11/19/24: Morning Joe Kisses Trump Ring, Trump Confirms Military Mass Deportations, Ben Affleck Stuns With AI Hollywood Take

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. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have? Indeed, we do. We got two guests in the studio today. So that's going to be exciting. We've got Maurice Mitchell from the Working Families Party talking about the race for the new DNC chairs. It's kind of a big deal in terms of the war that is on for the future of the Democratic Party. We've also got Trump has confirmed his intention to use a national emergency and military assets to fulfill his plans for mass deportation. Shelby Talcott.

is going to join us to talk about that and other Trump transition news. Got a little debate cooking between Sagar and producer Griffin about some Ben Affleck comments with regard to AI. We're also taking a look at how liberals are fleeing Twitter and heading over to blue sky and what to make of that. Also something that did not make in the show yesterday because we talked too much and debated too much. But very important and significant news about the Biden administration green lighting long range missile use

into Russia from Ukraine and what that could ultimately mean. I am also taking a look at the ad, Kamala's corporate donors did not want you to see and the big debate that is unfolding in the Democratic Party about what went wrong and what the future should hold. Maurice Mitchell from the Working Families Party is going to join us as well to weigh in on that.

Thank you to all those who've been signing up for premium subscribers, breakingpoints.com if you want to go ahead and take advantage. We've got big plans this year. It's going to be fun already. Look at these amazing stories that are here, not just polls, politics and all that. We're talking about Ben Affleck, blue sky, Ukraine, and so much more. So there's a lot of policy on the deck for the next, at the very least, first two years of the Trump administration before the midterms, and I'm really excited to shift.

and start thinking deeply about that. Actually covering a presidency is really exciting. We got to do it all together the first time with Joe Biden or get to redo it again with President Trump. So breakingpoints.com if you want all of that and want to see some of the interesting things that we have that are coming next. Yes. And whether or not you become a premium subscriber, please also like and share our videos on YouTube. It really helps out in the algorithm so other people can see what we're up to.

Over here, appreciate and love you guys as always. All right. So yesterday, over on MSNBC, Joe and Mika of Morning Joe revealed that they had made a trek down to Mar-a-Lago to restart relations with Trump, the like just self-aggrandizing way they talk about all of this is amazing. In any case, take a listen to what they had to say.

Joe and I went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally with President-elect Trump. It was the first time we have seen him in seven years.

Now, we talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents, and media outlets. We talked about that a good bit. And it's going to come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show, has watched it over the past year or over the past decade, that we didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.

What we did agree on was to restart communications. My father often spoke with world leaders with whom he and the United States profoundly disagreed. That's a task shared by reporters and commentators alike. We had not spoken to President Trump since March of 2020, other than a personal call, Joe made to Trump on the morning after the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania.

In this meeting, President Trump was tearful. He was upbeat. He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues. And for those asking why we would go speak to the president elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't we?

Their saga is so much about this. That is incredible. I mean, the first thing that comes off is just like, I mean, she's comparing herself to her father. Who is the national security adviser of the United States? Wait, you're just some jerk off morning show host. Like, what are we talking about?

They are so narcissistic and so self-aggrandizing. So that's the first thing. The second thing is that literally weeks ago, Joe was comparing Trump to Hitler. Yes. Mika was in tears. Literally in tears. On the eve of the election talking about her concern about Trump. So they were happy to profit.

off of fear of Trump before he's elected. And now I think it's equal parts, you know, fear. They see backgates coming in at DOJ. They see Steve Bannon saying, hey, he's going to go after MSNBC hosts starting with Ari Melber and working down the list. And also their constant desire to suck up to power.

I mean, same thing, like these were the two morning show hosts. Remember, these were Joe Biden's favorite morning show hosts. They were on the phone with him constantly. And by the way, Democrats, in terms of media figures who are responsible for the current state of affairs, you would be hard pressed to find two individuals who are more culpable for the destruction of the Democratic Party and the ushering of Trump back into the White House than these two people. Number one.

aggressively smearing and destroying Bernie Sanders and his movement both times around blocking that path of actual left economic populism that would have been far more successful in defeating Trumpism than warmed over neoliberalism.

Number two, these were the people who rallied the troops around Joe Biden, blocked any sort of primary process from happening. After even after that disastrous debate, they were there still saying, Oh, I still think he's the guy still backing him up. So they are so complicit in this ultimate situation and not to mention

Where else are never Trump Republicans more featured and more centered and their concerns more catered to than this show? And what was the most disastrous part of Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party strategy in this election, then their desire to go after the mythical Liz Cheney voter that does not exist. That could have been hatched and maybe was hatched in the morning Joe Green Room.

So it's just extraordinary all the way around and really quite discussing that MSNBC audience is furious and frankly they should be because these are a bunch of liars, grifters and con artists who are happy to con the audience and now that Trump's in power go and suck up to the next powerful individual because that's just what they do.

Absolutely. And that's the cognitive dissonance that you need to say, because this is what, it's all in the game, right? I actually kind of agree with that. But the point is, is that you can't be telling people that this is literally Hitler reincarnate and you're a dictator. And then when you get elected, then you're like, oh, well, look, it's the game and comparing yourself and narcissism to your father, you're actually successful and incredible father.

Mr. Begnew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor of the United States who sat across from Khrushchev and others, you know, in his capacity as a diplomat. You're not a diplomat. You're a freaking morning show host. And as you alluded to, we have some side-by-side footage of what it was like not that long ago. Let's take a listen.

