Speaker 1: Live from the heart of the nation's capital, this is
Speaker 1: a Jim Acosta Show special report.
Speaker 2: Hey everybody, welcome to the Jim Acosta Show. It's another
Speaker 2: day that ends in Y in Donald Trump's assault on
Speaker 2: American democracy. And I've got the perfect guest to talk
Speaker 2: about this. It is Mark Elias of Democracy Docket. Mark,
Speaker 2: a lot of news in your wheelhouse all week long.
Speaker 2: And today in particular, that's why we were dying to
Speaker 2: get you on. Thanks for coming on.
Speaker 3: Jim, I always love being on with you.
Speaker 2: Really appreciate it. And, you know, the thing that really
Speaker 2: got this week off to kind of a scary start
Speaker 2: from a democracy standpoint is the Supreme Court. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is just me making this observation, allowing this mail-in
Speaker 2: ballot insanity to go forward. And now it's gotten to
Speaker 2: the point where the U.S. Postal Service has now said
Speaker 2: that the rule is in effect, that what states have
Speaker 2: to deliver to them, they're their registration information and so on,
Speaker 2: their mail-in balloting information. And then this is, you know,
Speaker 2: they're supposed to submit their voter rolls for inspection as
Speaker 2: part of a broader bid. This is according to the
Speaker 2: Guardian to protect election integrity and so on. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's all designed, it seems to me, to stop people
Speaker 2: from using mail-in ballots, something that Donald Trump has done himself.
Speaker 2: But your thoughts on how this week has been shaping up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, first of all, let's start with the last point
Speaker 3: you made. which is Donald Trump has been waging a
Speaker 3: war nonstop on mail-in voting. I mean, Jim, going back
Speaker 3: to when you and I were talking about this when
Speaker 3: you were on CNN in 2020, he was railing about
Speaker 3: mail-in voting. And he has been trying to figure out
Speaker 3: a way to make it harder for people to vote
Speaker 3: by mail, while, as you point out, at the same time,
Speaker 3: himself actually voting by mail. So this is, in some sense,
Speaker 3: We are coming to the head of a fight that
Speaker 3: has been going on now for, you know, for years.
Speaker 3: And what his latest gambit was, was an executive order
Speaker 3: that directed the U.S. Postal Service to essentially become a
Speaker 3: tool in this voter suppression effort. Essentially, the Postal Service
Speaker 3: would refuse to deliver mail-in ballots to anyone who is
Speaker 3: not on an approved list that is submitted in advance.
Speaker 3: to the postal service and that to enforce this, there
Speaker 3: would be certain ballot design, uh, envelope designs and barcode
Speaker 3: scans and, and other stuff. And this was challenged in
Speaker 3: court in a series of lawsuits. We filed one in Washington,
Speaker 3: DC on behalf of the democratic party. Uh, Norm Eisen
Speaker 3: filed one in Washington, DC on behalf of a group
Speaker 3: of nonprofit organizations. Um, and ultimately, um, uh, the states,
Speaker 3: this Democratic state attorney general filed one in Massachusetts. And
Speaker 3: that case proceeded to the Supreme Court on a rapid basis.
Speaker 3: They won. And the Supreme Court said, look, you all
Speaker 3: sued before there was even a final rule, before the
Speaker 3: Postal Service had issued their rules to comply with this
Speaker 3: executive order. So it was too soon. The claims were
Speaker 3: not ripe, is the legal term. So the case went
Speaker 3: back down. Well, as we speak, as we are talking,
Speaker 3: you and I right now, There are renewed motions by
Speaker 3: me and my law firm on behalf of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 3: Norm Eisen on behalf of the nonprofits in D.C., the
Speaker 3: states in Massachusetts, and another group of nonprofits in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: And all of those cases are now going to move
Speaker 3: on an expedited basis. And we should assume that once again,
Speaker 3: one way or the other, these will wind up in
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the other thing we should note, and the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: I guess, now will have to deal with the merits
Speaker 2: of the case. I guess earlier they were able to say, Well,
Speaker 2: because of a technicality, we're going to wait for the
Speaker 2: Postal Service to have a final rule on this and
Speaker 2: release that rule and so on, which to me, I
Speaker 2: don't understand why the Supreme Court says, Donald Trump, you
Speaker 2: don't have any business being involved in elections in this country.
Speaker 2: The Postal Service doesn't have any business being involved in
Speaker 2: elections in this country. That's up to the states. And
Speaker 2: if Congress wants to change rules and so on, they
Speaker 2: could try to pass a law. But I don't understand
Speaker 2: why the Supreme Court did what it did from that standpoint.
Speaker 2: I understand it's a technicality.
Speaker 3: It was even more bizarre, if I can use that word, Jim,
Speaker 3: because they issued that ruling on Monday, as you pointed
Speaker 3: out earlier this week. Last Friday night, the Postal Service
Speaker 3: finalized the rule. So honestly, it appears that the justices
Speaker 3: who have had this case now before them for the
Speaker 3: last few weeks, you can imagine what happened. They're all
Speaker 3: scattered around the world giving speeches and the like. They
Speaker 3: had been negotiating among themselves on the opinions. They had
Speaker 3: probably come to a conclusion on what the opinion would
Speaker 3: say on Friday. I'm guessing that. Then on Friday night,
Speaker 3: the Postal Service finalized the regulations. And you can just
Speaker 3: imagine the justices being like, all right, we're not going
Speaker 3: back to start over again. Just issue the ruling we have.
Speaker 3: So what's even more sort of senseless about this, in
Speaker 3: a sense, Jim, is that the moment they issued that ruling,
Speaker 3: everybody filed the new lawsuits because the Postal Service had,
Speaker 3: in fact, finalized the rule last Friday.
Speaker 2: Wow. And I guess Trump was asked about this earlier today.
Speaker 2: PBS asked Trump about it. Thank goodness somebody asked about it.
Speaker 2: Let's play what he had to say.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court earlier this week ruled on mail-in ballots.
Speaker 2: And there are states like North Carolina that have ballots
Speaker 2: that go out next week.
Speaker 3: How are states supposed to implement this?
Speaker 4: Well, they're able to. North Carolina is great. It's a
Speaker 4: great place. I won a goal three times. They do
Speaker 4: some mail-in ballots. But basically, they ruled on the legitimacy
Speaker 4: and the way we want to make them legitimate.
Speaker 1: And it was a great ruling for the Republicans.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Mark, he says it was a great rule for
Speaker 2: the Republican Party. He says the quiet part out loud,
Speaker 2: or as I like to say, the riot part out loud.
Speaker 2: But anyway.
Speaker 3: The golf part?
Speaker 2: It sounded like golf, but I think he said, I
Speaker 2: think we won it all three times. I know, I
Speaker 2: saw the golf thing and I was like, what was that? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure he said that, but yeah.
Speaker 3: I do also have to give you a huge compliment, Jim.
Speaker 3: The difference between you and everybody else, The fact that
Speaker 3: you know these reporters, the fact that you know that
Speaker 3: that was the PBS reporter, pretty good.
Speaker 2: I had a hunch. I had a hunch.
Speaker 1: She's a good reporter.
