5/5/26: Iran Hits Critical UAE Facility, Prof Pape On Iran Escalation, Trump Courts Fetterman, Voting Rights Act Debate

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hard Way with your favorite therapist and host, Keir Gaines. This space is about black men's experiences, having honest conversations that it's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit of armor? It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability, that does not mean that you need to. Listen to Learn the Hard Way on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.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. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. I have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. So yesterday, right after our show concluded, Iran struck the UAE. Are we headed back to full-on war? We will take a look at the indications. Also, Professor Pape is going to join us. There's a press conference that's expected this morning. So hopefully we'll have some clips for him to react to and get his thoughts as well. Republicans are trying to woo John Fetterman to switch parties, complicating Democratic math. This comes in the wake of this Supreme Court decision, which changes the nature of the Voting Rights Act and opens the ability for Republicans to eliminate a lot of majority black districts in the South also, making it much more difficult for Democrats to achieve a majority in the House. New numbers about how almost everyone loses money on Polymarket and Kalshi. Do not delude yourself otherwise. A comprehensive look at Trump corruption, something that has been sorely lacking because it is just so overwhelming, the number of schemes and crimes being committed by this administration. And we also are going to take a look at a pretty stunning speech that MTG gave at the Ron Paul Institute in Texas that is getting a lot of attention where she spills some tea about her breakup with President Trump. Yes, that's right. Shout out to MTG. Also, I'm really excited for Isaac. I recently met him at a conference. He's such an interesting guy. Really did a good job on this story. Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing, supporting the show, breakingpoints.com. We had a fun AMA yesterday. And if you are watching this on YouTube, please just hit subscribe to our channel. If you're listening to this podcast, please share an episode with a friend. It really helps other people find the show. But let's go ahead and start with what happened in the UAE. Let's go ahead and start with this video. We'll put it up here on the screen so you can all see. This is in Fujairah. This is part of the UAE, an oil terminal, where actually they're able to export oil by bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. It is the only oil terminal. Now, we do not know which is able to do that within the UAE. We do not know the full extent of the damage. However, you could see that fires were raging and that there was smoke visible across the country. We also know, let's put A2 up there on the screen. This was from Dropside News. This has footage of the alleged warning shots. This was released by the Iranian state media, so you can all see that. A couple of interesting and noteworthy parts whenever we start to break it down. Let's move on to A3, please, just so we can see this. The UAE air defenses engage 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones. So this was not a small attack. This was a serious attack by Iran on the UAE. 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones. Obviously, I do think that it was a dual-purpose attack by Iran. Number one, they're showing that not only do they still have ballistic and cruise missile capacity, mobile launchers that are able to evade U.S. detection, UAE detection, but also they have the drone threat. Now, some of those were able to collide, obviously, with the Fujairah plant and take at least some of that production that was offline. This was done in retaliation for the blockade by the United States that's currently happening and the announcement that we covered yesterday of Project Freedom. Project Freedom, as you will all recall, basically, Crystal, is a map to tankers saying, here's where all the mines are. Just go through this way. We're not going to escort you. Just please just go ahead and go that way. And they're like, yeah, no, I think we're good actually. Just in case that we might get shot up by, oh, I don't know, a drone or an IRGC fast boat. So things went hot very, very quick. Trump is downplaying it for right now, but the attack nonetheless is very, very significant for proving their capacity and willingness to engage. And obviously now the ceasefire, it's always kind of been fake, but now it's definitely fake. Yeah, well, Trump downplaying it is a significant development. He got asked, you know, do you think the ceasefire is violated? And he tried to, you know, get out of saying directly that Iran had violated the ceasefire and that they were headed back to war. What does that mean? Who knows? Time will tell, I suppose. But these strikes, obviously, incredibly significant. And I think from the Iranian perspective, they were trying to achieve a few things. First of all, they wanted to send a message to the U.S. of, no, we're not just going to sit here and take it and allow you to try to create some phony impression of what's going on in the Strait of Hormuz or to violate our control of the Strait of Hormuz. It does appear that the U.S. was able to help assist two commercial vessels to get through the Strait. Now, those are commercial vessels that have sort of direct links to the U.S. government. Outside of those, we're going to play for Professor Pape, an Indian ship captain who's in the region. He's like, oh, we're not going to just try our luck with the Strait of Hormuz. Our companies will not allow us to take on that level of risk. That is not happening. So in any case, number one, they wanted to send a message to the U.S. Number two, in terms of their choice of target, they increasingly view the UAE as an extension of Israel. We previously brought you the reporting that there are IDF soldiers which are stationed in the UAE. In addition, Israel has provided them with Iron Dome defenses. And in fact, reporting is, and Israel is claiming, that it was those defenses provided by Israel that engaged these missiles and these drones as they were heading towards the UAE. So UAE is effectively seen as like a, you know, a mini Israel. And it's a closer target, easier target for Iran to hit more. You know, it's very weak. There are some obviously strategic targets there, the Fujairah being a case in point. And then another goal here is to continue to divide the Gulf Arab states. Saudi from UAE in particular. But, you know, the fact that UAE has gone all in on this greater Israel project effectively with Israel is not something that is looked too kindly upon by some other states in the region. So this serves that purpose as well. But the big picture here is Iran saying, no, we're not going to sit by and let you make some big announcement to the world and try to change the reality of our control over the Strait of Hormuz. If we need to engage militarily, we are not afraid to do that. and your allies in the region continue to have severe vulnerabilities. Yes, that's right. Let's put A5 up there on the screen. There's a lot of stuff that smells fishy, I think, here in the United States. So the commander of CENTCOM, Admiral Brad Cooper, did a briefing with reporters yesterday where he said more commercial ships are en route to travel, but was not able to give any information on what they were. As you said, two U.S. flags were successfully did travel out of the strait. quote, when I asked how many ships had been hit by Iran, he declined to give a number. Don't tell the enemy you know what they've been able to achieve. So, okay. Anyway, there's that. We do know at least one of them. It was a South Korean ship. Let's put A6 up here on the screen. So ridiculous. Here is from the president. This was immediately after the shots were fired on the South Korean ship specifically. Trump has not really fully addressed the UAE attack now so far. He says, Iran has taken some shots at unrelated nations with respect to ship movement. Project Freedom, including a South Korean cargo ship, perhaps it's time for South Korea to come and join the mission. We've shot down seven small boats, or as they like to call them, fast boats. It's all they have left. Other than the South Korean ship, there has been, at this moment, no damage going through the strait. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Cain will have a news conference tomorrow morning. That's right now, and it's actually happening. I'm monitoring. Currently, We will have clips, which we will play later on for Professor Pape. I will just give you this gem. Pete Hegseth, as a direct gift from the U.S. to the world, we have established a powerful red, white, and blue dome over the strait. Okay. I love Trump's truth there, too. That's like, other than the damage that was done, there was no damage that was done. Oh, I'm sure that'll make people feel very confident at, you know, transiting through. These are not soldiers. We're talking about regular, you know, working class people of the world, truly like from all over the world. And, you know, and backed by large conglomerates and having to deal with insurance prices, etc. I don't think they're going to be too eager to risk their lives in a hot war zone when the U.S. is not committing any military assets to assisting with this process. Well, they can't really. Let's put a seven up there on the screen. By the way, the number was actually six, not seven, in terms—see what I did there? —of the small Iranian boats, as Trump warns regime, could be blown off the face of the earth. I do just want to add, too, the Iranians are claiming these were civilian boats. I don't know the veracity of what is the case, but in any case, that's the claim that's being made. No one knows. I'm not sure I believe—I think in this case, I actually don't believe the Iranians, just because that the fast boat is the primary reason that they exist in the first place in the Straits of Hormuz. Those fast boats built by the IRGC, they have videos that they released before the war. It's honestly stunning. It's like huge tunnels and areas where they're able to go directly from the tunnel into the strait, and they're extremely cheap, basically just a