This is not a reach. I could go back and talk about Nazi Germany and I do it without any concerns whatsoever. And if people can't start drawing the parallels, well, you're just stupid or you have your head in the sand or you're one of them. Yeah. So Nazi Germany, 1933, it's like, which is it? And so actually you didn't mean it the entire time. It was a con or you did meet it. And now that, you know, quote unquote Nazi Germany and or Hitler has been elected, then you've just decided you're like, Oh, actually, we just need to respect the will of the people. So they

There's inherent narcissism. There is business, obviously, that's a huge part of it, because a lot of this is morning Joe wanting to preserve its access, of which, by the way, had a ton of access in the first Trump administration. And, you know, a lot of MAGA people don't like to hear it. There's nothing that Donald Trump loves more, actually, than access talking to and gossiping with the liberal media, literally seen in the first hand.

There's a reason why he gets to have dinner with them and not, or to start breakfast. Apparently was bacon and eggs, by the way, the diplomatic, the diplomatic. The restarting of relations. Yeah, the restarting of communications. Just incredible. And I also love how scripted their entire answer was. So you see self-enggrandizement, you see business, you see hypocrisy. I would say it's the total MSNBC cocktail that is going on over there.

absolutely. And, you know, the other way this should be seen is, as we've been discussing on this show and I'll talk more about it in my monologue today, there's basically sort of, there's a war going on in the Democratic Party right now about what just happened and what it means for the future. And there's effectively two camps.

one camp on which the side of Joe and Joe and Mika is effectively the status quo. Like nothing is that wrong or if there is something that's wrong, it's just like the wokeism and we need to continue on this like punching left as much as we can, which is already the status quo and the Democratic Party. And actually what we need to do is to capitulate to some aspects of Trumpism. You see that with, I think this is example number one, Joe and Mika going down to Mar-a-Lago is a case in point of that.

Jared Polis, his comments about R.F.K. Jr., Cory Booker, his comments that also seemed to be favorable to R.F.K. Jr., even in advance of the election, Jeff Bezos not making the endorsement at The Washington Post, Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, Tim Cook, all calling Trump to make nice with him. That is one direction.

I think it's the most likely direction that the Democratic Party goes in that they say, hey, we want to work with you on your mass deportation, immigration policy. We actually want to shift to the right and be where you are more or less. And Ron is basically like Trumpism light. I think that's the most likely direction. And it bears a lot of commonalities and has a lot of echoes with what Bill Clinton did in the 90s.

where it was okay. I see that this neoliberal direction of Reaganism has won. So we're just going to basically do our version of that on the Democratic side. And I'm not going to say that it couldn't be electorally successful. I think it could. But that sort of capitulation to Trumpism is one path. And that's the path that Mika and Joe are signaling and pushing for here. The other path

is to offer something that is a completely contrasting vision that is anti-establishment, but in a left economic populist direction. So rather than immigrants and cultural elites being the scapegoats, it's, hey, it's the burning sanders. The problem is the millionaires and the billionaires. The problem is the rigged democratic establishment. The problem is the corrupt media. That's the other direction they could go in. They're less likely to go in that direction because it threatens the class interests of their donors, something else I'm gonna talk about in my monologue today.

But that's basically the contours of the war right now. So that's part of what makes this so significant outside of just like Joe and makeup being ridiculous people and gurfters and conners and liars who just will sell their audience, whatever they think is convenient in the moment. What is more significant about it is they're clearly taking sides in this battle within the Democratic Party. And they are quite influential. They are quite influential. The other thing that I would say in terms of their motive saga that you were alluding to is

we're going to talk in a minute. I mean, MSNBC ratings are in the toilet like bad. And I think that it's, this always happens after if there's some bad news for liberals, you know, the ratings tank. Same thing on Fox News when there's some bad news for Republicans, their ratings tank, whatever. Those are usually temporary blips and things kind of return to some sort of a steady state.

I think MSNBC has been real trouble here, though, because their whole theory of the world has centered around the idea of an anti-Trump coalition with these never-Trumpers being the way and the model to follow in order to defeat Donald Trump. And their view of the world was just completely repudiated. It is thoroughly incorrect. It is totally wrong. And a lot of liberals are now feeling very disenchanted with their own mainstream institutions.

So whether it's the New York Times, the Washington Post certainly, but also MSNBC, I think real damage has been done. And there's a danger that those people just don't come back. You also don't have, last time around the Trump administration, you had all the Russia gate thing, which was like a spy novel. It was exciting for- That was the best thing that ever happened. It was exciting for them to tune into night after night, what's Rachel Maddow gonna piece together and how does the story end blah, blah, blah. You just don't have that same intrigue for them to draw the audience back in with.

which was also them selling their audience a bill of goods that turned out to be much less dramatically less than what they ever portrayed. So I think they're in real trouble, and I think Joe and Mika realize that it's not going to be their ratings that allows them to hang on. In fact, their ratings have never been all that great. Yeah, that's true. But it's just like very high, very wealthy. That's right. And so the other thing they can bring to the table is access.

So if you have access to the party in power, that gives you some cred that makes you valuable within the organization. And so I think it's also, you know, life insurance policy for them within MSNBC where the audience is going to be furious with them. But they are making the calculation that it's worth

accepting that fury from most of the MSNBC audience in order to have that level of access. Yeah, you alluded to the ratings. Let's go ahead and put that on the screen. A12 please up on the screen so we can see this. And you can actually see here the amount of primetime viewers that are in the key demographic.

for uh... their show so our email bar for example sixty six thousand joy read seventy six thousand kris hay seventy seven thousand alix wagner fifty three thousand the last word fifty three thousand stephanie rule at sixty two thousand this is prime time time and this is the key demographic which is what the uh... the only thing that matter that's the only thing that matters for the advertisers if you look at the weekend except it's more insane we're talking in the twenties you know even in prime time they're lucky to crack thirty three thousand there at the five p.m. hour with al sharpton

on the weekend. I mean, I don't have to tell everybody here who's watching a YouTube show or listening to a podcast that, you know, we would be bankrupt, literally, if we're trying to run a business of our scale with numbers like that in the key demographic. You know, we have literally millions of people who watch this show, not just our show, all kinds of different shows on YouTube and elsewhere, which are almost, I think almost 100% of our audience is in the key demographic, just for, you know, in terms of looking at where the age divide is there. But I also want to get to something deeper.

