Okay, let's get straight down to the
questions. And the first comes from Paul
in Harrow who asks this. Does the team
know of any push back on Trump's no
mailin ballots plan from groups
representing the infirm or the disabled?
So, do we know if anyone in Trump's
team, Paul asks, has considered how much
they could let such groups vote or do
they plan to simply disenfranchise
all who cannot get to a polling station?
He is a big enemy of mailin ballots.
He's also an enemy of voting machines,
isn't he? But on the mail-in ballots,
which he says he can get rid of, he has
the power to do it. Where do we stand,
Sunumi?
>> Well, um it's interesting actually. You
know, we saw this come up again this
week um in Donald Trump's interview with
Sean Hannity on Fox after the summit
with Vladimir Putin last week. Let's
just play a clip of that first.
>> You know, Vladimir Putin said something,
one of the most interesting things. He
said, "Uh, your election was rigged
because you have mail-in voting." He
said, "Mail-in voting. Every election."
He said, "No country has mail-in voting.
It's impossible to have mail-in voting
and have honest elections." And he said
that to me, it was very because we
talked about 2020. He said, "You won
that election by so much." And that's
how he got it. He said, "And if you
would have won, we wouldn't have had a
war. You'd have all these millions of
people alive now instead of dead."
>> So, yeah, Justin, as you know, this has
been a long-running grievance of Donald
Trump. To your question, can he do this?
Um, the short answer is no. The
constitution actually says that uh the
time, place, and manner of elections are
uh to be regulated by the state
legislature and that Congress can make
changes uh to elections or how they're
administered, but only if those changes
actually are uh based on congressional
or presidential elections. So states,
for example, when they hold elections on
governors, um there is no kind of
congressional oversight or changes that
can be made by Congress there. And
nowhere in the constitution does it
actually mention the president's name in
terms of being able to change mail and
ballots. But you know, Justin, this is
something President Trump has been
talking about since 2020 when he has
claimed many times without evidence that
there was massive fraud leading to his
loss in the election partly because of
mail and ballots.
>> Yeah. So I think the answer for Paul is
we don't really think it's going to
happen. It's one of those things, you
know, we if we divide up all the things
that Donald Trump says into those that
that actually are going to happen and
he's certainly done some things and
shaken some things up and those who just
says a bit like reopening Alcatraz
um where you think okay I mean maybe
it's an aspiration but and maybe it
ticks a few boxes that you want to tick
and jees up your supporters in this way
or that way but actually the the
mechanics of doing it don't seem clear.
So I think actually in a way Paul that
possibly answers your question about the
extent to which groups have have pushed
back. I think a lot of groups probably
Sumi is right to say don't think you
need to much because it's not a kind of
urgent thing that is likely to happen.
I'm only aware of one actually that has
and that is people representing um
people who who are fighting abroad or or
stationed abroad for the US and and
there is a big you know they they were
quite vocal weren't they because one of
the things that the abolition of mailin
ballots would presumably entail would be
um getting rid of the ability of
soldiers
air airmen women etc to be able to vote
and that is quite a that's sort viewed,
isn't it, in America as a really
important sacred right for people sent
abroad to to um stick up for the
country.
>> It really is. I can say I lived out of
the country for 15 years and I cast my
ballot via absentee ballot in the state
of New York for that entire time that I
was living abroad. And there are more
than three million Americans, not
counting, of course, the military who
vote uh who can vote or eligible to vote
um from abroad. So that is just one
group of people. But on the other hand,
you also have, you know, those who are
elderly. you know, my parents vote by
mailin ballot now because they find it
much more comfortable to do so. And I
thought it was really interesting to see
Florida's governor, Republican Rhonda
Santis, say he doesn't think that this
executive order would apply to Florida.
Florida is a state where you do do see a
lot of mail and ballots, but of course
there is a big elderly population there.
>> And um Florida's not one of those states
where they immediately send you a
mail-in ballot. It's one of those states
where you can request one. and he said,
"Well, since we don't immediately send a
mail and ballot to everyone, I don't
think this executive order applies to
us. There are eight states plus
Washington DC where that is the case."