Speaker 3: Yes, excellent reporter. So look, Donald Trump only cares about
Speaker 3: holding power. Donald Trump doesn't care about free and fair elections.
Speaker 3: He doesn't care about voting. He cares about holding power.
Speaker 3: And he knows that one of the ways in which
Speaker 3: he will hold power is by making it harder for
Speaker 3: Democrats to vote. And right now, as the product of
Speaker 3: all these years of many lies, Democrats vote more by
Speaker 3: mail than Republicans because Republicans who used to vote more
Speaker 3: by mail now have shied away from it because Donald
Speaker 3: Trump keeps lying to them. So, you know, when he
Speaker 3: says at the end that this will help Republicans, that's
Speaker 3: all he cares about.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And he mentions North Carolina. You know, Liz Landers of
Speaker 2: PBS asked him about North Carolina. And I mean, that's
Speaker 2: another critical part of this that I hope the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court deals with, although I don't have much faith in
Speaker 2: them anymore, that we are now in the cycle. We
Speaker 2: are now very much in the in the moment where
Speaker 2: people are going to start voting very soon. And this
Speaker 2: could just throw like a massive monkey wrench into the
Speaker 2: whole process. And I just keep coming back to this.
Speaker 2: I've said this on my show. I think part of
Speaker 2: what they're doing, this is chaos by design. They want
Speaker 2: a 52 car pile up on the democracy interstate. And
Speaker 2: so they can say, well, you know, this thing is
Speaker 2: such a huge mess. We just have to stay in
Speaker 2: charge up on Capitol Hill. You know, maybe we'll sort
Speaker 2: it out by spring or summer of twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2: I just you know, I wonder if that is is
Speaker 2: what's going on in their heads. In North Carolina, for example,
Speaker 2: that is where Roy Cooper is running for the Senate
Speaker 2: and in his favor to win that race and flip
Speaker 2: a seat. And so it just to me, this is like,
Speaker 2: come on, guys, this is obvious what's going on here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's a really smart point. And I
Speaker 3: hope it's one that people. listen to and internalize that,
Speaker 3: you know, there are kind of two separate things going
Speaker 3: on and you have to understand that they're both real.
Speaker 3: On the one hand, Donald Trump is in fact trying
Speaker 3: to put in place rules that will prevent more Democrats
Speaker 3: from voting than Republicans, right? That'll make it harder to
Speaker 3: vote and will gain partisan advantage. That is true. It
Speaker 3: is also true, okay, separately from that, it is also
Speaker 3: true that Donald Trump wants to create a permission structure
Speaker 3: to say the elections were a mess because the rule
Speaker 3: that we implemented too late for any state to actually
Speaker 3: implement correctly is proof that there was fraud, right? So like,
Speaker 3: as you say, he is both hoping to win the
Speaker 3: race and hoping that there's a car pileup because either
Speaker 3: way he is able to use that to try to
Speaker 3: hold power, either because it actually expresses votes and or
Speaker 3: creates a circumstance where he can say, look, The law
Speaker 3: wasn't followed. The states weren't organized. This must all have
Speaker 3: been fraud.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And to this day, it's never been established that
Speaker 2: there's ever been widespread voter fraud using mail-in ballots. I'm
Speaker 2: correct in saying that.
Speaker 3: I mean, if I missed that headline- You could say
Speaker 3: mail-in ballots or not mail-in ballots.
Speaker 2: Any ballots.
Speaker 3: The United States has got a lot of problems. We've
Speaker 3: got inflation problems. We've got a president who is threatening Canada.
Speaker 3: We've got no shortage of problems. If you were to
Speaker 3: list the top 1,000 problems facing this country, voter fraud
Speaker 3: would not be on that list. The fact that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump has chosen voter fraud as the thing he is
Speaker 3: focused on explains to you why gasoline is so expensive.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Explains to you why the war in Iran is going
Speaker 3: the way it is. Explains to you why Donald Trump's
Speaker 3: popularity is, I don't know what, in the 30s now.
Speaker 3: You know, like because because he is focused on something
Speaker 3: that is not a problem at all in order to
Speaker 3: create an environment in which he can falsely claim that
Speaker 3: the election was stolen.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And the other thing too is, is that, and
Speaker 2: this doesn't get talked about anymore because everything goes in
Speaker 2: one ear and out the other and this fire hose
Speaker 2: of insanity that we're dealing with in the second go round.
Speaker 2: He had that prime time address. What was it last month?
Speaker 2: It feels like 10 years ago. And he said that
Speaker 2: they had found more than 250,000 non-citizens were on the
Speaker 2: voter rolls of Nevada and just three other States. And, and,
Speaker 2: I'm looking at, this is a story that just came
Speaker 2: out this afternoon, a call with Nevada state election officials
Speaker 2: earlier this month, the Trump administration, point person on non-citizen voting,
Speaker 2: I guess acknowledged that those numbers were not correct. And
Speaker 2: I'm just, you know, I don't understand how we're supposed
Speaker 2: to trust these guys when it comes to this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know, they just lie through their teeth. And I
Speaker 2: don't understand why the Supreme Court is even you know,
Speaker 2: allowing this kind of, this conversation to go forward. That
Speaker 2: was a PBS NPR story, by the way. DHS acknowledges
Speaker 2: the non-citizen numbers it touted on voter rolls were inflated. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So look, I think that, I think that the hard
Speaker 3: thing for people to sometimes understand is that Donald Trump
Speaker 3: lies about everything.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah.
Speaker 3: And, you know, I watch, I watch, I watch you
Speaker 3: And you did some amazing reporting about the process by
Speaker 3: which we went from the reflecting pool was perfectly fixed.
Speaker 3: And there was widespread vandalism to we have arrested an
Speaker 3: individual who is guilty and indicted of felonies to await trial.
Speaker 3: All of that was not true. And there was faulty installation.
Speaker 3: And you did amazing original reporting on that. And in
Speaker 3: some ways, I wish, Jim, you could bottle that up
Speaker 3: and just like insert here, voting, insert here, inflation, insert here,
Speaker 3: the warmer air. Like you did a really great job
Speaker 3: of showing that progression, but that's the nature of everything
Speaker 3: that this.
Speaker 2: White house is. Yeah, no, it's so true. And I mean,
Speaker 2: and on your front also, I guess, is the counting
Speaker 2: of the votes, the counting of the ballots, how that's
Speaker 2: going to play out. There have been lots of stories
Speaker 2: in the press recently where election workers obviously are going
Speaker 2: to have to be. We saw this last time around
Speaker 2: where election workers were being threatened. Election workers were sort
Speaker 2: of they were under siege. Mark, what is being done
Speaker 2: to make sure that the sanctity of counting the ballots
Speaker 2: is going to be protected this time around? I mean,
Speaker 2: I saw something the other day. where, and this, I guess,
Speaker 2: may be more applicable to the voting that happens on
Speaker 2: election day. The candidate, the Republican candidate for governor of
Speaker 2: Maine has said he wants to see ICE. Are they
Speaker 2: going to try to have ICE and National Guard troops
Speaker 2: at voting election counting places too? I mean, it's just,
Speaker 2: when does it end?
