10/7/26: 100 Aircraft Destroyed By Iran, Pope Rejects AI Consciousness, Fox Ridicules Dr Oz On Inflation

This is an I Heart podcast, guaranteed human, didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast. Here's what you missed. There should not be a single law enforcement agency that does not have body cameras. It's real. Black farmers have been under attack. This is just the latest example of them just slapping DEI on anything. It's raw. And I'm sitting here going, they are playing y'all for fools. Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the Black Information Network. Download Roland Martin unfiltered on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast. Oh, wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Wednesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. It's good to see you, Emily. We'll do a pound here. What's up? Also do here for a wretch, whichever way the camera angle you want. Obviously our hearts go out everybody. You can't miss this. This morning. No, absolutely not. In fact, I had to be talked out of a few different book stunts because it is October 7 and our critics would have had a field day with some of the screenshots. But all of that aside, before we get to everything, we do have a very special announcement. Let's put it up here on the screen A zero. You guys came through in a 24 hour period. I am here on the show and Ryan Grimm has accepted one ticket for the fish show in Richmond. So thank you to our premium subscribers for coming through. I was not a cheap skate. He actually was a homie and decided to accept the lowest cost ticket. Because at one point in our group chat, I go, oh my god, these tickets are $2,000. Because I said-- It's not exactly what you said. I think the exact quote was, holy shit, these tickets are $2,000. So I was like, oh man, I'm about to have a very uncomfortable conversation with my wife at the budget meeting this month. There's no way I could just bring it up. But Ryan came through, and yeah, that's right. So thank you all for being such a striper. He said his boys were already on the lawn, so he didn't have that. That's right. His boys were already there. So he was cool about it. But I did say, I said, look man, I said I would buy it, so you pick whatever ticket you want. Ryan will be on the lawn with the fish boys tonight in Richmond and you're going to have to put up with the two of us. So thank you again to our premium subscribers. If you want to support little endeavors in the family that we have over here, breakingpointes.com, we have our free month trial. But in terms of what we got on the show today, we are going to talk a little bit about diesel. There is a new congressional services report out, which is very interesting in details. The number of fixed-wing aircraft that have all been damaged in the Iran were absolutely shocking numbers. We're going to get also to a professor, a friend of Emily's actually, at Catholic University. He was part of that religious confab where they stormed out and begged the Catholic church to declare their AI clawed models conscious. He's going to tell us about what some of these people are like behind the scenes because it's NDA finally expired. We're going to talk also about the midterms, Ken Paxson, new leaked audio. I feel like that's every show that we've done in the last week. This time around, he's like, yeah, it was gas prices, the Iran more, I don't know what Trump is doing. So, either they're strategically leaking it to get ahead of a catastrophic loss, which I know is your theory, or somebody on his team really hates him. Not mutually exclusive. In addition to a very funny Dr. Oz moment, another crudite moment for our friend, Dr. Oz, on the Fox News channel, we are going to get to Israel today, obviously, three-year anniversary of October 7th. So, we're going to look a little bit about how October 7th has changed Israel and also how October 7th, obviously, has been devastating for the Palestinian people in Gaza. Finally, Epstein, there's a fascinating story, Emily, you are all over this, a Epstein whistleblower in the UK, who alleged to have information on our commerce secretary, Howard Lutnik, has committed suicide, or has been said to have committed suicide. You are going to take us through everything that he revealed, some of the details, and some immediate calls for investigation in the United Kingdom. And finally, we're going to be joined by Rana Farour, one of our favorite authors. She has a new book out, she's a financial times column, and she really is an incredible kind of observer of the world, which is a new book out actually on the Arctic, and specifically how the Iran War and changing ice, what is it, ice patterns in the Arctic as a result of rising global temperature are actually changing the way that global sea routes work and a projection of global power with China specifically creating something called a new ice silk road, so absolutely fascinating to be able to get to talk to her. So thank you. We already did the pitch, so I don't have to do that. If you're watching this on YouTube, hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. You'll listen to the podcast, please share an episode with a friend. But let's go ahead and start, as we said, with that new congressional research service report. Our team did an amazing job of highlighting this. So this was, I was reading through it a little bit yesterday, listed here in this new report, our 81 fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft, including uncrewed aircraft systems like drones, reportedly lost or damaged in U.S. operations against Iran since February 20, 28, according to news report statements by the DOD, the U.S. Central Command, and the DOD inspector general. So obviously this is an official now U.S. government report from the congressional research service. Research Service is an independent research service from the administration. So it reports directly to Congress. I think the reason why that this is so important is that they list some of the official costs of the war in September 20, 26 of the cost of equipment losses already, as of just August 1st, between 1.9 and 3.3 billion, depending on DOD plans for replacement. So nearly 2 to 3 billion dollars in aircraft that have been, or in equipment that has been lost or damaged in addition to 81 different aircraft that have been lost or damaged. And Emily, I just don't think that the American people, we have showed them these images of the bases, and we've showed various one-offs, but to actually see the full number is absolutely shocking because it highlights both there being able to be shot out of the sky. In the case of many of these drone systems, I believe what 10% or something in the entire fleet has been down. You also have, it appears helicopters and others that they list inside of here. And then the most high profile is the shoot down of some of these aircraft. And so all of those compound into really humiliating military defeat at a strategic level. And it also highlights just the immense cost. If you lose 2 to 3 billion in just 6 months of war, and again, the most sophisticated aircraft systems that the United States has in its possession, that is no question a massive defeat at a strategic level that will be studied Russia, China, and others. And it obviously also highlights the asymmetry when you're using these missiles or drones, which cost a literal fraction, in some cases like 120 or 150th fraction of what some of these things go for. Well, I was going to say, I think this would go right over the heads of most of the public if they did not believe it was a defeat, right? Like, we know these numbers, and they're so abstract, but when you look at the progress of the war, they're quote unquote, "progress of the war." That's where it's going to be so obviously difficult for everybody to swallow a number like this because they're still being asked to pay extremely high gas prices, and you say, for what? I mean, on the political side, a lot of Republicans believe Trump has committed malpractice by never asking the American people to buy into the war really substantially. He gave that one speech when he was updating people in the fact of the war had been done. But other than that, he's basically been like, "It's done, it's over, we won." And so there's numbers like this and information like this, even those pictures of the bases that came out, I think CBS had them a couple of weeks ago. That is painful, politically painful, and of course, morally painful as well because the quote unquote "progress of this war" is not progress, and