something you said. If you watch MSNBC for eight years, you were sold a bill of goods. You were sold a false view of the world. If you watch the show, if you watch really a lot of shows that are non mainstream, there was a theory of Trump in 2016, which I think we definitely talked a lot about here on the show. We're like, no,

This is not an aberration. This is not like, there's a theory that you could have an anti-Trump coalition, but the shifts that took place in 2016 were fundamental, and they were a lot more than just Hillary Clinton was bad or Russia stole the election. We had major demographic change, there was immigration, there was trade, it was 40-year reckoning, the Iraq war. You're not gonna get-

any of that on MSNBC, and you haven't for the last eight years. Every once in a while, a guest will pop up and tell the truth, and it goes viral, because it's like, wow, it's so shocking to actually see somebody in that format. But again, if you're watching here, and you were prepared for a Donald Trump victory, and not just a victory, you were prepared for even the case that has now happened, the popular vote, the realignment, all of those young males shift to the right, the gender gap that's happened between men and women.

the Latino male realignment, young people's disillusionment with Israel policy. We've covered that ad nauseam for years in and out. I don't really know how you could function as a morning Joe viewer. So in a certain sense, they were fooled. I mean, they literally were hoodwinked from reality over the last eight years. In a certain part, I almost feel bad for them. But that's also why it's so disingenuous for them to act this way now today. And that's the key point is that

their shape shifters and their narcissist. And this actually shows what the entire game is all about at the end of the day.

The way you know that they're really screwed over there is that you had even Jen Psaki coming on and basically being like, you know, this whole Never Trump thing. She went on morning Joe, the home, the beating heart of Never Trump is home and said, you know, maybe this was not the right group to go after because guess what? They only exist in your green room guys. So you know, you're screwed when that happens. When David Brooks is out there writing columns like,

You know, maybe Bernie Sanders had a point when Senator Chris Murphy, who is no renegade, is out there saying, you know why we were so aggressive against Bernie Sanders? It's because we didn't want his program of class warfare to impact our high net income base or donor class.

Like, when you have figures like that admitting that the last eight years have been a lie mistake, a ruse, a con of their own base, that's how you know that the whole MSNBC edifice is crumbling. And it's one of the more hopeful things, frankly, to come out of this election because it has been a disaster for anyone who is on the left who does want a different direction for the Democratic Party. I can't tell you how influential MSNBC has been. I mean, I genuinely think

And sorry, you could tell me if I'm wrong, that MSNBC is by and large the reason that Joe Biden was able to win the nomination. Because if you remember back in 2020, what happened? Okay, Bernie Sanders was winning. He did, you know, he claims he won Iowa. We all know Bernie really won Iowa, but we'll say he did well in Iowa.

He wins New Hampshire, goes on to Nevada, just rumps, like wins overwhelmingly in Nevada. And the Democratic Party has an oh shit moment, like Bernie Sanders could actually be the nominee. Jim Clyburn makes his move, Obama makes a bunch of calls behind the scenes, basically gets everyone to drop out. Joe Biden wins South Carolina, expected,

Then everyone drops out and the media coalesces behind him and behind this narrative of those first three states really didn't matter, really didn't count. The only thing that matters is South Carolina. And by the way, Joe Biden is the only person who could defeat Donald Trump.

So they aggressively sold this narrative to the Democratic base and the Democratic base desperate to defeat Donald Trump was like, okay, I guess we're going with Joe Biden then. And then Joe Biden comes from behind. I mean, the way the polls shifted.

During that time period, it was like nothing we have ever seen before because of the MSNBCs of the world leading the charge to coalesce the Democratic base behind him. And at that point, it was so effective because liberals still had so much trust in places like the New York Times and MSNBC and CNN. So when they said, it's got to be Joe Biden, guys, he's the only one that can win. They said, all right, well, I guess that's what we're going to do. You're not going to have that dynamic anymore.

Those same places do not have the same level of trust and influence with the Democratic base that they once did. I truly believe that that trust, not that it's like totally gone and no one's going to blah, blah, blah. I don't want to overstate it. But that level of just obedience to whatever the narrative is coming out of those mainstream institutions, I truly think that's gone and broken. And I think that is a very positive and hopeful thing if there's going to be any prayer.

of the Democratic Party doing anything interesting going forward. That's right. We also have John Stewart who waited on this, and only the way that he can. Let's take a listen. Worshin, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents, and media outlets. Oh, I bet you really laid down the gauntlet, Joe. I bet you walked in there and just let him have it, didn't you, Joey? I'm gonna do a one-act play called Joe and Mika go to Marlago.

Mr. President, y'all rhetoric is outrageous. I cannot in good conscience. Ooh, are those macaroons? The pink one is raspberry. We've learned nothing.

Even those putting up resistance to Trump's agenda don't seem to understand who they're dealing with. Yeah, I mean, it's too perfect, too perfect. And, and John goes on this whole thing too about how Democrats are just wholly unable to grapple with the hardball tactics that are deployed by Trump and by his people where, you know, when it's Democrats in power,

It's like, oh my God, the parliamentarians. We can't do it, so guess what guys, no minimum wage hikes, sorry, our bat, we tried really hard. And then with Trump, it's like, I want Matt Gaetz at DOJ. And they're like, well, there's not the votes for it. And he's like, I don't care. I have this way of doing a recess appointment. And Democrats are left falling back on like the norms. I don't think that's appropriate. I mean, that's what they do. Yes and no. I mean, certainly. Yes. Yeah, but when they want something, when they want something, they also do it. Like, let's not pretend that either.

