9/15/26: Trump Panics On AI Slowdown, Bonds Hit 19 Year High, Trump 5k Checks

This is an iHeart podcast, guaranteed human. Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast. Here's what you missed. People wake up and go, oh, damn, wait and hold up. They changed all of that. Yes. It's real. This is a wholesale attack. It is targeting black people in every federal agency. It's wrong. White folks have never allowed that reckoning to last more than a decade. Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the Black Information Network. And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast. Or 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 Tuesday, having an amazing show for everybody today. What do you personal? Indeed, we do. We are tracking a major Trump crash out over on true social over two big topics, AI. And also the Iran War. Garrison Lovely is going to join his breakdown. The very latest with regard to AI, then we'll also take a look at what Trump is saying with regard to the Iran War. Once again, claiming Iran is begging to come to the table and wants to deal. Meanwhile, Iran is singing a very different tune. So we'll take a look at that. We also have our eye on the midterms. Bunch of new stuff coming out, but in particular, some new numbers that show this is the largest gas price spike in history during a midterm election. Can't be good for the party in power. We're also tracking the fallout after McLean War at an Ed Sheeran tour, dare to say free Palestine. And now has been kicked off the tour at the behest of Robert Kraft Ed Sheeran bending to the pressure. We've got Pablo Torrey joining us for, frankly, a bit of a victory lap after being indicated on this whole Kawaii Leonard salary cap, clippers situation. And Ryan and I recorded yesterday in interview with the deputy foreign minister of Cuba, who was in town talking about the impact of the blockade in human terms, what their plans are, and why he's in town right now. >> That's right, thank you, everybody, Houston. So Ryan's in the show today. So you guys might as well just sign up for him, all right? Does the poor Ryan-- >> We'll give him credit. >> Yeah, give the guy credit. If you want to support Ryan, breakinpoints.com, take advantage of me to trial. As I expected, my threat to become shirtless did not work. And so you know, that's all right. I got to come up with something different. >> People, I guess, were supportive of that. >> I can't sign up, but I want to see Sheryl O'Sogherr. So here we go. >> You are in the wrong direction there, my friends. Thank you again to everybody signing up. Like you said, if you don't want to see a shill gambling advertising, please sign up for breakinpoints.com. All right, let's go ahead and kick it to Garrison, which is recorded in a great interview with him. >> Join us now to talk about the very latest with Trump's AI crash out is Garrison. Lovely, he is a journalist and author of the still forthcoming book, although we've been talking about it for a while at this point. obsolete the AI industry's trillion dollar race to replace us and how to stop it in great front of the show where to see a Garrison in person. >> Good to see you, man. >> Great to be here, is this fun? >> Yeah, of course. Yesterday, Trump epic crashed out on a number of fronts. We'll get to the Iran War piece of that later. But let's start with the AI focus. Bunch of truth, social posts. But also he called into an all in public event that was happening with the head of NVIDIA Jensen Huang to say that the concerns over AI sort of existential risk are a quote hoax. Let's go ahead and take a listen to a little bit of that. >> I can't open this. Oh no. >> It was Trump. >> No shit. >> Mr. President? >> Yeah, sir, I got to tell you something. It wasn't because of you calling. I went, I'm on stage with the guest juice. I'm going to ask you guys for it. >> Yeah. >> The great thing about life is that Jensen kept developing the most time-wise confusion in the world that nobody gets counted in years. But it kept you here and had a good young spirit. >> And I'm telling you, it's all a house. The neighbors are great and they make people wealthy and they take wealth and see oil in it. The next 20, 25 years is bigger than 10 in the head and pay out and get a much more sell. And they're just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it happen. That could be political people. They're also being China. >> Told you. >> And when you let that happen, it's a house. >> And you're right. What am I going to do that that happens here? >> The robots will not be taken over. The AI will not be taken over the rest of the world to hold that little house. >> There are communities that we're dying that have data sets right now and now they're wealthy communities. >> Yeah, really wealthy. >> We're going to make sure that everybody wins in the AI race in America. Every industry, every company, every state, every people. >> All right, a lot going on in that clip. You know, Jensen Wang deciding to take this call on the stage. You've got all the all-in guys there. Trump saying it's a hoax. You know, what do you make of this moment and why Trump responded so vigorously yesterday to some of these concerns? >> Yeah, it's always risky to talk about what's happening inside Donald Trump's head. But I think you can see this as like maybe the February March 2020 reaction from Trump to COVID where he's sort of like, oh, it's a hoax dismissing it. And then this could be coped from people who really want there to be action on AI, especially with China. But he might come around if the pressure is continue. And I think there's a lot of worry that like he's going to polarize his base against AI regulations or against the concept of AI safety. But I think this issue's become salient enough. >> Yeah. >> And the base is like skeptical enough of the technology that is going to be hard for him to really command like everyone but the loyal followers. >> Very similar to the data center thing. >> Yeah. >> You know, you have a huge polarization against data centers, Trump comes out. He's actually, we can put the next one up here on the screen. He kind of links a lot of these things together in kind of the crash out the crystal alluded to. So this was his longest post yesterday. Concerning AI went in the history of business to anyone see the leaders of an industry call for regulation that have strongly implemented will drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy. AI taking over the world, destroying humanity and all other things bad is quote a hoax, no different than Russia, Russia, Russia. All the other hoaxes and scams. President Xi of China, just announced China will be doing absolutely nothing to stand in the AI. That's not true. I'll get to that little bit. Google has announced stated that they want to build a massive plant in Finland all because they're providing permitting too difficult. I'm not happy about this. I want them to change their thinking, AI and data centers. Will be the greatest economic development engine in the history, bigger than oil, gold, diamonds or even the internet. It will not be stopped by brilliantly run destructive forces during the term of President Donald J. Trump. So this is what's kind of fascinating about this. Stario and Sam basically come out, they're begging for regulation rhetorically. Now lobbying in Washington is a different story. They're not actually lobbying for that. What to help us break this down? Is this a regulatory capture scheme? Because I have a lot of skepticism around these people. They want regulatory capture. I think they want bailouts. They've set a lot of the stuff out in the open. I do think that there's a sincerity to some of their warnings. I do also think a lot of it is to preserve at least some of their monopoly or at the very least let them be the people who are in charge of this. So you've studied a lot longer than I have. There's a lot of dynamics just trying to break it all down. Yeah, I think that they genuinely do want to slow down. Because they're going so fast that they cannot actually keep their system safe. And they're barreling towards this very uncertain future. And they still want to build what they're trying to build, which is universal labor replacing machines. They call it artificial dental intelligence. And even in Dario's post about pacing the frontier, he's like, we don't want to stop. We just want to be more responsible in how we're building this. And we'll have these subtle things where it's like, we should have the public deciding how this technology is used. And it's like, well, the public should decide what technology is built in the first place, of course. And they want to be the ones in control of this, ultimately. And they see themselves as earning that right by virtue of being the most reckless and willing to build the technology that nobody asked for. And everybody who's building it agrees is unsafe. And has no plan of how to make it go well. And so I get the skepticism about like this being a cartel or some, you get out of anti-trust jail free card. Which he said. Yes, to be fair, he literally said that. Yeah, and like, I don't know. I think that there should be some way for them to coordinate, to slow down the progress of frontier model development. But I think that it shouldn't be up to them. It should be up to the public. And if we had a responsive government, we could have just a pause and a re-evaluation of which direction we want this technology to go. And I think it's pretty clear that the public does not want the direction the industry is trying to build. Yeah. No doubt about it. And with bipartisan majorities based on the polling that we've seen, I mean, it's close to 70% of the public that supports Bernie's bill to pause altogether and to criminalize the creation of superintelligence. I mean, that's overwhelmingly where the public is. You know, with regard to Trump, to me, it's pretty clear what's going on here. Our entire economy is bet on AI. And yesterday, the market started to take a downturn. At the same time, oil prices are growing up. Treasury bond yields are going up. Like, it's a very precarious time for the domestic and global economy. So, and that's the one thing he does actually care about. And he watches the markets very closely. So I think yesterday's panicked truth social spree and call. into Jensen Huang and all of that was a reaction to the fact that you could easily see a sell-off cycle that gains a momentum and truly triggers a crash based on these concerns. >> Yeah, I think that's right. I think he's trying to call on the markets. I think one of the few consistent traits Trump has had in this term has been chickening out when the markets start to react too strongly to something he's done. And this fear of like if we pause or stop frontier AI progress, then like the main engine of the American economy and the data center build out being a big part of that as well, just stops. And I think this is a major problem for him, for any future president. And I'd love to see more work done on what that looks like. You know, what are the actual effects? Because if Trump tries to do anything, Jensen's going to be in his ear being like, you're going to wreck the