Um, but you know, the President Trump
has been pretty light on the details
until now of what he means. But it's
really important to a lot of Americans
who find it difficult to get to the
ballot box on an election day uh to be
able to cast their ballot by mail.
>> Okay. Hey Daniel in Sheffield, can you
please explain how packing and cracking
actually works so that we can understand
the context of the Texas row over
redistricting? H been some developments
about this as well, haven't there Sumi,
because they're all going back and um
it's all going through it seems.
>> Yeah, exactly. The Democrats who left
Texas for two weeks are now back in the
state. But to the question of packing
and cracking, which um you know is
pretty much exactly what it sounds like.
So packing is when you uh pack together
um constituents or groups of voters who
tend to vote in a specific way. So it
makes it likely that you'll have this
group of voters cast their ballots for
their candidate, but that means their
influence um in another part is uh is
lessened. And then cracking is literally
breaking apart those groups of voters so
that their influence is spread out. And
the way I think about this in
redistricting, if it helps our listeners
and viewers a bit, is I always think of
um you know these blue cities in the
middle middle of red states. Let's say
for example a city like Dallas and
Texas. So Texas is a Republican state, a
red state, but you have you know these
blue kind of dots within the state like
Dallas. So because uh voters in a city
like Dallas will tend to vote more
Democrat, you'll get Democrat members of
Congress there. Well, what you can do
with redistricting in some cases is you
can split those voters or that city,
sorry, in a way that um the voters their
power together to elect a Democrat
member of Congress
>> is no longer so potent. So that they're
kind of moved together with voters from
outside of the city, maybe in the
suburbs who tend to vote more
Republican. And that takes away some of
that power to to um vote for a Democrat
or a progressive candidate within a
city. So that gives you I hope our our
viewers and listeners a bit of an idea
of how that can work from the Republican
side. And the Democrats have done this
as you know Justin as well in a state
like Illinois where they try to reduce
the um impact of or the power of
Republican um districts by splitting
them up up so that Democrats Democrat
voters have a bit more power in those
same areas.
>> Yeah. And it was quite ironic that
Illinois was one of the places they
escaped to, wasn't it? Texas people who
didn't want to didn't want to see it
done in Texas, but we're happy to go to
Illinois where it is done a lot. My
favorite one is is North Carolina. It's
it's a a congressional district that
doesn't exist anymore, but at the time
it existed. It was an example of packing
actually. And packing it sounds neat,
but often results in these districts
that don't look at all neat because
they're a pack packing of a particular
kind of person, often a racial group.
And this one was by the I85 in North
Carolina. Um, and it was that the famous
thing that someone said of it was that
if you opened both your car doors and
drove down the I85,
you would kill everyone in the district
because actually they had packed it in
such a way that it was uh just people
living right next to the road
essentially. And it was a particular
kind. It was actually a democratic
constituency because of people close to
the road, poorer people. I think it was
a racial side to it to to it as well.
And eventually it went this was back in
the 1990s that I was sent to look at it.
But there are all sorts of these things
still going on. But I mean we should
mention as well the kind of hot news,
shouldn't we? Because um Gavin Newsome
in California, the governor there, who's
been so feisty about all of this stuff,
um is going to go ahead, it seems, with
what he threatened to do, which is
negate any of the Texas gains. So, let's
assume they do gain five seats or so in
Texas for the Republicans, and that
potentially means that they might be
able to hold the midterm elections in uh
2026, which is what this is all about.
This is what he said about it all at a
news conference last week.
>> It's not complicated. We're doing this
in reaction to a president of the United
States that called a sitting governor of
the state of Texas and said, "Find me
five seats." We're doing it in reaction
to that act.
We can't stand back and watch this
democracy disappear district by district
all across this country. We need to
stand up. Not just California. Other
blue states need to stand up.