So it's like a DACA legalizing literally a million people with the pen what is it the pen in the phone? Like it's not like Democrats how many years ago was that soccer? That's a okay. That's the most outrageous example Where they're literally willing to use I mean the student loan thing is like didn't pass through Congress decided to try and do it through executive action failure by the way and

And how did that work out? I mean, I got like a, you know, tiddly amount compared to what he was going to exactly. I mean, that's the thing is like, two year, I guess, I, one thing I will say is that I think you're right that the priorities that they just crumble on are things they don't really care about. No, the point is, is that they just, they don't serve their base. The Republicans actually serve their base.

Democrats do not serve their base whatsoever. In fact, their whole MO, which is part of how they end up in this situation, is to smear and deride their own base. How many years have they aggressively gone after the young base of their party and then you wonder why young people are drifting away from the parties? Because you spent years saying that they were bad and wrong and anti-Semitic, et cetera.

So yeah, there's just a very different orientation between the way the Democratic Party approaches these things. I think I could see why you think that and perhaps we may have arrived at this, but the Republican base has also been anti illegal immigration for like 20 years and actually hasn't gotten anything. So will they get something this time? Like maybe, but you know, don't forget, even under the Donald Trump administration,

quote-unquote, nothing fundamentally changed. No major piece of legislation passed. Will it happen this time? Maybe. I'm actually still very skeptical. I think I don't underestimate the power of the business lobby or any of these people in stopping what is eventually going to happen. Chaos is

already the status quo. We're going to talk about that with Shelby Talcott. And I think that chaos is a vacuum of which business lobbyists and others prefer. It's possible that Trump is a much more organized figure. I don't see ton of evidence for that. I think certain things that they ran on that have now coalesced ideologically over eight years

can and will happen, but that does not mean it will be like as a coherent idea. It's not FDR that we're dealing with here, at least this is the way that I'll put it. But overall, the way that I think that we can look at this is the MSNBC, the problem is I can't discount them because they also have a Scotsman effect of like who is left in the actual Democratic Party.

And the people who are left, yes, they may be disillusioned. But the truth is, is that rich white people are now the democratic base, right? Like those are the people who overwhelmingly moved and voted and showed up for Kamala Harris. And those people still do have a deep amount of institutional trust. And when they don't have institutional trust, it's not the way that you and I talk about, right? They'll be like, the New York Times isn't tough enough.

on Trump, like that's literally what they think. They think that the media, they think that if more Americans had not been, if Trump had not been, quote, normalized or whatever, that they would not vote for him. Obviously it's a stupid ideology, but that's what they think. So I'm not, I wouldn't count them out yet. I think that even on MSNBC, they'll find their way, you know, they'll find an agenda and all these other things that they can come to together. And I wouldn't say just yet,

that these rich whites are willing to abandon MSNBC in those institutions. I could see a big surge for things like Midas Touch. And if people do go online, it'll be like, yeah, literally Midas Touch, Brian Tyler Cohen. But you know, even them, even like Midas Touch has been on the like, you know, what Bernie was right.

Oh, really? I don't count myself too familiar with Midas touch. And I do think that I think you're correct, though. I do think there will be more of a migration to YouTube and podcasts among some portion. In fact, you already see it with, you know, actually, we see it over in Crystal Kyle and friends. Ryan sees it on drop site. David Sorata sees it on Lever News.

Um, the over, um, Nathan J. Robinson, like they're seeing it too. There, there has been a surge in like, all right, this shit is has not helped me understand the world. And so I do need to search out other alternatives. Michael Moore actually put on a big post of like, here's some other places to go. Yeah. And so I do, I do think there will be a shift too. And just because of the economics of YouTube, even if you have people who are, you know, basically like,

you know, blue resistance figures like The Might Is Touch, guys. There's just a different ecosystem and a different set of incentives over on YouTube. That's fair. So you end up with different commentary. I mean, that's part of why the pod-safe dudes have been like, they're a mixed bag. Don't get me wrong. But they've been better at, they want to Joe Biden out. They've been better in analyzing what happens than, for example, Joe and Mika certainly.

just simply because they're in a different medium. And so that helps to create a different perception of the world. So I do think you'll see a kind of splintering from, like I said, I don't want to oversell it. The New York Times and the Washington Post are still going to exist. MSNBC is going to still have some viewing audience. But when you consider how old and how scarce their audience is already,

Yeah, I just don't think they're going to have the same level of dominance that they did in terms of setting 100% of the discourse. One thing that has been amusing to me, though, is the number of people like Chris Murphy or whoever who will go on MSNBC to talk about how they should do more independent media. And it's like, you know, we do exist.

Right. We haven't had a ROCOM is still like the only person. We've had a request pending with Chris for two years, just so everybody understands. Yeah. Very good point. Yeah, I'm just very good. And it's not like, I mean, here we are with this audience that is cross ideological and people who are open to different ideas and having their minds changed and whatever.

We haven't had one Democrat reach out to us and be like, you know what, let's do this thing. Let's do it. Except for Roe. That's right. He's the only one. He gets a lot of crap for that, but it is funny to me that they're like, oh gosh, we should do more independent media, but then they don't actually do that. They just go on MSNBC to talk about how they should do that. That's right. All right, we got Shelby Calc, Talcott standing by. Let's get to her.

Very excited now to be joined by Shelby Talcott. She's a national political reporter at Semaphore. Great friend of the show. It's good to see you, Shelby. Nice to see you. All right, so let's talk a little bit about what's going on with the transition. Let's start with this. Let's put this up there on the screen. We have a 403 AM retruth here from Donald Trump. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch says, good news, reports are incoming. Real Donald Trump administration is prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.

he retrutes and says true at 403 a.m. So are we to take this as the late night or I guess early morning slash late night either or in Trump's case musings on truth social? How does this comport with your own reporting down in Mar-a-Lago talking to the transition team?