Speaker 3: Yeah. And look, it's not just Maine. I mean, democracy
Speaker 3: just went up with a story about various Republican counties
Speaker 3: who have now called for this. I mean, Before we
Speaker 3: get to election day, my prediction is this will become
Speaker 3: sort of a standard talking point of Republican candidates. Donald
Speaker 3: Trump will force them to all say that there should
Speaker 3: be federal law enforcement at the polls. You know the
Speaker 3: way this Republican Party works. There's no line under which
Speaker 3: they won't fall, right? There's no bottom. There's no line
Speaker 3: they won't cross. And so you're right. We have to
Speaker 3: worry about this from a few different perspectives. First, to
Speaker 3: what extent is that going to impact actual election day voting. Now, look,
Speaker 3: I think that Donald Trump can try to do a
Speaker 3: lot of things. As a practical matter, it is very
Speaker 3: difficult given how many polling locations there are in so
Speaker 3: many places simultaneously. I think that they can do some
Speaker 3: symbolic things. I think they can do some real damage
Speaker 3: in particular Democratic strongholds. So I'm not minimizing that. And
Speaker 3: the lawyers like me and others will be ready to
Speaker 3: take that on if and when it happens. But I
Speaker 3: think when you get to the post-election, Now those ballots
Speaker 3: are no longer in those precincts. Now they're centrally located, right?
Speaker 3: Now they're in county offices. And now you start to
Speaker 3: talk about a whole other set of risks. Are you
Speaker 3: going to see efforts to seize ballots? Are you going
Speaker 3: to see, which we saw in 2020 when I was,
Speaker 3: you know, the post-election, I was representing President Biden, then
Speaker 3: candidate Biden. You know, we saw Republicans, you know, banging
Speaker 3: on the walls, banging on the windows. They're going to be,
Speaker 3: you know, we assume that, that law enforcement will protect
Speaker 3: these election officials. But are you 100% confident that federal
Speaker 3: law enforcement or even in some of these states with
Speaker 3: Republican AGs and Republican governors, are you confident that Republicans
Speaker 3: will be protecting those officials? Or will they be creating
Speaker 3: an environment that, again, creates that permission structure for Trump
Speaker 3: to say, look, There's widespread disorder. There is there is
Speaker 3: a threat to these ballots. And so we need the
Speaker 3: federal government to take control.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And how let's talk about Democracy Docket, because it's really
Speaker 2: taking off and people need to understand if you're not
Speaker 2: looking at if you're not reading Democracy Docket every day,
Speaker 2: you're doing it wrong. If you care about democracy in
Speaker 2: this country, you care about elections in this country. Mark,
Speaker 2: did you ever dream that it would grow to the
Speaker 2: to the place where it is right now? I mean,
Speaker 2: it's it's become a must read for everybody that, you know,
Speaker 2: this is this is a source of an invaluable source
Speaker 2: that we can all turn to to learn about the
Speaker 2: twists and turns of are we going to get to
Speaker 2: are we going to get to the to the end
Speaker 2: of all of this with our democracy intact?
Speaker 3: No, I didn't. I mean, I started Democracy Docket in
Speaker 3: 2020 because I saw a need to fill to help
Speaker 3: people understand and contextualize what is happening to democracy in courts.
Speaker 3: And I thought we could fill that niche and add
Speaker 3: to the ecosystem. What we saw after that, which you
Speaker 3: saw from a front row scene and from which you
Speaker 3: are one of the great heroes that has emerged, is
Speaker 3: an absolute capitulation of legacy media. I mean, I don't
Speaker 3: want to put too fine a point on it, but
Speaker 3: if CNN was still the CNN that had Jim Acosta
Speaker 3: front and center... on these democracy issues the way it was,
Speaker 3: outlets like Democracy Docket, there wouldn't be the demand for it, right?
Speaker 3: Like there wouldn't be the demand for the Jim Acosta show.
Speaker 3: But what's happened is as legacy media has bent a knee,
Speaker 3: there has become this increased demand. So Democracy Docket just
Speaker 3: crossed 70,000 premium members. We have 500,000 free subscribers. We
Speaker 3: have a website that's visited by millions. And I'm glad
Speaker 3: that we are filling this need. But Jim, I'm sure
Speaker 3: there is also a part of you that wishes- that
Speaker 3: we saw the courage of the traditional legacy media that
Speaker 3: we are not seeing right now.
Speaker 2: You know, there are glimpses of it here and there,
Speaker 2: and I think it's starting to come back a little bit.
Speaker 2: I think ABC taking the administration to court or the
Speaker 2: hijinks over at the FCC, I think that is a
Speaker 2: really welcome sign, but it's not sustained. It's not every day.
Speaker 2: You know, when I was at CNN, I was sort
Speaker 2: of unleashed and allowed to report that way. without being
Speaker 2: worried about, you know, them calling the bureau or the
Speaker 2: offices of the executives and saying, hey, what's this Acosta guy?
Speaker 2: Why is he asking so many damn questions? And, you know,
Speaker 2: eventually that pressure came to bear. And I now I
Speaker 2: do this here. But I mean, Mark, I'm right there
Speaker 2: with you. This is a moment where we need our
Speaker 2: national press to really they've got to find their backbones,
Speaker 2: because I think these next couple of months are these
Speaker 2: next three months or so are going to be crucial
Speaker 2: to the future of this country. and whether we can
Speaker 2: get through this midterm process with our system in check
Speaker 2: and intact. I think it's a jump ball. I think
Speaker 2: it's a live question as to whether we get through this.
Speaker 3: I agree with you. I keep saying this to folks.
Speaker 3: The question is not whether we're going to have elections.
Speaker 3: We're going to have elections. Donald Trump can't cancel elections.
Speaker 3: The question of whether or not they are free and
Speaker 3: fair is a trickier question because there's no one guidepost
Speaker 3: that says, you know, if you cross this line, then
Speaker 3: it's free and fair. And if you don't, it's not.
Speaker 3: It's a, it is a, it is a, it is a,
Speaker 3: it is a sliding scale and it is easy to
Speaker 3: become desensitized to something that, that you shouldn't become desensitized to. And,
Speaker 3: and the media plays an essential role in a democracy.
Speaker 3: Like it is essential that you have an independent media
Speaker 3: that is, that is serving as a watchdog, but it too,
Speaker 3: there's not one point at which you say, okay, it is,
Speaker 3: no longer doing that function. It's a sliding scale. And you, again,
Speaker 3: become desensitized to it. And that is the great tragedy
Speaker 3: of this era. The great tragedy of this era is
Speaker 3: not that we have the likes of Donald Trump. The
Speaker 3: great tragedy of this era is that those with the power,
Speaker 3: those in the large corporate media organizations, those who could
Speaker 3: be standing up in the Republican Party and saying that
Speaker 3: what Donald Trump is wrong, they are staying silent. And
Speaker 3: it is being left to people like you, people like
Speaker 3: the voters, people like the election officials we talked about,
Speaker 3: people like Democracy Docket to carry this load that frankly,
Speaker 3: they shouldn't have to.
