head with I am the one, and you know what, you look at the polling and there still is a significant chunk of the Democratic base that will say, yeah, if in this primary field, she's the one that I would choose. But that ignores the fact that we have not one, but two presidential campaigns that we can look at with Kamala Harris, where you know, in the Democratic primary she couldn't even get off the ground, right, she had to drop out before the votes read and cast. And then in this past election, look, she failed. I mean, we ran the experiment. It didn't work. She wasn't able to win. And you can chalk that up to any number of factors that you want to, but that is reality. And so it's just it's just wild to me. And then the other part of it that is wow to me is if you still want to be part of if you want to be a leader in the Democratic Party, like there is a massive void to fill. But she is very she put on a thing now and then, but in terms of really taking the lead and like being a leader in this moment when they desperately need it. She's not there, so still continuing to demonstrate that she doesn't understand where the base is, she doesn't understand what the moment is, what the moment calls for, she doesn't know what she really believes in. That's always been kind of the core problem with her, and all of those issues are continued.
00:21:50
Speaker 3: To right, Meanwhile, she's just about an eight million dollar house in Malibu, if anybody's wondering, that's nice for her. A couple of days ago off the proceeds at the book. Yeah, I mean, here's a structural prison.
00:22:00
Speaker 1: So yeah, right, yeah, through dubious means.
00:22:03
Speaker 3: But yeah, but here's the thing with Kamala, and here's a structural problem for Democrats. They rigged the primary for Biden and have now made it South Carolina is a first date, that's right, And remember the proving And I had a lot of Christism of Iowa and New Hampshire like not to be woke, but they actually are ironically too white, as in like not and it's not about them being white. It's not representative of a general electorate and or a swing state. I always thought the first state should be Michigan or some sort of battleground state to be able to prove like the ability to get people out where the demographics are going to look a lot more like the general election, but.
00:22:38
Speaker 2: They swing state, yeah, or noth Carolina is not.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: How about Nevada?
00:22:42
Speaker 3: Right, Bada was a perfect everyone, Yeah, Nevada is a good one. Michigan and or maybe even Super Tuesday. It's not a horrible idea, just to see how you play nationally. But the fact is they rigged it so that South Carolina is going to be first, and whoever wins that gets the momentum. And this is going to be a huge uphill challenge if Kamalon does running, because she doesn't have to prove electability in Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of South Carolina, and she can immediately win a primary, which will flood the donation inbox and make her look more like the left has a huge uphill back.
00:23:13
Speaker 1: That's true to climb primary.
00:23:15
Speaker 2: To be clear, I don't think they've actually set the order of the states for twenty twenty eight, but I do think it would be difficult. New Hampshire has that thing where it's in their constitute whatever. Anyway, I do think it will be difficult to push South Carolina back in. It's certainly still going to be an incredibly consequential state, and it continues to be the biggest dumbling block for left wing candidates. There's simply no doubt about it that older black, young, young black voters left wing candidates do fine with, But older black voters that make up the base of the Democratic Party in southern states like South Carolina, I don't think that left wing candidates have figured that out.
00:23:51
Speaker 1: And it's not representative though. That's why it drives me crazy.
00:23:53
Speaker 2: It's not it and because I mean again in state, it is a Republican state, so this is not emblematic of the like. Those voters are the most reliable block of Democratic Party voters, So whoever the nominee is is going to get the backing of those voters. So you're not really demonstrating anything in terms of your certainly in terms of your electability and anyway, I mean, the whole idea that this was all about some like, oh, we need to be inclusive is just bullshit. They just did it because they thought it would be best for Joe Biden. That is the bottom line of what happened there, because you know, I'll never forget in twenty twenty when you had you know, Bernie running and he wins Iowa, Pete whatever you know, ties in Iowa. How do you want to say that does very well in Iowa, wins New Hampshire, wins Nevada, which you can say Iowa, New Hampshire, Yes, very white. Nevada extremely diverse, extremely extremely diverse in all of the pundit class that none of that really counts. That doesn't count as diversity. Only South Carolina accounts as diversity. And so in any case, I don't know what the order will be, but that regardless, that is something that you a left wing candidate is going to have to figure on or they have to hope that there is there are a variety of like establishment lane candidates who divide that vote in South Carolina because that you know, that would be the other hope. And I think that's possible.
00:25:17
Speaker 1: It is possible. But don't forget about Cliburn.
00:25:18
Speaker 3: If he's around, all he has to do is endorse you in the like Apparently forty percent of the people in South Carolina will just vote for you.
00:25:25
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's really bad.
00:25:26
Speaker 3: I think a lot of Democrats, people like you guys should get involved or try to get into a primary process, because like this is bad for the country, to make it so that it is effectively rigged, you know, by the Democratic establishment from the get go, to make it so that any sort of upstart candidate basically has no shot whatsoever. And especially how this will play in the midst of where likely to be some insurgent victories in twenty twenty six Oh, that's horrible, right to basically betray a huge part and then that would could lead to you know, the feelings of betrayal or replay the whole twenty s sixteen candidacy, which is I mean, I would say that's like the modal outcome right now, is that there's going to be a huge fight.
00:26:06
Speaker 1: Who knows.
00:26:07
Speaker 3: I never count out the democratic establishment or the ability for a lot of people to just like go along. Trump JD will be the boogeyman of the you know, he's Trump, but actually he's worse, and everybody will kind of come together and then who knows, you know, from there there may be enough people who are not willing to buy the boogeyman argument and you could potentially see some sort of close election all over again.
00:26:29
Speaker 1: I have no idea. Let's get to Epstein.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is I think a very noteworthy development. So podcaster Sean Ryan, who I think had Trump and Jade Vans on in advanceity election, you know, has been outspoken about he voted for them. You know, he truly believed, I mean what I give him this, You've truly believed the hype that they would they would reveal the secrets, they would release the Epstein. Vaz clearly something that he feels passionate about, and he is thoroughly disgusted with the cover up. Had an extraordinary conversation with Rocana. Of course spent at the forefront of pushing to get the Epstein files released, and in the context of that, you know, went aggressively after the Trump White House. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
00:27:13
Speaker 9: Why is the White House protecting pedophiles? Why is the White House protecting pedophiles? I just don't understand it. Bro, I can't fucking get it through my head. Why we would protect pedophiles. I mean, I fucking voted for this shit. I voted to get these damn files released, and it's like a total one eighty just happened. They are legitimately proactively protecting pedophiles. They are protecting pedophiles at this point.
00:27:42
Speaker 10: By redacting the abuser's name by the White House. Listen up, everybody, the fucking White House is protecting pedophiles. You hear that they're fucking protecting pedophiles. That's what the fuck they're doing.
00:28:00
Speaker 2: So making sure that everybody heard. Hey, just so you know what these people are doing, let's put the next one up on the screen, because he's been going in on Twitter as well. So this guy, Donald Trump's quote spiritual leader Robert Morris was just sentenced to a pathetic, by the way, six months in prison after pleading guilty to five counts of sexually abusing a twelve year old child. And Sean Ryan Wison and says, yeah, and he'll probably get a pardon with this administration. So he's you know, pretty aggressive going after them year and rightfully so and we have, you know, to back him up. We have some new legal moves from this administration as well. They are telling the courts the dj is arguing that no court can actually force the release of the Epstein files. According to Brian Allen, he says their position is basically, the Epstein Transparency Act doesn't create an enforcable path in federal courts, so judges cannot compel compliance. Translation will release what we want when we want, and you can't stop us. It has now been a month sent they were supposed to have released everything, and there is a tiny sliver of files that have come out, and you know, I thought we were going to get a drip drip drip. We got like a drip drip and that was it. Nothing else since what December is the last time we got any sort of release. And those releases, even though they were redacted, even though they were insufficient, they were still very damaging to Trump and very revelatory in general about you know, what Epstein was doing and you know, implicating all sorts of people. So even with this very constrained tiny amount of information that we got, there was still noteworthy information contained there. So they're completely stonewalling. They want to wash their hands of it, they want to argue in court, they don't have to do anything else, and they're flagrantly violating the law that was passed by Commerce and signed into law by the President himself.
00:29:56
Speaker 3: One of the things that makes me hopeful about the shoon Ryan, I mean, Sean, you know you got a good guy credit.
00:30:00
Speaker 1: You actually talked a lot about this.
00:30:01
Speaker 3: He just had on a child protection person on his show, Like he cares really, really deeply about this issue. And this is somebody who is I mean, he's got millions of subscribers on YouTube and in general. The way that you could assess this is part of an overall let's call it vibe shift if you will, If you'll take the totality of like Tim Dillon, Andrew Schaltz, Joe Rogan, Sean Ryan. If we accept that all of those people were vital conduits for Donald Trump or Trump thought theovon another one of them, Trump's to Trump permission structure in twenty twenty four, then we have to accept that their criticism is also a permission structure against Trump and the Republicans in twenty twenty six and potentially in twenty twenty eight. And that's why I actually think that this issue remains so important, not only because of the substance, which again we've covered since here from day one, but it matters because when it comes to a cover up and the way that they act. Let's say, as we just pointed out in the censorship block, that there immediately will come to the defense of some Florida State student who apparently got yelled at because he's wearing an IDF T shirt. But then you see them dragging their feet for a month whenever it comes to Epstein. I mean, you should freak out about that, Like, you really should be upset about that, And then you see the way that they act for multiple other high profile cases.