economy. >> Well, let's talk about that. So I did some background research. What I found out is that literally weeks ago, Trump was supposed to sign this executive order. This executive order would have proposed something like FINRA. So this was a idea that was actually bubbled up by Scott Besson. FINRA is a fine, why I forgot the exact thing. What is it? Like financial, whatever. It's a regulatory authority, like a governing body, which where you would submit bot models for testing, very similar to actually the Chinese system, where all the models have to go through pre-approval before they're allowed to be released in the public even via open source. This was then floated around to the AI industry. Zuckerberg called Trump and was like, no, you can't do this. That's the real reason that it went down in addition to some lobbying by David Sack. So just to be clear, like even in the administration, from what I've been able to find out, is that there was an idea to propose some sort of like governing model authority quasi FDA, but it would have been entirely done by the regulatory authority. But it's the Jensen Wangs and it's the Zuckerbergs who are on the other side of it. What's fascinating. >> Almond also, by the way, spoke to Trump at the GOP convention in Texas. And as much as he's out there out from it, oh, I agree with Dario. We know they've been lobbying against any regulation. So that's where they've actually been putting that on. >> Right. There's an organization here in Washington, I think it's called leading the future, which all they do is lobby against some sort of a FINRA instead of. And so that's why trying to, I think there's so much public skepticism right now. The overwhelming sense I get and I want you to break these two things down. So from the left, largely what we hear is this is all bullshit, is that this technology is fake. All they're trying to do is to stop model and frontier development to save their financials. And because if they have to continue going forward, they're going to need to bail out. I don't know how true that I personally don't think that's really true just based on what the researchers are saying. The one I am somewhat sympathetic to is that this is some sort of effective altruism cult, and that this cult believes that they themselves should be solely in charge of this technology, create the regulatory capture, like I said. And then from that point forward, that they can then write the regulations, have no sort of democratic input. So sort through those things, what true fact, etc. >> And so as you could throw a seven up on the screen here, this is the Department of War tweet about effective altruism, which I guarantee you 99 percent of Americans have no idea what that is. >> I think 99.9. >> Yeah, go ahead, Harrison. >> Yeah, no, it's certainly strange to see their kind of beefs spilling out into the official Department of War accounts. >> Yes indeed. >> And Pete Heggs, I've talked about defective altruism, I believe, during the anthropic showdown. And so yeah, I think that the effect of altruism in the community has been one of the earliest to taking AI seriously. And it's a group of people trying to do good with their time and money, but they've been associated with like Sam Beckman Fried was the most famous proponent of it and famously did a bunch of financial fraud. And it's been condemned by leaders in the community, but I think the kind of like maximalist like maximizing out of money you can make and then give away was this mentality. >> Maximize money and power, even though fraud, even though you did fraud, you made the amount of money so that way you can spend it on the right. >> It can lead to a very justified means kind of a mentality and also prioritizing like theoretical future humans over human beings today. >> Yeah, yeah. And so a lot of EAs have been early to this AI thing and there are a lot of people that are anthropic who are sympathetic to effective altruism, but there are a lot of people that in effective altruism and AI safety who are like shut it down, we don't want. >> Yeah, we know the swarms yesterday. >> Yeah, and Nate is not exactly an EA, but like he's you know. >> Jason. >> Yeah, and he kind of proceeds like a lot of AI safety proceeds effective altruism. But yeah, I think there's just a lot of mixed opinions here and I would guess the bulk of the opinion is on like stop, just don't build it. I do think the anthropic model is like build it and be in control of it and we are the ones who can do it safely. And I think this is incredibly naive, both because it's very difficult to build smarter than human machines that will do what you want and not have unpredictable, undesirable outcomes for the world. And then also just the government is going to get control of the systems and they're going to use it for whatever they want, which is not going to be compatible with like anthropics worldview, right? >> Yeah. >> Like with Claude, you know, they're trying to get Claude to be useful for lethal autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. And there's this fight in anthropics sort of one, but the government can just get the models and then take the safeguards off and use it for whatever they want. >> Yeah, and that's why I do think that Dario, as much as obviously all of their motivations should be suspect. And it matters what they're thinking, but it also doesn't, like we, yes, they're all cross-conflicted and obviously Jensen Wang being up there like, no, there's no concerns, keep buying my chips, like that's obviously also very self-interested. So we should put everybody's self-interest aside and just as a society, what do we want? >> All right, forget about what the tech oligarchs are hyping or not hyping. Like what is it that we actually want from this technology? And I think that's a really important way to sort of sort through some of the noise from right now. I will say I was listening to Jacob Coxen who was the whistleblower who left anthropic and posted that long Twitter thread that kind of led to this moment and a lot of others coming forward who were still at the labs being like, Jacob's right, and then obviously Dario and Sam Altman and Elon Musk and Dennis Asabis also coming on being basically like, yes, we agree, we need to do something here. I was listening to Jacob this morning and he was saying, you know, I decided to leave, but it wasn't clear to me that it's still not clear to me that that was actually the right thing to do because so many people have already left and sounded the alarm and it didn't matter at all. The technology, the technological progress just continued to march forward. And so there are people that are still in the labs who have made the other calculus of, I share these deep concerns, and many of them obviously came forward and said that, but if I leave, I don't know that that matters. I think the technology just continues marching forward. It made me more sympathetic. I don't think that's the right calculus, but it did make me more sympathetic to their position and even the position of Dario who knows Sam very well and Sam by all accounts is like a, you know, liar in a psychopath. And we can see that even though I disagree with, the biggest thing I disagree with with Dario is like his butt China, you know, hawkishness, etc. But we can see in the way that they lobby and spend money and the actions that they've taken in the real world, the Department of War example being the prime one, they don't behave exactly the same. So it gave me more sympathy to Dario's position even as I still think it's insane that you genuinely believe you are building a tech that could destroy all of humanity and yet you continue to build it. >> Yeah, I mean, the starting premise for these companies and for Dario and for Sam is that it's inevitable that somebody will build this. So all of the action is in who builds it, how they do it when it happens. And I think that's just a view a lot of people share. They have to think AI is impossible or it's inevitable. And I think it's like narrow path. It's like no, we can shape it, we can control it, we can stop it. But it is actually possible for them to build these machines that can replace us fully. >> 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 voted 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. >> Y'all go scream at Chanel, but you don't want to see a black luxury company in the same van. >> 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 hard in the south now. >> And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast. >> Wherever you get your podcasts. >> The NFL never stops and neither does its newest podcast. The NFL report hosted by me, Andrew Sicilyano. It is your home for everything football. >> William, drifting, sprinting for space, in all kinds of trouble for him. >> We're tapping the biggest news stories, giving you expert analysis, fantasy previews, game picks, and more. >> We fly around every single play. We dominate every single play. >> Want to hear from the league's top stars, head of the biggest matchups, we've got you covered. >> That's a really good football team. We got to have all hands on deck. Join me at an all-star cast of analysts. for everything you need to know from around the league. Get new episodes of the NFL report Monday through Friday, all season long. Listen to the NFL report podcast on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. - Hey there, everybody. Amy Robock and TJ Holmes here from the Amy and TJ podcast with mid-term elections just around the corner. We're breaking down the biggest political stories leading up to November. - And some of those big political stories aren't just what's happening on Capitol Hill. Yes, we just saw Lindsey Graham, the death of a long time senator. Also, we've got a couple of missing members of Congress. Also, we got a lot of members of Congress behaving badly. We got accusations, allegations flying all day long on Capitol Hill. It's just like a reality show. - We're gonna cover everything you need to know during this heated political season. - And it starts with our morning run. Yes, go for a run with us. Maybe you can take us along when you're on your actual run outside or if you don't feel like going out still. You get what we're saying. It's our morning run. It's our daily news rundown of the top stories that will get you going before you even finish that first cup of coffee. - Listen to Amy and TJ on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. - I saw an interview you gave, which I framed in exactly the way I think about. You're like, I'm not that worried about AI will end humanity, but I'm actually worried that it will replace us 'cause that's what they want to do. That is the genuine, that's the bull case. And we spend so much time here talking about the kill humanity and that's fine, you know, talk to Nate. And he actually gave a very good analogy. If you're a normal chess player, he's like, I'm not gonna tell you how Magnus Carlson is going to beat you, but I can tell you that he's going to beat you. I can't tell you exactly which piece he's going to use in order to put you in checkmate. Whereas we don't spend enough time nearly talking about the transhumanist