that's very easy for people to see. So this is not good for the administration, it's not really good for anybody. Absolutely. And in fact, the Wall Street Journal last night published some new audio of the radio communications of the US blockade. It's very long, so we can't include all of it in our show. But if you do have the time, I encourage you to go and take a listen because you hear things like prepare to fire, and you see that you've gotten nearly 20 different US Navy vessels all trying to enforce this blockade. And as we covered yesterday, there was now a historic uptick in the number of shots that are being taken in the straight-of-formos. And many of these shots are to disable and/or potentially sink some of these carriers with multiple different carriers even saying that they're just going to turn around and abide by the IRGC blockade, which has actually significantly dipped the amount of oil that has moved through the straight-of-formos in the last couple of days. And that's why we want to focus a lot on diesel and also on the overall economy this morning. Let's put this next one up on the screen. Galaboff, the Iranian troll game continues. Which we had our friend, Ryan Grimm, who is at the fish show tonight to explain some of this. But I'll do my best. It is boo. Are you ready for those of you who are listening? I'm confident you could do this. Yeah. It shows a ghost at the, and it shows kind of what is it, a curve. And so at the bottom you have junk brown spreads, dated brand 10-year yields, diesel prices, and then on the downside. you see consumer confidence, foreign net purchases of treasury bonds, hyperscalers free cash flow, and the housing affordability index. In other words, all of the bad things are going up and all of the good things are going down. I think Al Gore said something like that to the effect on the 1992 campaign trail, but just to show a little bit about what he's saying. Let's go to the next one, guys, just so I can explain some of this. What you see right now is exactly the problem. They say oil is flowing from or moves again, but not the kind that the world needs most. And this is what we keep focusing on from our friend, Rory, is that the scramble is on right now for diesel, while damaged refineries and tight fuel supplies are keeping prices elevated all over the world. And so what they mean specifically by that is that even though ships are able to ferry a decent amount of crude oil now under the U.S. enforced blockade and some of these corridors, they are barely moving any of the barrels that the world actually needs most, which is diesel. The distinction is paramount in American politics because of the all-time high that we have reached with California recording out diesel price average of $8.44 a gallon. And what they see right now, and actually, a friend Rory has explained this really well, we don't buy crude oil. Like nobody is buying a barrel of crude. You're buying gasoline, you're buying diesel. These are refined products. You are buying airplane tickets, which are influenced obviously by jet fuel. Well, all of that needs to be refined. And the world is in historic refinery crunch for a variety of reasons, which are going to show all of you. It's not just about the amount of oil, it's also about whether you're able to take that oil and refine it. In the United States, we are already running these refiners at some 97% capacity. By the way, I just saw the news yesterday, Ryan Hall was saying that there is a potential new hurricane, which is moving through the Gulf of Mexico, that always can impact refineries all along the Gulf where the vast majority of them are located. So that's our situation in the United States. On the other side of the globe, we also have the entire war in Ukraine. And so let's put A5 up here on the screen. This is shocking video that just came out yesterday. This was a massive fire that was reported in the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi. And local channels have reported that a ship had exploded in the port area. And we don't know exactly what it was carrying. But we see that Russia's both refinery capacity has dramatically taken a hit for the entire month of October. They have banned the export of all diesel. And even in this case, they're going after their ability to export oil. Let's also then turn to Venezuela. Remember in Venezuela, it has long been touted by the Trump administration. Oh, well, our colonial expansion into the government of Venezuela is going to make up for all of the oil that were not getting out of the street of Hormuz. And specifically some of their refined products A7 guys, we can take a look here at the video. This just came out yesterday. This is the video of their second largest oil refinery literally exploding. And so looking into it, what it appears to be is some sort of natural gas line explosion where the state-run oil company said that is evaluating the situation. The fire broke out in part of the facility for the largest complex. You could see, I mean, it's just literally booming. It started a gas line from the refineries diesel hydro trader forcing a complete shutdown of the entire facility, including the boilers. They have not yet given us a timeline as to when that will be back online. So I do think that this just demonstrates where disrupting the global oil market for the last six months has just created this absolute shortage in these refined products. It will take many months, even if things were to sustain at the current level to get back to where they are. And I think the TLDR for everybody who's listening is basically why does this matter to me? What it matters is that the diesel price is going to stay high. That's basically it. Right. Diesel price is going to stay high and then it ripples into other places of the economy. As you were mentioning, Sagar, flight tickets, whatever else it is. I mean, it's everything. It's shipping every good, all of those things. And so I think that's also partially why we haven't seen Trump be super motivated to end anything because he kind of knows that if the midterms are the question on the table, he could end the war and prices are not going to immediately jump back up. That's, I feel like people have kind of gone away from or misunderstood what would happen if Trump were just to declare the war over which he's done, I guess, several times. But I think everybody knows what I mean. Like actually finally, seriously, say we're done, go home, that sort of thing. It doesn't mean that prices would immediately jump back up and that the midterms would immediately be less of a blood bath. I mean, nobody understood that Republicans are going to believe Republicans were going to win the midterms. But it's going to take months no matter what, assuming he does actually just end at some point, it's going to take months no matter what for for prices to creep back up. And that reminds me, Sagar, also we're sort of lucky that it's been a light hurricane season. I mean, for many reasons, but that is a great point. I hadn't even thought about that. With this impending hurricane, we may get a taste of what could have been much worse or could still get much worse. Yeah, I'm not a weather guy. The weather people say something to do with El Nino corresponds with lower her amounts of hurricanes. I'll take it, frankly, like we don't need anymore of that. Let's put a four up here on the screen. This is another thing that was being passed around in the oil circles. And it was also referenced by Galibov in his tweet. He talks about something called the physical differential. Again, as I understand it, what it means is that the physical differential is the price for a physical barrel of oil as opposed to what it is currently trading at. And the current physical differential for a physical barrel of oil in, I think, I think, which is an aggregate price is some $19 per barrel, which is the highest all-time physical differential in terms of what you can look at what the, if I look at the Brent crude future price as of this morning, I'm looking at about $102 per barrel. Whereas if I look here, it's $19. So you can roughly put it around $125 per barrel according to them for the dated Brent assessment. Apparently, again, why that matters is that you and I are not paying the future price. We are paying the physical price because we are consuming stuff in the real world, right? And as, you know, things get colder, temperature drops, heating, fuel oil, all of these other buys that many households across the country are making, you are going to see an overall increase in what