As Canada and Europe Team Up Against Trump, Hegseth Unveils His RADICAL New Vision for the Military

Welcome to Raging Moderates, I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarliff. Before we get started, it's finally October and the elections are just a month away. More than 700,000 Americans have already voted, with early numbers showing Democrats making up a larger share of ballot requests and key battlegrounds than they did in 2024. Will there be an October surprise? Will Democrats continue to surge? Subscribe to stay up to date and support the show. All right, let's bust into it. The EU and Canada are reportedly planning to announce a new partnership at the end of October, which would cover digital trade, critical mineral stockpiling, and more, all in an effort to defend themselves against Trump's trade war. Trump's outright ban on select Canadian goods, including alcoholic beverages, went into effect earlier this week after Trump said Canada is one of the worst countries in the entire world. Okay. Meanwhile, for the third time in under two years. In under two years, courts have once again been asked to rule on a set of Trump tariffs. Jess, let's start with the court's challenge to Trump's latest global tariffs, which would cover over 99% of U.S. imports. What's the challenge here? And more importantly, why does he keep trying? Well, because he's a petulant child is why he keeps trying. This time they're using, and they've done this before, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the administration to. to investigate unfair trade practices and impose tariffs if they find that American businesses were harmed. What's so interesting about this is that it's the American businesses that want them to stop. So they're like, I'm going to go to court and I'm going to tell you how bad this was for all of my kids, right? Like, the American businesses being his kids. And the kids are like, no, actually, we feel great. We would like things to stay just as they are. And this is the same panel of judges. They're actually, what? Neighborly to me in downtown Manhattan that have ruled on this before. So expectation is you'll get the same result and it'll be a waste of everyone's time. But obviously it says something about President Trump's headspace when it comes to these tariffs and certainly how he feels about Canada. You know, saying it's like one of the worst countries on Earth. We could off the top of our head. How many countries do you think we could list that are worse? I mean, I guess you'd have to pick what the barometer is for making something a bad country. But obviously the really nice people who are happy to have, you know, free and fair trade with us and follow us into war aren't the ones that are making up one of the worst countries in the world. Yeah, this is, I mean, I've spoken a lot about this. Kicking your biggest customer out of your restaurant and just being rude to them just doesn't seem like a good start. And in addition, there's something, one of the most mendacious thing about this is I think he gets advised you're going to lose in court. And his attitude is I don't care and I'll delay. Even after the decision comes down, I won't actually affect or comply with the decision for several days or weeks. The law is meant to be not only there to execute and ordain judgment. It's there to prevent people's actions through incentives that you will, if you do this, you're going to be fined. You're going to be found guilty or it's going to be overturned. And he doesn't care. And then when the decision comes down, he takes his time complying. And then this ridiculous notion that they care, this tariff regime is built on this forced labor pretext covering 86 countries. It's not trade policy. It's a legal argument to try and reverse engineer something to justify a decision he already made. And that is he's trying to backfill and find another reason to justify. A decision, a rational decision. Companies can't plan. I mean, 13. That's the number of times he's changed the tariff policy against China since he came into office. So it's one thing to have onerous tariffs that make no sense or asymmetric tariffs. But businesses can't even plan against this guy. They don't know what rules they're going to be playing by next week. They don't know who to hire, who to fire. What suppliers to go with, what suppliers to avoid. So it's not, he isn't deploying a thoughtful tariff or trade or even protectionist strategy. He's creating a Florida weather system that in the morning it's one thing and in the afternoon it's another. It really doesn't, it just creates tremendous insecurity. He's just, he's the chaos president. He doesn't mind chaos and the straight of horn moves such that no insurance company wants to insure of tanker. He's comfortable creating just total chaos across small and medium-sized businesses which depend upon continued business with what has been our largest customer in the world at, you know, $875 billion and that is Canada. It's just, simply put, it's just no way to run an economy. What do you make of how quickly Canada and the EU are moving towards this pact? So there's going to be a meeting this month in Montreal, you know, when they put out the statement. About what's going on here, you know, voluntary joining forces. We will create a tech alliance, integrate defense industrial bases, make the Arctic a flagship joint project. Crucially, we're going to work together on energy, critical minerals and batteries on AI. I don't know if they're going to update to SI. But AI, quantum, cyber and economic security. That's the whole shebang. I don't really know what else you could be doing with other countries. So most. Most importantly, I've been to nine F1 races and six of those nine, Jessica, were in Montreal. I love Montreal. It's great. I