>> Yeah. So that gives you a sense of where
Governor Gavin Newsome sees things right
now. He sees this as a bit of a a
challenge that California has to take
up. But that has angered another
prominent Californian. Uh the former
California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. He posted a picture of
himself on X uh and it says, "I'm
getting ready for the gerrymandering
battle." And he's kind of pumping iron.
He has a t-shirt on that says um a word
I can't say. The politician.
>> What does it say, Sumi?
>> I'm just looking at the same picture.
>> An unsavory word. Um the politician is
And then it says terminate
gerrymandering. Um so that was his
response. And then of course the former
speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, she
said at a press conference in California
this month that the Democrats here, they
don't have a choice because they're
acting in self-defense.
>> We will not let he's gone too far and we
will not let him pave over a free and
fair elections in our country starting
with what he's trying to do in Texas
countering that. So this isn't two
wrongs or as as was mentioned it's it's
not a wrong and what we're doing. This
is self-defense for our democracy.
>> It should be said, shouldn't it Sumi,
that what Nuome is proposing
is not a permanent return to
gerrymandering in the sense that it's
that there is there's an independent
commission, isn't there? And what he
says is get rid of the commission at
least until until 2030. Is is is that
the plan?
>> Yeah, that's the plan. and he's hoping
he can convince uh voters in California,
which of course is a blue state, a
Democrat state, that this is important
for precisely the reason that Nancy
Pelosi just said, self-defense for
democracy, as she put it. So Gavin
Newsome's uh ploy here is to say to
voters, give us this chance to fight
back against Republican moves and make
sure that we're on equal footing, so to
say, for the midterm elections, and then
we can talk again down the road because,
you know, gerrymandering and
redistricting has been seen as really
problematic by many states. And that's
why you have seen states um put in these
laws or rules to make so that you can't
just slice and dice or pack and crack
districts by um partisan lines. And the
fact that they see now Texas doing this
means that they want to kind of dial
back some of those rules at least for
the time being and then revisit it down
the road.
And all of it, of course, as I was
saying, is is really about the the next
election, about the midterm elections
and this fight that if the Democrats
lose, and I suppose this is the thinking
with Newsome being so tough about it
given that he is almost certainly
running for the presidential nomination
in 2028. Um, why did I even say almost?
I mean, he is running for the
nomination.
>> Look at his Twitter account. He's
definitely running.
>> Look Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. listen to his
podcast too only after Americas but it
is worth listening to actually he's
positioning himself and and doing so
really aggressively and I think he
thinks
>> doesn't he sum if he if if he can rescue
the party from losing the midterms in
other words the Democrats who are on
course probably to win the midterms next
year that would be what you'd usually
expect if they then go ahead and manage
to do it and they do it partly because
of what he's done in California that
really does bolster him doesn't it
>> and there's Another element to this, you
know, I've talked to Democrat voters who
are so frustrated with the brand of the
Democrats. And you can just look at
polling across the board that um
Democrat voters are not happy with their
own party. And one of the big complaints
has been that they don't fight enough,
that they're not fighting back. And what
Gavin Newsome is doing right here is
saying, "I'm taking the fight directly
to the Republicans." And you know, we
talked about his ex account, Twitter
account, and the fact that we've now
seen not necessarily Gavin Newsome
himself, but his press team mimicking um
Donald Trump's tweets, his posts on
Truth Social and the all caps and the
type of language he uses. There are some
Democrats who will be pleased with the
type of um strategy that that Gavin
Newsome is deploying here, saying we
need a fighter, and finally someone is
is taking it directly to Donald Trump
and his party.
>> Yeah, early days. very early days, but
um he he's certainly making a a big
splash at the moment, isn't he? Let us
go on to one of the smoothest voices
that we ever have in our inbox.
>> Hello, Americ
says he is confident in his ability to
end the war in Ukraine. According to
Trump, this is because he has already
settled six wars in the past 6 months.
What were these wars and what actions
did Trump actually take to settle the
conflicts?
Should we listen to his claims to me? It
came in an interview on Fox and Friends.