freak future. Like Dario actually is a transhumanist freak. Most of the people who work at these companies, including, yeah, Altman, a literal con man who started OpenAI as a nonprofit and turned it into one of the most profitable companies in the history of mankind with a total addressable market that him and Sam are going around saying, the entire US economy, right? And so put it together and what you find are these deeply untrustworthy systems. And I have been thinking about this. I'm curious for your reaction is in the Manhattan Project View. It would be as if under Manhattan that we just went out and funded instead of directing a bunch of labs. And we're like, all of you guys sprint to the, sprint to the bomb, you know, go for it. There's no general growth and no regulation. >> No, there's no regulation. >> I'm gonna come and look at the lab. >> Yeah, there's no FBI. There's no security check. There's no direction. There's no public funding. It's literally like, you guys sprint for the bomb. Let us know how you're getting there. And it's actually fascinating, important in the story to have the government in charge, very often telling these scientists, be like, dude, shut up. All right, he's like, this is what we're gonna do. We don't care what you're saying here, but in both directions. Both people who wanted to sprint towards it and people who didn't. And it feels like that is what's the most frustrating dynamic about this is the lack of democratic control. >> Yeah, ultimately. >> So, yeah. >> Yeah, no, I mean, it's wild that these people are building what are now super weapons, right? Like, once Mythos was able to find vulnerabilities in every piece of software, basically. It checked, including hardened classified servers that you have to say. It's like, wait, this private company that is basically not regulated at all is now able to find these vulnerabilities and get into these systems everywhere. And we're just going to let them keep building them and getting better and better. And then the systems themselves are our security threat. And yeah, if the Manhattan Project had been privatized and unregulated, that'd be insane. And that's basically the situation we're in. But the stakes are actually higher. If you buy the full bull case for the technology, which is that it could fully replicate human labor across the board and be scaled up to arbitrary numbers, which is the stated plan. And so this idea that it was always going to be the government was going to step in and take control of this technology. And that is pretty concerning. In general, I think no one should have this tech. And we should be building it, if at all, under incredibly different circumstances, under a truly global democratic control with a global effort to build it safely, but also with buy-in, ensuring that people actually want it. But this government, particularly, is very concerning. They've demonstrated a strong interest in using it for lethal autonomous weapons for mass surveillance. And there's no such thing as a safe super-weapon. No, it depends on what it's being pointed at and who's using it for what. It's not a property of the system. It's a property of the entire ecosystem and the world that it's coming into. Let's go ahead and put a six up on the screen. This is the Bernie Gregg-Kazar proposal. You've got Bernie and Steve Vannon attending the same event today to raise awareness and call for regulation. What do you make of some of the political coalitions here? Because it is very interesting. I can tell you in terms of where I'm finding a agreement online and very soon finding some surprising places. There are some people that now I've just seriously disagree with that. I would have been surprised, previously. So there is a lot of, I think, political coalitions scrambling that is happening here. But I also think there's a bit of a disconnect between the elite discourse around the concerns and the general public sense of just, we don't understand this, we don't want it, we didn't ask for it, we wouldn't slow down, we don't want these data centers in our towns, like there feels to be a large, normy backlash that almost precedes the elite discourse now. Yeah, I think it's kind of populist versus elite, right? You've got the populist left and the populist right, opposing AI, supporting regulations, opposing the preemption of state level regulations, which Congress was pushing under the Republican leadership. And then the Republican leadership is just taking orders from the industry. And the AI industry is the wealthiest industry of all time. And so it's very unpopular to try and nullify all state level AI regulations, but the Republicans did try to do this. And then Trump is taking excuse from that at political cost to himself and to his party. And I think this is just one of those issues where it really is almost everybody against this tiny set of people who are trying to build the technology and the people in the tech right who want to let it rip. And if you look at polling for this, it's like the least popular position you could have. It's just like no regulation for this technology. I mean, it is weird. Because it's an objectively insane position. Yes. And I do want you to break down a little bit of the anti-trust concern. Because Daria put this line in his essay about like we may need an exemption in order to coordinate a slow down. There are a lot of people that came out who know a lot more about this than I do. They were like, you actually don't need an exemption. There's a safety carve out. You could do this already. But people, I listen to David Sachs interview this morning, sort of seized on that to say, oh, they just want to form a cartel. And that's what this is really all about. But there are a lot of other regulations that I think again would be common sense to people. When you think of a bio lab, we have all kinds of inspections and monitoring. When you think of even large banks, you have embedded regulators who are deeply in mesh, and they always get it right. But at least there's some oversight. When you're testing new pharmaceutical products to come out, there's an oversight and there's a testing regime. Again, there can be problems with that. But it's certainly better than not having anything at all. And with these, what they insist on calling labs, there is none of that whatsoever. Yeah, I mean, I've seen experts on both sides saying it would be antitrust violation to coordinate in this way. Because you're like slowing down progress of this technology towards an undesirable end. But that is kind of classic cartel behavior. On the other side, it's like they could afford the fines. The biggest fines ever for this are in the single digits billions of dollars. These companies are taking hundreds of billions in investment. And so if they really cared, if they thought it was accidentally important, they could run that risk. And it's an excuse. It's a convenient excuse for the industry to avoid doing the right thing and slowing down here. It's been interesting to see how people line up on this. Because a lot of people on the left are very skeptical of this Bernie Kassar proposal to pause frontier development and to ban superintelligence. And they call it regulatory capture. And it's like, you're on the same side as David Sacks. - Yeah, you on must. - And this is the thing. Like, how is that regulatory capture? Because none of these guys want to stop. You know, even like Daria Zessie is not calling to stop. He's telling slow the pace. And we'll bring in our own internal auditors. And theoretically, we'd like some regulation. But this is what we're going to do right now. There's no one who has, you know, money at stake in the industry that is saying, just shut it all down. Which is what Bernie's proposal would do. - The argument I've seen is that it would be unfalsifiable the definition of superintelligence was unfalsifiable. And so it was like this get out of, you know, all-regulation free card. - What? - And it's like, - I don't understand. - Can you explain that argument I don't understand? - Because the definition is like squishy and you can't really test it, then you can't like prescribe what superintelligence is. And so it's like, I think this is pretty absurd because one, it's a messaging bill. You know, this particular bill is not going to pass. As it is, if it actually got close to passing, there would be a lot of effort put into defining what the thing is. - There are criminalizing. And. from a messaging perspective. It's pretty clear what they're trying to do. They're trying to criminalize the stated business goal of these companies. And the idea that that would be good for them is just like, so topsy-driven. - Yeah, and this is something I think is that, what this bill aside, is what they're talking about, is cartel style behavior, engaging on pacing, but ultimately trying to get to the goal. I think what the three of us are talking about is laying a floor for the whole industry. Doesn't matter whether it's Dario, Meta, any Microsoft, any of these other people. We're saying, this is the groundwork. You gotta build within these parameters. That's normal. That's like a normal setting the parameters in which a market is allowed to operate. And then from there, go for it. Do whatever you want. It's actually much more, I wouldn't say libertarian, but like a small business type. If anything, start up friendly. It's like, these are the parameters that we're all allowed to engage in. Go ahead and engage. Whereas what they're proposing actually does seem to be much more of cartel style behavior. So it is interesting from a regulatory perspective, but I want to come back to something what you said about global governance. And this is where, I don't know. I mean, you talked to here about our current government. Sure, I agree, you know, a lot of abuse, et cetera. It still seems to be somewhat more preferable to have our not just current government government have actual say over what it is because ultimately, that's somewhat answerable to democratic control. I mean, anthropic and open air are not even public. I can't even buy a share and vote in their election. I can at least vote in my election coming up. Specifically, I'm like, Ernie Bill or whoever, like whoever they want to regulate. So talk through that a little bit more about, 'cause you're warning about our current government. Sure, you're not wrong. You talked about master balance. I mean, look, you know, I'm not saying the Chinese and all that aren't. They do a lot of things with AI. I think they have a different model, but like to deny that they're not also gonna use and are using this for master balance. It's kind of ridiculous. So like, to what extent, when you're talking about global democratic control, is that even feasible, possible in a world where, I mean, you know, one point is something billion people don't live under democracy? Yeah, I mean, I think that's the ideal. We're so far from that existing. And I just think the technology should not be built under anything like the current circumstances. But if it is built, you know, there are these proposals to like, have the companies be owned by the government and then sharing the proceeds with Americans. And it's