used to go for F1 every year and amazing food, amazing town, amazing weather in July and ridiculously hot women. Not that I noticed. I just heard. And this great street with great food. The poutine, those fries with the gravy and the cheese. I would die. If I lived there, I would turn into a gravy drenched French fry. I think the first time I went was in maybe 2004 or five. And I'd only been teaching for two or three years. And I was kind of wandering. I didn't know really what, quite frankly, what to do with my life. And I thought, Montreal's awesome. I had, you know, one of the best weekends of my life. So I thought, so I called the head of the marketing department at McGill. And I'm like, could you use a marketing professor, eh? And I even thought about teaching at McGill. I was so taken with Montreal. And then. Then I made the mistake of going back there in February. Not as charming. A little cold? Not. The weather in Montreal is awful. Like, Montreal is both cold and a lot of snow. Anyways. Okay, back to our show. If you're, if you're in, with respect to the EU-Canada potential partnership. If you're in an abusive relationship, it's not, all of a sudden going on Hinge doesn't seem that crazy an idea, right? To try and find a different partner. Yeah. And when your biggest partner starts, your biggest trading partner starts banning your whiskey, you don't negotiate harder and you don't even know who you're negotiating against or what they're going to ask for. You, you just find a new drinking buddy and that's what they're doing here. He is taking our biggest trading partners and he thinks he's getting leverage and they'll end up with a better deal. No, he's going to end up with no deal. Everyone. I, you know, those kind of cool graphics showing where the flow of ships is. And how they re-route around the Strait of Hormuz and how patterns differentiate. By the way, I think the cost to go through the Panama Canal, I think they've raised the cost by 50 or 100x because all of a sudden the Panama Canal is jammed up because trade has been re-routed globally in terms of shipping. Trade on a dollar volume, it would be so interesting if Bloomberg or somebody could get a hold of where there's been settlement in dollars around trade because what I think is going, I know what's going on, is everyone's re-routing their business and supply chain routes around Panama Canal. I think that's what's going on. I think it's going on. It's going on. And then there's the, you know, I don't want to call it the adversarial bucket, but sort of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. And we are, again, the term I just love, and I had Timothy Snyder on the pod, is that we're in the midst of a superpower suicide. There are now reports that we're having a NATO meeting next month that's going to be in Poland, and we are not inviting certain NATO members. So this is apparently the realization of the naughty and nice list, because Christmas lives forever. So this is supposed to be a working group focused on NATO's future, and the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltics aren't being invited. And the guy behind this is apparently the Pentagon president. I've seen back and forth about, like, is this really his call, or it's like a Hegseth call, or a Rubio call, Trump call, whatever it is. That seems like a really bad development for the future of this alliance. And also, those countries are going to be in a really bad position. that are being excluded are enormous defense spenders right now. And we all admitted that it was a good thing that Trump told everyone in the first term, you know, you've got to be paying more of your fair share here. And now they are doing that. And they're certainly key players in the alliance. You know, think about the war, Ukraine and Russian aggression. Like, excuse me, they don't get to come to this meeting. And the other countries, I feel like, should say that they're not going to come unless, you know, one for all and all for one. Is that stupid of me? Am I just, I read too many, you know, bedtime stories to my kids. But it seems like, you got to say, like, the UK and France and the Baltics can't come? Like, what is the point of this? The way you defeat an enemy, the first thing you do, they always say that wars are won before anyone steps on the battlefield. And the first sort of rule of order defeating an enemy is to atomize them. It's to get the warring Native American tribes killing each other and then come in. For, you know, kind of cleanup. Get your, atomize your enemies, get them fighting against each other. That's kind of step one in terms of winning the war, winning the battle before you step on the field. The fact that the president is atomizing our allies amongst us, and we're spending a lot of time and energy focusing on battling each other or not presenting a unified force only is going to embolden Putin. And the one thing, I mean, there's just so many things that are going to have long-term structural damage for the prosperity and well-being of America, whether it's tariffs, whether it's a reduction in trust in our institutions. But the most, in my opinion, the most shameful U-turn in U.S., recent U.S. geopolitical history, it doesn't get enough attention, is the majority of Americans support the fight in Ukraine. They recognize that whether it's decreasing or discouraging China from potentially starting World War III by trying to take Taiwan. And recognizing the power and recognize the effectiveness of a small, motivated, technically capable fighting force. Every victory on the field in Ukraine decreases the likelihood that China puts the world at risk with a hot invasion of Taiwan. History does not reflect, or history shows that when we let someone invade a country at an acceptable cost, if we provide Putin with