00:31:24
Speaker 1: By the way, if you're super.
00:31:25
Speaker 3: Right wing, shouldn't you be upset about the way that the Charlie Kirk thing went down. It's nuts, right, the way that cash Betel and the FBI botched that investigation from day one, you should be furious.
00:31:35
Speaker 1: I mean, even.
00:31:37
Speaker 3: Oh my god, the shooter remember the Brown University thing. What a shit show, And they had no idea where the person was. He ended up killing himself in a storage locker, right, That's how it all eventually went out. By the way, still haven't heard much about that. We got the transcripts of his video, and apparently it's just because he was crazy. Maybe, I mean, I don't know it seem pretty weird to me, going to assassinate the head of a nuclear science program. But yeah, so like at every step they're either incompetent and or acting as if there is something to cover up and they have nothing to say about it. And then the president the DJ and all of their behavior. Look at the way I mean Trump literally flipped that guy off, the forward worker because and then even inside the administration, they're furious with Pam Bondi for blaming her, and it is like kind of centrally her and Cash's fault because from the day one they handed out all of that Epstein files transparency, they made it into a thing which makes their retrenchment and their cover up like so much worse.
00:32:33
Speaker 9: Yeah.
00:32:33
Speaker 1: Completely, That's why I think.
00:32:35
Speaker 3: You know, there's this whole theory on the right called no you're not This will not be unfamiliar to you. You never criticize your own side. And I have always found first no enemy, no enemies to the right, which on the left as the statement right, anyone who's part of the revolution is part of the revolution, all right. So, but in this case, it is so clear to me that people who criticize get more results because if it's something that you actually care about. Look at Roe and Thomas Massey. They brute force this bill, which the administration tried to kill through all of Congress and made Donald Trump sign the bill, which was to his own detriment. That was only made possible because I mean, a small part show like ours, which is part of like this vast conduit which keeps the issue alive and to this day is forcing like continued transparency. If you want to have something be done, the worst thing you can be is sycophantic, Which is why I think it's really good that somebody like Sean Ryan or any of these other people continue to speak up about the issue, because something in the zeitgeist is genuinely the only way that this will ever like where we even remotely come to some sort of transparency, even though I will still never believe, you know, most of what they put out yea, and I don't really think that that's you know, where it is. I do hope though, we can normalize this so when the Democrats, if they eventually come into power, actually just release the entire thing, and then you know, perhaps we will get closure day.
00:34:00
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:34:01
Speaker 2: Put E four just last piece up on the screen. To your point about sickofancy so courageously you had, you needed four Republicans to sign on to, you know, to get this discharge petition through, to get this law passed. You had Thomas Massey, you had Marjorie Taylor Green, you had Lauren Bobert, and you had Nancy Mace. And the White House aggressively went after Nancy Mace and Lauren Bobert in particular, and which one of them was that they pulled into the situation. One of them just didn't answer the phone. Bobert. They like pulled in the situation where they do the whole thing, like full pressure campaign. And to her credit, she did not cave. She signed on to it. And that's that is the reason why this law was ultimately passed. Well, now they are all just trying to, you know, move on. They don't want to talk about it anymore. Lauren Bobert in particular said, quote, I don't give a rip about Epstein, Like, there's so many other things we need to be working on. I've done what I had to do for Epstein. Talk to somebody else about that. It's no longer in my hands. So outside of Massy and then Marjorie tillergreen is on in Congress now, so outside of mass on the Republican side, they really are all just hoping this sort of goes away, Like they're probably hoping the administration wins in court that you know that the courts can't actually compel them to do anything, and they just continue to sit on it and there's no drip drip drip, drip drip that they have to deal with. They're just hoping this all goes away at this point.
00:35:26
Speaker 3: And look, it could be right because I mean, even we are subject to global affairs, this is our what is it e block?
00:35:34
Speaker 1: Right?
00:35:35
Speaker 3: What do we have to leave lead with Davos Greenland? Yeah, Ice, I mean, look, I mean it's not that you're falling for their game, but like we do have to quite literally order the news in terms of relative importance, and you can't be on top of everything at all times. That's part of the tragedy of their strategy is it usually does work whenever they're in power. I do hope if the Democrats, let's say, take the House in midterms, that they just you know, create a Bengazi level shit storm which makes them which constantly keeps it in the news constantly forces you know, reckoning or pressure on the administration because as they've already shown, they had to fold on this issue. I would say this is probably the biggest legislative loss that happened in Trump's entire presidency, even going back to two thousand.
00:36:20
Speaker 1: Ex pol, which is shocked.
00:36:22
Speaker 3: Is shocking that it actually was able to come to fruit and that they didn't bruce force it and eventually veto So that shows the crack that people can continue to work through. So anyway, I think I think it's a positive development. We would be remiss if we didn't give our flowers here to Ben Affleck and to Matt Damon in their recent appearance on Joe Rogan dropping several truth bombs, not just about AI, but also about our movie industry and the way it currently works. Here's Ben's rumination on AI. You could have taken it straight out of like a Bloomberg analysis.
00:36:53
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
00:36:55
Speaker 11: What I see is, for example, if you try to get chat Ebt or Claude or Gemin to write you something, it's really shitty. And it's shitty because by its nature it goes to the mean, to the average, and it's and it's not reliable, and it's I mean, I just can't stand to see what writes. Now. It's a useful tool if you're a writer and you're going, ah, what's the thing. I'm trying to set something up where somebody sends someone a letter but it's delayed two days and gets and it can give you some examples of that. I actually don't think it's very likely that it can it's going to be able to write anything meaningful or and in particular that it's going to be making movies like from Hoole Cloth like Tilly normal, Like that's bullshit. I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's not. I think it actually turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they sort of presented it. And really what it is is going to be a tool just like sort of visual facts, and yeah, it needs to have language around it. You need to protect your name and likeness. You can do that. You can water market your those laws already exist. You can't. I can't sell your fucking picture for money. I can't you consume me. Period. It kind of feels to me like things earlier where there's a lot more fear because we have the sense that's existential dread, it's gonna wipe everything out. But that actually runs counter, in my view, to what history seems to show, which is a adoption is slow, it's incremental. I think a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who are trying to justify valuations around companies, where they go, we're gonna change everything in two years. There's gonna be no more work. But the reason they're saying that is because they need to ascribe evaluation for investment that can warrant the cape spend they're gonna make on these data centers, with the argument that like, oh, you know, as soon as we do the next model, it's gonna scale up. It can be three times as good, except that actually chat Chap five about twenty five times percent better than chatchipp four and costs about four times as much in the way of electricity and data. So those and they say that it's like plateauing the early AI. The line went up very steeply and it's now sort of leveling off. I think it's because and yes, it'll get better, but it's gonna be really expensive to get better, and a lot of people were like, fuck this, we want chat GP four because it turned out like the vast majority of people who use AI are using it to like as like companion bots to chat with at night, and so there's no work, there's no productivity, there's no value to it.
00:39:16
Speaker 1: Has he been watching Breaking points like this guy's so good?
00:39:19
Speaker 3: But the reason why I thought it was important was because there is quite a bit of concern still around AI and it's creative endeavors in Hollywood, and there absolutely should be because of the potential. I mean, look at the New Avatar movie, like it's insane what people are able to create literally like out of nothing is CGI technology and all of that, et cetera. But what I think he actually hit the nail on the head though, is that while in the long run there remains quite a bit of danger, in the immediate term, many of these companies are lying. Much of their behavior indicates that there's nothing that great or new coming chat GBT putting in ads into the feed means we're kind of there for the interim period and we just need to monetize the shit out of this to continue pumping all of these data centers. And actually the difference between you know, chat GPT five and four point eight or whatever really only matters in like a few select cases. And though the data crunch is like immense, but at the consumer level, like he said, we're talking about companion bots and all this other parasocial weirdo stuff which is causing all these social pathologies. So I actually think he just like really eloquently kind of put it together.
00:40:29
Speaker 2: I'm a little skeptical now. I need to be honest with you, because here's why. It is because of the economics of Yes, to run all the data centers is very expensive, but to be the studio that says, you know, give me a plot that hits X, y and z points and there it is, it's extremely cheap.
00:40:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, extremely cheap.