like, most people are not Americans, right? Right. If they're put out of work by American AI and then American citizens are getting dividends from that. But then the 96% of the world that are not American citizens are getting put out of work, getting no access to new tax revenue from the technology and no recourse, really. That seems like pretty concerning. It's been a great, a very unstable world. Yeah, yeah. And so I think it's more just like this ideal we can shoot for, where these AI models are built from the inheritance of humanity, the intellectual and creative inheritance from every human that's ever written any up down or created anything. And they're being enclosed and privatized by these companies. And I think even the boldest answers here are to like, bring those under public control and ownership of just one country, which happened to be at the forefront of building these systems. And that's still just like so far from what we should want, aspirationally. And my long-term vision for this is probably a multi-decade project to figure out how to get buy-in for the technology and how to build it safely and make sure that it benefits truly everybody. Garrison, my last question for you is, are you concerned? Because your book is primarily focused on what you call the "obsoleting project," which is the goal of replacing all humans, starting with probably white color workers with this technology. And that's where you've focused a lot of your advocacy. Are you concerned that this moment where a lot of the discussion is about what admittedly feels like these sort of bizarre sci-fi scenarios of existential risk that that is detracting from some of the more immediate and concrete concerns that frankly, I think, will probably land in a more absorbable way with the majority of the public? Yeah, it's interesting, because I was very thoughtful about what arguments I presented in which order. And I take seriously these concerns about extinction, not on the same timelines that Jacob is talking about. But I think there's been this big mistake made by the classic AICAT community, the so-called "dumers," where they focus on extinction superintelligence, and that's the last stop on the train. And then if you don't believe the train is going in that direction, then you're not so worried about the train. And to me, I'm like, plenty of people want to stop the train at labor-replacing-- Yup. --at surveillance, at environmental concerns, at power and wealth concentration. And all of those things are easier cases to make, and they're still true. And so I think we should be focusing on what is before that step, which is like AGI, universal labor-replacing machines. People don't want that. And this question of, like, could every single human be killed by the end of the decade? It's just like distracting us from this question of, like, do we want these machines to be built in our lifetimes under the conditions that they're currently being built? So what Jacob said in response to this question, when I was listening to an interview with him, is that it is entirely valid, and he shares all of those concerns. However, with the labor replacement, as bad as that will be, it's not like a one and done. Sure. It happens and game over. Whereas the scenarios he's concerned about, the truly existential humanities over risk, it is that sort of, if you get it wrong, you don't get to do over. And so that's why he's particularly focused on that piece. And when we asked Nate about it yesterday, because I asked him a very similar question, he said, well, I don't think that it has to be one or the other. I think we could be concerned about cybersecurity. I think we could be concerned about labor replacement. And I think we could be concerned about deep fakes and societal destabilization, but also be concerned about these existential risks. So how would you respond to those? Yeah, I agree with both of those things. And extinction is categorically the most worrying thing, because we'd get no more shots at this. That's it, yes, yes. But it's funny. I Gary Tann, the head of Y Combinator, the Spencer Capital Fund, was like, hey, we should stop talking. We should no longer talk about existential risk. We should focus on near-term immediate harms, things like rogue agent swarms that are hacking to things at home, which is the type of thing that sounded like sci-fi six months ago. And then it happened. True. And so, yeah, I don't think we need to be picking necessarily, but I just worry that if people don't ride the train all the way, they think there's no problem. And we're just kind of confusing ourselves a bit. But-- No, I totally agree with you. And I actually think you do need to be picky, because I think what's kind of frustrating, again, about this whole situation is they call it p-dume, probability of extinction more than 10%. That's a good headline. I totally get it. But like you said, the median case for this all works out is genuine replacement of the vast majority of white-collar work. Yeah, I'm like, on the road to building robots. Right, on the road to building humanoid robots. And OK, let's say I'm even fine with technological progress. But I'm looking at a world where Dario and Sam and Elon are literally trillionsaires who have more power and wealth than any individual in all of human history and technology with zero democratic control that is all being ushered in on the back of our workforce. I'm like, I know-- I don't know about extinction. I know what that looks like, because it has many times-- at least, I've resembled that in the past. That's a disaster. That is a full-fledged, industrial-style revolution change in life, in my opinion, not for the better. And so I think that's where the discussion-- Yeah. The dream of capitalists for so long has been turning capital into labor without having to pay the workers, without having workers that can go on strike or use the bathroom. And this technology, the industry is trying to build, it's like close to delivering on that promise. And it's really strange to me that the left is not taking that prospect seriously, because it's the most obvious thing in the world to organize against. And it's also now politically quite popular to do so. Yeah. And so I think there's a generational opportunity to realign our politics and to resist this race to replace us, which if we don't get it right, we're in a really bad-- We're already in a really bad situation. But the inequality we're seeing, the wealth and power concentration, the just dystopia that's being built in real time, will get so much worse if the industry is allowed to keep doing what they're doing. I'm with you. The book is obsolete. It's going to be released on September 29th, available for pre-order now, Garrison Gritziou. Great to see you, man. Yeah. 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. 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 2013, you better be hitting the ground. I'm going to heart in the south now and download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHot radio app Apple podcast, whoever you get your podcasts The NFL never stops and neither does its newest podcast the NFL report hosted by me Andrew Sicilyano It is your home for everything football We're tapping the biggest news stories giving you expert analysis fantasy previews game picks and more Want to hear from the league's top stars out of the biggest matchups we've got you covered that really good football team We got to have all hands-on deck join me and it all star cast of analysts for everything you need to know from around the league Get new episodes of the NFL report Monday through Friday all season long listen to the NFL report podcast on the iHot radio app Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts Hey there everybody Amy Robock and TJ Holmes here from the Amy and TJ podcast with mid-term elections just around the corner We're breaking down the biggest political stories leading up to November and some of those big political stories aren't just what's happening on Capitol Hill Yes, we just saw Lindsey Graham the death a long-time senator also. We've got a couple of missing members of Congress also We got a lot of members of Congress behaving badly. We got accusations allegations flying all day long on Capitol Hill It's just like a reality show. We're gonna cover everything you need to know during this heated political season and it starts with our morning run Yes go for a run with us Maybe you can take us along when you're on your actual run outside or if you don't feel like going out still you get what we're saying It's our morning run. It's our daily news rundown up the top stories of a get you going before you even finish that first cup of coffee Listen to Amy and TJ on the iHot radio app Apple podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts Turning now to the situation with Iran oil markets reaching genuine crisis levels Trump of course trying to do what he always does Let's put it up here on the screen. He says the failing nation of Iran wants to make a deal quickly badly I will determine whether or not the USA will choose to engage the concept of which we are open to thank you for your attention To this matter came at the exact moment that Brent crude prices surged to some $109 per barrel But it was accompanied with a series of other truths. So let's put these in quick success in guys Let's go to B2 at the very same time. He says I've just received a report the United States is producing more exquisite and elite weapons than at any time in our history They're being delivered on a daily basis to our forces in the Middle East and beyond our defense company factories are Moving 24/7 while at the same time building four to five brand new plants each a primary focus has been Patriots that systems Tomahawks and other missile systems of which we have large numbers in Fuck yeah, literally none of that is truth timeline is probably going to take five to ten years to replace what's been already used even at Current levels and then following it up with the next one. I hope everyone realizes price increases throughout America were caused by Biden Not by Trump even oil was higher under Biden than it is right now Actually, it was under Ukraine and we prevented Iran from having a nuclear weapon with the temporary exception of oil prices are Oil will drop like a rock as soon as the military conflict around is over and that will not be long Thank you for your attention to this matter And so you may be wondering then about these prices. So as of this morning the national average price of gasoline is four dollars and 32 cents And the national average price of diesel is six 27 a gallon And it is on its way to seven as we said there is one and we covered that yesterday my favorite story Station in San Diego where it literally can't get worse because they don't know how to move the sign from 99 to $10 a gallon. So they're going to figure out how to like put the cardboard over that They'll figure that for her out tomorrow But in the meantime, it literally cannot get any worse for them and yep Doesn't look like there has been any movement whatsoever in the Brent price still around 105 108 You have series of problems in the Bob all Monday straight