that costs, not to mention what's happening in the rest of the world where all of those countries in the G7 were just forced by the Trump administration to release their emergency stockpiles of diesel and of their strategic petroleum reserve to keep the price even lower than where it is right now. And reminder, even with that release, you still see things trading at around $100 per barrel. And so that's just going to keep the price of diesel likely from escalating even further, but it is not going to drop the price overall. And I think that's why it matters. And we have a few minutes, so I want to go through, you know, we're talking about the strategic defeat at the top. The world is changing dramatically. And I was reading some recent history about how the oil shock of the 1970s, it actually dramatically changed the US consumer culture and was a huge catalyst because people woke up after the gas lines and they're like, we cannot live like this. And so the entire automotive industry, the strategic petroleum reserve, really the way that people thought about gas and oil, which previously just kind of been on tap, you know, never really been at the forefront, it just changed and it changed the efficiency of cars. It changed the way the consumers, the government and others all thought about this because it was such a horrible and shocking event. The world is now going through something very similar. Let's put A6 up here on the screen just to show you. In Britain, just literally last month, the best-selling vehicle was actually a Chinese car. So the Wall Street Journal writes how Britain learned to love Chinese cars, especially a look alike Range Rover. And they specifically point, you know, to this new car. I apologize if I mispronounce it. It cherries JQ7. And the JQ7 is a really interesting car. It has both a gas variant and a plug-in hybrid variant. And it is just a very, it's very fuel-efficient. It's roughly the retail price. It appears around $50,000, which is half of the price of a visually similar Range Rover model. And you know, I mean, from a plug-in standard, basically you have it so that it's like I was looking here, the many like the JQ7 or the conventional combustion engine or hybrid. And it's not the EV that China is best known for. But it's a lower price and it has the plug-in option. And that's what has made it, both from a price and its efficiency standpoint, to just be very attractive. And I do think you've seen now this rise of the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, obviously China dramatic adoption as a result of this crisis. We're consumers who previously, even though they already loved those cars, they may have not have upgraded or moved to EV. The government, they have heavy incentives. You have EV sales. It appears to explode really across the globe, BYD and others. It's the developed world. Remember that always had much higher gas prices in the United States. And so I'm just looking at this. I'm like, wow, like, you know, we're not going back to a world, I think, where people are going to be looking at gas guzzlers or at the very least in the rest of the world. They're going to be a lot more fuel-conscious, cost-conscious about what's happening in China's automotive industry is poised to fill that gap. The big question right now between the United States and China. And in fact, Trump has even said this, is he's being pressured by Michigan and all of the other auto states, they're like, do not let any of these Chinese companies in the United States. And he's considering it because they're offering, they're saying, look, we'll take the Japan deal, we'll build it all here and be able to sell our cars. So I just look at that and I wanted to end it, I think on it just because it is a very important thing to see that the world can change dramatically as a result of these shocks. And maybe we just won't go back, or at the least the rest of the world won't go back. I think everyone will here will keep selling, or we'll keep buying Ford F-150s. That doesn't mean though that everyone else will. - Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, obviously it doesn't get people entirely off the grid unless we're fully on renewables to have plugins. But BYD does have like 70% of the Mexican EV market, BYD increasingly popular in Mexico. I was in a BYD when I was in Brazil earlier there. They're slick, you can see why people like them, especially at the prices that they're offered. So I think your argument that we're at the, maybe the dawn of a total shift in the way people, at least in the rest of the world, see vehicles is probably a correct one that maybe we look back. And I hadn't thought about this yet, but maybe we look back on the beginning of the Iran War as the time where that shift was really, really accelerated or catalyzed because the trends are all pointing in that direction worldwide, especially in some of like what Canada and Mexico, a very good example, Sarger. - Yeah, absolutely. All right, we got our guests standing by, so what do we get to them? - I'm Hamza. - And I'm Martin. - And we're the host of Out of Character. It's a podcast. I know there's a lot of them going around, but why should you listen hours? - Well, we're only the best podcast in the entire world and we talk about pretty much everything under the sun. For example, music we're listening to, underground music, trending music, drama in music worlds. Yes, sometimes we even talk about just everyday mundane situations in our lives, like the cool Uber driver we just had for the food, we just say, that is surprisingly delicious. Or we'll talk about the Med Gala and the looks that they wore. Are they awesome? Are they trendy? Come find out because our opinion matters. And so does yours. And this is a place where all of our minds can come together and connect. - So what are you waiting for? Come connect with us. Listen Out of Character from Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Pods, or wherever you get your podcasts. - Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast? - Here's what you missed. And the argument is, do you want to win? If you don't win, you have no power. - It's real. - Those are the very people who I always say vote against their own economic interests and they complained about the very thing they were seeing. - It's raw. - I knew that the issue of transgender athletes was not going well with a lot of black men. - Roland Martin unfiltered. - I went off, I said, this is exactly what I'm talking about. - We all go scream at Chanel, but you don't want to see a black luxury company in the same bag. - Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the black information network. - 12 seats. Those are moving south. So if you Democrats, you don't wait to 23. You better be hitting the ground, going to heart in the south now. - And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast. - Wherever you get your podcasts. - We're joined now by Charles Kamosi, he's a professor of bioethics at Catholic University of America. Charles, thank you so much for being here today. - Well, it's great to be on breaking points. Thanks for having me. - Yeah, we appreciate it. So we covered this New York Times article on last Friday's show and it was a big article. It caused a lot of stir in AI circles and the headline was Religious Scholars Met with Anthropic. What they heard stunned them. Well, Charles, I read it. I recognized your name and you were one of the religious scholars quoted in this article. So I have a lot of questions for you. And I know Saga does as well, but just to catch folks up to speed, the New York Times reported, and you've written about this as well, we can toss B3 up on the screen. You've written about some of your experiences corresponding with these tech companies going back and forth with them as they try to bring religious scholars into their circles. Now, people may remember that New York Times article specifically talked about them considering whether or not Claude should be doing communion, doing confession, participating in the sacraments for Catholics and the New York Times wrote that you attracted the attention of Mr. Ola. He works at Anthropic as one of the co-founders, his friends for your nuanced ideas about moral status and care for animals. You guys met up. They say this marked the beginning of a year-long quest with Ola to engage religious thinkers on some of the Thornies questions facing humanity at the dawn of AI, Mr. Kamosi, the New York Times writes, and Mr. Ola began an extensive email dialogue going back and forth on how to understand Claude's moral status. Initially, the Times reports you were deeply skeptical that Claude might be conscious. They talked about your work on what you see as the parallels between artificial neuron networks and biological ones. Tell us a bit about your initial impressions of what Ola and Anthropic was trying to do and whether or not your mind changed and also if you were under NDA. 