Yeah, well first, I'm really excited that we're back to 4 AM tweets for the next four years. But yeah, Donald Trump has talked a lot about his mass deportation plan. And when you talk to people close to him, you know, Stephen Miller has gone into depth about this, his borders are, Tom Homan has talked a lot about this. And they all sort of have the same idea, which is use every single resource possible.

in some cases, use resources that are not currently possible to implement the plan. So they've talked a lot about starting with criminals and national security threats. Stephen Miller has spoken at length about sort of expanding some of these holding centers for documented migrants. Donald Trump has talked about using the National Guard and local police. And so I think everything's on the table.

Stephen Miller has talked about invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring a health emergency. So they are thinking of essentially every single option in order to implement this. And this is clearly Donald Trump's focus, because if you look at who he started with when he was first deciding who was going to be in his cabinet, it was all sort of these national security folks. The borders are

Stephen Miller is his deputy chief of staff. And so you're seeing that that's really the focus for the campaign. Any sense of how many people we're talking about here? Because, I mean, actually estimates vary of the number of undocumented immigrants, 12 million to 20 million somewhere in that range. So, I mean, any exercise of this scale and scope would be absolutely massive. So any sense of how many people they're actually thinking about here?

I mean, when I talk to people close to Trump, they say as many people as possible, and that ultimately depends on what they're actually able to do, right? If you look at, you know, the number of ICE officers right now, it's not enough. It's not even nearly enough to do what they want to do, but they're hoping that they can get the resources, whether it's through executive orders, whether it's through Congress, to drastically ramp up the resources that they have, which would drastically ramp up the amount of people that they could theoretically deport.

So do they need Congress is an important question. I think it depends. I think that they're hoping that they can use some things with executive orders. I mean, I would be, you know, I've talked to people who say that they would be shocked. They're very close held with their executive orders, but I would be shocked if they're not executive orders floating around in the Trump transition team right now that directly try to address some of this immigration. But I do think that some of the things that they're probably going to have to go through Congress. I mean, they threw it at the wall last time. They can try all they want.

But we all saw the court system. The Congress is ultimately the only way. It's possible. I mean, it's theoretically possible. That actually gets to a bigger question of there is a sense that Trump himself promised. He said, I've learned a lot of my lessons from last time around about personnel. How true is that? You and I were there. We covered the first term, unlike a lot of people who got into politics now. So how different is it from the last time around? How similar is it from last time around?

Well, he's clearly trying. He's clearly appointing people that he believes are loyalists. What I think is interesting though is some of these folks, you know, you still have all of these different factions inside Trump world who are vying for different people. Some of those people are maybe

not the best choice for Trump, but the best choice for people around Trump. I thought it was interesting that Donald Trump tapped Will Sharf, which is his personal or his lawyer over the past two years for the staff secretary position, because Will Sharf is Leonard Leo's prodigy.

And Leonard Theo obviously had a falling out with Donald Trump years ago and is super influential in conservative orbits. And this potentially could be sort of Leonard Leo's way into the administration. Can you tell the audience who Leonard Leo is?

He is sort of donor, longtime federalist guy, you know, who's involved in some of the, in some of Donald Trump's judges picks back in the day, but they had a falling out. They are not close anymore. He's been iced out of the Trump campaign.

but he's super, super close with Will Sharf. And so I think that is notable. So you have people like that in Trump's orbit now who have already been tapped. I think it's going to be really interesting to see, for example, if they get confirmed how Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard work together because they are very different. And so I think Trump is trying to pick loyalists, but he has 4,000 positions to a point.

Are all of them going to truly be loyalists? Are we going to see something like 2016 where some people have different opinions and there's going to be drama? Tell me more about the Elon Musk relationship, romance, et cetera. We talked some yesterday about this, but there's a sense that Elon with some members of the transition team has sort of worn out his welcome. We also see publicly him praising Javier Malay for getting rid of tariffs.

opposite of the direction Trump obviously wants to go and we also see him backing his own pick for Treasury Secretary, which would also, I think if the came from anyone else, would probably rub Trump the wrong way. What can you tell us about those dynamics within the transition team?

I mean, I know Donald Trump has said sort of joked multiple times now that, you know, he's still around. He's still here. Can't get him out of Mar-a-Lago. Yeah. And I think that's true. He's taking pictures with the family. Yeah, literally with the family. And I think that's true. I mean, he's hanging around Mar-a-Lago every week.

But I think they're still in that bromance stage. I think Donald Trump is fascinated by Elon Musk. Elon Musk spent $200 million to help get Donald Trump elected. Some people in Trump's orbit are a little miffed.

that Elon Musk is so close. He's sitting in on transition meetings. He's weighing in privately and publicly on who he thinks Donald Trump should pick. But Trump loves, to an extent, people who love him and people who are sort of fanboying. And I think right now, that's how he is viewing Elon Musk.

Yeah, to have the richest man in the world as your fanboy, I'm sure that's pretty potent stuff. Yeah, he's going to a starship thing today. Yeah, he's going to the launch of a space. They have sea fight together. Yeah. Let's put this up there on the screen. One of your latest reports here about the Trump transition co-chairs are both in limbo on cabinet jobs. So this includes the counterfeit sterile CEO Howard Lutnik and also Linda McMahon, who was what was she? Small business under Donald Trump?

last time around. So what's going on, you know, inside this treasury fight? I've been fascinated by it originally at Scott Besson and Howard Lutnik there, Elon and Dorsey's Howard. Now, neither of them appear to be in contention, mostly because Trump has pissed that what people are leaking against each other. Hilarious with Linda McMahon too. I mean, she, I mean, she didn't give 200 million, but she gave a decent amount of money there to Donald Trump. So what's up with those two and what position, like, are they jocking for and are they likely to get now?