motor. A couple of guys, they could even have mines. They would have shoulder-fired missiles, all kinds of different munitions, or even small arms in some cases, where they're just able to go out. I mean, it's very, very difficult to detect. They're obviously moving rapidly. They can just go do a strike and then they can come back. Also, it's only like two people per ship or per boat in each of these cases. And so it's not a lot of risk whenever you're sending out, let's say, six, seven, if you will, of many of these boats that are out there. And then they have literally hundreds if not thousands that are in reserve. The U.S., remember, while the war was, the hot part of the war initially was going on, was pounding the coastline to trying to take out a lot of these bunkers. But a lot of them were concrete. They were said to have been fortified. Obviously, they've also had a few weeks now, if they need to, to try and dig some of these out of the rubble. It just demonstrates the asymmetric problem that we're dealing with here. We did have Trump on the phone yesterday with Fox News' Trey Yankst. Let's take a listen to that. And I spoke with President Trump for 20 minutes about the situation with Iran. He talked about Project Freedom and the U.S. efforts to guide vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, issuing a new warning to the Iranian regime, saying if the Iranians try to target U.S. ships in this area, they will be, quote, blown off the face of the earth. Remember, this was a project implemented by the Americans overnight to assist the hundreds of vessels that are currently trapped in the Persian Gulf. We're talking about more than 20,000 sailors. And the president told Fox he's doing this for humanity. Some of these sailors were running out of food and supplies on these vessels due to the Iranian threats that are ongoing in this area. And again, the president saying that if U.S. ships in the region are targeted, the Iranians will be blown off the face of the earth. Now, I also asked President Trump about the possibility of negotiations with Iran succeeding. He said the Iranians are being far more malleable than they were being in the past, showing flexibility given the U.S. pressure that continues as part of the American blockade of Iranian ports. President Trump called that blockade the greatest military maneuver in history. As it relates to the combat preparations that continue across the region, President Trump understands there are two paths here. The Iranians either make a good faith deal or ultimately combat operations could resume. And President Trump told Fox News that right now they have bases all over the world. There are American preparations underway. He said they're all stocked with equipment and we can use all of that stuff. And if he needs it, he will use it. So there you go. I will blow them off the face of the air. I mean, I don't know how credible or all of that to take it, but it is important nonetheless. I will say that people, you know, the war drums are beating hard again here in Washington. Let's put Lindsey Graham's tweet up here on the screen. And spot on, Mr. President, the combination of Iran's attacks against UAE's vital infrastructure and the continued attacks on international shipping, including a South Korean cargo ship, more than justifies a big, strong, short response to inflict further damage on Iran's war machine. UAE has been a champion ally in this fight, doing everything that's being asked of them. Like what, by the way? By buying our weapons or shooting the weapons that we gave them already? I guess. Iran's recent brazen attack against the UAE tells me a lot about who's in charge in Iran and the chance of a diplomatic solution at any time. A forceful response on behalf of our ally, UAE, will reinforce that America is back as a reliable ally, helping to further wash away the damage caused by the Biden administration on this front. I will say, I couple this with a late-night appearance by Lindsey last night on Fox News, where he actually seems to be backing away from this. By the way, this would be a humiliation for the U.S. It's like, oh, well, we can't respond. I'm saying in their framework. General Cain this morning just revealed that U.S. has been attacked six to ten times by the Iranians since the ceasefire, like directly by Iran. And then he said, but that's below the threshold to resume major combat operations. So you know that these hawks, when they hear something like that, are going to go crazy because they go like, oh, we've got to establish deterrence, which is what the Iranians are doing too. But last night on Sean Hannity's show, he said there's no need for boots on the ground in Iran. Instead, a Second Amendment solution stands a real chance of giving the Iranian people a genuine path back to freedom. So he's advocating for the Libya-Syria model where he's like – he said we already have thousands of boots on the ground. It's called the Iranian people. They just need guns. So he's like let's flood the country with a bunch of guns. I actually do wonder how much of a talking point this will become as it's clear that the direct engagement has totally failed is that they will just adopt a maximum pressure sanctions blockade strategy and try to flood the country with as much weapons as possible. Now, obviously, because the Iranian regime still has some power and firepower, they're not just going to sit that and take it lightly like Gaddafi or Assad basically did or they just didn't have the capacity to. They're much stronger than they were. But I saw that and I was like, huh, maybe that's the direction that things are going to go. Very much in the Libya and the Syria vein where they know that Trump doesn't have the appetite. You know, the Wall Street Journal has this report. Every day Trump is oscillating. Should I attack? Should I not attack? I don't want to engage. But I also want to open the strait. He can see the gas coverage like anybody else. And, you know, it's like, look, it's a problem of his own creation. He should have never done it in the first place. But seeing this, I could see it going down that road. But of course, it still has tremendous risk. Well, and what they would do then is, you know, allow more pressure to build some other precipitating event. The next protest that, you know, Mossad backed protest with our weapons that is brutally repressed. Then it's going to be, oh, the regime is weak again and we'll be back here, you know, back here down the road. I think that's entirely possible also because, I mean, the math in terms of interceptors, in terms of our own stockpiles continues to be reality. There's been nothing in this brief, quote unquote, ceasefire time that has changed those dynamics. And so it's hard to see any military solution that is going to fundamentally change the, you know, the what both sides would bring to the bargaining table. And so it's kind of a matter of time. Now, the the thing on the other side of that is whether the Iranians would accept that because, you know, they they may find that unacceptable. Well, they're anxious to secure the gains that they have made through the war, you know, through some sort of an actual peace deal so that they're not continually threatened with war in the future. So, you know, I don't know that they would accept that new status quo that, you know, the Lindsey Graham's of the world, et cetera, may want to push. And, you know, it is we talked a little bit to treat to Parsi yesterday about FDD's involvement and how much their reasoning and quote unquote analysis is apparently influential in the White House. They are the ones that produced this analysis that was like, oh, their oil wells are going to explode. And all you need is, you know, 14 days of blockade to stop the spread or whatever. And apparently this was bought by Trump because he's desperate. So anything that he sees that even purports to give him a way out, he's going to grab onto, whether that is pure fantasy, which in this case, it's already clear that that was utter and pure fantasy that he's grabbing onto. But it's been a very dangerous situation when it's Lindsey Graham, Mark Thiessen, who's a George W. Bush, like died in the wool, neocon, exactly the kind of guy that Trump would have claimed he'd have nothing to do with in the past. Him, Lindsey Graham and FDD. And now you've got an FDD guy who's on the negotiating team, which is insane. I mean, that's an incredibly dire development that not only do you have Whitcoff, who's an idiot, Kushner, who's an Israeli asset. And then you've got this FDD guy who also would be almost definitionally in, you know, at least in Neocon, if not also an Israeli asset. So not looking good in terms of where things are heading right now. No. Yeah. I mean, it's not just. Well, even when we talk about negotiating team, negotiation team for what? There's no negotiation. Right. Well, I mean, in that part, too, I always am. Look, the Iranians keep trying to make clear that they are trying to negotiate. So Arachi put out a statement yesterday. He said as negotiations are progressing. But he said negotiations with Pakistan. And so I think this mediation continues. But there's been formal response. They deliver to Pakistan. Pakistan sends it to us. Both sides are still very, very far apart now. I don't know. I mean, maybe things will just try and continue in this direction. But the war drums, as I said, they continue. Let's put A10 on the screen. Naftali Bennett, the United Arab Emirates. This is the former Israeli prime minister, also running now in the current election. The United Arab Emirates, our strategic ally, has just been attacked by Iran. This is, in effect, a declaration of the renewal of Iran's war against the allies of the United States and Israel across the region. This regional alliance is vital to our security and to the security of moderate partners in the Gulf and the Middle East. Iran continues to try and intimidate the region and poses a threat to global security. We stand with our ally. Trita Parsi also made the joke that many Iranian monarchists are now adding UAE flags to their bios along with Israeli. So it's Israel, America, the monarchist flag, and now the UAE flag. I don't know. You know, you see this. I did initially think that immediately that Trump would have to respond just because it's such a public thing. Like this is it's not just an attack on the UAE. It is an attack on their most vital oil infrastructure, like the thing that is keeping