Um, and he actually increased the
figure, I think I'm right in saying, to
seven. Let's listen.
>> I've solved seven wars. We ended seven
wars. I thought this would be one of the
easier ones and this is turned out to be
the toughest one. India, Pakistan, I
mean we these were big ones and uh also
all big ones and some going for 31 32
years, one for 35 years. the Congo.
Think of that. The Congo and Rwanda for
35 years. I got that one done.
>> Your thoughts, Sumi.
>> Yeah, let's let's go conflict by
conflict. I think that's probably the
most helpful way of doing this. And I
have the list here in front of me
because a lot of people have been um
putting those questions to the White
House's press team to say which
conflicts uh are is he talking about
here? How did this number grow to seven?
So if you start with Armenia and
Azarbaian, this was just a few weeks ago
that you saw the leaders of both
countries in the White House and what
President Trump was able to do and this
is really significant. We have to say
this is a long-running conflict that
that um dates back to the 1980s and one
where Russia was traditionally seen as a
mediator between these two countries,
but Russia, as we know, is uh continuing
to wage its war on Ukraine and so has
less bandwidth, if you will. and
President Trump was able to bring these
two leaders to the table and they signed
a joint declaration to end their their
war their conflict. Um so you know that
is really significant. On the other hand
you know observers of this region say
that hasn't solved the underlying crisis
there or the underlying conflict and
issues between these two leaders and
their their two countries. Um but what
it has done of course is stop kind of
the hot phase of their conflict and I
think that is indeed significant. I mean
we have to say that that's an important
development in this region.
>> There we are. We're giving we're giving
that one to Trump.
>> That's right. That's one in his column
there that we have to say is one that
President Trump was instrumental in. Um
>> okay big tick for that. What about the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda?
>> Yeah. So we also saw leaders of both
those countries at the White House. This
is one that President Trump, you heard
him in that clip there say, you know,
there's a conflict running 35 years.
That is true. Uh really significant that
he got both um representatives from both
countries to come to the Oval Office and
they signed a peace agreement aimed at
ending the conflict. Again here though
the details are important and that is
that um you know they haven't actually
resolved the dispute between these two
countries and we have seen just in
reports that violence is still
continuing. So uh even though Donald
Trump has kind of ticked off this
conflict, it's one where a lot more work
would have to be done to really ensure
that arms are laid down.
>> What about India and Pakistan? I mean
that's a bit more clear-cut, isn't it?
They they were having quite a serious
conflict. It it wasn't quite a war, was
it? But it was pretty serious conflict.
>> Yeah. Nuclear armed neighbors. And
Caroline Lev, the press secretary, said,
you know, we were close to a real
all-out war between these two nuclear
armed neighbors. That is true. on the
one hand on the other hand India says
that yes the the US did play some role
in getting these partners to talk to
each other but India says that it
directly negotiated a peace agreement
with Pakistan there so it kind of is
downplaying the president's role
>> although the Pakistani side I mean I
remember this from interviews and on
other programs that I do and both of us
do other things to me as well but but I
remember talking to a Pakistani official
who said this is down to Trump and and
in fact I think I'm right saying that
they they are among those nations
proposing Trump for the Nobel Peace
Prize. So yeah, there may be all sorts
of reasons why they're doing it, but
certainly from one side in this
conflict, they think he was useful.
>> Yeah, that is true. The Pakistanis have
said that and they have developed a a
pretty um solid relationship with the
Trump administration. We have to say
that tariffs there and the threat of
tariffs do play a role and have played a
role and I think directly did with
Pakistan here.
>> Anyway, we're only halfway through
Israel and Iran. Well, we saw the US
carry out the bombings of the nuclear
sites in Iran and then announce a
ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and
that has seemed to mostly hold. Um, when
it comes to Iran's long-term nuclear
ambitions, however, there hasn't really
been any progress there. So, you know,
there there the two sides here are not
exchanging fire at the moment. So, we
can say that the US played a role in
bringing that to an end. And that was a
serious concern, wasn't it, that we were
covering, Justin?