Speaker 2: That's right. No, and it's high time that we see
Speaker 2: some backbone from all of these institutions that have really
Speaker 2: failed us over the last couple of years. But Mark,
Speaker 2: You have not. Democracy Docket has been there. And it's
Speaker 2: always great having you on. Really appreciate it, Mark. Thanks
Speaker 2: for drilling down on this issue with us. Yeah, good
Speaker 2: to see you. Thanks, Mark. Thank you so much. And,
Speaker 2: you know, one of the key issues that people are
Speaker 2: going to be voting on this fall is the economy, which,
Speaker 2: you know, Trump is acting as though he is eventually
Speaker 2: going to be right on this tariff issue that going
Speaker 2: after American allies like Canada, which is basically our best
Speaker 2: friend in the entire world. that somehow that economically speaking,
Speaker 2: that that's going to work out for everybody. And then
Speaker 2: politically speaking, that that's going to work out for him.
Speaker 2: That has not been the case, but I have a
Speaker 2: great guest to talk about this. Justin Wolfer's economist, University
Speaker 2: of Michigan of Platypus Economics. Justin, great to see you
Speaker 2: as always. I'm so glad we're getting a chance to
Speaker 2: catch up.
Speaker 1: Jim, great to see you. And oh my word, it's
Speaker 1: the Jim Acosta show going from strength to strength.
Speaker 2: It is extra strength these days. We're bringing it, man.
Speaker 2: This is a critical time in this country. So We
Speaker 2: got all the bells and whistles, but Justin, it's great
Speaker 2: to see you. And I keep waking up and thinking
Speaker 2: to myself, no, we really aren't in a trade war
Speaker 2: with Canada, are we? Where, you know, I mean, this
Speaker 2: just doesn't make any sense. And we've got, was it
Speaker 2: Doug Ford telling Trump to kiss my ass? And I
Speaker 2: don't mean to get you laughing.
Speaker 1: There, but There's nothing we can do except laugh.
Speaker 2: I guess that's true.
Speaker 1: To your Canadian viewers, I am so sorry. There's nothing
Speaker 1: funny about it.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: It's the only way to get through the day.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: We actually had an election campaign, and the president, to
Speaker 1: his immense credit, told the truth. He said, I like tariffs.
Speaker 1: He forgot to say, the people I hate the most
Speaker 1: are Canada.
Speaker 2: I just don't get it.
Speaker 1: No, I saw that coming. And we've been at it
Speaker 1: for a year and a half. He didn't even get
Speaker 1: bored of this one. He keeps coming back to it.
Speaker 2: It's absurd.
Speaker 1: And my laughter is that. It's actually, I want to
Speaker 1: be clear to folks. My laughter is a considered judgment
Speaker 1: from a PhD economist. I'm not making fun of anything.
Speaker 1: I am just looking at the punchlines all around us.
Speaker 2: It's professional laughter. It is.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: It's PhD level laughter and it is, it is, I mean,
Speaker 2: it would be funny if it weren't so economically destructive,
Speaker 2: I guess. And I, you know, I, I don't, you know,
Speaker 2: he is, apparently he's got, he's imposed 50% tariffs on
Speaker 2: $ 20 billion worth of Canadian goods. Um, Canada, you know, they've,
Speaker 2: they've announced their own retaliatory tariffs on about $ 20 billion
Speaker 2: worth of goods. I guess at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: Trump made taco and this whole thing may calm down,
Speaker 2: but I, there are so many different ways to start
Speaker 2: with the Justin and I covered the first administration. I
Speaker 2: remember the USMCA, the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that he signed.
Speaker 2: And he seems to have a problem with his own
Speaker 2: agreement that he signed with our best friends, the Canadians. Again,
Speaker 2: this doesn't make any sense. And I remember at the
Speaker 2: time it sounded too much like YMCA, USMCA.
Speaker 1: I want to dance every time someone talks about it.
Speaker 2: But we can't do that dance because it's so ridiculous
Speaker 2: that he does that thing. And I'm like, it makes
Speaker 2: me cry.
Speaker 1: Do you think two middle-aged straight white men could do
Speaker 1: a bit of a, come on, Jim, join me.
Speaker 2: I don't want to. I don't. You know, that and
Speaker 2: it's just too much. I can't do it. I stopped
Speaker 2: dancing to the YMCA when I was in middle school,
Speaker 2: I think, during fifth period Jim. But that's just me.
Speaker 2: We could do it if you want.
Speaker 1: We could do USMCA, but I don't know how to
Speaker 1: do an S.
Speaker 2: Wait, ready? There's too many letters. USMCA.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess that's true. And I just want folks
Speaker 1: at home to understand what I just got Jim Acosta
Speaker 1: to do. We're going to sing and dance while talking
Speaker 1: about tariffs. Hey, Jim, let's do something wildly outside the
Speaker 1: American mainstream.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: All day, every day, we talk about these things through
Speaker 1: the lens of America and Americans. Let's just cross the
Speaker 1: border for a moment.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And think about this through the eyes of Canadians, because
Speaker 1: they're people. They're our friends. They're our neighbours. And even
Speaker 1: if they're not, they have intrinsic dignity. Yeah. All of
Speaker 1: this is for, so, you know, the best analogy, and
Speaker 1: this is not PhD level economics, is this is a
Speaker 1: cat batting around a mouse. Do you have a cat?
Speaker 2: I have a dog.
Speaker 1: Oh, I've got a dog too. You can have more
Speaker 1: than one, Jim.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm bipartisan.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: When my cat catches a mouse, he doesn't just eat
Speaker 1: the mouse. Cats are bastards about it. They play with them.
Speaker 1: They bite them enough that the mouse is in pain
Speaker 1: and they bat them about and they look very proud
Speaker 1: of themselves. And sometimes they come and drop the mouse
Speaker 1: on your bed.
Speaker 2: It's nasty.
Speaker 1: It's nothing's nice about it. And cats are nice except
Speaker 1: when they've got a mouse, like you can't be a
Speaker 1: cat person. And I don't have a better analysis. And
Speaker 1: I apologize to my friends in Canada for cooling the mice,
Speaker 1: but like, he's just batting it around. And the thing
Speaker 1: is what's painful about watching my cat with a mouse
Speaker 1: is it's to no good point, right? It's a moment
Speaker 1: of joy for my cat, but the mouse is a
Speaker 1: creature and the mouse is hurting. Um, And if I
Speaker 1: have to talk about animals to get people to care
Speaker 1: about Canadians, I'm happy to do it. But, look, the
Speaker 1: Canadian economy, Canada was promised by the United States, we
Speaker 1: have a free trade agreement. We've had one since 1989.
Speaker 1: That was the US-Canada free trade agreement. Then President Bush
Speaker 1: negotiated and President Clinton got through Congress, NAFTA. Then the
Speaker 1: first President Trump realised he hated it, so he came
Speaker 1: to power, ripped it up, sticky taped it back together
Speaker 1: again and gave it a new name that you can
Speaker 1: now sing and dance to. But basically the USMCA is
Speaker 1: just a relabeled NAFTA. So this is the first President
Speaker 1: Trump's deal. And then the second President Trump has come
Speaker 1: to power and said, who's the idiot who negotiated this? Right.