anything resembling a war, we're going to have a lot of trouble. And so, I think that's going to be a victory at what he feels is an acceptable cost. And an acceptable cost for him is killing or wounding a million of his countrymen. To think that he's not going to stop. If we negotiated the peace that Witkoff and Kushner wanted, and we put enough pressure on Ukraine to come to a quote-unquote settlement, we wouldn't be negotiating a peace. We'd be scheduling the next war. Because that would only embolden Putin to rearm, build up, and then go after Finland, maybe start poking the bear and sending drones into Poland. This is, we have, and most Americans, I'm not sure, a lot of Americans don't realize this, we have abandoned Ukraine. We are no longer giving a cent to Ukraine. And Timothy Snyder said something really interesting on my, on my podcast. Prop G pod. He said that if we had taken the armaments and the cash expended on the conflict of Iran, and given that to Ukraine, this war would be over. There is no way Russian forces could have repelled the amount of munitions that we expended during the first, just the first few weeks of the Iran war. At the end of the day, a manager, and the president is arguably just a manager, the most powerful manager in the world, their charge is to allocate finite, resources to its greatest return. This was a misallocation of resources. Had we given Ukraine a fraction of the cash and munitions we gave or expended in the war against Iran, this war would be over. We would be rebuilding Ukraine. It'd be a, it'd be potentially the third or the fourth Silicon Valley. We have 20,000 drones. They have produced a million in the last 12 months. We consistently reallocate or misallocate capital. And fortunately, the EU has stepped up. They have come together. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Europe is more of a union than it's ever been. But to not invite the Northern Europeans, the Brits, the French, all you're saying to Putin is you're winning. You're atomizing the enemy before you decide to negotiate a settlement, rearm, and start invading Finland, start invading Poland. We are in the midst of, again, what Timothy Snyder refers to as super, power suicide. Yeah, I agree. There you go. So yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth used his State of the Force address at Quantico to announce a new autonomous warfare command and a 20% cut to general and admiral positions. Here's a bit of what he had to say. But it's worth saying again so that the fake news understands it. We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that, no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals, just warriors. Just tough, ready, committed troops. I feel safer. I feel great, especially as he's like, I'm also firing 20% of our generals. I, how did we get? And also, who likes this? Because do you remember that meeting where Trump came out and he had all of the top generals and he said, like, I'm going to send you into cities and the camera panned and the faces, right, of just utter disbelief, the idea that they have this idea that you can use the military for your own partisan benefits. Like, who in that room? After what they've seen, right, and that they know that we're in this seemingly worthless war where more people are being injured and killed than they're willing to report, even that there are spouses being denied benefits that they deserve after their partners have been killed in combat, is listening to something like that and then thinking, like, we're nailing this. Like, we got the right guy. My friend just went to a wedding of his daughter. Who married a transgender woman, and the woman has been serving honorably for, like, 17 years. And she's automatically discharged. It just, discharging people, reducing the pool of talent from which you can draw on any organization makes the organization weaker. And the thing about, there's so many tells in this ridiculous, like, hopped-up human growth hormone from a nine-year-old speech. And the thing that's really disappointing there is, as heinous as all of it is, most of it, all of it is about standards and discipline and features. But one thing's about identity. And it's really gross to lump in identity and who you are and how you want to present yourself and who you want to love into saying, OK, if he wants to say no facial hair, OK, I don't agree with it, but how about it? If he wants to say everyone up and down the line of command has to a certain level of physical attributes that reflect discipline, I kind of get it. I think it's stupid. I think a general who's trying to manage 400,000 young personnel and is a little bit overweight, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I think Patton was pretty overweight. But to lump it in and hide it in identity is just blatantly bigoted. And cutting 20%, cutting a fifth of your admirals while standing up autonomous warfare or an autonomous warfare command, is downsizing the officers who ask hard questions as you hand the keys to machines that can. I've been reading the Dune books from Frank Herbert. Those books really moved me. I read them in high school. It was the first time I ever thought about politics was reading a sci-fi book. And there's a great line from the book, which I'll mangle, but you'll get the general notion. It said that when we handed over, when the humans handed over, decided to hand over decisions to the machines, we thought it would free us. Instead, it enslaved us to people with better machines. Saying that Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich are the best minds to advise us on defense innovation, that's not a brain trust, I would argue, even innovation. That's a greatest hits album or a bad boy band of people who've never had to live with the consequences of their own