Qatar warning this morning It is a full-fledged disaster the closure of what's happening In addition, just to show you where shipping prices. I was telling you about before the show the price per day of hiring The ships now to transport oil has become as surge to a million dollars a day And it used to be 100,000 in terms of so and what is it 10 times the price of what it is just to operate and get oil I think from the United States all the way to Asia the Japan now largest customer Is actually the United States in terms of what just imagine the travel time of getting some of that stuff Over there. So huge global race for the existing oil stocks a lot of oil executives being like this is it This is the big one to be fair. They've said that before yeah, very true So we're in a bit of a wait and see with all of that But I don't think there's any doubt the crash crash out yesterday from Trump on AI and on Iran has everything to do with the markets Our entire economy is bet on the AI and data setter build out So when that started to appear a little shaky These companies for the economic bubble to continue for the good times to continue to flow They have to keep building because if you slow down then you don't need to build out all of these data centers You know a lot of the cost of open AI anthropic in the other frontier labs a lot of those costs are all about training the models So he does not want them to slow down. So he made that very clear Yesterday and then if you look at oil prices going up you look at treasury bond yields hitting 10 year hitting 5 percent These were a lot of dire signals and then you also had the stock market take big taking a significant dip So that is the reason why Trump was freaking out posting all of these things and hoping to job on the market It worked a little bit you know in the market recovered some oil is not quite at the highs that it was at yesterday But there is a deep concern that this could be the moment when the whole thing crumbles apart as you're saying Sagar, you know, we've heard those warnings before so we will see But if you put B5 up on the screen This is what oil executives are telling the Wall Street Journal oil executives say the great fuel crisis is here Trump officials say the oil market disruption is temporary, but chevrons, Mike worth and others warn Global supplies are running low with no respite in sight The things that they point to here will be very familiar to watchers of this show China re-entering the market The damage to the Saudi East West pipeline the Houthis taking the Red Sea coastline Obviously Iran escalating and the continued blockade and issues in the street of Hormuz The Ukraine and Russia war and Ukraine striking Russian refining capabilities There was also a refinery here in the US that is Damaged and is is not functioning and any one of these things and by the way what I was looking at experts We're saying is this is predictable because they're all being run at 100% and there's no downtime in order to perform routine maintenance So at some point things will start to break down and we're starting to get to that point in addition Not only the US, but many other countries around the world have run down their strategic petroleum reserve So Trump's big play is let's see if we can get this Venezuelan oil online as soon as possible But basically you know no expert here, but based on what the experts are saying that is going to take years That is not a quick fix to you know spin it more Venezuelan oil production That is going to be a long time frame and they don't seem to have a lot of more rabbits in the hat that they can pull out here But I guess again you never know. Yeah, and combining a couple of different things actually some of which are breaking this morning We did this didn't end up in the show, but Trump finally woke up to the fact that one of the main reasons Diesel is so high is because of Ukraine striking all of these refineries in Russia So Trump came out yesterday and was like Ukraine has agreed and so is Russia to no longer strike each other's energy facilities I'm going to say oh great literally woke up this morning Ukraine just struck a Russian oil facility Literally last night or last night our time. So yeah You know, it's like what of course they're not going to stop because it makes logical sense from their perspective They're hurting the Russian economy. Ukraine doesn't care if we're paying more for gasoline It's but that's been their M.O. you know from the very beginning So on the Russian side and on the ironically Ukraine even though their entire Iran really working on their behalf You know in some ways by tightening the global market for refined products Another thing that's coming out in the China situation is it's very obvious I mean, it makes sense they were able to sustain off their own stockpiles for six months That's a long time. That's honestly admirable to be able to cut your imports to the levels that they were and still be able to run your economy But you still need oil and so yeah, you're starting to take up in terms of end That's exactly what you see in the price all of it now reflecting the general shortage You will also begin to see a lot of propaganda from the West up specifically about straight-of-our-move So it does appear that there has been a general uptick now up to almost 10 million barrels per day According to tanker trackers it's a very good track record on this subject through the straight-of-our-move A lot of these ship-to-ship transfers running the blockade convoys system that Sal had pointed out However, what that doesn't take into account is the current closure for Saudi Arabia of the Bob Almond Debs straight. And so if you look at the totality of the amount of oil, Iran, by controlling Bob Almond Debs, even if they're losing a little bit of control in the straight of Hormuz, those things work in conjunction and push the price of oil continue to go higher. And so I think what you're continuing to see too is that there is also something tracked very extensively by Rory, which is about dated Brent, which means the physical spot price, like actual for the oil that it is right now. And according to him, that was closed yesterday at $130 a barrel. So the Brent crude futures, but the future price, this is $130 a barrel for the actual physical price of the barrel today. And he says that it's higher than all but a few days in 2008, 2022, and one or two days in April of 2026. So already historic levels, why does that matter? Because we're not really seeing a ton of kinetic action, a few ships are getting struck, you know, a few things and all of that are happening. But by and large, like we're watching ships, actually a ship, by the way, hit a mine in Hormuz yesterday. So thank you, President Trump, you know, for demining the entire straight. Yeah, but have them with us. Remember, you can look at all of this and just say, we're slow rolling. We're just crawling forward. And, you know, our media doesn't barely cover Iran now. They just cover the, they just cover the oil and I totally understand that. But still the situation with Obama and the Houthi seizure of the straight, this is all part of like a pincer movement that the Iranians are trying to use to choke hold the global oil market. And all we're looking at now is just one event, like another re-igniting a fighting. And that would send things even higher. We could go to 115, 120 in terms of the future, which would put the physical price in around 150, 160. There are some indications that the Houthi offensive was directly coordinated with Iran and we don't know that to be the case, but there's some indications that that may be the case. It does make some sense for why the timing of that offensive was right now. We also learned that it was not the Houthis who hit the East West pipeline. It was the Iraqi militias aligned with Iran. So when you look at all of those pieces together, it's very possible that Iran is behind those actions not to say the Houthis don't have their own domestic priorities in their ongoing war. But it could be the case that these should be seen as moves by Iran to continue to tighten the news and should be anticipated that there may be more actions that they take between now in the midterm elections as they try to make things as difficult as possible for the U.S. for the global economy and for Trump and for his political prospect in particular. Last piece here, B6, we can put up on the screen. This will surprise literally no one. But Trump, of course, was claiming Iran, they're calling us, they're begging to negotiate as part of his job owning of the market. Iran comes back and says we have made no request to negotiate with the United States. And so you can take that for what you will. Yes, exactly. And also the bond market continues to go in a very bad direction. Let's put B4 up on the screen. This was from yesterday, the 10-year Treasury yield topped 5%, they say, as oil surges, diesel hits the all-time high, increasing borrowing costs. And don't forget, tomorrow is actually the Federal Reserve meeting where they will be what current expectations will be hiking interest rates for the first time since 2023. The exact opposite of what Donald Trump had wanted. And so between the bond rates and the increase in the interest rate, the price of borrowing going up, they're trying to do some demand destruction. One of this is looking good for the American consumer. I can't even imagine what the mortgage interest rates are going to be in a few weeks. It could be 7%, honestly, maybe even higher, especially with their current home prices where they are, you might as well just forget about it in terms of trying to buy a home in today's market. And so you put all these things together, especially the bond situation where Scott Besson, I mean, it is interesting. There's a discussion about this in the financial press, but these two things are working in tandem, the oil market and the 10-year yield, which it is now the highest level since 2007, like we really are in almost 20 years in terms of a historic move in that direction. And overall, putting pressure on the stock market futures with the oil price, inflation, it all comes together. And just generally a bad situation and also just very obviously not a vote of confidence in the United States government, which is not really what you want. >> Yeah, any one of these things would be a flashing red light, and we've got all red lights flashing. >> All three together. >> Makes sense. Let's get to the next part here. We had said many times here on the show where is the pilot, the guy who got shot down and who was rescued. He did emerge on television on 60 minutes and gave an extensive interview, very much reminiscent in my opinion of the war on terror, where they roll it out. It's like a big splashy pre-released interview of the guy who's involved, Pete Hegseth, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we'll get to some of the orchestration of all of that. But we did, of course, since we've said so many times, where is he? Well, here he is, here he is in his own words, in terms of his survival and how he was rescued. Let's take a listen. >> So how fast do you think you were going when you hit the