Speaker 1: Which might be the smartest thing he's ever said. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't play the man, I play the ball.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And so, but the problem with this is, Once you
Speaker 1: show you will not live up to an agreement, Mark
Speaker 1: Carney used the term, your signature's in pencil.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Then that narrows the scope of possible agreements.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: If you're advising Mark Carney right now, would you say,
Speaker 1: go all in on this because once we get this deal,
Speaker 1: he's going to leave us alone this time? Or would
Speaker 1: you say this deal is only good until the president
Speaker 1: agrees wakes up in a bad mood again, in which
Speaker 1: case we should bring nothing serious to the table. So
Speaker 1: what this is doing, by the way, is it is
Speaker 1: in a very direct way hurting American interests. Let me
Speaker 1: give you the simplest story of leadership. Effective leadership is
Speaker 1: walking into a room and making it easy for someone
Speaker 1: else to say yes. Right. I did it today. I
Speaker 1: got Jim Acosta to dance.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 1: And I got you to yes. And I did that
Speaker 1: by bringing all the full force of my charm and personality.
Speaker 1: And I also pointed out we're both middle-aged white blokes
Speaker 1: and so we had a bit of solidarity, you know,
Speaker 1: that dad energy. But what I didn't do is call
Speaker 1: you a clown and tell you to fall into line.
Speaker 1: I didn't call you a governor and I didn't say
Speaker 1: that I was going to take over your livelihood whether
Speaker 1: you liked it or not. Right. So these look, we're
Speaker 1: used to bad behavior, but this is bad behavior that
Speaker 1: is literally costing you. And I just want people to
Speaker 1: see that every time the president does this, he's taking
Speaker 1: money out of your family's pocket. That's it. It may
Speaker 1: not be a lot, but it's kind of meaningful. And
Speaker 1: the other thing is, it's dumb. His job is to
Speaker 1: work hard to jam more money into your family's pocket.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, and there are so many products that we
Speaker 2: import from Canada that are now going to be a
Speaker 2: lot more expensive. I saw a story about a home
Speaker 2: builder who said because of lumber coming in from Canada
Speaker 2: being more expensive that that is going to result in
Speaker 2: higher prices. I mean, it does not take a rocket
Speaker 2: scientist or a PhD in economics to figure this stuff out.
Speaker 1: This is going to cost people. Let me give you
Speaker 1: another way of thinking about it. I live in Michigan,
Speaker 1: and so I'm right on the Michigan-Canadian border. Right. If
Speaker 1: you think it's a good idea for Michigan to have
Speaker 1: high tariffs across that border with Canada, surely you think
Speaker 1: it's a good idea for Michigan to have high tariffs
Speaker 1: on the border with Ohio. Both of them are just
Speaker 1: invisible lines with people on either side. One of them
Speaker 1: is full of people who support the worst college football
Speaker 1: team in human history. But we actually still managed to
Speaker 1: get to a free trade agreement with them. The logic
Speaker 1: that says one invisible line we should put tariffs on
Speaker 1: and other invisible lines we shouldn't is on its face
Speaker 1: just completely flawed. Now, I will say I like to
Speaker 1: see the cup occasionally a little bit half full. It
Speaker 1: is stunning how much the president has failed to bring
Speaker 1: the American people along on this. He has lost the
Speaker 1: battle of ideas so profoundly on this issue. And it's
Speaker 1: a very hard one to lose. And I think it's
Speaker 1: because he hasn't engaged in it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, it just does stuff.
Speaker 2: I think he just does stuff and i think he
Speaker 2: he believes that at the end of the day at
Speaker 2: some point in time maybe in the not so distant
Speaker 2: future before he leaves the scene he will be proven
Speaker 2: right on this protectionist idea that he has that if
Speaker 2: you just slap tariffs on everybody you'll get a better
Speaker 2: deal from all these different countries And even if you
Speaker 2: do it to your allies, they'll forgive you and they'll
Speaker 2: just they'll just buckle to your demands. And he was
Speaker 2: asked about this in the Oval Office. Why are you
Speaker 2: going after your allies harder than you're going after adversaries?
Speaker 2: And and it was interesting. We should listen to this
Speaker 2: because I thought it was a really important thing.
Speaker 3: Here. Well, they haven't treated as well.
Speaker 4: The Canadian officials have treated us very badly. They're nasty people.
Speaker 4: They charge our farmers 400% tariffs. They've been doing it
Speaker 4: for a long time.
Speaker 3: And I had them.
Speaker 4: Figured out in my first term, and I did some
Speaker 4: pretty strong things and had it getting pretty good. And
Speaker 4: then the election was rigged, and now I'm coming back
Speaker 4: and doing it the way and finishing the job.
Speaker 1: But they treat us very badly.
Speaker 4: Canada treats us very badly. I would say that of
Speaker 4: all countries, as you know, we have President Xi coming
Speaker 4: in a couple of weeks. We have a lot of— we
Speaker 4: deal with a lot of people, and people.
Speaker 2: Oftentimes— Yeah, he loves the dictators more than he loves
Speaker 2: the people who believe in democracy like right across our border,
Speaker 2: you know, our best friends.
Speaker 1: It's wild. The other thing is there is survey events.
Speaker 1: It turns out Americans like Canadians. The president has completely
Speaker 1: lost the American people on this one in particular because
Speaker 1: we all know Canadians. My sister married one, and he's
Speaker 1: a lovely bloke. My brother lives in Toronto. He's having
Speaker 1: a terrific time. Great country. We're all linked. You can't
Speaker 1: lie and call Canadians nasty. I'll tell you the funny story, Jim.
Speaker 1: At some point I was doing a TV interview with
Speaker 1: the folks up in Canada, and at some point I thought, oh,
Speaker 1: talking about economics is too hard. I'm just going to
Speaker 1: speak from the heart. So I said, look, I just
Speaker 1: want to say I'm sorry. We south of the border
Speaker 1: don't believe in this, or at least not all of us.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry. And the bloke at the other end,
Speaker 1: the Canadian TV interviewer, so Canadian, he said, well, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry that you feel you have to apologise. And I
Speaker 1: was like....
Speaker 2: That's so Canadian. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He apologized that I apologized moving assholes.
Speaker 2: I know, but they're starting to get their dander up.
Speaker 2: And God bless the Canadians for standing up to Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I think it's one of the best things that I've
Speaker 2: seen in a long time. And I wonder what their
Speaker 2: best move is here. I am not any kind of
Speaker 2: negotiator when it comes to trade and that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: But it seems to me the Iranians have figured out
Speaker 2: that you can just make Donald Trump's life miserable. By
Speaker 2: with these little pinprick attacks in the Strait of Hormuz
Speaker 2: and dragging things out and not going along with these
Speaker 2: demands and not buying any of his bluster and bluff
Speaker 2: bluffing and so on. And it seems to me the
Speaker 2: Canadians could just do the same thing and they could
Speaker 2: just let us ratchet up our own misery on ourselves
Speaker 2: and just wait it out. And I know maybe that's
Speaker 2: not the most Canadian thing to do because they are
Speaker 2: such very nice people. Thank God we have them on
Speaker 2: our northern border. We don't realize what a blessing that is.
Speaker 2: that this wonderful peace loving people is a, and they
Speaker 2: just take care of themselves beautifully and, and they don't
Speaker 2: really cause us any problems. And they fought. And as
Speaker 2: somebody is saying right now, they fought side by side
Speaker 2: with us in so many wars, they did it after
Speaker 2: nine 11 and so on. But it seems to me
Speaker 2: in this moment, their best move may be to let
Speaker 2: us just continue to step on a rake.