'Cause that's what a lot of the buzz has been and the NDA has now been lifted. So big question there. But were you under NDA and what were your initial impressions and did your mind change? - Lots there. I have a lot to say about all of it. I'll try to be brief. So Chris and I, it's almost exactly a year since he first reached out to me. And actually, I sort of became friend of me with Peter Singer during my time at Fordham and I was debating him regularly on the moral status of the fetus at Princeton. And one of his TAs heard me talk and that T.A. was best friends with Chris Ola. And Chris Ola said, "Which Catholic should I talk to you about this stuff?" I don't know many Catholics, maybe you should talk to Charlie. So Chris Ola emails me, I have really no idea who he is. I had to reach out to people in my circles who know who he is. Like Chris Ola reached out to you, come on. You gotta get on this. This is the guy you gotta be talking with the most important figures to be talking to on this. And the email conversation we had is private. But I can say in a very general way, we had just an amazing conversation. I learned so much. I came in as you mentioned very skeptical. I leave the conversation very skeptical. Actually, I leave more certain actually now that God does not have a significant moral status than when I went in 'cause I understand it and thought about it a lot more soberly and carefully. There's been a lot of talk, frankly, about anthropic trying to manipulate people or trying to get religious people on their side or something. Well, religious people like to try to convert people to their perspectives, too, because they think they're right. And a lot of people at anthropic also think they're right. They want to try to reach out with their ideas. And I received nothing but a genuine attempt to exchange about ideas. And frankly, I think it's something else that they were interested in a Catholic moral theologian and other religious thinkers to engage on this question. Speaking frankly, we don't often get these kinds of invitations from powerful people in the discourse. So, but I'll just say it was a really illuminating set of exchanges. Yeah, Charles. So one of the headlines that really came out of the article was like this confrontation where they kind of demanded the acknowledgement of the personhood or I guess of the humanity of the model, which sparked then the Pope to put out, I believe his most viewed post of all time, let's put B1 up here on the screen. He says, in this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference even before an aesthetic one between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity in addition to kind of highlighting the humanity in the lack, I guess, of personhood that could be ascribed to AI. So could you talk to us a little bit about that for people who are not, let's say, Catholic, why he felt like it was very important to highlight this and particularly why you think that your interlocutors are really kind of obsessed with this idea of personhood, of consciousness, and I guess of well-being, if you will. - Yeah, great question. When I last saw that tweet or that post, I guess I'm supposed to say now, it had well over 24 million impressions in the English version and even the Latin version had over well over 2 million impressions. So it went mega viral and I think one reason it went mega viral is because we're a lot of people have their head spinning on these questions. And even if you interact inverted commas with a large language model, you can sort of be gobsmack. I know I first was when I first interacted with Claude and it can sort of take you for a ride and throw you for a loop. But I think in light of all that head spinning and confusion, the kind of message, clear message, the Pope had about the spark of humanity and the ontological difference between a large language model using millions of images of cats to produce an image of a cat versus an artist drawing or taking a picture of a cat, right. Those are two ontologically different things. And that's a very simple message and it's something that church has been speaking out about with regard to AI for years now, but it's hitting home at a time right now. With regard to your second part of your question about what's going on with Anthropic. First of all, Anthropic is a big place. The tech community is a big place. They don't all share the same views about these questions. But I will say, and it's been public for some time now that just proportionate numbers of people in Anthropic want to take those questions seriously. When Chris Ola was on the dayus with the Holy Father when the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas was released, he set it out on the dayus with him. He said, you know, I gotta say, I don't necessarily agree with the Encyclical's claim that we would try to shut the door in these questions. We see other data in the artificial neural networks, suggest things that we don't quite understand and maybe point towards some kind of significant moral status and the whole they father actually responded and saying, yeah, we disagree with you about that, but we still want to work with you on all the other major issues of the day regarding AI, which this show so carefully covers, which I really appreciate. And so that's one thing I want to drive home in today's discussion is despite the disagreements over the moral status of cloud, we have to find a way to work together. The Catholic Church has already positioned itself as a major force through Pope Leo and through its global institutions to try to rein in and try to humanize the prospects of AI, the AI revolution just as we did with Catholic social teaching and the response to the previous industrial technical revolution of the late 19th century or early 20th century. So we have to, this is a disagreement, it's a sexy disagreement, it's a fun disagreement, it's a complex disagreement, but we have so much, we agree on that we have to move on together, we shouldn't let this disagreement derail that. Is it interesting that you can't just, oh God, can I just one follow a question to that is, you know, the disagreement appears to stem from this encyclical, which again, it's very long and people can go and read it kind of if they wish, but it does kind of come back to these principles, which you just outlined. What I am just kind of, what I am interested in is why the emotion from their like core belief, at least in your discussion, that there is a genuine consciousness to these models. Obviously, they're much closer to these than we are. We only have the consumer version, which is released, they have a much closer, you know, the research, the research stuff and the cutting edge, which we can't see. It seems to be a genuine core conviction. So first of all, why do they think it? And then on your side, why is it something that you and the Pope and other Catholic scholars don't really ever feel could be in the discussion? So let me say this. I think there are two levels at which this is happening with the people I've engaged with. This is just my sense of things from engaging. So it's won't take it as one person's point of view. There's a level of actual argument on basis of evidence. So and with presuppositions to interpret the events, one of those presupposition is the artificial neural networks that make up these large language models, mirror in some sense. And there's a disagreement about just how dramatic the mirroring is, an organic neural networks. The neural networks in our brains. And so if one starts with two assumptions there that this mirrors our neural networks and our neural networks are sort of like machines. We've been talking about ourselves as machines and our brains as machines for a very long time now. I think that's a terrible mistake and I have big anthropological mistake and we need to really interrogate that. And that's actually one of the good things about the AI revolution is these sorts of anthropological mistakes are being forward-rounded in ways we can actually revisit them and talk about them. Like maybe it was a mistake to think of ourselves as machines because this is leading good-hearted, I think good-faith people to interpret what's