00:40:47
Speaker 2: And so there's an assumption that they're going to care about quality that I just don't think is really true. I think when you have that level, there's going to be some large number of you know, studios that push in the direction of we're just going to do quantity over quality. I mean, you already see this YouTube is in some ways kind of like a good place to see the way that these things will take off. You already have these channels that will just put out like endless numbers of AI songs I have right for some of these there we've got Yannis faa Faucus came on and talked about how there's all these channels that deep fake him and some of the videos genuinely hit, you know. And so if you're just able to easily churn out a ton of content that some of it's going to be so shitty no one watches it, but some of it will be good enough that it does garner an audience, there are going to be a lot of people who go in that direction of like of just slop creation because the economics of it are everything, and they don't give a shit about like artistic creation, and you know, and so the fact that it's low quality is right. That it's low quality, there's no doubt about it. But and it's improving, Mark that I do think he's right too about the acceleration has slowed down in terms of the improvement curve, and it kind of is at a bit of a stasis right now, at least for the moment. But that to me doesn't rule out the possibility that it's going to come to dominate the sort of like creative space simply because of the way that the economics.
00:42:18
Speaker 1: Of it were.
00:42:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe I've made the great mistake of thinking that people value anything of artistic high talent and that slop will always win, which is usually the case, I guess right now in our current system.
00:42:30
Speaker 1: You're not wrong.
00:42:31
Speaker 3: And at the end of the day, one thing that I thought was really important and illuminating from what they said, because they made this whole case for why they are new movies on Netflix. But they eventually kind of gave the game away about the executives and how they talk, and I'd never heard words put to it.
00:42:47
Speaker 1: But I had watched the first.
00:42:49
Speaker 3: Episode of this New Stranger Things just you know whatever, it's something to do during Christmas, and I was like, this is the shittiest written show I have ever seen in my entire life. Where they would gather around the table and consistently reiterate the plot and like bang you over the face, which is the opposite of good writing. Good writing is when you're able to say all of these different just to be like, you remember our brother John, he died five years ago, right, just like you need to try and engineer in a script to give that away without the characteristics, saying.
00:43:19
Speaker 2: The central tension it works Gloring there is his breakup with Jamie.
00:43:23
Speaker 3: Exactly correct. That is what all Netflix slop now currently sounds like. They revealed why that is because people are on their phones and you have to be banged over the head with the plot over and over again or you're going to lose track.
00:43:36
Speaker 1: Here's what they had to say, aperience of watching at home.
00:43:38
Speaker 12: I think you know, you're watching in a room, the lights are on, other shit's going on, the kids are running around, the dogs are running around, whatever it is, you know what I mean. It's just a very different level of attention that you're willing to or that you're able to give to it. And that has a big effect, and it also ends up having an effect or is starting to have an effect on how you make movies, like for instance, Netflix, you know, the standard way to make an action movie that we learned was, you know, you usually have like three set pieces, one in the first act one and the second one and the third and you know you kind of they kind of ramp up and the big one with all the explosions, and you spend most of your money on that one in the third act that's your kind of finale. And now they're you know, they're like, can we get a big one in the first five minutes to get somebody? You know, we want people to stay yeah, tuned in and ken and you know, it wouldn't be terrible if you reiterated the plot three or four times in the dialogue because people are on their phones while they're watching, you know what I mean. So then it's gonna really start to infringe on creatively.
00:44:39
Speaker 11: Yeah, we're telling, but then you look at our lessons. Didn't do anything, didn't do any of the fucking great you know what I mean.
00:44:44
Speaker 3: See, that's why I was like, I was like, Wow, that is why Netflix slop sounds the way that it does. It's because it's purely regression to the mean, as he just said with Ai, where anything, even even great concept shows, they you know, I don't think it's deniable, like Stranger Things season one, like that was a phenomenon. People really love that show, but what it ended up being like, oh my god, it's horrific. And there are multiple of these kind of over the years, and they just keep pumping out multiple seasons of this absolute nonsense, which just continues to get worse and worse and worse and worse, And I didn't realize how much of this like second screen phenomenon is now being directly pressured into the very content which is now dominating.
00:45:26
Speaker 1: And so I don't know.
00:45:27
Speaker 3: Sometimes this may be a long winded way of saying like I'm now afraid. Originally I was generally supportive of of Netflix buying Warner Brothers and HBO over Paramount Skuydance, But now I'm like, wait, we don't want this nonsense to come to HBO either. Like I'm currently watching the show industry, I've never seen anything like it where it is now currently.
00:45:46
Speaker 1: Only they could do that, Like, only they could.
00:45:49
Speaker 3: Do that, and it would never be able to exist in the sloppy list world of where we are right now on Netflix. So maybe you're correct that the AI slop is ultimately which just what's going to take over.
00:45:58
Speaker 2: These guys were very like they were very optimistic, and they were very like, you know, they were talking about how, look, we've experienced these changes in your own history, and people every time are upset about what's lost, but ultimately, you know, it's more convenient for people to be at home on there, like you know, watching them have usually got a big, nice flat screen TV, and it's a convenient experience. And they did talk about how you do lose something that is a different experience when you have the distractions contained in your house, whether it's your kids or your dog, or your tours or whatever it is, that that is a different experience from being in the theater together. But they were sort of like ambivalent and they're like, that's fine, but you know, I've kind of come to view things a little bit differently of that all of the people in the past who warned about like the radio was going to take away from family time or the TV is going to create this like homogeneous culture and we're going to be you know, and the warnings they had about that and the way that it would turn you into a zombie, like, they weren't wrong. They were you know, they were all correct, and they were correct about that there would be things that would be lost that come along with that technology. And the fact that we grew up with it and that was just the only world that we knew and we were fine with it doesn't mean that they were incorrect about the parts of life that would be pushed to the Margins by the advent of that technology.
00:47:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of my friends just recommended this book to me. I think it's called like Tech Exit.
00:47:22
Speaker 1: I love this.
00:47:23
Speaker 3: She quit television's she like deleted all social media, which you know, that's like step one. Yea, she quit TV period. She does not watch television dinner. She's a mom of two.
00:47:35
Speaker 1: And I was like, man, that's like I kind of want to I want to try it.
00:47:37
Speaker 3: A little bit, you know, as somebody, because exactly what you're talking about is, you know, the original or started with the TV dinner in the fifties and the sixties, which took people away from the dinner table, and then what it became is now people will they may even be sitting you know, how many times have you gone out to dinner and somebody across the table from me was like this on their phone, right, Yeah, And so now we created the device which is now here everywhere. And you know, not to be like a crazy ludited, especially for two people to make their career on the internet, but it's one of those where in your own personal life you're right in that you do have to ask and say that many of the most vicious critics like when we think back about the television and what people said about that. Maybe, like in the late eighties and nineties, especially with cable TV, there was a real reckoning in the same way are talking about AI. They're like, this is a disaster, it's actually going to destroy you know, at that time, people were watching seven hours of TV per day, family unit. It'll make everybody dumber. I think they're probably right. You know, it did kill critical thinking if you want to look, really, the most disastrous statistics around phones and AI is books. The amount of Americans now who read even one book a year is like a record all time low. The bookstore industry is only prospering at the high end for people who make it like a social currency and value to read, and professors across the country are talking about all people do is just chat shept summarize books and readings instead of actually engaging or reading with the text. I think it's a I mean, obviously not only in terms of people making people dumber, but then you create a culture, just like you're talking about with TV and radio, where if your kids don't even see you reading, Like my kid is now this age where she wants to eat what I want to eat, which is a very powerful thing because you're like, wow, mimicry is literally the way that these children develop and learn in the world. Well, she would never see me, you know. I famously have only listened to audiobooks for ten years. I started breaking out the real books again because I'm like, she needs to see me read because then she'll want to read. That's the only way to normalize the type of behavior. But you have to be very intentional about it.
00:49:36
Speaker 2: Because my eight year old Ida, We're talking about reading and how much I enjoy and where she's like, you never read, was like, what are you talking about? But it's because she Yeah, she doesn't see me with the book. And even if I am reading a physical book, it's usually on like my phone right and then, but mostly what I do is listen to audiobooks. Yeah, same, So yeah, I had that realization recently of like, oh, like, even though I I am a reader and it is an important part of my life, she actually is not.
00:50:03
Speaker 1: She has no clue witnessing that.
00:50:06
Speaker 2: But in any case, to go back to it, I mean we also have to acknowledge like even as obviously the drawbacks blah blah blah, we also we like we like having the thing, you know, I mean there are obviously there are positive things about it too, which is why it is so widespread and why it has you know, completely taken into the culture. But in any case, the two guys very thoughtful, very interesting conversation.
00:50:29
Speaker 1: People, especially the first half. Yeah, it was very good. Yeah.
00:50:32
Speaker 3: I will listen to them talk anytime any day. Also, Matt Ben if you're listening, man would love to talk.
00:50:38
Speaker 1: We can talk all week. We don't even have to talk about new movies. We can only do old that would be even better. All right, thank you everybody for listening. We appreciate it.