predictions. None of these three has ever been on the battlefield. You know, when a team of Navy SEALs or special ops, when they get to pick each other, when they're going into a special mission that is highly dangerous, where it is highly likely some of them will not come back, they let them pick who else comes with them. And the first thing they pick, the first qualification, the first thing they ask is how much mission and combat experience does this person have? And they also, officers demand that there's some first-timers, such that those people can get combat. The three of these guys are all very intelligent, adept guys. There's an enormous opportunity to cut the defense budget to $600 or $700 billion in bracing asymmetric warfare with cheaper autonomous vehicles as opposed to these expensive manned platforms that have ended up being kind of the military industrial complex full employment and shareholder act. But these individuals do not understand the nuance and the sacrifice and what is really required in combat because they have never been in combat. For God's sakes, Elon Musk won't even go up on one of his own rockets. And then this ridiculous calling war coverage treason, that's not a policy position. It's again, it's another tell on Hexeth. It means the war or his war or his leadership doesn't survive contact with the truth. There's a lot of tells in what Mr. Hexeth says. I'm for the first time believing the post midterms. He might be the first to go under the class. I'm not allowed of a potential impeachment where several Republicans cross the aisle. Your thoughts? I mean, I wouldn't be mad at it. It would be, I think, a worthwhile line of questioning. I know that they would rather go home than deal with it at this point because Massey brought the articles, right, for Hexeth. Yeah, it doesn't feel like it's going well. And what was sitting with me as I was listening to him is. The words of Dan Driscoll when he went to President Trump and said that Hexeth is firing all of the people that you need to actually modernize our warfare. And he's replacing them with Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich, who hasn't even been in government in a very long time, let alone served. So I think there are a lot of questions surrounding. Project Meridian, which is what they're calling this 120 day Department of War initiative, which is just to study the future of warfare. And I thought that all of that was really DEIE, by the way, where you sit around in working groups studying things. But I thought it was really interesting that he also said in his speech, send me to fight the Redcoats, send me to fight the communists, send me to fight the Islamists, send me. He didn't mention send me to fight the fascists. And that is what is on people's minds right now. Now that we are living in 1930s Germany, I am not making that comparison, but that this administration is full scale carrying out an assault on our constitutional rights. And, you know, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and the Second Amendment is doing very well. But I don't know, that stuck out to me where I was like, you're missing some things that people talk about. Like, I get where you're going here. But people look at. All of this in the way that you guys have been operating and they see comparisons to different kinds of dictators and authoritarians than the ones you're comfortable shouting out. Let's move on to the flight Dubai plane incident where a copilot allegedly stabbed the captain and tried to crash a Dubai to Tel Aviv flight carrying mostly Israeli passengers. The plane plunged nearly 14,000 feet in under 30 seconds before passengers and crew fought their way into the cockpit and subdued him. The flight landed safely in Saudi Arabia, where the copilot is now in custody. The airline says the motive is still under investigation. Jess, what are your initial thoughts here? I mean, I understand that an investigation needs to take place. The motivation, I, it seems like, you know, terrorism and, you know, Israelis, they all served. They are brave. Some of this, you know, it's obviously like FAUDA rights itself. When these things happen. But thank God these people are all OK. What a hero pilot. Also, the Indian man who, I guess, hit the emergency button to make sure that the cockpit door could be opened, you know, as he was being stabbed and attacked. Just one of those things that you really don't expect to see come across your feed and that you had, you know, this group of people who run towards the crisis. Very much reminiscent of 9-11 and what happened there when people realized that what was going on there and thinking about Todd Beamer and just kind of one of these magical stories that not a single person died and that they were lucky also that they had pilots on the plane who were able to successfully and safely land after that. It really. It just felt like somehow, you know, the narrative from a show or a movie got crossed, you know, with our news feeds. Just a remarkable story. And I know that there's a lot of pushback around how this was covered, like from the BBC and The New York Times calling it an altercation. And, you know, we need to know more, et cetera. And I get people's impulses to do that. But it seems pretty obvious. What was going on there? And you got a bunch of heroes on that plane. Yeah, I feel like the world really needed this. And that is a good story. As someone who I fly a lot. Yeah. It's just hard for me to imagine anyone being able to recommandeer a flight when it plunged 14,000 feet. Like when there's turbulence, I don't want to get out of my seat. But this thing is nosediving and somehow passengers. I think we're going to find. I mean, that's some pretty well-trained, for lack of a better term, badasses were on that flight. Yeah. Immediately