At the moment, it remains to be seen
whether Iran will actually continue to
enrich uranium and rebuild its nuclear
sites because there hasn't been progress
on engaging Iran um on a diplomatic
front. Uh and that is something that,
you know, hasn't really been a priority
for the White House at the moment as
they've been dealing with other
conflicts and hot wars. Cambodia and
Thailand. I I mean I I just feel that
they took an interest in a part of the
world and in a conflict that you would
not have expected them to take an
interest in necessarily when they came
to power and actually did do some some
good.
>> That is true. I mean there there was
this flare up in fighting and there were
more than 40 people killed in this flare
up and fighting and so there were real
concerns and the White House was being
asked about this uh in some of the press
briefings. I think there was some
attention paid to it, but again, the
underlying issues are still there. The
the disputes are still there and that is
something that hasn't yet been solved.
But you have to say for to President
Trump's credit uh that fighting which
was really a source of concern for
everyone in the region in particular uh
did stop.
>> Yeah. Uh Egypt and Ethiopia, this is
over a dam, isn't it? But it wasn't
really a war either.
>> That's right. And this is one where it
really isn't clear that President Trump
has been able to make much progress at
all. The dispute is still there and I
believe that Ethiopia uh announced
recently that it actually finished the
dam and there hasn't been any progress
on their dispute over the dam and this
is about power and this is Africa's you
know biggest hydroelectric dam. So um
there's a dispute between these two
countries over the the the control of
this dam. But President Trump's
diplomacy here hasn't actually resolved
the issue of control. I mean, it's kept
both sides, if you will, from um from a
hot war, from this descending into an,
you know, an armed conflict of any sort.
But still, uh I'm not so sure that this
is one that President Trump can put uh
in his column.
>> Okay. Well, it's a mixed bag. I I think
we're saying the Trump administration
obviously either has been more involved
than you might have thought in some
disputes around the world, but
>> I think that's a fair assessment.
>> Not exactly solved them. Let us go on to
this which is a really interesting
question from Betty in Birmingham. Trump
has been seen by many MAGA voters as the
savior who'll fulfill their dreams but
we're now seeing a growing
dissatisfaction around rising prices
involvement in foreign wars and uh
Medicare. It's actually Medicaid, I
think, more than Medicare. But anyway,
what happens? Uh, Betty asks, if that
disillusionment grows, will there be a
large group of Americans who move even
further towards the anti-government
survivalist
position? Um, really interesting
actually because I I sort of
should we sort of take it in two steps.
Number one, are we saying definitely
that Trump's popularity is going down?
Well, if you look at the polls, that is
the case. Even on the issues uh where
President Trump has performed pretty
well so far in in the second term,
immigration, for example, his numbers
have been sliding on that front as well,
as you've seen some dissatisfaction with
um the the mass deportation program and
some of the ICE tactics and raids that
we've seen. So it is fair to say that um
we are seeing growing dissatisfaction
with President Trump particularly on
some of the core issues that he said he
would deliver on like the economy. The
prices still have not dropped and
President Trump has sold it as a real
win for um his his administration that
he says inflation is almost zero. That's
not true. Um it is not almost zero.
still hovering around, you know,
2.7%ish.
And and you know, even though numbers
have come down on some uh like gas and
energy and egg prices, for example,
which President Trump is keen to point
to, prices are still fairly high and
have not come down as as quickly as many
voters might have hoped. So you do see
some dissatisfaction there.