00:50:44
Speaker 3: I know we went very long today, so the show is going to be late. It is what it is. I hope you enjoy it. Nonetheless, and counter no, Ryan and Emily will see you all tomorrow. There is no count of the show.
00:50:53
Speaker 2: Formerly, I don't know why I like to call.
00:50:55
Speaker 1: It Ryan and Emily will see you all tomorrow.
00:51:01
Speaker 10: Put tagotu
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
00:00:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
00:00:08
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
00:00:25
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Turning now to censorship, there's a lot of stuff going on whenever it comes to censorship of anybody who's remotely challenges the Israel consensus here in the US, The CEO of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, now saying that there are AI automatic versions to try and to monitor any alleged act of anti Semitism, using AI to report it to lawyers, to prosecute, to criminalize, and to go after anybody who criticizes the state of Israel.
00:00:59
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say.
00:01:00
Speaker 4: We created something called the Legal Action Network. We've assembled fifty of the top law firms in the United States to create a pro bono cortery of literally like fifty thousand lawyers. And so now when you enter in an incident at ADL, it instantly gets evaluated by our AI systems. Is there a litigation opportunity? And we feed it to the lawyers to evaluate and to find someone to take the case. So it used to be there again, if you had a problem, you picked up the phone and called ADL, and it took us days and days to get back to you. Remember I told you thirty one thousand reports. Now, using generative AI, I am responding instantly. And if you enter that something happened to you. For example, say your kid got bullied at middle or your kid had a teacher at middle school, a social studies teacher who again this oppress or oppressed craziness and held out your kid. You enter it in and our GENAI can literally on the spot generate a letter for you to say, send to LAUSD. That will automatically. Okay, this is the chairman of the Board of Education, This is the Superintendent of schools. This is the name of the principle of that specific school will generate the letter real time and send it out for you and at the same time launch a petition that we can push to the city council and so on and so forth.
00:02:18
Speaker 1: Wow.
00:02:19
Speaker 3: Jenai working with lawyers, fifty thousand lawyers, the Legal Action Network, the Panopticon, Yeah, the literal Panopticon, Surveillance, private surveillance state, which is working behind the scenes, and just to go and show everybody. We just had a long debate about the role of you know, public life, law enforcement, and churches. One of the things that we at least generally kind of agreed on was this idea of the First Amendment and of expressing yourself without being visited, without being visited by police officers. As we often look at videos in the UK or in Germany when people privately post something, let's say, on Facebook and gives it visits from the authority, You're never like you truly will not leave where you're about to see. The mayor of Miami Beach sent police officers, taxpayer dollar police officers to the home of a private US citizen after she criticized the mayor on Facebook over his pro Israel stance.
00:03:13
Speaker 1: Let's watch the video.
00:03:15
Speaker 4: Picture to make sure it's your order.
00:03:16
Speaker 3: Not sure, okay, all right?
00:03:18
Speaker 1: Thanks?
00:03:19
Speaker 4: Is that your account?
00:03:22
Speaker 1: I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer president, so I really don't know how to answer that.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Like I said, America, I agree, we're just trying to see that you we're not talking to the right person. We want to go see the right help you.
00:03:39
Speaker 4: So pretty much, it's just a statement that was made as far as you know, uh.
00:03:45
Speaker 5: Says the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down the theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: The ol g bt Q community in any way.
00:03:56
Speaker 5: Even leave the room when they vote, and on related matters, one to know that you're all welcome clown face, clown face confidence. Pretty you know, I'm not going to answer whether that's me or not. Okay, the concerning part and not concerning for the person who's posting it. Well, we're just trying to preventage somebody else getting agitated or or or agreeing with the statement. We're not saying it's true or not. That guy who consistently calls for the death of our Palestinians that can probably intact somebody to do something radical. That's all we're here to talk about, and we wanted to get your side of it. Was you that posted that to I would think to refrain from posting things like that because that could get something. I appreciate your concern. I appreciate you coming out here. We're going to maintain my Amendment rights to.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: Not answer the question.
00:04:55
Speaker 6: I appreciate it.
00:04:56
Speaker 7: You you as well.
00:04:57
Speaker 3: Thank you, take care shout out to this She handled that exactly. Nothing to say to you without in the presence of a lawyer. Let's can we reiterate this post. This is the post that she was sent a police officer to her door. The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestidians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, even leaves the room when they vote on related matters.
00:05:20
Speaker 1: Wants you to know that you are all welcome here.
00:05:22
Speaker 3: Clown clown clown, that is what she said, standard shit lib stuff, and I just.
00:05:27
Speaker 2: Sent It's just a lefty post, that's it. I mean, there's no even implied threat and nothing.
00:05:33
Speaker 1: It's just a post.
00:05:34
Speaker 3: And I just made a whole diatribe about liberal protest culture and all that. However, what I do accept is we do need to live together in some respect, and yes, even cringe posting on the Internet in any respect is deeply accepted, especially whenever it is about a mayor. I mean, it's just so insane because this, this, and this. You know, I just talked about the normalization of crazy norms. This is the part of the issue we are watching. The normalization just is rapidly getting stepped up.
00:06:05
Speaker 1: Here.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: We can all debate on when it all started, but especially whenever it comes to politically sensitive speech targeted at public officials, and by breaking open that you have created an environment here where I mean, even being visited by a police officer is the definition of chilling. Whenever it comes to political space, there's no getting around it.
00:06:27
Speaker 1: Like period, end of story. This is a local matter.
00:06:30
Speaker 3: Where as a citizen you have every right to be able to criticize your public officials. And this is the fundamental problem is that with AI and you have like let's say corporate censorship legal let's say harassment was probably call it that. On top of multiple locality, state and now federal whenever it comes to the Trump administration of the DOJ, well, this becomes like a full on entity. I just spent all this time criticizing BLM, which I believed embodied that for multiple times during the Biden years and under democratic presidencies. Well, I think this has now effectively happen with the so called anti Semitism industrial complex, where the DOJ, the ADL, and these mayors, local cops, and lawyers all together are creating the exact same effect here. Yeah, and that's really dangerous.
00:07:17
Speaker 2: And once you accept it. For so they the way they started was with pro Palestinian protesters who were immigrancy had mak Mukhalil, who was a Green card holder, but you know, he was the first high profile one that they went after, and they felt like the combination of pro Palestine speech plus immigrant status was like the lowest hanging fruit. And they've expanded out from there, so it doesn't stay with pro Palestinian speech. And that's why you know this memo that Ken Klipstein is reported on that classifies anyone who is anti capitalist, anti Christian protests that they're all considered domestic terrorists. What is to stop them from coming to your door? If you just post something critical, anti capitalist about the administration, that is the predicate that's being set to your point though, I mean, this is the way the federal government has focused on this. Pam Bondi spoke at this Israeli American Council proudly telling the story of how she got involved in this school matter at Florida State where I don't know if you guys remember this. I think we played it and talked about it on the Shoe There's School of the School the show There we go. There was a guy who had an IDF T shirt on in the gym. There was a lady who came up to him. I think she did, you know, put her hand on him. But they made it like, oh my god, he was assaulted. Blah blah blah blah blah. And the federal government got involved in this frickin thing. And now Pam Bondi is out lying about the incident and bragging about it. Let's take a listen to that.
00:08:45
Speaker 6: I want to tell you a story right here in Florida. You've probably heard of it. It's not a crime of great violence, but in my opinion, it's a crime of great significance. I give college presidents my personal self and I say, if you need anything, call me. My phone rang one day. I was sitting in an office and it was the president of Florida State University and he said, something just happened. Yeah, a young woman, a student, through her phone cursed attacked a young student, a young man, a male student, who was playing basketball because he was wearing an id up shirt. She was a student, he was a student. I spent the next few hours on the phone. I call my US attorney, I call the state attorney, call law enforcement. And I guess she saw it went through the system as it should, and she now has kicked out a Florida State University. But little things are the big things, and do sends a strong message that you can't behave that way anymore in our country.
00:09:56
Speaker 2: So rather than working on I don't know, maybe like releasing that ein files, instead, the Attorney General of the United States of America is spending hours of her time to get this college student kicked out for this genuinely minor incident. And in fraction, she.
00:10:13
Speaker 3: Tweeted about it instantly whenever it happened. Yeah, we covered it all here at the time. You're exactly right whenever it comes to the Epstein's story and why so many people are so upset about their handling of it. They can do whatever they want when they want to. Don't forget that coffee shop incident. That actually that one really gets me more than anyone, because we're talking about they had whatever right.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: It was a distasteful name. I wouldn't have done the name.
00:10:37
Speaker 3: We can criticize the tactic, Okay, however, you're a private business. And what ended up happening was like some alleged discrimination, and the DOJ was like, we're going to sue this coffee shop down into the ground, right using federal civil rights raw, federal civil rights rights law over what is obviously a local incident. And in that case, in particular, what they were doing is trying to make this message that it's only going to be on the side of pro Israel activism. The one thing that we did also want to show everybody is this Miriam Adelson question where she was asked at this conference, how do you buy an exercise influence over politicians in the US, And she gets very squarely.