ground? >> The professionals, based on my description and the injuries that I had, the professionals think I hit the ground going somewhere between 70 and 100 miles an hour. >> How did you survive that? >> A modern day miracle, I believe that it's a testament to God's provision in my life to bring me through that moment, in a way that didn't prevent injuries, but prevented any catastrophic injuries that would have affected my ability to survive. Bravo told us the safest place for him to go was up. So he quickly made the decision, despite his broken bones, to hike and climb up a 7,000 foot ridge line. >> So you could see there, that's what his story is, is that he was hitting the ground at what, 70 and 100 miles per hour, he had broken bones, scaled to 7,000 foot, bluff, and then was rescued while there was an extensive search and rescue operation that was going on there. They did release some video and others, you can go and watch some of this for yourself. I do think it is worth noting, I think within this is that, look, I know there's a lot of skepticism about the story and I get it. To me, hitting the ground at 100 miles an hour, that seems crazy, but I guess crazy things have happened in terms of that. I do somewhat believe, at the very least I believe this, that he went down in that plane, and because of that, that's when it initially led to the ceasefire. And since that time, there have not been aircraft over Iran. Since that, so that's why everyone who's like, oh, this never happened, it was all stage. I'm like, well, there's one thing where you should take at least some of it seriously, is that since that day, we have relied on standoff munitions, Tomahawk missiles, and all of these other munitions to strike Iran, specifically in the straight of Hormuz and others, or use these black Hawk helicopters in the dead of night. But we have not done large-scale bombing runs over the country, largely out of fear of being shot down again. And so that's the one part where, again, I understand, you know, with the story of any of these military stories, considering the track record of so many that have been loud and rad and all these other things that they've put out there, half of which just turned out to be total bullshit. Didn't hold on our five script. Right. Yes. Yeah. I get it. I get where you're all coming from. Every single one of these stories, the details are 10 times loan survivor. You know, you can go and look into that one. If you want to bin Laden, you know, literally, like, look, you know, some of it's true, a lot of it's not. So every one of the big missions that turns into a movie, like, you know, or even zero dark 30, like half of it's literally just fiction, you know. So my point just remains that I get it where the, where the, all the skepticism comes from, and I think on the exact details, 10 years from now, we'll eventually learn the truth. But I am absolutely certain a plane went down because of what has happened in aftermath is if you still had the ability to put planes already still would. That remember, it was only after the rescue. That's when the sea spar happened. Yeah. I think that's a coincidence. Oh, absolutely not. I mean, many people will find it and unbelievable story. That's fine. But let's just take it at face value to Saugher's point. It is very clear that because of this incident and whatever occurred here, that Trump got freaked out. It was right after this that you had the, the civilizational threat, and then you had the biggest taco of the entire Iran war when he completely capitulates, signs what John Meersheimer has described as a surrender document and moves forward with the memo of understanding that we then went ahead and undermine because Trump just could not accept the reality of the actual acknowledgement of loss that that would entail. But think, if you take it at face value, think of how close we came to losing this man either to Iran or to death over Iran. I mean, it is, if it really hit the ground at 100 miles per hour, okay, termin of velocity speed for a human is 120. You do not serve like your body just implodes at that speed. Hundred is very close to there, very few documented instances of someone surviving a fall at that speed and from that height. So think of how close we were to, you know, something that could have been absolutely horrific either in terms of his death. And so, look. Look, this is very clearly whether the story is completely true or completely false or somewhere in between. It's very clear that this is just blatant pro-war propaganda because, of course, people are going to look at this man and be inspired by the tenacity, by the fact that, you know, we wouldn't leave him behind and the level of the effort that was marshalled. But nowhere in the peace does it ask for what? Yes. Like, for what did this man have his life risked and almost ended and suffered catastrophic traumatic injuries that he may never recover from? I mean, literally broke his back during this fall. For what did we remember all the aircraft that we marshalled and then had to blow up because they got stuck in the sand? Like, for what did we do? For what is any of this happening? None of that enters the peace. And so that's why it's very effective pro-war propaganda because you can just look at the individuals who are involved and say, look how brave and how noble they are without zooming out even like one mile to let alone to see the entire forest and think about what the hell are we doing? Any of this for to begin with? You'd be shocked to learn that 60 minutes didn't do any of that. And instead, it was effectively a commercial for how awesome Pete Hegg's death was, B-10, take a listen. It was a combination of factors of brave moves that Bravo made based on his training to make sure we knew that he was alive. It was incredible intelligence work. It was incredible satellite work. Combination of, again, exquisite capabilities that only America has that allowed us when you look at the terrain of where they were. I mean, I don't know if the needle in the haystack does it justice. When you heard that an American fighter jet was down behind enemy lines in Iran, what went through your mind? Probably you always knew that was possible. And so immediately it's to the next steps, are they okay? Does Iran know that? And whether they're alive or not, we're going to go get them. Right. And so that was basically what this entire thing was. And you'll be even more shocked to learn that was the plan put the last piece up here on the screen. This was a CNN report. It's been backed up by a few others. We'll give them credit because they are the ones who broke the story. Pete Heggseth and political appointees pushed for the two members of the F-15 to participate in the 60-minute report. Both Airmen initially expressed reservations about doing the interview with one even raising the concern about the prospect of being potentially ordered to be taken part in the segment. While military officials were also weary of revealing classified details of the rescue effort, political appointees were quote, "adiment that both crews sit for the interview after the two survivors' voice concerns," Heggseth then privately met with them, asked whether they would participate rather than forcing their cooperation. As a result, one eventually agreed dubbed bravo to sit for the on-camera interview while the other declined to take part in the report. I think that tells you a lot. By the way, Mr. Alpha, whoever you are, you're a real American hero. You know, you got shot down, you don't want to be famous. Hopefully you're not writing a book or obscuring your face in an interview and trying to sue the Pentagon so you can make millions of dollars and become a podcast, you know, hero. It probably just had a horrific, you know, experience. As you said, you're probably really angry about how it all went down. Maybe I'm projecting, but you're like, "You know what? I don't want to be a part of this. I don't want to be famous. I just want to live my life. I didn't sign up necessarily for this type of shit." And so, look, as they say, it shows how Heggseth has played an unusual hands-on role in the planning process for the great 60 minutes rollout that is more than typical for the defense secretary. By the way, the Pentagon denies this. They say that it's a complete lie, et cetera, but I think you can generally say, considering who 60 minutes has run by, the ratings, bananza, and all of this, that they were expecting from all of this that you can at least put some stock in this story. I will say, and this is part of how much our country has changed. Loan Survivor was one of the biggest stories in this country. I remember it, you know, with this hunt for the trail and all the details. And I mean, look, even people who oppose the war were like, "Wow, what a tremendous accomplishment about what has happened here. Same with Ben Laden. I mean, I was here living here in Washington when that happened. It was like a spontaneous outbreak of joy and all of that, just for some sort of catharsis after 9/11. This one got not even the same amount of reaction. And it's because people oppose the war." They're like you said. Look, okay, we'll take the story, even on its face value. We're like, "Dude, yeah, like, you know, your back was broken. You were forcing it into this for what?" So we could sign a ceasefire the next day. I mean, you know, until we can not accomplish our military objectives, we can accomplish, have this horrific, you know, experience or this horrific disaster happen to our country. It's just, it doesn't hit the same way. And that's where, you know, the headsets and all of them are trying so hard to remanufacture so much of what it looked like. Because I remember what it was, even up until 2012, 2015, and that is just gone now. Many of us also know people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and came home and were never the same. I know. Many of us know, have seen what the fallout of the war has continued to be, even among the people who weren't on the casualty list, who came back physically intact and were never the same, and are haunted by, for what? I watched my buddies get blown up and, you know, and, or their marriages fall apart or slip into depression or, you know, or potentially contemplate suicide or addiction for what Taliban's back in charge in Afghanistan, what were we doing? And so I think also because we have a very tangible visceral experience with what the aftermath of these wars actually looks like for the human beings who get sent into them. And I think that's also the reason to your point, Soger, that it doesn't hit the way that perhaps it once did. Yeah, that's right. Alright, let's get to midterms. 