So Linda internally for months has made it clear that she wants commerce. And for months, it's been pretty clear that she's the only clear contender for commerce, but she has not yet been offered the position. And I've been told by a few people that she's pissed about it. Interesting. And one of the reasons that people are theorizing that she has not gone the position is because Donald Trump is essentially waiting to see if he needs to use that commerce position as sort of a holdover from a more important spot, say if Bessent doesn't get

Treasury, maybe they'll drop him down to commerce. And as for the Treasury, it is, there's drama there. So we're seeing Howard and Scott as the two front runners for a while. Now, well, Scott was really the core front runner and then Howard started sort of vying for the position himself. And it's gotten to the point where Donald Trump is really annoyed by the public jockeying. You know, with Donald Trump, I think it's really interesting because as much as he loves

a little bit of the drama and he loves sort of, you know, in the case of Elon Musk, somebody who fanboys around him, he also hates when somebody is too aggressive in trying to get into his orbit. And, you know, I've been told in the case of Howard that

that has certainly happened. Well, he put himself after JD Vance at MSG. It's like, who are you? Transition chair. Why are you speaking before Donald Trump? He's introducing Elon Musk. He made himself a central character, I guess, throughout this entire thing. So, throughout this, you know, it's only been, what, 15 days or something like that.

over the transition a lot. We talked about Elon and the drama, but those other factions like you're talking about, is it your sense similarly of like different ideological coalitions are coming at war? And ultimately, what's Swiss Trump? This is like the eternal question. What is the reasoning behind his decisions? Because for every Matt Gaetz, you also get a Marco Rubio, right? Like what's going on behind that?

It's a good question because I think, you know, Donald Trump's first and foremost concern, as he said, is loyalty. But he also has all of these factions vying for him. Treasury is interesting because I feel like it's mostly sort of a lot of people support Scott.

And then there's sort of Howard, who had spent months trying to convince Elon Musk to publicly come out for him, which he ended up doing. So it's sort of like Howard and Elon. So that's kind of a unique situation. I also think that when it comes to some of these, you know, treasury, commerce, some of these more economy-focused jobs, it's less about almost loyalty, right, compared to, okay, we need someone who's going to implement Donald Trump's mass.

deportation plan, like that's like top of the list for Donald Trump. Commerce is, he doesn't care about it as much now. So I think that there's all, it depends on the position essentially, right? So you have Kennedy, you had Omid Malik, who is a big donor who has been in his corner for a long time, you had Tucker, you had all of these folks vying for Kennedy for HHS. There's less of that sort of overt

camps when it comes to treasury. Gotcha. And how does JD Vance fit into all of this? I noticed he wasn't at the UFC fight. He wasn't at the RFK Junior McDonald's hostage photo taking session. And I don't hear him brought up much in terms of like, you know, being part of these factions or part of these internal conversations.

Yeah, Vance has sort of been pretty quiet over the past few weeks and I think that's by design. I think he's more involved in things that involve Congress. You know, he is having conversations with lawmakers. I think that's going to be one of his key roles as Vice President because he was just in.

Congress and he's so close to some of those folks. And so I think he's working on sort of cultivating and making those relationships behind the scenes rather than being sort of a forward-facing role sitting in on every single decision. He also has three young kids. So he's still back and forth from Ohio. So he's certainly involved in these decisions, but it's much less of a forward-facing role. And I think that's why I design. That's smart. All right. Well, Shelby, we always love talking to you. Thank you for joining us. Great to see you, Shelby. Thanks for having me.

All right, guys, we have a very special treat for everyone out there in the world. Producer Griffin is joining us live to have a big fight with soccer about Ben Affleck's comments on AI. Thank you very much. We actually just tagged you in this morning because I felt you were more competent to make this case than I was, so thank you.

Yeah, me and Sager normally fight before the shows, so it's good to do it on camera this time. That's right. People like to see behind the scenes. Griffin is not just some random dude. He literally is former NYU film student. He lived in Hollywood. He worked on multiple movies. He's literally a film prodigy who at the age, what was it? 20 years old? You had a movie that went to Sundance. So he's not just somebody. He's actually knows what he's talking about. Absolutely.

Most importantly, a member of the Ben Affleck fan club. I've seen the town over 10 times, and I'm a Dunkin' Donuts Rewards member. So I'm coming with love for Affleck. Amazing, amazing. All right, so let's go ahead and get to the comments in question from Mr. Affleck that sparked this whole debate. Let's take a listen.

a bunch of actors that are completely recreated for this market or that market? A, that's not possible now. B, will it be possible in the future? Highly unlikely. C, movies will be one of the last things. If everything gets replaced, to be replaced by AI. AI can write you excellent, imitative verse. That sounds a little bit beefing. It cannot write you Shakespeare.

The function of having two actors or three or four actors in a room and the taste to discern and construct that is something that currently entirely eludes AI's capability and I think will for a meaningful period of time. What AI is going to do is going to disintermediate the more laborious, less creative, and more costly aspects of filmmaking that will allow cost to be brought down.

that will be lower the barrier to entry, that will allow more voices to be heard, that will make it easier for the people who want to make good, will hunt things to go out and make it. Look, AI is a craftsman, at best. Craftsman can learn to make strictly furniture.

by sitting down next to somebody and seeing what their technique is and imitating. That's how large video models, large language models, basically work. Library of vectors of meaning and transformers that interpret it in context, right? But they're just cross pollinating things that exist. Nothing new is created. Not yet. Not yet. Yeah, not yet. And really, in order to do that, look, Craftsman is knowing how to work. Art is knowing when to stop.

And I think knowing when to stop is going to be a very difficult thing for AI to learn because it's taste. And also, lack of consistency, lack of controls, lack of quality, AI for this world of generative video is going to do key things more. I mean, I wouldn't like to be in the visual effects business. They're in trouble. Griffin, Ben Affleck basically arguing there that AI in Hollywood will be a net benefit. It will lower costs, allow a sort of creative flourishing, what say you?