going on with cloth is sort of like what's going on with us. And one could be forgiven for having that mistake. This is making that mistake, given the second part of what I want to say, another level on which this is happening, which is just on the level of emotion. I think when one is engaging with a large language model which imitates human interactions so very well, it's just perfectly natural that one would be emotionally attached. We see this all the time with children who, and even adults who get emotionally attached, their chatbots fall in love with them, right? They want to "marry" them, travel over the country to be with them. And so I think those are those two levels quickly to say why we would disagree with this. It is just a metaphysical claim about what consciousness is. Consciousness isn't from our neural networks. We've been looking for consciousness in the brain for 50, 60 years now. Most people agree that consciousness doesn't exist in the brain. In fact, philosophers of mine like Daniel Dennett who just passed away said he thought consciousness must be an illusion because we can't find it in the brain, which is kind of a bizarre thing. So from our perspective, consciousness is a product of the union of body and soul, holistically considered, and it doesn't come from neural networks, whether they're organic or silicon. Yeah, and that gets to this kind of significant divider question about what's happening in Silicon Valley right now, so whether they are fundamentally materialists or whether some of them are being kind of seduced into an almost pagan relationship with these chatbots. I'm Hamza, and I'm Martin, and we're the hosts of Out of Character. It's a podcast. I know there's a lot of them to listen to these days. How are you going to get to us? Well, there's a specific reason why you should listen to us. We are the best podcast in the entire world. I swear. I know, bold. But why don't we list some of the things we might talk about on a regular episode? So sometimes we'll talk about, I don't know, the Uber driver we just had. And how nice they were, or if we tip them or not, come and find out. Sometimes we'll talk about that weird news story from last week. It's the one you're thinking about. Trust me. Or maybe we'll talk about music and what's happening in the underground or drama and music or TV shows or the Med Gala and what the actors wore. What we're saying is we're not afraid to talk about everything under the sun. And if you want to see what that's like, come join us. It's a place where everyone can hang out, anyone, wherever you're from, whatever you're like, you're welcome. Listen out of character from Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Pods or wherever you get your podcasts. Didn't catch the latest role in the Martin unfiltered podcast? It's real. Those are the very people who I always say vote against their own economic interests and they complained about the very thing they were receiving. It's raw. I knew that the issue of transgender athletes was not going well with a lot of black men. Roland Martin unfiltered. I went off. I said, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Y'all go scream at Chanel, but you don't want to see a black luxury company in the same bag. 12 seats. So if you Democrats, you don't wait to 2030. You better be hitting the ground going hard in the south now. And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts. One of the questions that I had is an interesting that you characterize Chris Ola's efforts. Again, he's an anthropic co-founder as good faith because I think a lot of people on the outside, Christians on the outside myself included. Look at this and have really cynical concerns that sounds like they're trying to potentially capture different thinkers, bring them into the orbit, convince them that it's good faith. And then, of course, start even talking about things like organic neural networks versus, you know, we would always consider just neural networks. Organic consciousness versus machine consciousness, those sorts of things, even the kind of language implies that there's, there's, I'm not totally having a problem with the language, but you could see people can make the semantic argument that it cheapens the kind of human nature of consciousness or neural networks or those sorts of things. Anyway, sort of beside the point, I'm curious what your response would be to people who look at this cynically and wonder, is it really good faith? And how do you think about engaging with these folks in a way that also doesn't necessarily enable, allow for, or rubber stamp, not that it does, but I know that's probably a complicated thought process. And if you could walk us through it, that would be great. It is. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about it. Those of us who attended some people thought, well, this is a no-brainer. How can you not want to engage? How can you not want to learn? How can you not want to evangelize? One of the things that some of us who attended, who are in the Catholic Academy, joked, is we did a lot more praying at the anthropic meetings than we do at the Society for Kitchen Ethics annual meeting or something like this. But I think in terms of the sort of us getting rolled and getting sort of manipulated into things, plenty of us came away very interested in the ideas, but plenty of people came away just like me. Interested, engaged, wanting to pursue common goals, but not at all on board. In fact, I would say I can't speak for everyone. I would say of a clear majority of people came away with not with something other than the view that Claude is a person like us or something like this. I think maybe this actually gets to something that people may have a bias about with regard to religious folks, sort of like we're rooms, or we're not really seriously intellectual, or we can get rolled easily by people with lots of money or give us fancy dinners or something like this. This simply is not going to happen. In fact, one of the frustrations that many of us had is we didn't get a chance to talk as much as we wanted to from our perspective. We heard a lot from anthropic and it didn't exactly go back the other way. And as I was discussing with you over email earlier before this, there are plenty of other companies in the frontier who invite us to talk to them. I'm leaving tomorrow to visit OpenAI in San Francisco, and they want to hear on our terms, on my terms and the Catholic terms, on magnificent mining toss terms, two weeks ago I gave a talk to Google DeepMind on the encyclical. So it's actually something that's breaking through in a way where we get to be heard on our own terms. And it's not, I think the narrative that somehow the big bad tech companies are rolling the core religious rooms just doesn't work. It's not really. Yeah, it actually, it kind of seems like you guys are the ones who are standing up and be like, hold on a second, we're going to use this as opportunity to kind of educate people really on our view of consciousness. I'm curious actually, because you are a person you wrote this book about throwaway culture, an idea I totally agree with, which really gets to this root. And I believe it's rooted in a phrase that was previously used by Pope Francis. And I wonder how you think about meeting with the frontier technology. When I would say the technology itself has enabled and created the consumer, or at least at the very least, it has exacerbated so much of the consumerism, the throwaway culture, the optimization, the productivity. We had a big discussion yesterday about AI agents and the use cases are like, oh, it can check in for a flight for you or book or dinner reservation. I'm like, I'm sorry. This is not a problem in my life. And if you do the extent that it is, it is an extremely minor compared to how I think about the relationship between my daughter and technology. Like that's something I want to spend a lot of time thinking about. And not just outsourcing, let's say, thinking or even for her building a theory of mind. So big loaded question, but when you're meeting with them, do you worry, in some sense, about legitimizing, like you're being very respectful to them. And I haven't met any of these people face to face. But my default really is, you're building something which is, quote, useful, but may just be very, very, very bad. And I'm not so sure that useful itself is actually a very good metric at all. I'm looking at human flourishing. Yeah, I agree with that. And one of the things at least that I've tried to make my career about engaging with people