00:11:19
Speaker 1: Let's take a lesson Miri.
00:11:21
Speaker 7: You and Sheldon created a lot of relationship over the years with politicians at the state level, especially at the federal level. I want you to share with everyone why is it so important? And how do you do it? Again, writing checks is part of it, but there is more than writing just checks. So how do you do it?
00:11:45
Speaker 1: Can you allow me not to answer?
00:11:48
Speaker 7: You choose?
00:11:51
Speaker 4: I want to be truthful, and there are so many things that I don't want to talk about.
00:11:57
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, we don't want specific but that's okay.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: Wow, incredible, that all incredible. He asked the same question the other guys sitting there. Who's a billionaire? Heim Saban I think is his name, And he also was like, yeah, I don't really want to get into that, yeah, because.
00:12:12
Speaker 3: You know, it would be too distasteful for us to all hear out of the mouth of what kind of.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: People our leaders are.
00:12:17
Speaker 3: It's disgusting, terrible to me, it's just amazing they still hold these conferences if cameras don't cameras and microphones don't exist, So it's just it's it's I don't know. At the same time, it's crazy and it feels crushing on the other. At the you know, we do have a moment of more heightened awareness and people around this issue that the propaganda has never worked more than ever, So maybe in the long run it will all work out.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: So John Sapiro, who is the governor of Pennsylvania and who was famously vetted to be a potential VP pick for Kamala Harris, and there's been all kinds of talk of him potential twenty twenty eight contender. He's popular in the state of Pennsylvania, Will you know, certainly give him that. He is now out with the book where he talks about how upset he was about the VP vetting process. And by the way, for context here, what the Harris people had put out about why they didn't want Josh Shapiro on the ticket was that he seemed more about like himself. He was like measuring the drapes, very way too ambitious and not a team player. And I have to say that they look pretty vindicated with these with what he's putting out now about how this process went. In any case, what he was particularly upset about put this up on the screen is they apparently asked him if he had been a double agent for Israel. Quote was she kidding? I told her how offensive the question was. Okay, So let's keep in mind that Josh Shapiro, by his own words, volunteered with the IDF, wrote, you know, has written all kinds of like pretty wild anti Palestinian stuff. He also worked for a while in information, like in public affairs at the Israeli embassy. So it would honestly be irresponsible not to ask whether it was Israel or any other country. You worked for their military and you worked for their embassy. It is incumbent on you. If you're going to be Vice president of the United States, you have to answer that question. We also have now gotten information that they asked Tim Wallas the same question, by the way, about China, because he had had extensive time in China and some you know, I can't remember all there was like an entanglement with someone who was a Chinese official.
00:14:30
Speaker 1: Whatever, or it was genuinely weird, like he did spend a lot of time in China.
00:14:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, he did. He spent a lot of time, So they asked him the same question. So it's not like they were just like picking on Josh Shapiro. But that is the way that he took it. Let's put d two up on the screen, so he says their discussion was especially tense when Harris asked Shapiro if he would apologize for some of his comments about protesters at the University of Pennsylvania, ho had built encampments to decry Israel's military campaign in Gaza. He was very aggressive in terms of the democratic side and like, you know, condemning the protester and cracking down on them as governor of the state. This one also just like sort of cracked me up. The other thing he complained about was that their questions were not substantive. Put the next one up on the screen. He said, it nagged at me that their questions weren't really about substance, he wrote, Rather, they were questioning my ideology, my approach, and my worldview. That seems pretty substantive, Like what are we talking about? Weren't about substance? What was he expecting them to ask? It was out of bounds that they wanted to know about his ideology, his approach, and his worldview. Kind of kind of wild. And then let's put the last one up on the screen. So this is Harris, he wrote, described her own experience as vice president, Stark term saying she had a rough time in a position that had little autonomy or executive authority. I was surprised by how much she seemed to dislike the role, he wrote. She noted her chief of staff would be giving me my directions, lamented that the vice president didn't have a private bathroom in their office, and how difficult it was for her at times not to have a voice in the decision. And I believe that that Kamala was not happy in that role. And you know there were lots of leaks to that effect during the Biden administration. But pretty, I mean, this is pretty.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: There's no heroes.
00:16:10
Speaker 2: Incredibly, of course not. Yeah, I mean this is incredibly lame from Josh Shapiro though, and like I said, really does sort of validate the reasons that the Hairs team had given for why he wasn't ultimately picked.
00:16:23
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I don't know, because at the same time, I think, in retrospect, I think Walts was a disastrous pick. He was a horrible debate. He basically brought nothing to the ticket.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: Look at him.
00:16:32
Speaker 3: I mean he's so weak that he has to basically drop out of the race. Immediately and can't even defend his own record in the state. And even now with the way he's handling Minnesota, I don't think any even the Libs are mad at him, and the right is mad at him. He's got nobody who was standing up.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: So he was a joke. I always thought he was an idiot.
00:16:49
Speaker 3: But you know, whenever you look at Josh Shapiro, the appealing part was not only the state of Pennsylvania, which you know she did lose by relatively small margin. It wasn't like it was a blowout. Whenever it came to the statewide election. It may have actually been worth putting up with if you had thought that it was going to do anything.
00:17:05
Speaker 1: I think, though, the.
00:17:06
Speaker 3: Case being made is that look at how these people are all.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: Divas, you know, in the way that they act.
00:17:12
Speaker 3: And like they have the victim comp Like even Kamala she's bitching about how the vice president's office doesn't have.
00:17:18
Speaker 8: A bathroom, like oh yeah, like I give a fuck whether you'd be to go to the bathroom in your private office or not, all right, And then whenever it comes to Josh Shapiro, he's like, oh, well, they were so mean to me because he's mad that they didn't come and try to offer him the role on a silver right in a way, like he wanted them to beg for him to take the job, and what they.
00:17:40
Speaker 2: Said is he was like measuring the drapes basically and like being very assertive about like what he wanted the vice presidential role to be, and they we'll, like, screw you.
00:17:48
Speaker 3: But you know, in a way I sympathize in that, like he they needed him, I think a little bit more than she needed or she needed him more than he needed her.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: Like he's still fine enough, governor.
00:17:58
Speaker 2: I mean, honestly, it kind of dodged a bullet.
00:18:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, he obviously because look at Wallt's Walts's a disast, right, he looks like a joke is out now.
00:18:05
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, I don't think Shapiro is going to win a twenty twenty eight primary, but he's still in his head, is holding onto that hope.
00:18:10
Speaker 3: For sure, for sure, but you know, at the very least, like he gets to survive, you know, if you if you take it out four years, like the fact that the sitting the vice presidential Democratic candidate who previously was like somebody you know who actually had some sort of political juice had to not run for reelection should make you seriously reassess, like the way that that entire thing went down from a pure political talent perspective, and the fact now that you know, for him dodging the bullet. What I think, though, is so bad about this book is it's all personal, and it just reveals that these people don't care about really anything.
00:18:45
Speaker 1: It's for him, It's.
00:18:45
Speaker 3: All about the slights that are all perceived, etc. Even Kamala's book was just the gallery of all of the perceived slights and how people let her down, and she was never in a position where she actually failed the public. Like, if you're a Democrat, you should be serious with this woman, like actually furious for the way she ran her campaign.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: If you're like, oh my god, Trump is so bad, it's like it's her fault, guys, I just don't get it.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, I don't. It's not all her fault, right, but you cannot avoid laying some blame at her feet. And this was the thing I never understood with the Hillary either. It's like, I mean that one really is all her fault. By and large, you are the most proximate cause of the Trump era, and I just never felt like there was a reckoning with that, and it's that's becas you know, accountability. So let's put let's put D six up on the screen because this gets to what you're speaking about with this Kamala Harris situation. So she's still imagining that she's going to run for president. And the headline here from Axios is Dems divide over Harris surfaces as she looks like twenty twenty eight contender. One top Democrat told Axios, Kamala has not accepted that she's not running yet. And I mean the that is wild to me. That is wild to me because and I know where it comes from. It's because number one, she has whoever around her that you know, when you have consultants and aids around you, they stand a financially profit off of your run, even if you'd lose, because Kamala Harris would raise money and she'd do a thing and they'd get a cut of her adviys and whatever. So they have a vested interest. And then genuinely, there's a lot of affection for her in the black community. So when she travels around and she sees these crowds of people who are you know, like genuinely admire her and appreciate her and all of that that continues to sort of like fill her head with I am the one, and you know what, you look at the polling and there still is a significant chunk of the Democratic base that will say, yeah, if in this primary field, she's the one that I would choose. But that ignores the fact that we have not one, but two presidential campaigns that we can look at with Kamala Harris, where you know, in the Democratic primary she couldn't even get off the ground, right, she had to drop out before the votes read and cast. And then in this past election, look, she failed. I mean, we ran the experiment. It didn't work. She wasn't able to win. And you can chalk that up to any number of factors that you want to, but that is reality. And so it's just it's just wild to me. And then the other part of it that is wow to me is if you still want to be part of if you want to be a leader in the Democratic Party, like there is a massive void to fill. But she is very she put on a thing now and then, but in terms of really taking the lead and like being a leader in this moment when they desperately need it. She's not there, so still continuing to demonstrate that she doesn't understand where the base is, she doesn't understand what the moment is, what the moment calls for, she doesn't know what she really believes in. That's always been kind of the core problem with her, and all of those issues are continued.