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 wrong. The issue of transgender athletes was not going well with a lot of black men. I went off. Y'all go scream at Chanel, but you don't want to see a black luxury company in the same back. The NFL never stopped and neither does its newest podcast. The NFL report hosted by me, Andrew Cicilliano, it is your home for everything football. We're tapping the biggest news stories, giving you expert analysis, fantasy previews, game picks and more. Here from the league's top stars, out of the biggest matchups, we've got you covered. That's a really good football team. Join me at an all-star cast of analysts for everything you need to know from around the league. Listen to the NFL report podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey there everybody, Amy Robock and TJ Holmes here from the Amy and TJ podcast with mid-term elections just around the corner, we're breaking down the biggest political stories leading up to November. And some of those big political stories aren't just what's happening on Capitol Hill. Yes, we just saw Lindsey Graham, the death of a long-time senator. Also, we got a lot of members of Congress behaving badly, we got accusations, allegations flying all day long on Capitol Hill. We're going to cover everything you need to know during this heated political season. And it starts with our morning run. Yes, go for a run with us, maybe you can take us along when you're on your actual run outside or if you don't feel like going out still. It's our daily news rundown of the top stories of the get you going before you even finish that first cup of coffee. Listen to Amy and TJ on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. All right, we are keeping our eye on the midterms as they are rapidly approaching. And just this morning, before recording the segment, we got a bombshell new poll from the New York Times, Sienna. This is kind of considered the gold standard poll very closely watched. So let's go and put this up on the screen in previous elections. This poll has been kind of early to observing some of the trends that have turned out to be consequential in terms of Trump's victory in 2020. Some of the realignment that we've seen, especially among night, non-white groups towards Republicans, in this poll, they fast the question, this is the so-called generic ballot. If the 2026 general election for Congress were held today, which party's candidate would you be more likely to vote for in your district, Democrats, 51 Republicans, 43. If that holds, that is certainly bloodbath territory, but there are other interesting numbers. within here, they say Mr. Trump's approval continues to language at 38% among likely voters essentially unchanged from the lows it sank to after he went to war with Iran. You've also got voters saying they trust Democrats more than Republicans on not just healthcare and foreign wars, but also on the two issues that powered Trump's 2024 victory in migration and the economy further. They talk about how far independent voters have fallen from Mr. Trump. They say that they have soured on him just 10% of independent voters say the economy is better today than a year ago. Only 27% of independent voters approve of Trump's job performance overall in the fight for Congress. 57% of independent voters say they plan to vote for a Democrat compared to only 34% for a Republican. A couple of other interesting notes here is a lot that was kind of fascinating from this poll. Even with Mr. Trump's most loyal and durable demographic base, white voters without college degrees, they now disapprove of his handling of the cost of living by a 21% point margin. They also found those vulnerabilities for Republicans extend beyond Trump. Voters see Republicans broadly as more extreme, more elitist and more corrupt than Democrats. Voters continue to have doubts about both parties, but they aligned more with the Democratic Party on both cultural and economic matters than Republicans in the survey. And finally, Mr. Trump's approval rating among voters under 30 stands at just 18%. You will recall, of course, immediately in the wake of his election, re-election in 2024, that there was a lot of discourse about young men in particular and how much they shifted to the right. All of that has completely evaporated. 18% is a crazy low among voters. >> It makes sense. This part actually struck me and this seems to be even more bullish is don't even just pay necessarily to party identification, pay attention to what people say that they want out of voting. So they say, in general, would you rather vote for a candidate who supports Trump, wants to provide a check on Trump, or does it matter either way? Support Trump is 26%. Doesn't matter is 21, wants to check is 49. I think that that overwhelming wants to check because that's what a lot of people forget about 2016 and this was kind of the whole idea of like the hidden Trump voter is Trump won the election with a 30-something percent approval rating. People are like, how is that possible? It's like, well, a lot of people who don't think he's a good guy, still voting for because they wanted to check on the Democrats or they supported the policy or they're evangelical, whatever. You can actually put that in the same direction for Democratic Party identification. Many Democrats are upset at the Democratic Party, so they may not identify. That's number one. Who is you may even be someone who doesn't like the Democratic Party, but would vote for it just to provide a check on Trump? That is extremely common midterm behavior and you drive it up all the way to 10, which is very common, I think, with the current situation. I mean, if you take a look at some of these polls, what I find is fascinating is that they say they voters see Republicans broadly as more extreme, more elitist and more corrupt. Those were literally all flipped as of two years ago. Is that, I mean, empirically, the elites did vote, Democrat, empirically, or okay, we could put it either way. People saw the Biden administration very corrupt and then more extreme, that was the knock is that these people are cultural extremists. So the flip on that as you read about that, I mean, that's got to be one of the big flips, I would say that you would be a lot more bullish on Democrats. The other thing, I think, fascinating part, curious what you think, AI seems to be the one place where there are plus two. I know. What's going on with that? Yeah. I don't know. I think it should be that too. It does have the biggest don't know number. It's Democrats 40, don't know 18 Republicans 40. Republicans have done a better job of jumping on any time a Democrat says something like a little bit pro-data center. I think Republicans have done a good job of jumping on that. That's a good point. To me, it's very much up for grabs and Trump is doing everything in his power to make it clear that the Republicans are the party of unfettered data center and AI derecolation. So I think that one, we'll see where that shakes out, but it is very interesting that that's where it stands today. Yeah. Ryan Gerdusky flagged this, he pulled the data center numbers out of their poll. Do you support or oppose construction, overall 34 supports 61% oppose. It holds for all demographics except for current self-identified GOP where it's 4947. So after Trump polarized on the data center issue, if you continue to support Republicans, then you're marginally going to be more supportive. Independence though, it's still 3660 and obviously every other demographic, college Democrat, college degree, Latino, black, white, 65 plus, 18 to 29, it's overwhelmingly against for everybody. So that is, you know, a little bit, I mean, look, New York Times Sienna, it's been off many times in the past. I'm trying to think, 2022 was totally wrong. 2024 was actually by and large, pretty correct. Pretty much had all the swings within the margin-ish or not. I mean, if you could have easily gone off of the New York Times Sienna poll and said Trump was going to win all seven swing states and a lot of people did that and they were correct. So look, that's what I'm saying in terms of its track record. By and large, yeah, it was pretty okay in the last election before that it whiffed hard. In 2020, it was totally wrong. So you take it with whatever grain of salt, you know, that exists. But everything's kind of lining in that direction and I would put it together with the special elections that we saw. Yeah. There's no disparity. In 2022, the big disparity was the poll said there was going to be a red wave, but a lot of special election Democrats were winning. So this time around, Democrats were winning big time. You know, you see the overperformance, pair it with the poll generally. That's where you seem to things could go, but you know, Trump and the Republicans sometimes things can come out of nowhere. One of the most important metrics I think we've seen is the primary in Alaska because of the unusual nature of Alaska elections where they do this. They run everybody at once and what's called a jungle primary. And then I think it's the top four actually that go on to the next round. But in any case, Mary Peltella, the Democrat, came very close to 50% in that primary. And so that's not just people who ever gets happens to get contacted by the pollster or whoever happens to not want to talk to the pollster. That's real voters coming to the polls and it shows that she had a significant edge over the Republican in the state of Alaska, which should be a massive obviously reach for Democrats. Now, Alaska is kind of a weird state and all of that. But to me, the big question is, is this going to be a sort of run of the mill backlash election, which is very consistent with historical trends, which Democrats shock only kind of bucked in 2022. But traditionally, party and power are losing seats in the midterms as just the way it goes. Or is this going to be something different where there is a larger reckoning for the party and power. And one of the indications you might look at for whether or not that is going to be the case is the significant and rapid increase in gas prices. Harry Anton is tracking the numbers saying this has been a historic increase for a midterm election. Let's take a listen to that. Changing gas prices from January 1 to September 14. The average for a midterm cycle this century is 18%. But look at this on the right side of the screen, 52% rise this year, 52% rise has been up like a rocket, right? Look at that. That's why this situation is by far the highest on record, the prior high was just 27% and looking at 21st century midterm elections went down all of them prior to 2026. This year, however, the gas prices have actually been going up and away. They have actually risen, willing to pay more because of the Iran War. Overall 71% say they are unwilling compared to just 29% who say, well, look at this number among independents, 81%, 81% 4 in 5 say they are unwilling to pay for higher gas prices because of the war. I think those numbers are extremely significant all the way around, both the number that says no, I'm not willing to pay higher gas prices for this shit, I don't support this whatsoever, which is different from the Ukraine War actually. We were skeptical of it at the time and I think that skepticism bore out. But when the Ukraine War, when Ukraine was initially invaded, people said they were willing to suffer and pay more in order to stand with Ukraine, totally different for the Iran War from the beginning, especially with independents and certainly with Democratic voters. And then you look at that increase, he says it has never before happened in a interim that those prices have gone up during this time