>> Yeah. And also dissatisfaction, this
goes really to the the guts of this
question, doesn't it? dissatisfaction
with the way in which the Trump
administration actually going harking
back to the last question has engaged
with the outside world in a way that a
lot of MAGA supporters genuinely hoped
that it wouldn't believed that it
wouldn't were told that it wouldn't and
the crucial thing here of course is
Ukraine and this sense that you get over
and over again from MAGA supporters that
Donald Trump is being pushed towards a
position that is much more conventional
mainstream and in their view disastrous
where he is involved in a way that he
doesn't need to be. So let's listen to I
suppose he's the most prominent isn't he
of the the MAGA voices Steve Bannon um
talking about his reservations about US
involvement in Ukraine on his war room
podcast recently. I'm just lost how a
game how us how the United States
offering an article 5 commitment for for
a security guarantee to Ukraine is a a
win for the United States. I mean the
this war started
because of the globalists at the EU, the
European Union and NATO
forcing the hand of the Russians over
years and years and years about
Ukraine's
uh joining the EU and joining NATO.
Yeah, Justin, I think it's important
just first of all to kind of push back
on that claim from Steve Bannon because
it completely um rejects any agency on
the behalf of the Ukrainians who were
aspiring towards EU and NATO membership.
Uh and it is a Kremlin talking point to
say that um the West was forcing the
hand of the Russians uh by encroaching
on their territories essentially what
Steve Bannon is saying. Um but it is
really interesting to hear some of the
concern from the core MAGA um base if
you will over security guarantees for
Ukraine. And what President Trump has
floated so far is not US troops on the
ground in Ukraine but perhaps US pilots
uh air cover for Ukraine. And that's
after meeting with European leaders in
that in summit in the White House. Um
but you know he he was someone who
President Trump promised to as you know
end the war in Ukraine on day one. He
has said look this conflict was or this
war is much more difficult than I had
anticipated. Uh but pushing for a way
that the US would support Ukraine
actually by engaging militarily is one
that's going to be more difficult to
sell to some of his base.
>> Yeah. There was of course another part,
wasn't there, to that question, which is
where Americans go if they do fall out
of love with Donald Trump? Where do the
MAGA people go? Where do other Americans
go? Um, who who don't like him anymore?
People who are just annoyed about
inflation. I mean, the answer, Sumi, I
suppose, is you you just don't vote. You
just you just don't take any interest
anymore.
>> That would be my answer to the question,
voter apathy. Something that really
struck me again traveling through the
country ahead of the 2024 election in
November is how many voters were so
turned off by the political system and
by both parties that they simply said,
"I'm not going to vote. I don't see any
impact on my life at all." I wonder if
it means independent candidates in, you
know, more regional races or local races
will have more success. But as you know,
independent candidates don't really work
on a federal on a national level.
>> Yeah. It's tough, isn't it? It's really
tough. I mean, there have been people
who have broken through uh Ross Perau, I
suppose, running for the presidency back
in in 1992. Not that he got anywhere in
the end, but he got a fair chunk of the
of the vote. So, there are places that
people can go that aren't necessarily
nowhere and aren't necessarily
anti-government survivalists as as our
questioner says, but to do that
nationally isn't isn't going to cut the
mustard, I don't think. Anyhow,
interesting question. Let us turn uh for
our last one and to Pete in Bath where
uh Anthony was recently and where I am
often. Here's Pete.
>> Are Trump's plans for a UFC fight at the
White House next 4th of July a sign he
is going full Caligula and bringing
games to the people? Thanks very much.
>> I think we have a clip of UFC boss and
friend of Donald Trump Dana White
confirming the fight last week. can
remember he is a very close friend and
ally of Donald Trump.
>> It is definitely going to happen. Uh I
talked to him last night uh him being
the president and and I'm flying out
there at the end of this month and I'm
going to sit down and walk him through
um you know all the plans and and the
renderings and we're going to start
deciding what he wants and doesn't want.
But yeah, July 4th, 250th birthday of
the United States of America live on CBS
from the White House. I'm pretty
excited.
Yes, and so will a lot of Americans be.
But a lot of other Americans,
particularly
in the nation's fining universities,
etc., etc., will be thinking, "Oh my
goodness, we did not see this coming.
This is not a proper way to be
celebrating the the birthday of the
nation, let alone the 250th birthday."
It's another thing that will divide
America. And that's what he wants,
really, isn't it?