like Peter Singer and others with whom I disagree strongly on a level of ideas is to try to keep a culture of encounter present, which is the opposite of throwaway culture. So you're right, Pope Francis came up with this idea of seeing things through the lens of a throwaway culture, a culture of seeing even people who are less than useful as discardable like trash. The opposite of that, the counter culture to that is a culture of encounter and hospitality, which is the culture of the gospel, actually, in a culture of Jesus who, of course, went to the marginalized who went even to the very sinful, like the taskletters who weren't very good folks who weren't doing very good things, right, with the structures and systems of the day. So I think what it actually does is through those encounters, through those relationships, through the spirit of mutual hospitality, we actually get to have conversations. I'm still looking forward to my conversations. I'd open AI tomorrow and Friday. I just can't, I literally can't wait. But in some ways, the ground has already been prepared in a way where there's an expectation of listening to each other, of engaging with each other, and of course there will be critiques, like I don't think Sam Altman has made every good decision in the world and putting his company together, right, but I will swear there's mistakes, I will speak my mind and I'm sure they want to agree with everything I have to say either. But if we're going to get through the next year or so, which is very critical the next year to try to shape AI in various ways, we have to find a way to listen to each other. We have to find a way to engage with each other. There's really no other option other than I think maybe some sort of catastrophic event that maybe could unite us, but let's not let it get to that point. We have to find a way to say, hey, this is where we're coming from. And I got to say, the people who are on the frontiers feel a little trap. They feel like if they stop, it's not going to really stop anything. Their competitors in China are simply going to go on. And so they feel like they have to win in order to have the good guys win as it were. And they're scared by this prospect. They're frightened by this prospect. In fact, I've seen people like Chris over the last year, almost their countenance change. You could see it on his face and in his mannerisms, the kind of weight and stress that this brings with it. And they need help. And we need to be there to engage and to help them with our ideas and with our support, but also with criticism when it's appropriate. I'm sort of worried that they're not the good guys. That's kind of my concern, Charles, that they're, I mean, you don't have to, you're jumping on those. But so many of them seem creepy and transhumanist. And I don't know if that's been your experience, but I'm not asking about anybody in particular. But you wrote this great article recently and before we can put it up on the screen for the Washington Examiner about the human purpose of medicine and how AI could totally change the way we see medicine. That maybe it'll be helpful with efficiency. But this is really like your bread and butter, Charles, is writing about how humans are not just in creation is not just about efficiency, obviously, that there are important ends to things like medicine. And I guess I wonder, I mean, I think it's good, like you're persuading me in this argument that it's good to be an open conversation with them, that some of them probably are genuinely curious about all of this. But is there, I guess, fundamentally a concern that you still have? They are pushing us in a direction that is actually, could be just as bad as what Chinese AI would do. Like fun, I'm not talking about how it would be implemented on a policy level by the governments that sort of thing. But even just like on a basic conceptual level that there's maybe a transhumanist characteristic to this and an anti-human characteristic to all of this, that is still what they agree with. That they want to hear your different ideas, but they are still really wedded to and attached to this idea that transhumanism is not necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, I mean, there's definitely that strain of things. And I didn't meet with every single person at Anthropic, not even close, right? And I'm not meeting with every single person at OpenAI, I'm sure. I'm not meeting with every, I didn't meet with every single person, not every single person at Google deep mind came to my talk. There are important, I just want to emphasize this, there are deeply profoundly bad things on the horizon if we keep on the path that many of these companies have set us on, including with healthcare. So if I can just briefly say some things about what's what the path we're on with healthcare right now. For some time, actually, before AI, we've been governed by the efficiency mongers and the profit margin seekers, and we've been getting more and more humanity out of the system and more and more, again, efficiency and profit making into the system. And AI is going to already, it's super charging that. And you can already see the being counters look and say, "Hey, we can save a lot of money. We can increase our profit margins if we have no flabbautomist, the FDA just produced a machine that can take blood without any human in the process at all. Patients love it already. Just also this week, I think maybe yesterday, a day before, a company in Utah said that they are now going to have an AI, quote, "doctor" without any human in the loop, be able to take a picture of your face and prescribe you acne medication, right? This is the, they're touting it as the first AI doctor without any human in the loop. You can just get your acne medication without ever engaging with a person at all. About two months ago, Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of Obamacare, wrote an article in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical association, saying, "Hey, guys, if we keep on the trends we're on now and he thinks it's a good thing, we're going to have workflows in healthcare, massive workflows in healthcare without any, it's not going to just be take a picture of your face and get the medicine, it's going to be massive workflows in hospitals and clinics all over the world done by AI without any humans in the loop." So what we're, what the path we're on right now with healthcare is to undermine the very nature of healthcare itself, to turn it into something that frankly isn't care, right? A machine cannot care for someone, but that's the path we're on and so we have to decide this. We have agency here. Again, we responded to the Industrial Revolution with the labor movement and the minimum wage and environmental protections and all sorts of things that mitigated that revolution in favor of human beings and favor of work and favor of labor and favor the dignity of work. In favor of the dignity of work that's human that engages with others, we have to revisit that. And that's exactly what Leo did by taking the name Leo XIV to connect it himself to Leo XIII, the Pope that wrote Ram Navaran that responded to the first Industrial Revolution. And I have a lot of hope that we can do it again. Maybe it's polyannish, maybe I need you a little more cynical, but I at least want to try. I want to give it to good old culture. Cool. Well, it's cool to have people like you out there who are meeting with these people because I don't think it would go as well. They met with me. Thank you very much. Sir, we appreciate your time. Thanks very much. I'm Hamza and I'm Martin and we're the hosts of Out of Character. It's a podcast. I know. There's a lot of them to listen to these days. I swear. I know. Bold. Trust me. Maybe we'll talk about music and what's happening in the underground or drama music or TV shows or the Med Gala and what the actors wore. It's a place where everyone can hang out, anyone, wherever you're from, whatever you're like. You're welcome. Listen Out of Character from Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network. On the iHeart Radio app, Apple Pods or wherever you get your podcasts. Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast? And the argument is, do you want to. win. It's real. Those are the very people who I always say vote against their own economic interests and they complained about the very thing to receive. It's wrong. I went off. I said this is exactly what I'm talking about. 