period. And not only they've gone up, they've gone up by over 50%. Humans are not just creatures of absolute value, we look at the change, we feel that change of what it used to be just months ago and what it is now. And Trump himself is acknowledging those prices are not coming back down anytime soon. >> I remember this with the Biden people, they would be like, well, this month inflation I was like, dude, you're not getting it. 2019, this was the price, 2023, this is the price. Whether it's plus or minus five in the last month doesn't matter if it's overall 20 to 25%. All I remember is what I paid for a paper towel compared to where it is today. So this stat actually down at the bottom was really interesting to me is remember one of the big shifts in 2024 was that Trump won people who made less than $50,000. That was like the biggest flip of the Republican and Democrats, Democrats won people making over 100 grand, Republicans won under 50. So this time around what they find is that if you make under 50, the current break is 63 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican. So that is a complete flip from where things were. And they say almost all of that is ascribed to economic precarity and economic hardship. More than half of the voters said that they worry about Republicans in Congress, allowing Trump to go too far on the economy, and specifically a lot of it comes back to Iran. So if you really want to look at where Trump screwed himself, it wasn't Iran. And there's a geopolitical sense. There's really also just a dollars and cents, like, I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. $4.30 of gasoline is crazy, $6.26 because that's gallon diesel is nuts. I mean, it's just going to continue showing up in everything. And everybody knows they even quoted a woman inside of it who said, I was so excited to get my new job. And now every single bill that I have has gone up. I mean, I know this has happened. If you need housework done or something, oh my God, you get these quotes, you're like, I'm, you know, time to fire up YouTube, trying to do it myself, do a shitty job. It's better than paying some guy, you know, 90% of what we think it should cost. That has happened with everything. And it's just, you know, it's just the most basic political instinct in the world. >> Yeah, let me put this next piece up on the screen here from David Dayan over at American Prospect because I think this really gets to it. It cuts through, or what are the Republicans saying, or what are the Democrats saying? What are the polls, publicly available polls saying, follow the money. Where are Republicans actually spending money? And so of the 49 seats, he says, that have received at least some cash from top GOP online super PACs, only six were one by Kamala Harris in 2024. So of the 49 seats, they're targeting only six are ones that Kamala Harris won. And that doesn't even mean they're flips, that just means that's places where they, you know, feel like they may have a shot at winning on Kamala Harris territory. Twenty one of them were won by Trump by nine points or more. Eight of them were won by over 13 points. Let me say that again, Republicans are having to spend money in congressional districts Trump won by double digits, 13 points or more. Those are the sort of seats that any normal GOP in Kamala would be, oh, I mean a safe seat. Trump won my district by 15 points. I am not in jeopardy whatsoever, not so fast. Republicans are having to spend money to defend in deep red territory. He goes on to say the contested districts include Ten in Texas, Florida and North Carolina, where Trump's allies deliberately re-drew maps to hand Republicans more districts. If Republicans lose every district receiving some spending in Texas, it would result in Democrats picking up one seat in that state. So even in the states that were gerrymandered to try to forestall any sort of Democratic gains, it is possible that Democrats will still gain seats even with those rigged maps. So I thought that was a really clever way to look at what is actually going on here, because if you see where they're spending money, you can see how they actually feel that this election is going to go. Trump is hoping that this desperate ploy of offering a $5,000 check if Republicans win that I don't think anyone has any confidence is actually going to happen, nor should you. He posted this on True Social yesterday. The $5,000 Trump dividend to be given to all adults in the U.S. due to the fact our country is taking in trillions of dollars of economic development investment, and pure success is being criticized by Democrats who are hoping it never happens, but it will. As an example, the Democrats said the great, big, beautiful bill, one of the largest ever approved by Congress, or signed into law by a president, happened, despite the Democrats saying it would be impossible to get improved. I don't think anyone ever said that. Anyway, or the gift of $1,776 that I gave last year to our military was an almost guaranteed non-starter. Everyone said it couldn't be done. It was. Our military patriots got the money and loved it. When I say something, I mean it. The $5,000 dividend will happen because the people of our country deserve it, but Republicans make America great again. He's still pushing this sort of desperate attempt to once again offer a check to the American people. We had the doge refunds, we had the tariff rebates, none of which happened, and if he wanted to do this so badly, he's got his Republicans in the House and the Senate. He could certainly do it right now. Can I support him moving in that direction? It's pretty, pretty funny. One thing I do think is actually interesting around all of this is how it will shake out in the, like you said, in the Alaska's in the mains. Because ever since the Tea Party wave, there just hasn't been that many of these types of places left, which buck the trends and have the so-called mavericks. Susan Collins has been one of those people of Murkowski or Alaska generally has been kind of one of those places. That's what makes West Virginia, you had Joe Manchin, but by and large, it just didn't really exist. This does seem like it could be a turning point in the other direction where for the first time ever, people do buck partisanship or people actually just go straight partisan or like, I'm sorry, I no longer believe in the so-called maverick, like Susan Collins. That's the one place where, like with Joe Manchin, for example, let's put C8 up on the screen. He's come out and endorsed Susan Collins. He says, you lose Susan Collins. And do you endorse Michael Rogers, too? Right. And Michael Rogers, you're losing the soul of the Senate. Susan is always in there, always in the trenches. It just seems like it's one of those where it doesn't seem tenable. Again, I could be right. I was totally wrong. I remember in 2020. I thought she was going to go down. There was a poll to add her down by 13 points or something. Obviously, she won her election. But it does seem that the trends are shifting very much against her type of politician. And especially with, if there's a real wave, like this guy Rob Sand in Iowa, you know, I mean, if things like that happen, it really does rewrite the rules of what is actually possible. Yeah. I mean, you may end up with a few prairie populists. It's possible. You got Josh. Well, Josh Turg is the Senate candidate who has a real shot in Iowa. I think Sand's will win the Iowa governor's race. But you know, the governor's races are a little bit different. That wouldn't be as crazy as winning Senate races. I think I was in play. I think Nebraska with Dan Osborne is in play. I think he is. This is in play. You have to look at the polling at this point and say, it's not crazy to imagine those things. Texas with James Tolerico being truly, truly contested. Actually, I think we have this. One of the ratings agencies put C6 up on the screen has shifted Texas from a toss up to lean deep. Well, tilt D, I should say. This is vote hub. They say their model gives James Tolerico a 55% chance of defeating Ken Pax and Tolerico's consistently led in polling. His advantage remains within the margin of error. The race is still extremely close. I saw a number of analysts. I can't remember if it was Nate Silver or not, but I think it was saying that his model also has Tolerico in the lead on just the polling. But it's the fundamentals that keeps it in that toss up zone. The closer you get to election day, the more that the polling begins to count and way into those models. So you were likely to see other models shift that race away from Republicans, away from toss up and towards tilt D, which is crazy. It's Texas. Now, people actually have to go and vote and Texas, of course, the white whale, the Democratic party, but puts C3 up on the screen. You know, Nebraska, another place that we have our eye on, Dan Osborne, we've had on the show. A few times running as independent. I think you can really act as a union leader, you know, very populist. That's really what his focus is. Every kid says, meanwhile, like a billionaire, but at least a multi-multimillionaire. And this new poll has Osborne, and this is not the only one up by four points. So that one, too, I think is in range and a possibility for Democrats. So that's where I say, you know, really the question at this point is, is this going to be a normal backlash election? Are you going to see some crazy shit like Democrats winning a Kansas? Are you going to see some really wild swings where now you have Democrats winning states that no one would have thought were in range for them whatsoever? Last little update for you guys, Mitch McConnell is back in the Senate. He's alive. Let's see five up. Returns to the Senate, casting his first vote. I can't say he's looking great. Oh, it was awful. But he is alive. And so maybe he'll be the great, maybe he will turn things around for Republicans here down the stretch. So inspired by his return to the Senate that they'll show up in droves to vote for more Republican leaders. I am pretty annoyed that they all took photos of him, even though he allegedly spoke, but they, and they quoted him. I think he spoke in a part of the Capitol where you're not allowed to record. I'm pretty sure. If that, and that would be very intense on his part, of course, of course, yeah. And so that he only appeared in public in a place where he's not, he's literally not speaking. The videos of him, like, leaving his house and stuff are wild, like, in terms of not just his wheelchair, but, like, full on having to be buckled into his own car seat, you know? Yes. Look, why anyone goes, I'm ready to get back to work and doesn't just retire. When you literally can't even buckle your own seatbelt, that is beyond me. But that is the narcissism of the people currently exist in our Congress. Yeah, true. [Music] Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin unfiltered podcast? People wake up and go, "Oh, damn, wait a minute, hold up." They changed all of that? Yes. It's real. It's wrong. Those have never allowed that reckoning to last more than a decade. And download Roland Martin unfiltered on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast. Guaranteed Human