them afloat at all in the country. And you're setting it on fire, and you're not just sending one drone. You're sending all these ballistic cruise missiles, drones. It's a serious thing. Multiple, I think, South Asian laborers were actually injured as a result of the attack. You even had some crazy drone attack that hit an apartment complex in Oman yesterday. So at first you're like, wow, like how could they possibly just sit there and take it? But I think Trump response where he basically said it not a violation of the ceasefire effectively in one of these phone interviews And this morning appears to have directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say directly that this does not rise to the threshold of major combat operations They afraid of having to go back to war. They're honestly desperate to try to avoid it, but they're not desperate enough to actually cut a deal. So that's where things stand right now. Really does vindicate, I think, Professor Pape's framework about how Iran has turned itself into a regional power. So with that, Let's get to it. podcasts. Hey, this is Robert from the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast. Joe and I are both lifelong Star Wars fans, so we're celebrating May the 4th with a brand new week of fun, thought-provoking Star Wars-related episodes. Join us as we tackle science and culture topics from a galaxy far, far away, such as the biology of tauntauns and wampas on the ice planet Hot, or the practicality and corporate business sense of the Sith Rule of Two. Listen to Stuff to Blow Your Mind on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. They did. They kicked her out and paid for a hotel, and they thought, it's finally over. Days later, she called her son-in-law at work, claiming that his partner had been in some kind of freak accident and had been rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. He called every hospital in the city, and his partner was making coffee the entire time. She faked a medical emergency just to test whether or not he loved her son? Yeah, and she sat in the hospital parking lot, waiting for him to see if he would show up. When that didn't work, she walked into the son-in-law's police station and filed a kidnapping report against him. She filed a kidnapping report against him in his own police station? And spoilers, karma's going to show up in the best way possible. So if you want to hear how this story ends, search OK Storytime on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to podcasts. Joining us now is Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. He also has the Escalation Trap Substack, where you'll be doing a live briefing on May 10th at 5 p.m. Eastern Time with the Escalation Trap, which we always look forward to. Link down in the description that you can go ahead and sign up for. Professor, thank you so much for joining us. As always, we appreciate you. Yeah, thank you very much for having me. Thank you. Well, let's go ahead and start, sir, with all of these developments in the Straits of Hormuz. Initially, we have this announcement from the Secretary of Defense this morning, or sorry, Secretary of War this morning, Pete Hegseth, about Operation Freedom to try and to guide ships out of the Straits of Hormuz. Not to get them back in, but at the very least in the initial time out. Here is his announcement about a red, white, and blue dome. Let's take a listen. As a direct gift from the United States to the world, we have established a powerful red, white, and blue dome over the strait. American destroyers are on stations supported by hundreds of fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and surveillance aircraft providing 24-7 overwatch for peaceful commercial vessels. Except Iran's, of course. Which is why our ironclad blockade remains in full effect as well. In fact, six ships tried to run the blockade out of Iranian ports as Project Freedom commenced, and they were all turned around. What do you make of this Project Freedom, sir, of this red, white and blue dome and this rhetoric now coming from the Pentagon? This is a high risk bet that the Trump administration is making, and it's a bet they really cannot afford to lose. The goal here is fairly straightforward. What you are seeing is an effort by the United States to run the blockade. They're trying to break Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz by literally running ships through the blockade. And then the bet is, and this is the risk, the gamble, the bet is that Iran will not fight back, that Iran will not shoot back. That's the issue here. There's a certain lane. That lane is identified. And what you are already seeing is that Iran yesterday signaled quite clearly with essentially demonstration shots and even warning shots across the bow of our U.S. Navy ships that it is going to fight back. So the Trump administration has not lost the bet yet, but it is right on the edge of that. And if, in fact, as we're hearing from Secretary Higgs this morning, we're going to run that blockade, there is an extremely good chance that Iran is going to respond. And then this will mean if they hit just one ship, one U.S. vessel, I don't mean the South Korean, I don't mean the UAE. If they hit a U.S. vessel here, that is probably going to trigger what you are hearing, Secretary Hague says, with all of that other force, the spiral then of escalation. And that's really what we're on the precipice of here this week. I'm sorry to say that this is what the escalation trap looks like. It's not, folks, linear. So a lot of people think that it should be happening day by day and just simply progressing day by day. History, we need to understand, we're watching history in motion now. And when we read about history of the past events, that kind of smooths out the lumpiness of history. That's true. History is lumpier, and that's why it feels lumpier, you know, not linear. But the truth is, when we write about these events, it's going to seem pretty linear. Yeah. Yeah. I want to get your reaction to another clip from that press conference, this one from General Cain, because to your point, yesterday after our show, we were watching these strikes from Iran on the UAE, the damage to the South Korean ship. And we're saying, oh, boy, this may be we may be looking at, you know, back to total war. Trump administration seems to have taken the decision to downplay the significance of those attacks. that trend continued with General Cain. Here, let's take a listen to that. The map shows the examples and samples of Iranian attacks against commercial vessels in the strait, as well as the Gulf of Oman, and up in the Arabian Gulf. Since the ceasefire was announced, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times and seized two container ships. And they've attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times, all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point. You can also see the group of tankers and cargo vessels in the U.S. blockade line, as I mentioned. As a result of Iran's indiscriminate attacks across the region, there are currently 22,500 mariners embarked on more than 1,550 commercial vessels trapped in the Arambian Gulf, unable to transit. So the key line there, he says all of those attacks were quote, below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point. What do you make of this type of language? So this is what I was anticipating when I said an attack on a U.S. Navy ship. And also this is what I published yesterday morning on the sub stack before all this really unfolded is the key threshold here for the Trump administration is likely going to be Iran attacking U.S. Navy ships directly, hitting one of those ships. Now, of course, they're not oblivious to the attack on the UAE, and they're not going to be oblivious to attack on the tankers. But in order for this to go forward, if we're really going to have this operation run, the United States can accept damage to the ships and can accept damage to our allies, the real, where this will get America's attention for real is when those sailors are killed. The first time those ships are hit, the first time there's a fire on those ships, the first time there's actually dead sailors on those ships, this is going to be, as much as we're paying attention to this now, you maybe have special sessions here at Breaking Points, this is going to create a lot more consternation inside of America. And so that's why I was specific about the threshold. And General Cain, you know, he said it today, but it's not a surprise that a military, U.S. military, the leading officer would have the number one threshold be, don't attack my troops. Right. And yet, you know, he did say that they had been attacked. It's just that, you know, thankfully they haven't been killed. That's right. It's really about that breaking through Iran, for what it said, was it was a warning set of shots it fired yesterday. Now, we don't really know. We're not in Iran's head in the decision loop. So we don't know if they meant to hit a U.S. ship and miss or if it was a warning shot. But this is going to become clearer in the next day or two or this week, very, very likely. It really is the case. The Trump administration has effectively, if you play chess, what they've done is they've put a pawn in the middle of the board, and they've dared the other player to take it when the other player has a lot of pieces to go and take it. And if it doesn't take that pawn, then more is coming. You see what I mean? That's the kind of gambit that's going on. But it's a very high-risk gambit, and it's risky for U.S. troops, and it's really going to be risky for the world's economy, because the kind of damage coming is going to be much more longer-term damage. Right. Sticking to that, sir, after the announcement of Project Freedom, a ship captain, an Indian ship captain who was trapped in the Straits of Hormuz, reacted and said, there's no way that I'm still going to be going through this. Let's take a listen to that and we'll get your reaction. My ship is stranded here in Persian Gulf since the war started. So, so far we are safe and, you know, yes, we have witnessed various missiles or explosions and we heard so many attacks on merchant ships. Thankfully, our ship is keeping safe. We have a clear written instruction from our company office. Do not pass the Strait of Hormuz. My company would never take this decision at the moment until unless everyone assess the situation, they know that