Um, so it's complicated because he's, he's right and he's wrong. Um, I think that he is certainly overlooking the fact that like he's like, Oh, if you're in the visual effects business, you're in trouble. But if you're in like the majority of the below line industry businesses, you're in trouble, whether it's like being an editor, a sound mixer, um, the background extras, even some of like the foreground actors are getting their likenesses stolen right now and repurposed for AI.

and they're testing it right now, mainly in commercials and stuff. I do think he's right in certain areas where it's like, oh, it's going to give more freedom to individuals to create bigger things than they could on their own if someone wanted to create a goodwill hunting. But I think the big elephant in the room he's forgetting is none of this is happening to improve art or give people more opportunities. It's for executives to make a few more million

while they slash tens and thousands of film industry jobs over the next like 10 to 15 years. And they're going to do it before the art is good or if it ever gets good. They're going to do it now in service law. So I understand what you're saying, Griffin. I think that the counter is that this is technology. I mean, one of the examples that he gives, for example, is that the house of the dragon won't take two years

You can have a new season that will come out, but the scripts and all of that will remain creative. And I get, yeah, if it worked in the visual effects business, that sucks. But reducing the economy of scale and making it so that the technology is easier could actually create more opportunities, first and foremost. But second, this is a technological inevitability. In the 1980s, the CGI effects and all that were terrible. They were very costly. Eventually, as they go down, then you were actually able to create a lot of new content, new roles and all of that,

that doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to a lot of the people who were like Disney animation right a lot of it was hand drawn and then the Pixar revolution comes in and changes all of that we still got great movies now unfortunately did mean that thousands of people didn't have to sit there and hand draw but that was you know physically it was very inefficient so

I didn't have a real problem with what he said because what you were telling me is that a lot of people in Hollywood are very angry at him. But in a certain sense, it's like you're angry at technology. You're going to choose ultimately what is going to be the cheapest option. I thought it was a very insightful answer because what it does show is that while the technology and the craft and the inputs themselves will reduce that the actual creative inputs and what makes Hollywood and movies and content really so fantastic, that

actually can't be programmed. So in a certain sense, I didn't think he was an AI doomer. I thought that it was a real optimistic way of how AI is just physically a tool. Nothing is ever going to come and replace us.

So two points to there. So let's focus just on the video effects just for a second. So I use this example a lot of the Marvel Slop. Marvel movies continue to get worse and worse. But technology is getting better, but we continue to funnel down to the lowest common denominator because it's more money for the film executives.

I use the example of Pirates of the Caribbean to Dead Man's chest. This is a very popular example online. An incredible film, there's a scene in the CGI of that, so 2006 film.

of Davey Jones. He's an octopus man, and he's playing the piano with his tentacles. And it was 20 years ago, and it looks better than any CGI you see today, which I think is an example of, well, yeah, technology can improve, but executives aren't using it to make better art. They're using it to make more money. Now, to your point about like, oh, individual creators can then like go and like make goodwill hunting and

uh, a director is can be untethered from the production cost and all that stuff. And I do see that example, but for me, it's like a lot of people think like the director can like make the whole movie, but like a Martin Scorsese movie is good, not just because Scorsese is good, but because he is as the director is channeling the talents, the experiences,

And the art from real humans, all these people on set. Should I frame the camera this way? Should we dolly it? Should we like these people? How are we doing their hair and makeup? These aren't all decisions just coming from Martin Scorsese's brain. He's channeling other people's like art and creativity.

And I don't think we're going to see that with AI systems in the same way. But I see it. That's actually a good example where Scorsese, the reason that Scorsese movies are great is because Scorsese does things his way. Tarantino, same way in terms of his rejection and wants to do a lot of the stuff in real time. One is one of the reasons that Tom Cruise movies are so fantastic because he insists on doing the stunts himself and making it as real as possible. That's what makes them outliers and what makes them fantastic. So great script, great acting, great visual effects. Well, yes, there's still going to be a lot of Hollywood slop.

I personally swore a blood oath that I was done with Marvel after Ant-Man and The Wasp, and I just said, I'm done. I'm done, you know? And it's like, I saw Shang-Chi, I came to a turn, I stuck with them. I stuck with them through WandaVision, through all the, and then I finally, I just said, it's over.

It's one of those, though, where they did pay a cost, right? You know, they had diminishing returns while they certainly did make some money on those movies, their cultural cachet and Marvel Universe, et cetera, is going downhill, whereas we've had major success of a lot of the films that you're talking about that bring the individual filmmakers taste. So it will just be like a technological standard, but, you know, what makes great films, great films and the ability of people like Ridley Scott or any of these others to have some visual effects, but ultimately rely

on the genius of their directing, the humanity, and also be able to compel studio funding, which is really what they're best at. They can get big budget films and direct it towards these resources. I still feel like that niche will always exist in Hollywood. It's just like the example he gave about House of the Dragon. That seems like the most apt one. And again, I get it. If you work in visual effects, it probably sucks. But if you worked as a, I don't know, like a boom guy in the 1980s and your job eventually phased out, that's a little bit nature of the business too.

Yeah, but with House of the Dragon, like it's not going to just be the video effects. It's going to be the scripts. It's going to be like the majority of the actors on screen. It's going to be even like they're going to start face tuning people. So you don't need hair and makeup. You're going to need like all these, all these different things that aren't just a cost, but are a creative input that makes something that's unique, that actually is art that touches the heart.

I use the Netflix slop example a lot. If you go on Netflix right now, Netflix to cut costs has completely homogenized how they make film. That's why every film you see on Netflix is called Tall Girl. And they're all shot with the same camera and the same bland look. Everyone talks about it. Why do things look like gray worm meal? It's because it's cheaper.