00:21:50
Speaker 3: To right, Meanwhile, she's just about an eight million dollar house in Malibu, if anybody's wondering, that's nice for her. A couple of days ago off the proceeds at the book. Yeah, I mean, here's a structural prison.
00:22:00
Speaker 1: So yeah, right, yeah, through dubious means.
00:22:03
Speaker 3: But yeah, but here's the thing with Kamala, and here's a structural problem for Democrats. They rigged the primary for Biden and have now made it South Carolina is a first date, that's right, And remember the proving And I had a lot of Christism of Iowa and New Hampshire like not to be woke, but they actually are ironically too white, as in like not and it's not about them being white. It's not representative of a general electorate and or a swing state. I always thought the first state should be Michigan or some sort of battleground state to be able to prove like the ability to get people out where the demographics are going to look a lot more like the general election, but.
00:22:38
Speaker 2: They swing state, yeah, or noth Carolina is not.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: How about Nevada?
00:22:42
Speaker 3: Right, Bada was a perfect everyone, Yeah, Nevada is a good one. Michigan and or maybe even Super Tuesday. It's not a horrible idea, just to see how you play nationally. But the fact is they rigged it so that South Carolina is going to be first, and whoever wins that gets the momentum. And this is going to be a huge uphill challenge if Kamalon does running, because she doesn't have to prove electability in Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of South Carolina, and she can immediately win a primary, which will flood the donation inbox and make her look more like the left has a huge uphill back.
00:23:13
Speaker 1: That's true to climb primary.
00:23:15
Speaker 2: To be clear, I don't think they've actually set the order of the states for twenty twenty eight, but I do think it would be difficult. New Hampshire has that thing where it's in their constitute whatever. Anyway, I do think it will be difficult to push South Carolina back in. It's certainly still going to be an incredibly consequential state, and it continues to be the biggest dumbling block for left wing candidates. There's simply no doubt about it that older black, young, young black voters left wing candidates do fine with, But older black voters that make up the base of the Democratic Party in southern states like South Carolina, I don't think that left wing candidates have figured that out.
00:23:51
Speaker 1: And it's not representative though. That's why it drives me crazy.
00:23:53
Speaker 2: It's not it and because I mean again in state, it is a Republican state, so this is not emblematic of the like. Those voters are the most reliable block of Democratic Party voters, So whoever the nominee is is going to get the backing of those voters. So you're not really demonstrating anything in terms of your certainly in terms of your electability and anyway, I mean, the whole idea that this was all about some like, oh, we need to be inclusive is just bullshit. They just did it because they thought it would be best for Joe Biden. That is the bottom line of what happened there, because you know, I'll never forget in twenty twenty when you had you know, Bernie running and he wins Iowa, Pete whatever you know, ties in Iowa. How do you want to say that does very well in Iowa, wins New Hampshire, wins Nevada, which you can say Iowa, New Hampshire, Yes, very white. Nevada extremely diverse, extremely extremely diverse in all of the pundit class that none of that really counts. That doesn't count as diversity. Only South Carolina accounts as diversity. And so in any case, I don't know what the order will be, but that regardless, that is something that you a left wing candidate is going to have to figure on or they have to hope that there is there are a variety of like establishment lane candidates who divide that vote in South Carolina because that you know, that would be the other hope. And I think that's possible.
00:25:17
Speaker 1: It is possible. But don't forget about Cliburn.
00:25:18
Speaker 3: If he's around, all he has to do is endorse you in the like Apparently forty percent of the people in South Carolina will just vote for you.
00:25:25
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's really bad.
00:25:26
Speaker 3: I think a lot of Democrats, people like you guys should get involved or try to get into a primary process, because like this is bad for the country, to make it so that it is effectively rigged, you know, by the Democratic establishment from the get go, to make it so that any sort of upstart candidate basically has no shot whatsoever. And especially how this will play in the midst of where likely to be some insurgent victories in twenty twenty six Oh, that's horrible, right to basically betray a huge part and then that would could lead to you know, the feelings of betrayal or replay the whole twenty s sixteen candidacy, which is I mean, I would say that's like the modal outcome right now, is that there's going to be a huge fight.
00:26:06
Speaker 1: Who knows.
00:26:07
Speaker 3: I never count out the democratic establishment or the ability for a lot of people to just like go along. Trump JD will be the boogeyman of the you know, he's Trump, but actually he's worse, and everybody will kind of come together and then who knows, you know, from there there may be enough people who are not willing to buy the boogeyman argument and you could potentially see some sort of close election all over again.
00:26:29
Speaker 1: I have no idea. Let's get to Epstein.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is I think a very noteworthy development. So podcaster Sean Ryan, who I think had Trump and Jade Vans on in advanceity election, you know, has been outspoken about he voted for them. You know, he truly believed, I mean what I give him this, You've truly believed the hype that they would they would reveal the secrets, they would release the Epstein. Vaz clearly something that he feels passionate about, and he is thoroughly disgusted with the cover up. Had an extraordinary conversation with Rocana. Of course spent at the forefront of pushing to get the Epstein files released, and in the context of that, you know, went aggressively after the Trump White House. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
00:27:13
Speaker 9: Why is the White House protecting pedophiles? Why is the White House protecting pedophiles? I just don't understand it. Bro, I can't fucking get it through my head. Why we would protect pedophiles. I mean, I fucking voted for this shit. I voted to get these damn files released, and it's like a total one eighty just happened. They are legitimately proactively protecting pedophiles. They are protecting pedophiles at this point.
00:27:42
Speaker 10: By redacting the abuser's name by the White House. Listen up, everybody, the fucking White House is protecting pedophiles. You hear that they're fucking protecting pedophiles. That's what the fuck they're doing.
00:28:00
Speaker 2: So making sure that everybody heard. Hey, just so you know what these people are doing, let's put the next one up on the screen, because he's been going in on Twitter as well. So this guy, Donald Trump's quote spiritual leader Robert Morris was just sentenced to a pathetic, by the way, six months in prison after pleading guilty to five counts of sexually abusing a twelve year old child. And Sean Ryan Wison and says, yeah, and he'll probably get a pardon with this administration. So he's you know, pretty aggressive going after them year and rightfully so and we have, you know, to back him up. We have some new legal moves from this administration as well. They are telling the courts the dj is arguing that no court can actually force the release of the Epstein files. According to Brian Allen, he says their position is basically, the Epstein Transparency Act doesn't create an enforcable path in federal courts, so judges cannot compel compliance. Translation will release what we want when we want, and you can't stop us. It has now been a month sent they were supposed to have released everything, and there is a tiny sliver of files that have come out, and you know, I thought we were going to get a drip drip drip. We got like a drip drip and that was it. Nothing else since what December is the last time we got any sort of release. And those releases, even though they were redacted, even though they were insufficient, they were still very damaging to Trump and very revelatory in general about you know, what Epstein was doing and you know, implicating all sorts of people. So even with this very constrained tiny amount of information that we got, there was still noteworthy information contained there. So they're completely stonewalling. They want to wash their hands of it, they want to argue in court, they don't have to do anything else, and they're flagrantly violating the law that was passed by Commerce and signed into law by the President himself.
00:29:56
Speaker 3: One of the things that makes me hopeful about the shoon Ryan, I mean, Sean, you know you got a good guy credit.
00:30:00
Speaker 1: You actually talked a lot about this.
00:30:01
Speaker 3: He just had on a child protection person on his show, Like he cares really, really deeply about this issue. And this is somebody who is I mean, he's got millions of subscribers on YouTube and in general. The way that you could assess this is part of an overall let's call it vibe shift if you will, If you'll take the totality of like Tim Dillon, Andrew Schaltz, Joe Rogan, Sean Ryan. If we accept that all of those people were vital conduits for Donald Trump or Trump thought theovon another one of them, Trump's to Trump permission structure in twenty twenty four, then we have to accept that their criticism is also a permission structure against Trump and the Republicans in twenty twenty six and potentially in twenty twenty eight. And that's why I actually think that this issue remains so important, not only because of the substance, which again we've covered since here from day one, but it matters because when it comes to a cover up and the way that they act. Let's say, as we just pointed out in the censorship block, that there immediately will come to the defense of some Florida State student who apparently got yelled at because he's wearing an IDF T shirt. But then you see them dragging their feet for a month whenever it comes to Epstein. I mean, you should freak out about that, Like, you really should be upset about that, And then you see the way that they act for multiple other high profile cases.