it is clearly safe to transit the Strait of Hormuz. At the moment, there is no concrete information regarding the safe passage through Strait of Hormuz. None of the ships will try to become heroes and they will show their courage to pass through Strait of Hormuz until unless it is declared officially that it is safe to transit. So, yes, it is going to take time. So nobody would dare at the moment pass through Strait of Hormuz. So the captain there saying that he would not go through until hostilities are over. So not really reacting positively or to the react. That's right. This is completely to be expected. And you've heard me talk about this earlier. So civilians here are not signing up as soldiers in a war to be ordered by Donald Trump to take the risk of death for whatever project President Trump comes up with. Now, the military is a different story. They have to obey those orders. But civilians, both in the United States and around the world, they just simply don't. And by the way, they have other reasons. This is not simply, I don't think it's quite right to call them all cowards the way President Trump does. I mean, the fact of the matter is he did not. He dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. So this is not simply a matter of I just don't think this is right. People who are civilians have not signed up here. They're not conscripted. And they have families. They have other people that depend on them. So if they die, there's consequences to this. And what you're seeing with that captain here is they're just simply not going to do it. I think even if their companies order them to do it, they may just simply not obey those orders. This is a lot to ask people to die to get oil through a strait in the world. This is that's a lot to die. I mean, that's not really a goal worth anybody dying for. Agreed. Yeah. And the companies are not going to be anxious to risk their assets there, which are incredibly expensive. these massive, massive ships, massive tankers. What do you see as the pressures that are likely to build over the coming days that could lead to the next step in this conflict? Yeah, so I think you already saw the pressures last week. We talked a bit about this on the breaking points last week that I was on. I published again, I'm traveling a lot on these airplanes now to do all these mega podcasts, which gives you lots of time, believe it or not. And so I was explaining and amplifying what I said on the Breaking Points podcast. So if you look at the pressures on Donald Trump, it's not just the pressure of what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz. You see the disintegration of NATO right in front of our eyes. This is what we were talking about last week with Chancellor Meretz, the leader of Germany, embarrassing the United States on the world stage in his comments. These are quite embarrassing to President Trump here. And then you see Iran is disrespecting President Trump. Iran went to Pakistan to negotiate, but not with Americans. In fact, the Iranian negotiators left to go to Russia before Trump could even get his people there. So this is another big sign of disrespect. And then on May 14th, in just about 10 days, you're going to see President Trump is supposed to be meeting with President Xi. Well, my goodness gracious, the amount of embarrassment here where Trump is a failed war going to President Xi almost on bended knee. Please do anything to help me a little bit. What do you want from Taiwan? What can I give you? I mean, this is not what we would expect out of America presidency. We're supposed to be the strongest country in the world, the richest country in the world. We're not supposed to be in this groveling position here. And this is, I'm sure President Trump, this must be personally driving him, you know, tearing him apart inside here. But it's also bad. Any president would be facing this. Even a new president would not enjoy this by any stretch. So these are really, I think, what was underneath why Trump forced the issue, why he started. Notice it was last Thursday that he had the meeting for the new options. This is after the disrespectful Iranian behavior, disrespectful German behavior. You're seeing around the world America's position in the world disintegrating. And that is happening in real time. On your show, I've said NATO is dead. We're just writing its obituary and we're just adding paragraphs to that obituary week by week. Look, I'm just calling it as I'm seeing it, and this helps us to understand why the trap I talk about is so gripping. I'm not saying Trump prefers war. That's not what's going on. He just prefers losing less. That's the problem here. And by the way, Iran is also stuck in this trap. The idea that Iran is going to lose this newfound superpower of controlling the Strait of Hormuz without threatening to kill an American. I mean, seriously, I think this is just not right. They're both trapped in the escalation trap, both sides. And what is unfortunate here that it's worse, it's a tragedy, really, is the gas price. For Americans, it's gas prices. We're going to blow through $5 gas here in Chicago. It's already $4.99 here where I got my gas. This is going to be $6 here in a month. I mean, we're blowing through this, and it's going to have dramatically big consequences as we go forward inside of our country. And this could lead to violence in the fall. This is not a good situation we're in. But this is the problem. The president will not accept that big L. Yeah. Well, and we've obviously found your framework to be incredibly useful and very predictive, which is why we continue to have you back to help us understand. I really appreciate it. You more than anybody else. It's really been a real honor here because you allow, and I get all these emails here from people. They really appreciate these like weekly updates. You see what I mean? Because that's what we're able to do. And that helps them to make real sense of it. I wish, you know, I'm hoping we'll have some updates and then you'll probably stop bringing me on. But that's OK. I'm OK with that. We want to talk to you in the future about your work on political violence as well. And I hope that could happen. Yeah. Well, so let me ask you, what would be some events that could occur that you think would falsify your framework? where if such and such were to happen, you'd look at it and say, I got to go back to the drawing board. I missed something here. There was some flaw in my analysis. Yeah, absolutely. And so I've said this before. It's like the inverse of my indicator. So I keep telling people that the key thing to do is try to ignore the rhetoric and look at the behavior of states. And one of the things that would be a thing that would be going in the other direction would be if President Trump were to withdraw, say, all the carriers. So let's just start with the carriers. We now have three carriers. One of the three was supposed to be there to help rotate the other two. Well, that hasn't happened yet. But still, let's say that he pulls back the three carriers here and says he's going to go to Cuba or something. Well, that would mean we're not going into the escalation trap. He's marching out. If he would also move out hundreds of the aircraft that he has stationed in the region, that would mean we're marching out. If he would withdraw troops, the Marines. So we've famously moved 10,000 Marines. So if we withdraw those Marines, and I mean put them back at Camp Pendleton or back in Japan, I don't just mean we declare they're going. I mean they physically move. Those are really key indicators. And that would tell me we're on the track of de-escalation, not stuck in the escalation trap. All right. Well, Professor Pape, as always, we appreciate your analysis. Everybody go check out the escalation trap sub stack, and that would enable you to get access to that live briefing this Sunday. Thank you so much. Great to see you again, sir. Thank you very much. And also, I love the tough questions here. This is the way we should be doing this. And I really appreciate your, and keep them coming. We need to have serious conversations here. Thank you. I agree. Our pleasure. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Bye-bye. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Listen to Stuff to Blow Your Mind on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. They kicked her out and paid for her hotel and they thought it finally over Days later she called her son at work claiming that his partner had been in some kind of freak accident and had been rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. He called every hospital in the city, and his partner was making coffee the entire time. She faked a medical emergency just to test whether or not he loved her son? Yeah, and she sat in the hospital parking lot, waiting for him to see if he would show up. When that didn't work, she walked into the son-in-law's police station and filed a kidnapping report against him. She filed a kidnapping report against him in his own police station. And spoilers, karma's going to show up in the best way possible. So if you want to hear how this story ends, search OK Storytime on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to podcasts. So we wanted to cover a few developments over on the Democratic side of the aisle, starting with this one. John Fetterman, who, of course, is increasingly a thorn in the side of Democrats and all decent people of all political stripes, is apparently being actively courted by the Republican Party to flip him from being a Democrat to being a Republican. This is from Jonathan Martin. He says inside the quiet Republican effort to flip John Fetterman. I'll read you a little bit of the beginning here. It says it's a few days after the election this November. The results have become clear. Democrats have netted the four seats they need to claim a majority. But then there's a disturbance in the force. Senate Republicans and President Trump persuade John Fetterman to switch parties or at least become an independent to ensure Republicans retain power in the chamber. It's a scenario that's becoming less fantastical by the day. The political environment is curdling for Republicans and the quiet campaign to lure Fetterman across the aisle is underway. Trump has made the sell, offering his patented total and complete endorsement, plus a financial windfall to the Pennsylvanian. A handful of Senate Republicans are also gently feeling out Fetterman and