>> It is. I don't know how many Americans
are. I haven't looked at the numbers on
how many Americans follow the UFC and
how many Americans are regular watchers
of fights either in person on TV. I have
to admit, Justin, I've been try trying
to um actively ignore this story simply
because, you know, there's so much else
going on and of course looking ahead to
the 250th birthday of the US, so much
can and will change until then. But it
is curious. You know, Donald Trump has
been undertaking all sorts of changes at
the White House, as you know, if you
look inside the images of the Oval
Office these days, and you see the the
gilded doors and um everything that he
has changed to his taste, which
obviously he can do as the president and
um he is allowed to make those changes.
You really wonder about hosting a UFC
fight at the White House and whether
that will be considered um an
appropriate way to celebrate the US's
250th birthday.
>> Yeah. And the answer to whether it's
it's for the masses sort of, you know,
to the the implication of our questioner
to take people's minds off other things.
I I actually don't think it takes
people's minds off other things. And I
don't think that is the Donald Trump
way. I think the constancy of the
distractions and the moves into
different areas and the enthusiasms that
then sort of fizzle away. That's just
part of the man and it's part of this
this presidency. And I think by the time
this comes, this fight if it does come,
people will be used to it, but also
people will be thinking ahead. They'll
be thinking to certainly um the
midterms, but also be thinking to the
next presidential election. And I'm not
sure in the end it will really matter
that much. He's not he's not standing
again, is he? I don't think it'll be
sort of a huge deal where people say as
they have done so often in the past, he
can't get away with this, he can't do
this because he does always get away
with it and he does always do it.
>> Yeah. And remember that Donald Trump
sees his, you know, showing up at big
sporting events, at NFL games and UFC
fights that he sees this as part of his
way to connect in particular with young
men. and that was really effective ahead
of the 2024 election. So maybe this is
another way to do that ahead of the
midterms. But to your point, he's not on
the ballot next November. So, you know,
what big difference will this actually
make?
>> Not sure. But maybe, as you said, it's
just a way for Donald Trump to enjoy
something in his second term, something
he really wants to do and and enjoys
doing. And Dana White is someone he sees
as um a close friend. So, this is
bringing all of those threads together.
And the young men point, not to be too
kind of plottingly serious about this,
but the the young men point is
important, isn't it? Because that is a
place where he did very well. It's a
place where the Democrats are really
struggling because they don't they don't
know what the message is going to be.
And they had that much derided
commission, didn't they? spent a ton of
money kind of investigating what young
men were like as if they were sort of
alien species and and you know so
anything Trump can do along these lines
to say yeah this is what young men like
and um if you don't like it what the
heck and the Democrats sort of will once
again be in this sort of slightly cringy
position where they can't exactly say
we're against UFC but they can be
against it in the White House but does
that mean they're against the whole
thing and what do they think of young
men, what they think of, you know, the
organized violence that is often
involved in young men's sports, not just
in this one. You know, it it just puts
them into a kind of position,
particularly a party that has, you know,
embraced its feminine side in recent
years to the extent to which it has
maybe put some men off being supporters.
It's it's another of those tricky ones
for them. My bet is that Democrats will
try to steer clear of that argument and
maybe make the point that the president
is spending millions organizing UFC
fight at the White House while people
are still struggling to pay for their
groceries. That's probably the line of
attack that the Democrats
>> You can see that's going to be what
James Carville and and um the all all
the other kind of operatives,
consultants, etc. that class of people
who advise the Democrats and who want
the Democrats to reconnect with people,
they're going to say to them, for
goodness sake, don't don't be put in
that box. Um, uh, literally and
metaphorically, when it comes to UFC,
make sure that you you you've got lines
of attack on it that make sense to
people at the time and don't attack the
the sport itself. Okay, S, that's pretty
much it, I think. A huge thanks to all
our questions. cuz we had some really
interesting ones then and I will see you
if not before I'll see you at the fight.
>> Looking forward to it and thanks for
having me.
>> Bye
>> bye.
[Music]
[Applause]