It's because it's cheaper. It's not because it's better R or because the directors got to express themselves more. It's because it's more homogenized. Well, you know, another another example of that Griffin, I think is YouTube shorts.

I banned my kids from watching them at all, because all they are, I'm not a great parent, but this one thing I didn't take a stand, because all they are is AI-slop, that's it. Because that's what the economics makes sense for. So even if only one out of 100 takes off or whatever, because they're all so shitty and so low quality, they cost nothing.

So that seems to me the direction that this is ultimately going to go in. And I also question the idea, the premise of like, oh, now more independent creators, it'll be lower costs, et cetera. Using AI will be low costs for major studios because they have the technology suite and the licenses because AI is already like a monopolistic business. So they'll have that technology suite. They'll have the resources to do all the things that you're talking about in

And film makers are not going to have access to that level of technological capability. That's a really interesting point. Yeah, that's a really interesting point. And let's even say they do. OK, let's say there's a program that you can sign up for that's $30 a month subscription fee. And you can make a whole world and design everything.

Why would any studio need to buy it from you or distribute it when they can just do it themselves? It's like, great, throw it up on YouTube and it gets 50 views. We're going to just make the exact same thing and not pay you because we don't need you because everyone can do this now. So there's that element to I do want to like, I want to give a little bit of like a devil's advocate to something Ben says where like anyone can make good will hunting as an independent filmmaker. One of the things that has triggered me most over my career is a lot of articles saying,

Wow, with technology, like anyone can make a movie now. You can make a movie on an iPhone. That's bullshit. That's not true. You can shoot it on the iPhone, but then you're going to need to spend 100 grand from somewhere to sound mix it, get it ready for a theater, do all that post. So like, there are all these

costs that make it so only rich kids really make independent film when I produced indie film it was never because someone had a good idea it was because I knew a rich kid whose mommy and daddy were willing to give them a quarter million dollars to like go shoot a film so I think there is something there to like democratizing certain parts of it but I don't think that

That's what the executives are doing. I don't think that's how they're going to try to control the system of delivery with all of it. And ultimately, I think it's going to continue to just homogenize art and creativity. I think most of the movies that Sagar loves were not made with any AI, and I would be

surprised if like 10 years later, soccer's favorite movies are the AI ones versus the great films we've seen. You're not wrong. Right. You're absolutely not wrong. But here's the here's the sad part that Netflix slop. It exists for a reason. People watch it. They like it. I mean, let's put this up.

on the screen from The Atlantic. There's no longer any doubt that Hollywood writing is powering AI. They talk specifically here about what was it, 85,000 TV episodes and 53,000 other movies were used by AI systems to be trained on writer's work, to be able to fill in certain things, including every film nominated for Best Picture from 1950 to 2016. The Simpsons, every episode of The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad,

Do I ever think that AI will be able to produce any of those shows or even incredible movies that I just listed? No, but there's a lot of people out there, unfortunately, Griffin, who like Outer Banks. I couldn't tell you what Outer Banks is about. Honestly, I couldn't tell you. If I looked at the Netflix top 10 TV shows right now, it is just straight shit, like every single one of them. But they're top 10 and they get hundreds of hours. If I recall, what was that movie with the rock on Netflix? Was it Red Notice?

I mean, you know, that was a huge movie. People liked it. They actually liked it. I hate to say it. Hitman. There's another one. I didn't watch Hitman, but I know that was a big one. There was a great man. Okay, I haven't why. Gray man, is that right in Gosling? But I don't think any of those films were made with AI. Those films were made by humans, and that's why you like them. Def, well, what I'm giving an example is that just generic replacement level film and TV on Netflix, people enjoy it. You know, even those crappy fake animated series that they do for children, which look

horrible, but they're always like number six, you know, number eight. You and I are always going to be on HBO watching prestige television, but there's not a big market for it, unfortunately. Yeah, I mean, I do think you're right. I think it's a question of like, how do we continue to

protect art. And if we value art, how do we protect it? That should be like the main goal of people like Ben Affleck talking about this, not like all the fun things that you can do in the future with AI. But like, how do we like protect and keep on making creative pictures that require humans, in my opinion, as opposed to just kind of letting things fly and seeing where things go next? Because most of the stuff is slop. You're right. A lot of people watch it. And I think that the industry right now is kind of

in a big evolution right now. Everyone went big into streaming. There was so much slop. And even back in the day, if you turn on cable, 90% of the shows were bad. Remember the 10% good ones. But ultimately, I think if you're a lover of film, if you're a lover of art,

All of this AI stuff and the things that drive what they're developing it for, it seems to be anti-R and pro slop. And I think that people like Affleck need to kind of do everything they can with their cache of power to prevent that as long as possible. Yeah. I mean, to me, there's a vibe from Affleck of like, well, I'm going to be fine.

Yeah, you are, buddy. Yeah, you're good. But how about the rest? The other thing that to me gets to the core, the disagreement that you guys are having is, you know, to me, art should have value outside of the ability to commodify it, outside of just like the market dynamics.

And the move towards more and more AI and more and more slop undercuts art and just makes it about the capitalist market incentives. And I think that that is a loss. I think that's a loss for the country, for the culture, et cetera, that as you said, Griffin, it's pro-slop and anti-art.

Well, I like it. Uh, can we all agree? We need a town to Griffin. Do we need to see? Yes. We need a town to a chat GPT town to right here. It's great. The town is misspelled and Ben Affleck has three eyes, but it's great. You're going to love it. We're going to make money. We're making money. And the biggest question here's the thing. Executives, if you're listening, who's going to wait all the tables in LA if you fire.

That's the big question. That's it. I guess robots also. There's a big underground market. That's right. You're going to wipe out the entire service industry in Los Angeles. Come on. I don't have any fresh towels in my Chateau Mormon hotel right now. They're going to live to regret it. That's right. Love it.