responding to his concerns over the prospect of defecting from the Democratic Party. Multiple high level GOP officials tell me and goes into talking about some of his close relationships with David McCormick, which is his fellow Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Katie Britt also and her husband have become apparently very close to John Fetterman and his wife, Giselle. He hangs out not in the Senate Democratic cloakroom. He hangs out in the Republican one, which is rather telling. Yeah. Yeah. Should we explain that? Go ahead. Because I don't think it even really. So the cloakrooms are these offshoots where only the senators are allowed. They have phone booths and couches. It's like literally only senators and like a few senior staff. It's kind of a way they use it to hide from the press and or to hide from their own staff. Sometimes like allegedly many older ones are known to take naps in the cloakroom. Just saying. Or sleep off something. certain substance that you may drink. So anyway, that's the long storied history of the cloakroom. But it's pretty crazy to go. I mean, it's not unheard of to go into the opposing party's cloakroom for negotiations if you're Senator Schumer or something like that. But to hang out exclusively in the other side's cloakroom is beyond crazy. Like, I've not heard of anything. Like, it's a very inside baseball thing. But to, you know, for those in the know, you're like, oh, wow. Like, I did not know that, that he's hanging out mostly in there, which probably shows a couple of things. The enmity with his fellow Democratic colleagues are treating him while he's in the cloakroom and also the extent to which he feels comfortable in the Republican cloakroom. So that's very, very interesting, actually. Yeah, it's inside baseball, but it is meaningful in terms of where his mind is. And I mean, apparently, it's not like his Democratic colleagues have been mean to him, but they just don't really want to hang out with him. You know, that they're more, he described them as being more standoffish, which makes sense because, you know, Listen, I think when he's up for reelection, the guy doesn't have a prayer of winning in a Democratic primary. He's far more popular with Republicans in his state than he is with Democrats. Conor Lamb is thinking of challenging him. There are other noteworthy Pennsylvania figures who are thinking of challenging him in the Democratic primary. Again, I don't think he has a chance in hell of getting reelected as a Democrat. I think he knows that. Republicans certainly know that. Trump sees that. They all can see the way that he has completely torched his image with his utter commitment to a genocide. And also, he just loves to go on Fox News and he's back in Trump's friggin' ballroom. Like, any of these sort of, like, things that are important to Trump. He accused his party of having Trump derangement syndrome. He loves to go on Fox News and do these things. So even though he'll say, oh, but I have a 93% voting record with the Democrats, on the things that are most public and visible, you can see the way that he has rhetorically aligned himself with the Republicans on key issues that have made them very happy and have made the Democratic base very unhappy. So then the question is, OK, well, does he completely change his political stripes and run in a Republican primary in the future? That also is not a given that he would succeed there either, because while they may love him at the moment when they see him go on TV and say, like, oh, my party has Trump derangement syndrome when he is actually a Republican and they're having to deal with the fact, oh, he supports gay marriage and he supports some like liberal cultural things. He's pro-choice. Are Republican voters really going to back him as their pick to be their nominee either? And then that leaves open the path of like running as an independent where effectively, you know, then you're just serving as a spoiler, probably honestly for the Republicans at that point, because he's more popular with Republicans than he is with Democrats. So in any case, he's, you know, he's created a difficult political landscape for himself. But one thing kind of made a good point in his own interview about himself, to your point, he said, I'd make a shitty Republican. How would they accept somebody who supports abortion, gay rights, legalizing marijuana and pro labor? He flies the pride flag out of his. I mean, I do remember he was pretty into the trans stuff like back in 2022. So yeah, Yeah, that would be, I don't know. I'm not, you know, I'm not truly familiar with Pennsylvania, GOP, but they seem pretty hardcore Trump. Like, in terms of Doug Mastriano, there was that bitter primary with Dr. Oz and Dave McCormick. By the way, what was Dave McCormick's victory margin? I don't remember it being all that good. No, it was very close. So it was 48.8, Bob Casey, 48.6. Yeah, it was very nice. Wow, I did not realize that. So he only beat him by 0.2% of the vote. And how much did Trump beat Kamala by in PA? Probably a point, maybe a point or two, maybe something. So just to show you how Dave McCormick actually ran behind him. McCormick, by the way, is like some Bush era, you know, hedge fund multi-gazillionaire. Trump beat her by 1.7%. Which is actually pretty good in Pennsylvania. That's the most he's ever won in Pennsylvania. I mean, a win is a win. And so, yeah, I mean, 1.7 compared to 0.2 in terms of his victory margin. I don't think that Fetterman necessarily has a chance, but does he care? I mean, that's one of the presumptions here is what if he switched parties and then just declined to run for re-election? I mean, you and I both know Kyrsten Sinema, I mean, he could be a very rich – he was already rich. Now he can be a lot richer and turn his little Pittsburgh haven into even bigger of a garage or something or whatever. Braddock, Pennsylvania, I believe. Is that what he, doesn't he live in a garage? He like lives in some converted, because we interviewed him once. I was like, where are you? He's like, this is my house. Isn't it great? You know, Sakhar, I was thinking back when we interviewed him and it was in the middle of like all the stop the steal nonsense. This was also pre-stroke. And he was, yeah, but I was just thinking back on that and how different he was. I mean, he really was like a different person. He's like a blue non-liberal. Yeah, I mean, we interviewed him because he was the most aggressive Democrat practically in the country going after Trump for all his Stop the Steal delusions. And Trump was going after him. They were warring on Twitter. That's what his brand was. It's obviously not his brand anymore. So anyway, I don't know. He seems to relish the possibility of very likely, even if he doesn't flip parties, he is going to be in a position to play the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema role, where if Democrats want to get something passed, they're going to have to go to John Fetterman. and they're going to have to give him what he wants and cater to his ego, blah, blah, blah. What's that? This makes me think he won't switch because- Because you think he'll like that role too much? Those people, the McCains, the Mansions, the swing vote, they are the biggest egomaniacal, most like they relish when all the reporters camp out and they go, oh, this one's not acceptable to me. And everyone has to, you know, you do like criminology on Joe Manchin. Remember? I remember we lived on that boat and they're like, who was on the boat last? Susan Collins spotted in the houseboat or something like that. So, I mean, cinema, she was very much the same. The level of egomaniacal narcissism that those swing vote people have, like the centrist corporate swing vote. Also, they love – they get dined out all over town. They could go to any restaurant in the country that they want to. The ultra-rich will all flock to them. I'm talking myself into it. He's not going to switch. He will love that position. Yeah, I think you're probably right. He will relish that. I mean, think about it. I mean, otherwise you work for John Thune. Like, who wants to do that? Or for Trump? Like, fuck that. I'd rather be a king. That is part of what he told J-Mart in this piece, is he's like, they didn't even let, like, Tom Tillis stay in the party. Right. He's like, you think that I'm going to, that it's going to work out for me as a Republican? I mean, the other possibility is that he just completely changes more of his positions, which is also not something I would put off the table. But I think you're right that he's looking forward to being playing that role of the rotating villain, you know, the one that everybody has to kowtow to and everybody has to, like, find out what you want and massage your ego and all that sort of stuff. Because if Democrats take the Senate, which is still a tall order, by the way, but they have I mean, now they have they really have a fighting chance at it between. I saw polling for in Alaska where Mary Peltola, who is the Democrat running there, is up. Sherrod Brown is up in Ohio. Then you've got North Carolina. I think it's pretty much a lock for Roy Cooper. Frankly, you've got Maine with Graham Plattner looking very good that Susan Collins won't be able to hang on this time. Texas, the polling has been pretty good for Tallarico there as well. So in any case, they have a path. But even if they win, it's going to be narrow. The most you could see is they have a two-seat margin. And that would be extraordinary if they were able to get that. That would be like biggest landslide that we've had going back to the Tea Party era. But, you know, this time for Democrats, that would be those sorts of numbers. So even in that situation, you know, Fetterman teams up with whoever the next most conservative Democratic senator is to cause problems. You could easily see it. And yeah, he would relish that role. There's another little Pennsylvania scandal developing here, which is actually very interesting. So Josh Shapiro, who's the governor, obviously, and you guys will remember, was a top contender to be Kamala Harris's vice presidential pick, basically came down to like him and Tim Walz. Kamala seems to have felt like, and I think she's kind of indicated in this now, that this guy was just too full of himself, that he wasn't really a team player. And so that was the reason why she was more comfortable with Tim Walz. Well, apparently Shapiro behind the scenes went to a top union leader and pushed them to back a Republican for state treasurer in 2024 because he was mad that the Democratic nominee had said something negative about Shapiro in the context of the veep sticks. So the Democratic nominee for state treasurer criticized him and said she actually said, oh, I would rather have Roy Cooper. And so Shapiro apparently then went and tried to boost her Republican opponent, which obviously, you know, as a guy who portrays himself as the ultimate, you know, dem and we're going to help the party, we got to fight Trump, et cetera. To be working behind the scenes to help Republicans is not exactly going to endear you to Democratic primary voters were you to, I don't know, run for president in 2028. So the way that this came out is because Bob Brooks, who is this union leader who's now running for Congress, by the way, got asked a question about it. And he spilled the tea that, hey, actually Shapiro is the one that pushed our union to back the Republican candidate. This was a scoop from Axios. Let's go ahead and listen to that audio. Just like you and your union had supported candidates such as Stacey Garrity. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because that seems to go against kind of what you're talking about here today. So it was called fun, but that was a request, ironically, from Governor Josh Shapiro because Aaron McClellan was running against her. We had actually supported a guy by the name of Ryan Mazzaro. So it wasn't me. It was my union. And I'm one vote on the board of the left. But anyways, Josh Shapiro had requested me to Stacey. Aaron McClellan came out hard about something on Josh Shapiro. And really, the Democratic Party as a whole turned on Aaron McClellan. and he said, I would like you guys to endorse Stacey Garrity. So we went with Stacey Garrity. So he says there, this is the firefighters union, he says there, Josh Shapiro had requested because Stacey or Aaron McClelland came out hard about something on Josh Shapiro and really the Democratic Party as a whole turned on Aaron McClelland and he said, I would like you guys to endorse Stacey Garrity. That was the Republican pick. So as clear as it could possibly be, according to Bob Brooks, this firefighter union leader that it was Shapiro who specifically asked them, hey, you guys should back the Republican in this. I will say also, I don't know if this is related or not, but apparently there was a, put the next tweet up on the screen. One of the dividing issues in this election between the Republican and the Democrat was whether or not they were going to invest in Israel bonds. And the Democratic candidate said that she did not think it was a good investment, that she didn't think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars, and she was not going to be investing in those Israel bonds. And the Republican was very much in support of investing in the Israel bonds. And given that Shapiro is, you know, very committed Zionist, one wonders if that also factored into his enmity against the Democratic candidate here in the state of Pennsylvania as well. It's certainly possible. You know, PA and Illinois and all of this, it's very interesting to me because you have these democratic states. I just saw today some quote from Pritzker. He's like, you can hate Netanyahu, but don't take it out on Israel. And I was like, oh, what's it like, what is this? You know, this, uh, this like centrism, uh, cause these are deep, I mean, not pick PA cause PA is a genuine swing state, but at the state level, they seem relatively committed, you know, to Shapiro. He's a very popular governor. He was elected, I think with 12% of vote margin. Granted he was running against Mastriano, but he remains, I mean, honestly pretty popular in the state every time you see. His social media presence, by the way, is actually like shockingly good. Oh, really? I don't follow him. My sister-in-law sends me all of Shapiro's TikToks where he like sits at his desk and plays games. They go viral. That's what I know. And so, I mean, I don't know. Like he seems to have like a lock on this, but at a national level, I think that's the real interesting part is it's going to be very similar to many of the fights in the Republican era where you would have these individually popular Republican governors, even in swing states. But that doesn't fit necessarily the national mood of the entire base, which actually makes a lot of sense. Like Illinois, it's a machine state. Producing Pritzker is like a no-brainer. But copy-pasting that into a national primary, and especially in a lot of these primary states where you're going to have a base which is very, very activated, I don't think it's necessarily one-to-one. That's why, I mean, I still put my money, you know, the national polls, the people getting the real attention, it's people like Gavin, Kamala, and Ford, hate to say it, but she still continues to lead a lot of these polls, which is crazy. Really disturbing. People all need to, you know, I don't know what's going on with that one. AOC, if Plattner gets elected, he'll have some profile, you know, he'll be a media guy. He could definitely do something with it newsome. I still, you know, still very, I'm not taking my money off of him just yet because his level of name ID is so crazy. So that's why, you know, these things are very interesting to me, but at a national level, that's the disconnect that I see. Part of the problem for Shapiro too is one of the knocks on him is that he's like petty and vindictive and kind of seems to prove that point. Oh, you're telling me a gubernatorial candidate who is very popular is egomaniac. Oh, shocking. I mean, if that's the number one lesson I've learned about these people, you can't under, I mean, everything about him, the Obama affect, the basketball, the tick tock and the, you know, everything. Look at the end of the day, as I've now learned the hard way, like all of these people are insincere. It is what it is. It's really about more what they're going to do for us. But from him, there's something when you can smell it on a person, it's just distasteful. Again, that's me. A lot of people like it. A lot of other people. You know, I've got a hard line against the Obama impersonators. Oh, me too. And he is one of the worst in terms of copying Obama's cadence and style. And it just irritates the shit out of me. Remember, Jon Favreau even said that. Obama's former speechwriter. He was like, yo, this is wild. So don't take it from us. Take it from Obama's speechwriter. Because I think he even tries to do some of the, like, same mannerisms and things. Yes, it's driving me nuts. Like, you're a grown man. You have your own personality. Like, this is so weird. I mean, this is decades ago now that Obama was on the right. Anyway. I sympathize a little bit. I'm sure you and I subconsciously will copy people like in the way that we like grew up with. But at a certain point, you need to come into your own. Grow up. Yeah, you need to come into your own. Have your own style. In any case, but I think all of this is moot because Democrats have a stunning new 2028 contender who seems to be, you know, really on the rise. Let's go ahead and take a listen to C4. As we succeeded in bringing the mainstream of the left into a concern with inequality, we also enabled people who wanted to use that as a platform for a wide range of social and cultural changes, some of which the public isn't ready for. But even when I agree with them, in the end, I think they make a mistake by taking the most controversial parts of the agenda and turning them into lipid set. For example, the same-sex marriage. Obviously, I've been working for gay rights starting in 1972 when I filed the bill. And we, in the movement to establish freedoms for gay and lesbian and bisexual people, we picked to work on those issues which were more acceptable. We didn't get to marriage until after these other things had been resound. And that's what I'm suggesting that we do today. The analog is male to female transsexuals playing sports that are there for women. So that, for those not in the know, is former Congressman Barney Frank. He is himself a gay man, as was indicated there, was really on the front lines of pushing for gay marriage equality. He had a scandal back in the day that was pretty wild at the time where he'd hired like a male sex worker and it was a whole thing. in any case. Which by the way it should be. Sorry that what's not homophobic, any politician who's hiring hookers, no matter of the gender, sorry. You know, I was thinking someone needs to run on a platform of doing an ethics investigation to literally every member of Congress because I feel like that's necessary at this point. At any rate, he is dying and he's decided as his last act, he penned a book that is all about how the progressives are getting it all wrong and is doing this appearance with Jake Tapper. And the other thing that you should know about Barney Frank and his track record and his contribution to the Democratic Party is that his most famous piece of legislation is the Dodd-Frank financial reform. So after the financial crash, there was a big effort to break up the banks to separate the sort of, you know, high-flying investing part that's very dangerous and casino-like from the stayed normal commercial banking, which is the way things used to be. But instead, we got this very watered down reform called Dodd-Frank. And so he was the author of that. And then lo and behold, when he retires from Congress, what does he go into? He becomes a bank lobbyist. So, you know, to take advice from this guy on anything, let alone the fact that, look, this advice at this point that, OK, yeah, we get it. Like the trans sports thing is not a compelling or popular issue. Yes, we understand that. I don't know that we needed like a dying former bank lobbyist. Wait, do we understand that though? No, I'm going to, I'm going to challenge this. I don't think that's true. I don't think that we understand that. Like libs still go really hard on trans sports. They do. I mean, I've seen it rejected as a litmus They blasted Seth Moulton in the opening days of the uh 2025 whenever he was like why would we die on this hill So I would really disagree with you Well what I would say is for me the idea that that is the main and primary problem with the Democratic Party is ridiculous. The people who tend to bring this up the most are Republicans. You're talking about a small pool of people. And I think you would agree with me