00:31:24
Speaker 1: By the way, if you're super.
00:31:25
Speaker 3: Right wing, shouldn't you be upset about the way that the Charlie Kirk thing went down. It's nuts, right, the way that cash Betel and the FBI botched that investigation from day one, you should be furious.
00:31:35
Speaker 1: I mean, even.
00:31:37
Speaker 3: Oh my god, the shooter remember the Brown University thing. What a shit show, And they had no idea where the person was. He ended up killing himself in a storage locker, right, That's how it all eventually went out. By the way, still haven't heard much about that. We got the transcripts of his video, and apparently it's just because he was crazy. Maybe, I mean, I don't know it seem pretty weird to me, going to assassinate the head of a nuclear science program. But yeah, so like at every step they're either incompetent and or acting as if there is something to cover up and they have nothing to say about it. And then the president the DJ and all of their behavior. Look at the way I mean Trump literally flipped that guy off, the forward worker because and then even inside the administration, they're furious with Pam Bondi for blaming her, and it is like kind of centrally her and Cash's fault because from the day one they handed out all of that Epstein files transparency, they made it into a thing which makes their retrenchment and their cover up like so much worse.
00:32:33
Speaker 9: Yeah.
00:32:33
Speaker 1: Completely, That's why I think.
00:32:35
Speaker 3: You know, there's this whole theory on the right called no you're not This will not be unfamiliar to you. You never criticize your own side. And I have always found first no enemy, no enemies to the right, which on the left as the statement right, anyone who's part of the revolution is part of the revolution, all right. So, but in this case, it is so clear to me that people who criticize get more results because if it's something that you actually care about. Look at Roe and Thomas Massey. They brute force this bill, which the administration tried to kill through all of Congress and made Donald Trump sign the bill, which was to his own detriment. That was only made possible because I mean, a small part show like ours, which is part of like this vast conduit which keeps the issue alive and to this day is forcing like continued transparency. If you want to have something be done, the worst thing you can be is sycophantic, Which is why I think it's really good that somebody like Sean Ryan or any of these other people continue to speak up about the issue, because something in the zeitgeist is genuinely the only way that this will ever like where we even remotely come to some sort of transparency, even though I will still never believe, you know, most of what they put out yea, and I don't really think that that's you know, where it is. I do hope though, we can normalize this so when the Democrats, if they eventually come into power, actually just release the entire thing, and then you know, perhaps we will get closure day.
00:34:00
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:34:01
Speaker 2: Put E four just last piece up on the screen. To your point about sickofancy so courageously you had, you needed four Republicans to sign on to, you know, to get this discharge petition through, to get this law passed. You had Thomas Massey, you had Marjorie Taylor Green, you had Lauren Bobert, and you had Nancy Mace. And the White House aggressively went after Nancy Mace and Lauren Bobert in particular, and which one of them was that they pulled into the situation. One of them just didn't answer the phone. Bobert. They like pulled in the situation where they do the whole thing, like full pressure campaign. And to her credit, she did not cave. She signed on to it. And that's that is the reason why this law was ultimately passed. Well, now they are all just trying to, you know, move on. They don't want to talk about it anymore. Lauren Bobert in particular said, quote, I don't give a rip about Epstein, Like, there's so many other things we need to be working on. I've done what I had to do for Epstein. Talk to somebody else about that. It's no longer in my hands. So outside of Massy and then Marjorie tillergreen is on in Congress now, so outside of mass on the Republican side, they really are all just hoping this sort of goes away, Like they're probably hoping the administration wins in court that you know that the courts can't actually compel them to do anything, and they just continue to sit on it and there's no drip drip drip, drip drip that they have to deal with. They're just hoping this all goes away at this point.
00:35:26
Speaker 3: And look, it could be right because I mean, even we are subject to global affairs, this is our what is it e block?
00:35:34
Speaker 1: Right?
00:35:35
Speaker 3: What do we have to leave lead with Davos Greenland? Yeah, Ice, I mean, look, I mean it's not that you're falling for their game, but like we do have to quite literally order the news in terms of relative importance, and you can't be on top of everything at all times. That's part of the tragedy of their strategy is it usually does work whenever they're in power. I do hope if the Democrats, let's say, take the House in midterms, that they just you know, create a Bengazi level shit storm which makes them which constantly keeps it in the news constantly forces you know, reckoning or pressure on the administration because as they've already shown, they had to fold on this issue. I would say this is probably the biggest legislative loss that happened in Trump's entire presidency, even going back to two thousand.
00:36:20
Speaker 1: Ex pol, which is shocked.
00:36:22
Speaker 3: Is shocking that it actually was able to come to fruit and that they didn't bruce force it and eventually veto So that shows the crack that people can continue to work through. So anyway, I think I think it's a positive development. We would be remiss if we didn't give our flowers here to Ben Affleck and to Matt Damon in their recent appearance on Joe Rogan dropping several truth bombs, not just about AI, but also about our movie industry and the way it currently works. Here's Ben's rumination on AI. You could have taken it straight out of like a Bloomberg analysis.
00:36:53
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
00:36:55
Speaker 11: What I see is, for example, if you try to get chat Ebt or Claude or Gemin to write you something, it's really shitty. And it's shitty because by its nature it goes to the mean, to the average, and it's and it's not reliable, and it's I mean, I just can't stand to see what writes. Now. It's a useful tool if you're a writer and you're going, ah, what's the thing. I'm trying to set something up where somebody sends someone a letter but it's delayed two days and gets and it can give you some examples of that. I actually don't think it's very likely that it can it's going to be able to write anything meaningful or and in particular that it's going to be making movies like from Hoole Cloth like Tilly normal, Like that's bullshit. I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's not. I think it actually turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they sort of presented it. And really what it is is going to be a tool just like sort of visual facts, and yeah, it needs to have language around it. You need to protect your name and likeness. You can do that. You can water market your those laws already exist. You can't. I can't sell your fucking picture for money. I can't you consume me. Period. It kind of feels to me like things earlier where there's a lot more fear because we have the sense that's existential dread, it's gonna wipe everything out. But that actually runs counter, in my view, to what history seems to show, which is a adoption is slow, it's incremental. I think a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who are trying to justify valuations around companies, where they go, we're gonna change everything in two years. There's gonna be no more work. But the reason they're saying that is because they need to ascribe evaluation for investment that can warrant the cape spend they're gonna make on these data centers, with the argument that like, oh, you know, as soon as we do the next model, it's gonna scale up. It can be three times as good, except that actually chat Chap five about twenty five times percent better than chatchipp four and costs about four times as much in the way of electricity and data. So those and they say that it's like plateauing the early AI. The line went up very steeply and it's now sort of leveling off. I think it's because and yes, it'll get better, but it's gonna be really expensive to get better, and a lot of people were like, fuck this, we want chat GP four because it turned out like the vast majority of people who use AI are using it to like as like companion bots to chat with at night, and so there's no work, there's no productivity, there's no value to it.
00:39:16
Speaker 1: Has he been watching Breaking points like this guy's so good?
00:39:19
Speaker 3: But the reason why I thought it was important was because there is quite a bit of concern still around AI and it's creative endeavors in Hollywood, and there absolutely should be because of the potential. I mean, look at the New Avatar movie, like it's insane what people are able to create literally like out of nothing is CGI technology and all of that, et cetera. But what I think he actually hit the nail on the head though, is that while in the long run there remains quite a bit of danger, in the immediate term, many of these companies are lying. Much of their behavior indicates that there's nothing that great or new coming chat GBT putting in ads into the feed means we're kind of there for the interim period and we just need to monetize the shit out of this to continue pumping all of these data centers. And actually the difference between you know, chat GPT five and four point eight or whatever really only matters in like a few select cases. And though the data crunch is like immense, but at the consumer level, like he said, we're talking about companion bots and all this other parasocial weirdo stuff which is causing all these social pathologies. So I actually think he just like really eloquently kind of put it together.
00:40:29
Speaker 2: I'm a little skeptical now. I need to be honest with you, because here's why. It is because of the economics of Yes, to run all the data centers is very expensive, but to be the studio that says, you know, give me a plot that hits X, y and z points and there it is, it's extremely cheap.
00:40:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, extremely cheap.
00:40:47
Speaker 2: And so there's an assumption that they're going to care about quality that I just don't think is really true. I think when you have that level, there's going to be some large number of you know, studios that push in the direction of we're just going to do quantity over quality. I mean, you already see this YouTube is in some ways kind of like a good place to see the way that these things will take off. You already have these channels that will just put out like endless numbers of AI songs I have right for some of these there we've got Yannis faa Faucus came on and talked about how there's all these channels that deep fake him and some of the videos genuinely hit, you know. And so if you're just able to easily churn out a ton of content that some of it's going to be so shitty no one watches it, but some of it will be good enough that it does garner an audience, there are going to be a lot of people who go in that direction of like of just slop creation because the economics of it are everything, and they don't give a shit about like artistic creation, and you know, and so the fact that it's low quality is right. That it's low quality, there's no doubt about it. But and it's improving, Mark that I do think he's right too about the acceleration has slowed down in terms of the improvement curve, and it kind of is at a bit of a stasis right now, at least for the moment. But that to me doesn't rule out the possibility that it's going to come to dominate the sort of like creative space simply because of the way that the economics.