recognized what was going on and were able to recommandeer the plane. The media, kind of the bigger story has been the way the media described the incident. Initially describing it as an altercation. And I do believe that where that critique has teeth is that a stabbing and a delusion. And I think that's a good point. I do think there's been of a knee-jerk reaction from some of the people I speak to about, you know, immediately, like, call this terrorism. Like, I don't think at this point, I think the media needs to do its job and the investigators need to do their job before they call it Islamic terrorism or jihadist. I think our nervous system is so on high alert here and just across every issue in America. So the nationality of the co-pilot hasn't even been officially confirmed by UAE or Oman. As of the reporting, an asserting intent or ideology, even though it would make sense at this point before an investigation, is the same kind of category or form of error as under-describing it in just the opposite direction. And, you know, we were talking about the terrible events at Cornell the other day. A lot has come out since then. And it feels as if, you know, the rush to judgment. Calling it. The justification was wrong. Assuming that it's jihadist terrorism at this point, while it might make sense, is wrong. Let's find out. Let's find out more about the pilot. Let's let the investigators do their job. And then let's use, you know, the right words to describe it. But this is, let me just say, this is a wonderful story. And you can already see people, producers are lining up how they pitch this to Netflix for, you know, season four or five of Fowda or whoever produces Fowda. Can I just add to that, that I think, you know. I agreed with you about rushing to judgment. And I led by saying, you know, it seems obvious that this would make sense if it were, you know, jihadi terrorism. Agreed. But let people do their jobs. This story versus listening to Bibi at the U.N., which I found was so repellent. Even, you know, he brought the beeper and was like, you know, you remember this. The beeper attack was an incredible feat. Of was what's the right term? Like, it's the most it's the most precision counterterrorist attack in history. Yes. The beeper was the most precise counterterrorism attack in history. Years and years, years and years of planning got them exactly where they wanted to took out a bunch of terrorists also. But I was so horrified and grossed out, frankly, by Bibi's speech that he's also, you know, talking about Hassan Piker and like really getting. Getting in the mud. After the mayor. Right. Like, just so unnecessary and honestly doing such a disservice to Israelis and the people who carried out that incredible feat in the beeper attack. And this felt like such an antidote to that. You know, like no matter what you think about what has gone on in Gaza, you know, what we all think is going on in the West Bank. This felt like a real feel good story about. a brave and well-trained people. who pulled off this miracle. And we'll wait for more of the details to come out. But I will just say that having watched Bebe's visit and been so repelled by it, that this was magic on the other side. And to see that kind of everyday bravery and the importance also of national service for whoever you are, right, that you get lucky. And it was, what, 140 of 180 people on the flight were Israelis. But they're all trained for moments like this. And we should be training, not saying everyone has to go and serve in the military like that, but they have a common cause and they have a common defense that is built into them. And it has a propensity to action. Right. That they're going to rush right now. And they're going to rush right now. Right. And they're going to push right now. All right. Jess, I'm in California. I don't like to leave my hotel. I just like to stare out the Hollywood Hills. I might go to the Chateau Marmont later with some friends. I absolutely love it here. That has almost nothing to do with anything. But that's my segue that the candidates for California governor faced off last night in a debate. In a state that's also one of the world's largest economies, by the way, has passed Japan to become the fourth largest economy, Javier Becerra and Steve Hilton squared off on everything from taxes to immigration to Hilton's relationship with Trump. Kalshi has Becerra, get this, at 96% likely to win this seat unless it comes out. I don't even think if we found out at this point he was on Epstein's Island right now, I don't think he's going to lose. But anyways, let's watch a clip from yesterday. What people want to hear. It's solutions to their problems, not these unpleasant political attacks that don't help anyone, immigrant or not, with the problems that they're facing, the cost of living, all of the problems that you have no solutions to whatsoever. So all you've got is to talk about your federal politics. All you ever say is Trump, Trump, Trump. And that's nothing but an insult to every Californian who is desperate for something. You've got nothing to change in this state. And all you're offering is more of the same. Your words, Trump, Trump, Trump, because he is your supporter. You chased his endorsement. That's all you can say on every question because you just said it, too. And your policy says you've got nothing to offer. But California is more of the same. So, you know, he Becerra got lucky that there is an R on the other side of this election. And Karen Bass got really unlucky that there is another D there because. The insurgents are all saying the same thing. And the quote unquote establishment has not figured out how to have enough fight and, you know, flip the table over energy to justify their candidacies. And Becerra will be fine. He's led, you know, 15 