that this advice is hardly unique in being offered by Barney Frank and very much ignores, very much ignores, again, the incredibly damaging role he himself played in helping to turn the Democratic Party into a party of elites that are more obsessed with cultural issues than they are with, you know, that in their opposed to delivering for working class. I didn't expect to be defending Barney Frank, but I mean, he did. You know, he was one of the people who was the major champion of gay rights. Now, I would tell you that he I mean, look, it's funny. I almost forgot his record. This is the guy caught with a male hooker in 1985 who became the face of gay marriage okay uh that's really interesting also was one of the first sponsors of legal gambling in the united states he then did dodd frank which are we all better off financially so yeah i mean i'm with you a poster boy for turning america into a libertine degenerate place now that said uh if you were to say like oh okay barney as an activist can give advice on this, I'd be like, all right, I'll cut him a break. But yeah, I see what you're saying, which is that this is definitely, look, I mean, I do think, and this is where with Barney Frank, let's everyone talks about him like some gay rights hero again, like, okay. Uh, considering the track record of how all that went down, like in terms of everything that he did while he was in Congress, nobody ever puts any scrutiny, but in general though, these politicians from the mid 2000s and others should be treated with the same contempt that we would, let's say, when the Republicans did, whenever they were doing their reform in 2016 under Trump. Like, or obviously, we thought that's what we were doing with the Bush. Never thought Mark Thiessen would be back in the White House. Oh, my God. Here we are. Yeah. But the point remains that, like, who is some 2000 politician? I'm trying to who's the equivalent on the Republican side? Jeff Flake, maybe. I mean, I'm sorry. Like, I don't give a shit what Jeff Flake has to say about the current Republican party, like period, literally a libertarian. Lindsey Graham. Yeah, but he's still in office. I know. Great people of South Carolina. He was elected. Unfortunately. I'm talking about people. We still got some of these people around. Yeah, that's fair. I'm just thinking of like some mid-2000s. I don't know. Who was that vice president? Dan Quayle. I'm like, sorry, don't care. I don't care what you have to say, Dan Quayle. Yeah. Your time has come and gone. I mean, it's interesting in the context of like him ending his life and like no disrespect to the man. Like he's obviously in hospice. Like, you know, I hope, you know, it's a horrible situation. But it's more about, yeah, I just wish that there was more grappling with some of those things. And that's the thing. The true legacy. In the Jake Tapper world or the CNN world, nobody would be like, hey, so how did Dodd-Frank work out, buddy? You know, like, why does nobody ask that question? Yeah, why does nobody ask about the gambling thing? It's like you were literally one of the top gambling proponents in the United States. So what happened here, Barney? Yeah. You know, we're living in your world, brother. I think he used to – you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think he used to serve on the board of this, like, pro-gay bank. Which is like, yeah, I mean, that's an emblem of his politics. Anyway. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, this is Robert from the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast. Joe and I are both lifelong Star Wars fans, so we're celebrating May the 4th with a brand new week of fun, thought-provoking Star Wars-related episodes. Join us as we tackle science and culture topics from a galaxy far, far away, such as the biology of tauntauns and wampas on the ice planet Hoth, or the practicality and corporate business sense of the Sith Rule of Two. Listen to Stuff to Blow Your Mind on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. My mother-in-law spent years sabotaging our relationship until karma made her pay for it. Wait a minute, Dakota. How bad did it get? Well, it got bad enough that her son-in-law had to eventually arrest her himself. She moved in for two weeks, lasted for five She left nail clippings in the bathtub, candy stuck to the furniture And then she pressed her ear against the bedroom door and burst in screaming She did not burst in while they were She did They kicked her out and paid for her hotel And they thought, it's finally over Days later, she called her son-in-law at work Claiming that his partner had been in some kind of freak accident And had been rushed to the hospital in an ambulance He called every hospital in the city And his partner was making coffee the entire time She faked a medical emergency just to test whether or not he loved her son? Yeah. And she sat in the hospital parking lot waiting for him to see if he would show up. When that didn't work, she walked into the son-in-law's police station and filed a kidnapping report against him. She filed a kidnapping report against him in his own police station? And spoilers, Karma's gonna show up in the best way possible. So if you wanna hear how this story ends, search OK Story Time on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to podcasts. We also want to make sure that we cover this Supreme Court decision, which I think could be very significant. Let's put this up on the screen. So this is a real curtailing of some aspects of the Voting Rights Act, in particular, the drawing of these majority-minority districts to make sure there is black representation that's most significant in the South. And the Supreme Court kind of split the difference or they tried to sort of split the difference in terms of their decision. But it still looks like the outcome is going to be fairly significant in the ability of states. And it was Louisiana's map that was being challenged in particular and the ability of southern states to redraw their maps and eliminate their majority minority districts. So the Cook Political Report analyzed what the impact would be, along with Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, which is published by University of Virginia Center for Politics. And they both estimated that this could result in roughly seven House seats shifting to the GOP. So, you know, the redistricting wars are fully on, launched, of course, by Trump originally. You've had California and Virginia, I think a couple other blue states that are redrawing their maps to optimize for Democrats. There are some other states like Illinois is one that hasn't gone yet that could do that. Apparently, you know, there's possible New York gerrymander. So there are some compensating moves that Democrats could make. But obviously, this is a significant win for Republicans in terms of trying to redraw the maps to be more favorable to them. And it also, I mean, a lot of these states will effectively cement like one party control. In a lot of these states, the only district that Democrats win are these majority minority districts that have been, you know, have been protected by the voting rights. I'm curious how you feel about it because on the merits, it's a ridiculous policy because the policy stems from the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And not to get too granular, because I spent a lot of time actually reading about this voting rights provision when I was doing a lot of research on affirmative action. The principle of American jurisprudence is that you have to prove intent. Now, this Voting Rights Act actually obfuscates the proven racial discrimination and assumes racial discrimination on the basis of something called dilution. Dilution says that the mere presence of minority populations there without representation is evidence of discrimination itself, not that you have to prove said discrimination. Now, if I put myself in the minds of a lawmaker 81 years ago, literally when the law was passed, I could understand that in the era of Jim Crow. But 81 years later here in 2020 – sorry, 61 years. I don't know why I said 81 years. 61 years later, I'm sorry. Like that is a ludicrous proposition. Like it is a total violation in my opinion of the Equal Protection Clause. And I would give – for all the liberals who are hyperventilating about this, I live in Virginia. which is what, 54, 45 in terms of Trump? What did Virginia just do to our maps? They just nuked all conservative representations. They're gonna be a 10 to one in terms of Democrat to Republican. I don't hear you crowing about my minority rights, my ability to represent myself or the dilutive effect of me living in a D, what, plus 80, you know, city. Like, I just think it's, look, I'm not trying to be glib, But it's pretty obvious this is a black carve out from 1965, which, in my opinion, totally violates spirit of the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court, Justice Alito, you should read his decision. What he said was that you have to prove racial discrimination and you can't assume murder. You can't assume a tent in anything in American law except here in the South, which, again, I accept that we needed some sort of post-civil rights settlement to force Jim Crow states to basically not discriminate against black people. But I'm living in a world where Georgia has two Democratic senators after our Democratic president just said that they were enacting new Jim Crow as of 2022, which obviously is bullshit and incendiary. So I don't know. Like, look, maybe a lot of liberals would get mad at me, but like at the spirit of the law, it's just not right. And especially whenever you're looking at what Virginia just did, you're all celebrating over that one. You don't care about minority representation. I mean, the Virginia, the Virginia is direct retaliation for what was done in Texas. But that's what I'm saying is that everybody, nobody gives a shit about minority representation whenever it comes to their side. It's only here because they're like, oh, because of a historic black population. But if you can't prove explicit racial discrimination, like you can't just assume it. It's very difficult, I think, to prove explicit discrimination, which is why this was crafted the way that it was. I mean, I think you and I probably have a different view of how prominent and significant racism against black Americans in particular still continues to be. And especially in the South, which is probably why we