00:42:18
Speaker 1: Of it were.
00:42:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe I've made the great mistake of thinking that people value anything of artistic high talent and that slop will always win, which is usually the case, I guess right now in our current system.
00:42:30
Speaker 1: You're not wrong.
00:42:31
Speaker 3: And at the end of the day, one thing that I thought was really important and illuminating from what they said, because they made this whole case for why they are new movies on Netflix. But they eventually kind of gave the game away about the executives and how they talk, and I'd never heard words put to it.
00:42:47
Speaker 1: But I had watched the first.
00:42:49
Speaker 3: Episode of this New Stranger Things just you know whatever, it's something to do during Christmas, and I was like, this is the shittiest written show I have ever seen in my entire life. Where they would gather around the table and consistently reiterate the plot and like bang you over the face, which is the opposite of good writing. Good writing is when you're able to say all of these different just to be like, you remember our brother John, he died five years ago, right, just like you need to try and engineer in a script to give that away without the characteristics, saying.
00:43:19
Speaker 2: The central tension it works Gloring there is his breakup with Jamie.
00:43:23
Speaker 3: Exactly correct. That is what all Netflix slop now currently sounds like. They revealed why that is because people are on their phones and you have to be banged over the head with the plot over and over again or you're going to lose track.
00:43:36
Speaker 1: Here's what they had to say, aperience of watching at home.
00:43:38
Speaker 12: I think you know, you're watching in a room, the lights are on, other shit's going on, the kids are running around, the dogs are running around, whatever it is, you know what I mean. It's just a very different level of attention that you're willing to or that you're able to give to it. And that has a big effect, and it also ends up having an effect or is starting to have an effect on how you make movies, like for instance, Netflix, you know, the standard way to make an action movie that we learned was, you know, you usually have like three set pieces, one in the first act one and the second one and the third and you know you kind of they kind of ramp up and the big one with all the explosions, and you spend most of your money on that one in the third act that's your kind of finale. And now they're you know, they're like, can we get a big one in the first five minutes to get somebody? You know, we want people to stay yeah, tuned in and ken and you know, it wouldn't be terrible if you reiterated the plot three or four times in the dialogue because people are on their phones while they're watching, you know what I mean. So then it's gonna really start to infringe on creatively.
00:44:39
Speaker 11: Yeah, we're telling, but then you look at our lessons. Didn't do anything, didn't do any of the fucking great you know what I mean.
00:44:44
Speaker 3: See, that's why I was like, I was like, Wow, that is why Netflix slop sounds the way that it does. It's because it's purely regression to the mean, as he just said with Ai, where anything, even even great concept shows, they you know, I don't think it's deniable, like Stranger Things season one, like that was a phenomenon. People really love that show, but what it ended up being like, oh my god, it's horrific. And there are multiple of these kind of over the years, and they just keep pumping out multiple seasons of this absolute nonsense, which just continues to get worse and worse and worse and worse, And I didn't realize how much of this like second screen phenomenon is now being directly pressured into the very content which is now dominating.
00:45:26
Speaker 1: And so I don't know.
00:45:27
Speaker 3: Sometimes this may be a long winded way of saying like I'm now afraid. Originally I was generally supportive of of Netflix buying Warner Brothers and HBO over Paramount Skuydance, But now I'm like, wait, we don't want this nonsense to come to HBO either. Like I'm currently watching the show industry, I've never seen anything like it where it is now currently.
00:45:46
Speaker 1: Only they could do that, Like, only they could.
00:45:49
Speaker 3: Do that, and it would never be able to exist in the sloppy list world of where we are right now on Netflix. So maybe you're correct that the AI slop is ultimately which just what's going to take over.
00:45:58
Speaker 2: These guys were very like they were very optimistic, and they were very like, you know, they were talking about how, look, we've experienced these changes in your own history, and people every time are upset about what's lost, but ultimately, you know, it's more convenient for people to be at home on there, like you know, watching them have usually got a big, nice flat screen TV, and it's a convenient experience. And they did talk about how you do lose something that is a different experience when you have the distractions contained in your house, whether it's your kids or your dog, or your tours or whatever it is, that that is a different experience from being in the theater together. But they were sort of like ambivalent and they're like, that's fine, but you know, I've kind of come to view things a little bit differently of that all of the people in the past who warned about like the radio was going to take away from family time or the TV is going to create this like homogeneous culture and we're going to be you know, and the warnings they had about that and the way that it would turn you into a zombie, like, they weren't wrong. They were you know, they were all correct, and they were correct about that there would be things that would be lost that come along with that technology. And the fact that we grew up with it and that was just the only world that we knew and we were fine with it doesn't mean that they were incorrect about the parts of life that would be pushed to the Margins by the advent of that technology.
00:47:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of my friends just recommended this book to me. I think it's called like Tech Exit.
00:47:22
Speaker 1: I love this.
00:47:23
Speaker 3: She quit television's she like deleted all social media, which you know, that's like step one. Yea, she quit TV period. She does not watch television dinner. She's a mom of two.
00:47:35
Speaker 1: And I was like, man, that's like I kind of want to I want to try it.
00:47:37
Speaker 3: A little bit, you know, as somebody, because exactly what you're talking about is, you know, the original or started with the TV dinner in the fifties and the sixties, which took people away from the dinner table, and then what it became is now people will they may even be sitting you know, how many times have you gone out to dinner and somebody across the table from me was like this on their phone, right, Yeah, And so now we created the device which is now here everywhere. And you know, not to be like a crazy ludited, especially for two people to make their career on the internet, but it's one of those where in your own personal life you're right in that you do have to ask and say that many of the most vicious critics like when we think back about the television and what people said about that. Maybe, like in the late eighties and nineties, especially with cable TV, there was a real reckoning in the same way are talking about AI. They're like, this is a disaster, it's actually going to destroy you know, at that time, people were watching seven hours of TV per day, family unit. It'll make everybody dumber. I think they're probably right. You know, it did kill critical thinking if you want to look, really, the most disastrous statistics around phones and AI is books. The amount of Americans now who read even one book a year is like a record all time low. The bookstore industry is only prospering at the high end for people who make it like a social currency and value to read, and professors across the country are talking about all people do is just chat shept summarize books and readings instead of actually engaging or reading with the text. I think it's a I mean, obviously not only in terms of people making people dumber, but then you create a culture, just like you're talking about with TV and radio, where if your kids don't even see you reading, Like my kid is now this age where she wants to eat what I want to eat, which is a very powerful thing because you're like, wow, mimicry is literally the way that these children develop and learn in the world. Well, she would never see me, you know. I famously have only listened to audiobooks for ten years. I started breaking out the real books again because I'm like, she needs to see me read because then she'll want to read. That's the only way to normalize the type of behavior. But you have to be very intentional about it.
00:49:36
Speaker 2: Because my eight year old Ida, We're talking about reading and how much I enjoy and where she's like, you never read, was like, what are you talking about? But it's because she Yeah, she doesn't see me with the book. And even if I am reading a physical book, it's usually on like my phone right and then, but mostly what I do is listen to audiobooks. Yeah, same, So yeah, I had that realization recently of like, oh, like, even though I I am a reader and it is an important part of my life, she actually is not.
00:50:03
Speaker 1: She has no clue witnessing that.
00:50:06
Speaker 2: But in any case, to go back to it, I mean we also have to acknowledge like even as obviously the drawbacks blah blah blah, we also we like we like having the thing, you know, I mean there are obviously there are positive things about it too, which is why it is so widespread and why it has you know, completely taken into the culture. But in any case, the two guys very thoughtful, very interesting conversation.
00:50:29
Speaker 1: People, especially the first half. Yeah, it was very good. Yeah.
00:50:32
Speaker 3: I will listen to them talk anytime any day. Also, Matt Ben if you're listening, man would love to talk.
00:50:38
Speaker 1: We can talk all week. We don't even have to talk about new movies. We can only do old that would be even better. All right, thank you everybody for listening. We appreciate it.
00:50:44
Speaker 3: I know we went very long today, so the show is going to be late. It is what it is. I hope you enjoy it. Nonetheless, and counter no, Ryan and Emily will see you all tomorrow. There is no count of the show.
00:50:53
Speaker 2: Formerly, I don't know why I like to call.
00:50:55
Speaker 1: It Ryan and Emily will see you all tomorrow.
00:51:01
Speaker 10: Put tagotu