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure. Oh, interesting. Okay. So I get
Speaker 1: the desire to, serve up pinpricks to the president yeah
Speaker 1: like and honestly if they're like one of those little
Speaker 1: dolls i might occasionally be tempted to what do you
Speaker 1: call those dolls yeah i might might buy a whole
Speaker 1: you know a thousand pack of pins to put in
Speaker 1: it um but realize the whole point is tariffs hurt
Speaker 1: people on both sides yes so let me say it
Speaker 1: another way and this is the the important economics most
Speaker 1: important economics lesson you learn all day you know it
Speaker 1: already jim Trade of all forms is about cooperation. I
Speaker 1: trade with my better half, Betsy Stevenson. I'm an Australian,
Speaker 1: she's an American, and I unload the dishwasher and she
Speaker 1: washes the clothes. As a result, we each do what
Speaker 1: we're better at and our household runs a little smoother.
Speaker 1: Our household is going to be worse if you put
Speaker 1: frictions or tariffs that make it more difficult for Betsy
Speaker 1: and I to trade. Yes. That logic, and I use
Speaker 1: this when I teach income one, and when I start
Speaker 1: with the logic of thinking about two people, because that
Speaker 1: logic is countries don't trade with each other. People trade
Speaker 1: with each other.
Speaker 2: True.
Speaker 1: And so the same thing that leads me to trade
Speaker 1: with Betsy. By the way, I trade with you, Jim.
Speaker 1: I'm coming on your show. And in return, you're telling
Speaker 1: me terrific jokes and giving platypus economics some exposure. That's trade, right?
Speaker 1: I'm giving you some economics.
Speaker 2: The dad joke trade.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The dad joke trade. We love it. We're all there
Speaker 1: for it. And both of our lives are richer because
Speaker 1: that's cooperations. And that would be cooperation if the webcam
Speaker 1: I'm staring into right now were in Australia or if
Speaker 1: it were in America. But it would be international trade
Speaker 1: in one of those cases, and it's not in the other.
Speaker 1: And so it would bear tariffs in one of those cases,
Speaker 1: but not in the other. So if you understand trade
Speaker 1: as cooperation, then you understand any attempt to reduce trade
Speaker 1: as destroying cooperation. Now, the thing is, if the government
Speaker 1: came and said Acosta and Wolfers can never talk again,
Speaker 1: just think about what gross dad joke product would do.
Speaker 1: It would fall.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And it would fall tragically. We would both suffer. And
Speaker 1: that's the very difficult and very real trade-off that Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Carney faces right now, which is if President Trump's
Speaker 1: sin is not understanding trade is cooperation and he's destroying cooperation,
Speaker 1: is Canada's best response to also destroy cooperation?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And just to educate our viewers a little bit, some
Speaker 2: tariffs are necessary. Republican and Democratic administrations have had to
Speaker 2: apply tariffs. I remember during the Obama administration, I think
Speaker 2: they went after China on tires, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 2: There have been instances where it just makes sense. You
Speaker 2: just have to do it because there might be product
Speaker 2: dumping and that sort of thing. So it's not a
Speaker 2: nutty idea to do this. But he's been doing this
Speaker 2: in a blanket fashion that just gets everybody riled up.
Speaker 2: I don't understand what he thinks is the end game
Speaker 2: in all of this, that people are just going to
Speaker 2: buckle and back down and he'll get a better deal
Speaker 2: out of it. Right.
Speaker 1: So I think you're right. There's a very real argument
Speaker 1: to be had. When and where and are tariffs helpful?
Speaker 1: And if we're talking about smart tariffs, that's actually a
Speaker 1: really engaging debate. Should we put them on tires? Should
Speaker 1: we put them on chips? Should we put them on guns?
Speaker 1: Should we put them on food? And I have that
Speaker 1: debate with my students and it's really interesting. You know
Speaker 1: what there's no debate about? Dumb tariffs. And that's the problem.
Speaker 1: So for instance, the fact that our tariff regime keeps changing,
Speaker 1: if the idea of tariffs is to bring manufacturing jobs
Speaker 1: back to America, then what you need is to make
Speaker 1: it so profitable to do business in America, people want
Speaker 1: to build new factories. But if you realize the current
Speaker 1: tariff regime that's meant to induce you to do that
Speaker 1: is going to last until next Wednesday, Why would you
Speaker 1: start building a factory that's going to take you several
Speaker 1: years to build and you need to keep profitable for
Speaker 1: several decades? That's an example of dumb. Let me give
Speaker 1: you another example of dumb. If what you want is
Speaker 1: a better deal out of the Canadians, what you want
Speaker 1: to do is make it easy for them to say yes.
Speaker 1: The president's done the exact opposite. And so, again, we're
Speaker 1: not getting leverage out of this. If Prime Minister Carney
Speaker 1: wanted to agree with President Trump right now, he couldn't.
Speaker 1: He would get drawn and courted by the Canadian population
Speaker 1: who've been called clowns. And so this is really my frustration.
Speaker 1: In another administration, let's have a wonderful rich debate about
Speaker 1: when and where tariffs are useful. But the incompetence with
Speaker 1: which this tariff regime is applied is breathtaking.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And somebody asked the question earlier, could a democratic administration
Speaker 2: regain this trust with the Canadians? I mean... It sounds
Speaker 2: as though and you're closer to this being in Michigan.
Speaker 2: It sounds as though something has changed. And I hear
Speaker 2: this from the diplomatic community here in Washington, that America's allies,
Speaker 2: you know, they're starting to come to this feeling that
Speaker 2: that America is not predictably stable anymore. And that if
Speaker 2: you can have Donald Trump in there, then he gets
Speaker 2: booted out and then he has an insurrection and then
Speaker 2: he gets back in somehow. People around the world just
Speaker 2: question the judgment of the American people. They say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, and then he acts this way during the
Speaker 2: second term. They just say, well, you know, we just
Speaker 2: got to figure out other things, too. And the Canadians
Speaker 2: are talking about forming tighter alliances with the Europeans and
Speaker 2: so on. There could be some really long term serious
Speaker 2: effects because a new Democratic administration could come in. The
Speaker 2: Canadians and Europeans and maybe South Koreans. He's been pissing
Speaker 2: them off, too. Might say, well, you know, we tried this.
Speaker 2: It didn't work. Good luck.
Speaker 1: So there's a range of possible ways in which people
Speaker 1: could think about this. At one extreme, it's the Americans
Speaker 1: had a moment of madness and elected this particular ruler,
Speaker 1: and he stands completely at odds with all past and
Speaker 1: all future American presidents. Let's take a mulligan, which I
Speaker 1: believe is a golf term that means something.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's what it means.
Speaker 2: You're screwed up and you get to go another.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 2: Okay. You take another swing, I think is what it is.
Speaker 2: My buddies give them to me all the time. But anyway,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 1: Okay. I would like to give you a mulligan. Can
Speaker 1: I give you a mulligan?
Speaker 2: You can always give me a mulligan.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. That's one extreme. The other extreme is the
Speaker 1: American people have put President Trump at the center of
Speaker 1: their political life for 12 years in a row. They
Speaker 1: elected him twice. The problem here is not a president.