come down in a different place. I see your point, though. I mean, one thing I will say is that the way that these districts operate is you end up with these very like machine, you know, black politicians that are very, you know, the Jim Clyburn's of the world that are very like dedicated to the party apparatus and never step outside of that and tend to be some of the most significant enforcers of like the pro-corporate status quo. See, I'm glad you said that. That was going to be my next. In the Democratic caucus, which is very unfortunate. I will say, though, that, you know, I think to to wipe out effectively all black representation in the South is like, yes, I oppose that. And I think that that is I think that is a setback. Didn't you support the Virginia thing? You just wiped out Republican support in Virginia. We literally live in an occupied state now. If you have like that's true. I mean, we're going in the direction of California. There is no doubt about Republicans in California. There is no doubt that we are in like just a total race to the bottom in terms. And that was kicked off by Trump. I mean, that was, look, escalated by Trump. I shouldn't say it's kicked off by Trump. Now, I will also say Democrats have offered a nationwide anti-gerrymandering law that Republicans are opposed to. So, you know, happy to pass that legislation and have fair districts drawn across the country. And I absolutely think that that would be a better result overall and guarantee that, you know, that all groups receive the level of representation that they should have. But no, I mean, on the merits, do I think this was a positive decision in terms of small d democratic representation in the country? No, I do not. But see, that's where I have to disagree. Like the idea of dilution in and of itself that some one district, just because they are black, they deserve a special carve out. It doesn't apply to anybody else in the whole nation. It's an explicit era of Jim. Because we have an explicit history in the country, soccer, that continues to loom large over our politics. It's been 61 years. Then why do you support affirmative action? It's been 61 years. We don't have these explicit racial carve outs anymore. We are trying to have live up to the spirit of equal protection. This is explicitly created and directed at the South, which, again, I totally get back in 1965. But it's 2026. If you want to live in a country where you have equal protection and application of said law for all racial groups, then this directly violates that because now they, like everybody else, have to prove the intention of discrimination. And in the same spirit, like, can I prove that Democrats wanted to disenfranchise all the Republicans in Virginia? I mean, honestly, probably. But they don't care. Like, that's what I'm saying. They don't care at all. So, like, don't come crying. Like, look, you're looking at it in the, what is it, in the interim, like, this race, in terms of, like, this particular race. In the long run, I think it's a better off decision because it creates the legal justification that anybody, when you have to prove discrimination, you have to explicitly be able to prove it. You and I benefit from this when it comes to defamation law. All Americans benefit from this whenever it comes to – I'm trying to think. Like anytime you're criminally accused of anything, even whenever it comes to like really – not from heinous crime to the presumption of innocence. It's like a basic bedrock of American society. Now, as I've said, I totally understand why in the era of Jim Crow that you would want to put something like this in place. But when Georgia is a swing state, I'm sorry, which was the capital, like the beating heart of Confederate, the Confederate, like, you know, what's the lost cause ideology and center. Richard Russell, who was the chief opponent. And when his predecessors are now literal one who was a black Democrat, I just don't buy it anymore. Like, I just think it's a long relic. And my final point was on the machine thing. And I got into my argument with the father-in-law over this because he was talking explicitly about representation, like the skin color of the person who is representative. And I was trying to make this point. I said, you know, the Congressional Black Caucus is one of the most machine captured and pro-corporate lobbies in all of Washington. This is a well-known fact. And it's like, has it really worked out necessarily to the benefit? I mean, I understand this. Like, I don't need an Indian person to represent my interests. My interests are my interests. But I would say they are much better than a Republican in the same district. OK. On the merits in terms of what they will vote for. And at the risk of, like, repeating myself, I just think our difference comes down to, you know, you say you can understand why this was put in place when it was given the level of racism, et cetera. And I just continue to see a level of racism that continues to justify this level of protection and see it as a loss that black voters throughout the South, black voters throughout the South are basically going to lose their congressional representation. And, you know, they're going to be living off redlining until 2200. You know, it's just it's one of those where, like, look, we live in an evolving society, which everybody can understand whenever it comes to social justice. But apparently, like the sins of 100 years ago are never, ever forgotten. But it's not the sins of 100 years ago. I mean, we've had, you know, six years. I think you have to acknowledge like racism is still a real matter. You can look at wealth disparities. You can look at outcome disparities. You know, you can look at health disparities basically anywhere you look in terms of American. It all breaks down. Some of it is class based, but some of it is also over racial discrimination. And we have a long history of that. And that doesn't, you know, it doesn't just vanish over, you know, truly in terms of the grand scheme of time, like a few decades is a very short period of time. And just the decade before I was born was all the debates about busing. And like that's when desegregation was. This is very recent in terms of a historical scale. And the legacy still continues, in my opinion. I can understand that view. And I get how it's a liberal headline, like Voting Rights Act struck down. But like I beg you, grapple with the points that I made because I don't really see – I see people hyperventilating about it. But absolute refusal to apply it to literally any other group, which, again, you don't care at all at all about minority representation, especially in the wake of Virginia. You happen to care whenever you can dress it up as some sort of like civil rights era cause. But that's not how the U.S. jurisprudence works. Like the law explicitly says that we should not be discriminated based upon based upon our race. And to have explicit racial carve outs is just not really something that we should have anymore in the year. That's why I support the other southern states literally still celebrate a Confederate Memorial Day. So that's where we still are. OK, I mean, I don't think it's a good thing. I know, but I'm just saying the notion, oh, these are all colorblind utopias. Like, I just think that that is defies the reality of what it is like in most of these deeply southern. I was raised in the South, so first of all, in literally a Confederate state. So, like, it's not like I'm not exactly familiar with Confederate or lost cause ideology. However, I've also watched my state go from 1990s, like, you know, we're probably where something like that could have happened, where now, as you just said, James Tallarico is polling in a place where he might win the entire state. So, you know, the side deep. Texas is a little bit different than, like, Mississippi, Alabama, just in terms of both the demographic makeup and also the massive influx of, like, Californians who have moved to Texas. That's fair. Yeah. And Georgia also has been a beacon for people moving in from out of state, which really changed the character of the state. Which is maybe that's the fault of Mississippi and Alabama for not becoming a more attractive place. I'm joking, okay? So it's one of those where at the end of the day, what I think is equal application of the law, it's not based on your skin, is the most important bedrock principle. I think it when it comes to affirmative action, and I think it whenever it comes to Voting Rights Act. Yes, it will. It will in immediate term, it will affect my so-called minority representation in these states. But we don't do that in literally any other case. And we should make it so that that is what you strive for across the board, including, yes, gerrymandering, which obviously many Republicans in these states thought would use to their advantage. I actually still don't really fully buy, not to just drag this out too much, but I still don't fully buy that the gerrymandering, even with these seven seats that will go up, will still net out in some sort of Republican favor. I think it's still very much – it's hard to say. Right, because I was looking at approval ratings. Clinton had like a 50 percent approval rating and also lost like 52 seats in 1994. Trump is at an all-time low bottom. So even in a gerrymandered world or something like that. Democrats are still going to take the House. I just think it will be a smaller margin. Okay, I see what you're saying. All right. Anyway, I'd seen people be like, oh my God, we're not even going to win now. I'm like, really? I just don't think you're really right. I think it's going to be too big to rig Sagar. That's what I think. You know, you might be right. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back At It podcast. 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam Jay. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. I mean, it was a wild year. Wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to Look Back At It on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hard Way with your favorite therapist and host, Keir Gaines. This space is about black men's experiences, having honest conversations that it's really not safe to have anywhere. But you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor? It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability, that does not mean that you need to. Listen to Learn the Hard Way on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.