12 seats. And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHot Radio app, Apple Podcast. Turning now to the midterms, we have another piece of leaked audio from Ken Paxson, the Senate candidate, as a slew of polls show him continuing to fail in that election. Here he is in another piece of leaked audio saying that the Iran War is driving up gas prices and he doesn't know what Trump is doing over there. Let's take a listen. A lot of trucks are being sold for a deal in that pinch. So I'd say that's probably the biggest problem and that push drive them to prices and everything else and everything else. It's something worse. So that's by far our biggest problem. And I think that's why we're in a hard time with others. Ken Paxson very eloquent there as always, right, Emily, or you can always decipher exactly what he's saying. If you couldn't exactly, it was, I don't know what's behind some of those decisions. It's the war. It's gas prices. Emily, you have a theory that his team is just leaking all of this just so they can get ahead of a potentially humiliating loss. I don't think it's necessarily mutually exclusive from a lot of people just don't like him and a lot of his donors are also upset because from what I hear, he doesn't work very hard and they're mad at least some of the people down in Texas, they're like, look, this is a potentially winable race. If you put your pedal to the metal, Tallahriko is blasting everything and blanketing the state. He's doing all these different events. We could barely get you to do some of the same stuff. But what do you think of all this? No, I think that's right. I don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive things because what could be happening? These are coming from donor conversations. It's my understanding. So he's at like donor events. And that means anybody could be recording and then leaking to media. So it could just be broadly somebody in the Paxson camp, like a donor friend of his or an ally of his in the state. I mean, state politics are as so messy and dramatic and crazy that you can kind of see where just an aggrieved person in the Paxson camp wouldn't necessarily be acting in concert with the campaign. Maybe they're texting Paxson themselves, but it's not really conspiratorial. It's just the idea that like he's, he may realize that it's almost nihilistic to try at this point, which is not true. I mean, he may think that like he could even if he's about to lose, he could probably at least lose less embarrassingly or maybe he can even try to win, but his point might be in leaking this stuff. And I don't know who's leaking it, of course, but his point might be in leaking this stuff that the president is what's making it difficult. So it could be to start trying to run away from the president. Obviously, Mike Rogers, Michelle Tafoya have both started running away from the president on Iran, which is especially surprising in the case of Mike Rogers, but it could be him trying to lay the groundwork to run away from Trump to distance himself from Trump or to soften the blow to frame what would be a historic loss, because now you'll already have, it would actually be a pretty smart thing to do. You would already have all of these leaks to the media of Paxson sort of accidentally admitting that the real problem all along was Donald Trump. And the media, as you and I both know, the day after election of November 4th is going to look at all of that and say Paxson was consistently frustrated with the president's drag on the ticket. And there you have it, like it's been framed. So I don't know where it's coming from, but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if these are actually coming from people who support Paxson and are frustrated at and pissed with Trump, who basically called him dumb and ugly, both nights at their little convention. So it doesn't seem like a guarantee to me that this is coming from anti-Paxson world. You could be mad about Trump's lies, but when he's telling the truth, I mean, come on. Take it for what it is. He was right. He's a beardly correct. All right, let's turn. This is originally what we wanted to start with. Dr. Oz of Crudite fame, one of our probably all-time favorite clips ever in Breaking Point's history. Long-time viewers will know that we did several times at the live show, too, back in the day. So here he is with another one on the price of butter where even lower income goes. Come on. And what are you talking about? We should also tease if you're listening to this. He brought props to the fire. Yeah, he brought it. Right. Exactly. All right, let's take a listen. So you have no idea what things are going to cost. I brought you some things in exam. We went grocery shopping, stick a butter, bag of peanuts, butter in America. It's about a buck for which to take like this. If I charge you $10. Or are you shopping? It's not a buck. Well, four. I just bought this so it's close to that. They've got it. Maybe it's going bad. Okay. The Mondani story. So even lower income is like, what are you talking about? Well, where are you shopping? Where is the butter a dollar? So I just looked it up. The national average retail price of butter August of 2026 is $4.00 a pound. I guess he's trying to narrow it by saying I bought the stick. I don't know. Right. But he did buy the whole. Is that a pound of butter? I was going to say, I don't know what the unit measurement is exactly. Or for one of those things, the point just remains is he keeps trying to minimize things. Right. He picks peanuts and butter, which first of all, is that the, is that in the CPI index? Is that exactly what people are upset about when we talk about groceries? People are mad about the aggregate highs and specifically the increase in eggs and in meat and meat, especially where you've seen the highest price increase. And you have seen no downturn whatsoever as a result of whatever this cheap meat, the Trump, the Trump administration let in. So yeah, I mean, I just thought it was so ridiculous where they're even, even Fox and Laura Ingraham is like, what are we doing here, man? What exactly are you trying to say? You're the CMS director. This is not even in your purview and you can't even make something up, which is clever whenever you're trying to fight back against this inflation argument. You should just lie and say it's Joe Biden's fault. That's honestly less insulting than what this is. So I went and looked at my, the Aldi by my parents in Wisconsin, the cheapest butter, I think was like three bucks, maybe a little bit more than that. So yeah, it's not even, he's not even close. So the fact that he got the prop and brought it to Fox News tells you there was intentionality in making this insane political error. And it does harken to the cruditay bit because once again, there was intentionality making his point about cruditay, which I know we pulled, but just a complete level of insanity to bring what he said was a stick of butter. It's a pack of butter. I don't think anywhere that's going for anywhere close to a dollar. That's probably, it's probably three times as much just about anywhere that you can get a pack of butter. And Saga, this is not out of the, not out of character for Dr. Oz because of course, I believe you, you would love to revisit the beautiful one. Yeah, why not? That election. Let's let's do it all together. Let's listen. I thought it was a grocery shopping. I met Wagner's and my wife went some vegetables for cruditay, right? So here's a broccoli. That's two bucks, a ton of broccoli there. There's some asparagus. That's four dollars. Yep. Carrots. That's four more dollars. That's ten dollars of vegetables there. And then we need some guacamole. That's four dollars more. And she loves salsa. Yeah, salsa there. Six dollars must be as short as her salsa. Guys, that's twenty dollars for cruditay. This doesn't include the tequila. I mean, that's outrageous. We got Joe Biden to think of this. So if, first of all, the cruditay, there was so much there if you recall. So first of all, there is no such thing as Wagner's. I think it's Wagner's and there's another store I forget, exactly. It's like Redners, something like that. So he confused the two and called it Wagner's. Then he said, I'm shopping for some of my wife's cruditay. First, and I think we also even brought this up, which was dude, don't you, don't people just buy those pre-prepared platters? Because that would probably be cheaper. But the entire thing obviously made him look ridiculously out of touch. And he ended up losing in what should have easily been. I think it was a win-able actually one way, what he lost by five points, especially when you consider with some of the, yeah, so