Speaker 1: The problem is the electorate and its cultural, political and
Speaker 1: social institutions. And they've shown their institutions to be unstable
Speaker 1: and unreliable in a way that one simply can't forget.
Speaker 1: Where are we on that spectrum? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: know that countries have rehabilitated themselves. Let me quietly say
Speaker 1: some of my best friends are German. There was a
Speaker 1: time that would have been kind of an awkward thing
Speaker 1: to say. Argentina, though, has lurched from crisis to crisis
Speaker 1: and probably doesn't feel out of the woods anytime soon. Right.
Speaker 1: We're somewhere in all of that. But what we do
Speaker 1: know is that we have taught the rest of the
Speaker 1: world that certainly I have come to the conclusion the
Speaker 1: world is more uncertain than I could possibly have ever imagined.
Speaker 1: I would never have thought of the idea that the
Speaker 1: United States would be in the midst of a trade
Speaker 1: war and have threatened the integrity of canada i literally
Speaker 1: would have thought if you told me that was a
Speaker 1: million to one i would have offered you odds i
Speaker 1: would let you bet a dollar to what a million
Speaker 1: um and that in turn means that everyone has to
Speaker 1: do do you remember during covid when we couldn't always
Speaker 1: get the vaccines or the protective equipment right we got
Speaker 1: these new words like friend shoring and on shoring it
Speaker 1: was like hey you kind of learned other folks aren't
Speaker 1: as reliable as you might have hoped Well, that's been
Speaker 1: a big lesson. And so, yeah, the rest of the
Speaker 1: world is talking to each other. Whether they're going to
Speaker 1: let us back in the conversation, that's the thing we've
Speaker 1: got all our fingers and toes crossed about. But, Jim,
Speaker 1: on that, I just want to end with a compliment,
Speaker 1: which is any number of media figures might say, and
Speaker 1: how do you think this will affect Q3 GDP? And
Speaker 1: I can give you an answer, but the answer is
Speaker 1: not very interesting. How will this affect the overall institutions,
Speaker 1: the structure that yours and my kids will grow up in?
Speaker 1: How will this affect the opportunities that are available to them?
Speaker 1: How will this affect future military spending and therefore the
Speaker 1: taxes that they pay? How will this affect their ability
Speaker 1: to find love or friendship or work or trading partners
Speaker 1: across invisible lines that divide our countries? That's where you've
Speaker 1: moved us to. And I just really appreciate that. I
Speaker 1: want to dwell on that. And if there's one economic
Speaker 1: lesson that I've spent a lot of time trying to
Speaker 1: talk to people about, it is that look, stop looking
Speaker 1: at next quarter's numbers for whether the next recession is
Speaker 1: going to happen. Instead, use economic theory, intuition, and history
Speaker 1: to ask yourself, is something even more valuable at stake here?
Speaker 2: I couldn't agree with you more, 100%. And the Canadians
Speaker 2: have been such good friends that it has never been
Speaker 2: a thought that's occurred to any of us. Would they
Speaker 2: always be there for us? And now it's becoming kind
Speaker 2: of an open question because of what is happening right now.
Speaker 2: But Justin, Thank you so much for coming on Platypus Economics.
Speaker 2: We can find you there and subscribe to you, follow
Speaker 2: you everywhere you're at. Justin, great to see you. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much.
Speaker 1: Take care, Jim.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. And gosh, what a, you know,
Speaker 2: Justin teaches economics. I would not want to enroll. Can
Speaker 2: I enroll at the University of Michigan and take one
Speaker 2: of Justin's classes? That was terrific. You know, listen, I
Speaker 2: think what Justin was getting at there, and it's something
Speaker 2: that I like to talk about on the show from
Speaker 2: time to time. And I mentioned this just recently, I
Speaker 2: talked about how, you know, I was at one of
Speaker 2: these diplomatic functions around Washington, DC that I go to
Speaker 2: from time to time. And some very lovely people, by
Speaker 2: the way, I mean, for all of you, America first, America, America,
Speaker 2: I never leave the country because why would I leave
Speaker 2: the best country on earth and go to these other countries?
Speaker 2: And who are these people, these weird foreigners and stuff?
Speaker 2: Some of the loveliest people you could meet are outside
Speaker 2: of the borders of the United States. and are living
Speaker 2: in places and in countries that we consider to be
Speaker 2: close friends of the United States, close friends of America.
Speaker 2: And I told this story the other day. I'll tell
Speaker 2: it again in case folks missed it. I was at
Speaker 2: a diplomatic function. I had an ambassador to one of
Speaker 2: our allies in Europe come up to me and say,
Speaker 2: what's happening right now, Jim, reminds me of Germany in
Speaker 2: the 1930s. And there was another ambassador from another U.S.
Speaker 2: ally standing next to this ambassador. And that ambassador nodded. Yep.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 2: And they were both saying the same thing. And, you know,
Speaker 2: it is funny to see the memes and talk about
Speaker 2: Donald Trump getting made fun of and, you know, stepping
Speaker 2: on a rake and acting like a fool on the
Speaker 2: world stage. But it is having real world consequences. It
Speaker 2: is having lasting consequences. on our relationships with our friends
Speaker 2: around the world. And when you talk about the Canadians,
Speaker 2: one of the things that the Canadians will remind us of,
Speaker 2: and they're such polite people that they maybe allow us
Speaker 2: to remind us of this first, is they were with
Speaker 2: us shoulder to shoulder after 9-11. They've been with us
Speaker 2: shoulder to shoulder on D-Day, in so many other cases,
Speaker 2: when America's back was against the wall, when the fate
Speaker 2: of the world was on the line. The Canadians have
Speaker 2: been there for the United States. The Canadians have been
Speaker 2: there for humanity, for democracy, for freedom around the world.
Speaker 2: To call them staunch allies is an understatement. And then
Speaker 2: you have Donald Trump in the Oval Office today cracking
Speaker 2: wise about how he wants to rename Lake Ontario, Lake America.
Speaker 2: Let's play this before we go.
Speaker 4: Changing the name of Lake Ontario. effective immediately to Lake America.
Speaker 4: As you know, Canada's been ripping us off for a
Speaker 4: long time on trade, very sadly.
Speaker 1: Even the military.
Speaker 3: You know, we defend Canada for nothing. We don't get anything.
Speaker 3: They don't pay us to defend Canada, but we defend Canada.
Speaker 3: They want to be.
Speaker 4: Treated like a state, but they're not a state. But
Speaker 4: they want to be treated like they're a state. And
Speaker 4: so we just can't do that anymore. We lose, on average,
Speaker 4: over the last 15 years, $ 60 billion a year carrying Canada.
Speaker 4: So we just can't do it anymore. We love the
Speaker 4: people of Canada. I don't think their representatives do an
Speaker 4: appropriate job.
Speaker 1: Maybe they'll change.
Speaker 3: I really don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's Donald Trump just acting like a fool,
Speaker 2: insulting our Canadian friends, talking about how badly they treat
Speaker 2: us and so on. I mean, this again, you know,
Speaker 2: every accusation is a confession. Every accusation is projection. It's
Speaker 2: Donald Trump who is being the belligerent fool here. And
Speaker 2: I know Justin Wolfers was saying this a few moments ago.