points plus in every poll taken since the June primary. But what Steve Hilton is saying there and what Nithya Raman is saying in her election. What Abdul El-Sayed is saying in Michigan. Like, this is where people are. And they're basically begging you. Liberals are begging people in power to not make them have to look outside of the party for real solutions. And there are Democrats that are meeting the moment and are tackling problems in the city. I mean, like, to go back to Mamdani, who had a. A good week besides Bibi's attacks during the U.N., he was talking about how liberals have seeded these quality of life issues for far too long and that if you can't look to Democrats to solve real problems like public transportation and homelessness and crime and all of these things that make you think it's somehow worth it to be paying 52 percent in tax in total, like. What are we doing here? And that it took Mamdani. And Democratic socialists to be the one saying it on the biggest platform, I think, is a real indictment of the middle of the party or the establishment wing of it, whatever you want to call it. And that's what last night was for me. Like, Becerra was fine. Hilton was technically better. He's a lot smoother. You know, he was also a TV host. He's very good at this. I've known Steve for years. He's a great talker. He's a smart guy. He knows what he's talking about and also knows that, like, he's not going to. Convert people to the Republican Party or anything like that. He just. In his mind, he just wants to make quality of life better. Now, I don't agree with all of the approaches that he wants to take policy wise, but this will continue to be a problem and it will continue to dog Democrats until they figure out a good solution. And it is it's too much. The right does it. It's all about Trump because Trump forces that on them to some degree. But we have to have more of a message. Yeah. Credit to Becerra for actually doing the debate, because at this point, that's true. A lot of them aren't. Yeah. At this point, it's a formality with a debate stage, given where this race is right now. And Hilton is running as the anti-Trump, but adjacent Republican in a state that's very Democratic. He's trying to thread a needle where the eye is closed. It's just there's no he has no shot right now. And California's real opponent and what they want. What, in my opinion, Becerra should have been talking about is that they have a 14 billion dollar structural deficit and almost 300000 people left for Texas. I spoke to yesterday to a senator who I absolutely adore, who shall remain nameless, who's considering whether to run for reelection or potentially just going to the private sector. And one of the things we were talking about is he was talking about the atmospherics and whether how much money would have to raise and the likelihood he would be reelected. And I said. If you don't enjoy running, that's fine. But the atmospherics, it's like that that theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Brazilian rainforest can cause a hurricane in Palm Beach. You just never know if Rick Caruso had run for mayor or governor, he probably would have won. Yeah. No one was thinking Obama was going to win presidency. Like Becerra. I don't I find Becerra not expectant. Especially like compelling or offensive. He seems competent to me. You're not alone in feeling that way about Javier Becerra. He just seems like a reasonable guy. Would I have thought two years ago that he would literally just float easily into the California governor's mansion? No. You never know the atmospherics. If you're thinking about doing something, you know, trying to predict the future, especially in politics. The question isn't is it lining up for you? The question is, do you have a vision and is it is it something you want to do right now? Because you just absolutely like what were the atmospherics for AOC winning her election when it happened? Like any reasonable assessment would have said, no, you're crazy. Don't don't run. But I the little bit of the debate I saw, I flipped over to murder. She wrote, which seemed compelling and gripping compared to this. Angela Lansbury. Always did it right. Angela and then Matlock. But and then Matlock on the governor's race front. You know, Kamala Harris could have breezed into that like more than 100 percent walked right in. I get it that she wants to be president, but that to me feels like what she should have done. And then we would also stop relitigating 2024. And, you know, how is she going to stack up in the primary space? She would have just, you know, she could move home, which is what, according to reporting, they wanted to do. And Doug Emhoff wants to, you know, practice law and be back there. And you run the fourth biggest economy in the world. Seems like a pretty big deal. She's kicking herself. And also, if if people just love the way she was handling acquitting herself as governor, she might have been drafted in. That's exactly right. She overthought it. I don't know if she wants to run for president. I'm pretty sure she wants to remain in public service. But as governor of California, you just have an enormous you're sort of the de facto vice president or, you know, you're a pretty big voice, if you will. Yeah, I agree. Again, the lesson to young people is the following. Yeah, look at the situation. Look at the context. Look at the atmospherics. But more importantly, ask yourself, do I want to do this? Do I have a vision for this job, this position, this relationship? Instead of thinking about, you know, the again, the weather around you. What is it you want to do? Are you ready or are you not? And is this something you really want? And just and just go for it. All right. Just let's leave it there. OK. See you next week. Yeah. See you next week. Thank you.