it's two thousand point. Yeah, I guess a little bit better before the Democrats. But if I recall, they had it either tied or caused by plus two or plus three going into that. And so he threw away, I got a pretty win-able election to John Federman. Yeah, to John Federman. Who had a clear, conspicuous brain damage at that point in time. Yeah, so ridiculous. Let's then take a look at how all of this is kind of cascading through the midterms as we get closer and closer, less than a month now, to election day. Here we have Trump, where as we've seen now, remember, Paxton in one of his previous leaked adios had said, yeah, actually, Trump coming to Texas kind of screwed me. My poll numbers went down. Here's Trump saying the opposite in a midterm rally. Let's take a listen. By the way, I'm going around doing rallies. The Republican party started to go right through the roof. Somebody said to that, I wonder why? Well, I started-- I had to get out. I had to do it. We had to explain what we're doing. Act payer-funded ads. And will you reimburse the government for the millions-- Well, the ads were really good. They were a promotion for the country. Done by many presidents before, so we'll decide. So there he is, he's saying his rallies are actually saving the country. Let's put C3 up there on the screen. He tweeted it as well. My rallies are saving the Republican party again, just to show you how much they're saving. Let's put C5 up here. They say, exactly, from Cook Political Report, which is actually one of much more conservative organizations that forecast selections. They say that they have moved Kansas from lean Republican to toss up North Carolina from lean D to likely D, New Hampshire from toss up to lean D. So nothing really breaking Republicans way. And Emily, you and I talked a lot with Logan yesterday about some of these outlier elections like Kansas and South Carolina. We're learning a little bit more about South Carolina. I'm really curious for what you think. Let's put it up here. The next one, this is C6, is that the current fundamentals they say, this is from a local South Carolina reporter. Still seem in Darling Graham's favor. Trump carried it by 18 points. But multiple pollsters here tell me the GOP lead in generic is just about five to six points. And that the word is that her fundraising is abysmal. So I mean, if you have only five or six and then you underperform Emily across from where the rest of the GOP generic ballot is, that actually could put things in dangerous direction for her, and it explains why send in her $5 million, which we covered yesterday. And Trump is out there attacking the opponent trying to gin up some of the Republicans who are actually in the state to come out and vote. So what do you think overall? Well, yeah, they're obviously freaked out. And that's what Mark Halperin and others have been saying. Steve Deese, the conservative radio house, said that he was seeing this. And he's not even a reporter like Halperin. He was just saying he saw this on the ground in Iowa. So people are worried about the safe seats. Because if you end up in Saiger, you and I have seen this many times. If you end up, well, not many times. I mean, it's fairly rare, but it does happen where the polls undercount because of an enthusiasm gap or because in states, we talked about this with Logan yesterday, too. It placed like North Carolina. Where you had a lot of people moving post-COVID who aren't traditional North Carolina voters. They're new to the state. And that's harder for posters and demographers to fully wrap their heads around. And then you pair that with an enthusiasm gap that may be undercounted, dem enthusiasm, and overcounted Republican enthusiasm to actually get out there and vote on election day. And was also perhaps, I mean, this was another focus group result that I think it was on MSNOW just in the last couple of days with Trump voters in Texas who regretted voting for Trump. If that's not something polls are picking up on. What you can end up with in a situation like South Carolina is a Democrat-eaking out of wind because Republicans didn't put a lot of money behind the candidate because Darlene Graham didn't debate because Darlene Graham ran from the cameras. And so they're having to rethink their entire strategies in places like Kansas where their Senate leadership fund is now steering $14 million to Roger Marshall, who they thought would be perfectly fine and perfectly safe. So I think what they're worried about, Saga, is that possibility that you look at an electorate that is different. It's just composed of different voters. It's not being picked up on by polls. They're seeing some of this in their internals. And that's why they think even if something is showing up in the polls within a few points, that might actually mean the Republican is losing. So they're trying to overcompensate for that possibility whether they can actually overcompensate in a way that helps is a different question, of course. This is where Trump, too, is actually just screwing them like triply, both from tariffs and from the war, but the insistence on rallying because these candidates sometimes they don't have a choice, right? He just comes through, he's like, look, I'm coming to your state, I'm gonna do this for you. And so he comes, Jetson, they're basically forced to make a choice of pissing off the president or not. When he's actually a huge drag on them, at least in terms of what we see right now. Look, I can say this, you know, to always give the other side of the case. Everybody said this similarly in 2016. Obviously, Trump wins a shock, upset election. It would be, I mean, what? One of the biggest polling misses of all time and I have covered two out of the three polling misses, the biggest polling misses literally of all time in modern American history, I think in just the course of doing this show or in my career over the last 12 years. So it's not like it can't happen. And we should always kind of caveat that this would be an extraordinary situation. And of course, the blue wall fell apart in 2016. A lot of people didn't think that it would. Maybe Kansas, Lean D or Tossup, you know, is a ludicrous fashion and some things can tighten during election day. The thing that Logan did say though yesterday was traditionally in September through October, you would actually start to see that rally effect around the GOP and you instead seem the opposite of bleeding, which is almost certainly a scribe to Trump and the continuing pressure from the Iran War. So the lack of motivation, the lack of enthusiasm behind a lot of these Republicans, at the very least what we can come back to Emily is, let's put all the polls aside, Ken Paxton and the candidates themselves, they seem to believe repeatedly behind the scenes off the record in secret audio and in the money. They are telling you we have a problem. Nobody spends money in tech in Kansas unless they think they have a problem. These people have hundreds of millions of dollars, secret polling, things that they think that they can shore up. They know a little bit more than you or I do. They don't know everything. But at the very least, they are behaving as if they think that they're going to lose a big and they're trying to mitigate losses instead of actually make these things competitive. - And just a reminder with Beto and Ted Cruz, that race, Ted Cruz led Beto O'Rourke in the RCP average every step of the way in that race. It ended up being within about two points. James Tallerico has never, ever been behind in the RCP average. It's a complete opposite. Whereas Beto never led in the RCP average. Tallerico has never been behind in the RCP average. This time around, he has always been the lead in the last couple of months in the Real Corp. 6 average. So Paxton is the underdog at this point in Texas. There's no other way to look at it. He is the underdog, he is behind. He is losing this campaign. So it would not be a surprise at this point. If James Tallerico is the senator from Texas and that should be causing Republicans to have absolute panic. (upbeat music) - Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast? - There should not be a single law enforcement agency. It does not have body cameras. - It's real. - Black farmers have been under attack. - It's raw. - And I'm sitting here going. They are playing y'all for fools. - And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the eye. - And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast. - Oh, wherever you get your podcasts. - This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.