Speaker 2: I'll say this right here on behalf of the American
Speaker 2: people to our Canadian friends. We, I mean, there are
Speaker 2: so many of us who would like to apologize for
Speaker 2: this ridiculous behavior. And, you know, I mean, there have
Speaker 2: been some, some, you know, witty retorts to all of this.
Speaker 2: Obviously there's been some talk about renaming Lake Ontario, perhaps
Speaker 2: Lake Epstein. I mean, there is that. But, you know,
Speaker 2: This goes back to what Donald Trump was doing. There
Speaker 2: it is right there. Lake Epstein.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Our Canadian friends are funny. And, you know, this goes
Speaker 2: back to what was happening at the beginning of this
Speaker 2: second administration, the beginning of this second go-around, when he
Speaker 2: tried to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.
Speaker 2: Nobody calls it the Gulf of America. The only stupid
Speaker 2: idiots who call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of
Speaker 2: America are either working at the White House or on
Speaker 2: Fox News. And I don't even think the people who
Speaker 2: watch Fox or vote Republican or vote MAGA, I don't
Speaker 2: even think they call it the Gulf of America. It
Speaker 2: is just the dumbest thing. And I remember hearing people
Speaker 2: in legacy mainstream media, they were suddenly calling it the
Speaker 2: Gulf of America to kiss up Donald Trump. It was
Speaker 2: just the most grotesque, stupid bullshit that I had ever seen.
Speaker 2: But it was happening at a time when Trump was
Speaker 2: putting everybody's head in the vice. He was going after
Speaker 2: people who were a part of the mainstream media, people
Speaker 2: like myself. He was going after law firms and universities,
Speaker 2: and he was banning the Associated Press from Air Force
Speaker 2: One and the Oval Office because they wouldn't call the
Speaker 2: Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Doesn't that feel
Speaker 2: like a million years ago? And here we are now,
Speaker 2: some 60 or 70 days before the midterm elections, and
Speaker 2: how stupid and foolish does Donald Trump sound right now?
Speaker 2: calling Lake Ontario, Lake America. First of all, he can't
Speaker 2: even come up with some other word other than America.
Speaker 2: He's like a toddler who has a limited vocabulary. But
Speaker 2: think about how little leverage he has now. Think about
Speaker 2: how much his standing on the world stage has been
Speaker 2: reduced and how isolated he looks around the world. I mean,
Speaker 2: he sends the CIA director to Russia to say, please
Speaker 2: don't attack a NATO country. There used to be a
Speaker 2: time in the United States of America, where we didn't
Speaker 2: have to put the CIA director on a plane to
Speaker 2: Russia and beg them not to, to attack a NATO
Speaker 2: country because we were the United States of America and
Speaker 2: people didn't fuck with us. And I guess people are
Speaker 2: fucking with, and the Russians feel like they can fuck
Speaker 2: with us now. And the Chinese feel like they can
Speaker 2: fuck with us now and on and on and on
Speaker 2: because Donald Trump's standing on the world stage has been diminished.
Speaker 2: He is the incredible shrinking president and he is shrinking
Speaker 2: in stature before our very eyes. And all he has
Speaker 2: left are these petty, immature, obnoxious insults where he calls
Speaker 2: Lake Ontario, Lake America. The Canadians are not impressed by that.
Speaker 2: That doesn't get them back to the bargaining table. All
Speaker 2: it does... is again piss off and alienate and ostracize
Speaker 2: a country that has been with us every step of
Speaker 2: the way. They are arguably our best friends in the
Speaker 2: world because they have been not just friends, and we
Speaker 2: have wonderful friends in the Brits, the French, and I'm
Speaker 2: not naming all the countries, and people are going to
Speaker 2: mad at me for not naming all the countries, Australia
Speaker 2: and Japan, and there are so many wonderful countries around
Speaker 2: the world that would say, yes, we're the best friends
Speaker 2: of America, maybe not now. But the Canadians have been
Speaker 2: good neighbors. They've been like that neighbor across the street
Speaker 2: in your community or maybe next door. Your car breaks
Speaker 2: down or your battery dies and they come over with
Speaker 2: the jumper cables or maybe your power goes out. They've
Speaker 2: got a generator and you don't, so they bring the
Speaker 2: extension cord over so you have power again. Your air
Speaker 2: conditioning can go back on and you can put on
Speaker 2: your refrigerator. That guy, that gentleman, that nice lady next door,
Speaker 2: those are the Canadians. They're the ones, if you're broken
Speaker 2: down on the side of the road, even though we
Speaker 2: live in this violent, fucked up country where everybody's worried
Speaker 2: that they're going to get shot or killed, They're the
Speaker 2: nice elderly senior citizen gentleman who pulls up in front
Speaker 2: of your car on the side of the road and
Speaker 2: get your car going again or helps you put the
Speaker 2: spare tire on. That's who the Canadian people have always
Speaker 2: been to the United States of America. And Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is absolutely completely shitting all over that friendship and relationship.
Speaker 2: He is completely shitting over the most invaluable friendship that
Speaker 2: we have anywhere in the world. Because they're right on
Speaker 2: our border. Think about how lucky and how fortunate we are.
Speaker 2: Right on our border. That massive border. He likes to
Speaker 2: talk about the southern border. Talks about the southern border.
Speaker 2: And our Mexican friends are wonderful too. But think about
Speaker 2: how peaceful and tranquil and idyllic the Canadian existence has
Speaker 2: been for decades. And I guess centuries. And how all
Speaker 2: of that has never really backfired on us or hurt
Speaker 2: us in any way. It's always been a good and
Speaker 2: wonderful thing to have the Canadians across the border from us.
Speaker 2: And now we've pissed them off to the point where
Speaker 2: they don't like to hear the national anthem at sporting events.
Speaker 2: And now they're angry with us. They're upset with us.
Speaker 2: We've pissed off a very good friend. And friendship, it's
Speaker 2: one of the best things that we have in this world.
Speaker 2: It's one of the best things that we have in
Speaker 2: this existence is a good friend who is always there
Speaker 2: for you. I have them in my life. And they're
Speaker 2: invaluable to me. And that's who the Canadians are to Americans.
Speaker 2: And we have completely and totally torched that at the
Speaker 2: hands of a mad lunatic and fool. I want to
Speaker 2: thank Mark Elias for coming on the show today. I
Speaker 2: want to thank Justin Wolfers. Thank all of you for watching.
Speaker 2: Please support independent media. Check out our daily newsletter. If
Speaker 2: you support independent media, you can continue to bring stories
Speaker 2: like this. Be sure to like, subscribe. It all matters.
Speaker 2: If you like these takes, sometimes we put the takes
Speaker 2: out there as stuff you can pick up as well.
Speaker 2: Become a paid subscriber. Get immediate access to our brand
Speaker 2: new daily newsletter. It's on Substack and YouTube posts. Check
Speaker 2: it out if you can. We really appreciate it. And
Speaker 2: once again, thank you, Canada, for being our friends. And
Speaker 2: I just hope we can get you back. Still reporting
Speaker 2: from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. I'll see you next time.