Hakeem Jeffries RAGE QUITS CNBC Interview

The inflation rate itself was 2.7% in the most recent read year-over-year versus it got to a high of 9% under Biden. Stocks are at record highs. Unemployment is 4.2%. That's full employment. The GDP was 3%. The border is actually secure. We've got trade deals with EU, Japan, many more in the works, and trillions of dollars of foreign investment coming here Iran's nuclear ambitions have been set back indefinitely, and I just wrote down a few things. So I just have to ask you, where is the calamity that you're talking about? And it almost seems like for Democrats, socialism is the answer to these problems, or I don't know what an end of democracy or something, but we just don't get it. But the point is the Democrats were so used to a cozy, cushy media that would lie on their behalf, that would deceive on their behalf, that would propagandize on their behalf. And so for four years, they never once had to tell the truth. And every time they went on television, they could comfortably expect that the interview would be loaded with nothing but softball underhand questions. And maybe, just maybe, there might be one real question in there, but they never got pressed on it. And the host certainly wouldn't ask any follow-ups. But this is CNBC, baby. This is the business news. So here they are asking him how it feels to be so grossly wrong about the results of Trump's tariffs. For the last several months, the Democratic Party, for the most part, has been publicly suggesting that because of these tariffs, that the economy was going to falter, that there was going to be a massive recession. And for whatever reason, that has not happened. And I'm curious why you think that hasn't happened and whether you think it was a mistake to be as critical as you have been. Well, good morning. Great to be with you. Donald Trump promised on day one that costs were going to go down. Costs haven't gone down. They've gone up. What we have seen, in fact, is job creation go down almost to record low levels. I don't know if you caught what he said at the end, but it reveals the true disturbing nature of the modern Democrat. They are actively rooting against America experiencing any kind of success simply because that would be good for Donald Trump. You heard the first guy rattle off just a handful of stats. The country is doing well. Trillions of dollars of foreign investment means that people are going to be building factories. Businesses are going to be expanding. People are going to be getting hired right here in America. These are all wonderful things that a normal Democrat would be celebrating. But instead, you have Hakeem saying, well, America still might be headed down the wrong track. And he says it hopefully, gleefully, opportunistically. Before they even started freaking out and running to the defense of every criminal, illegal alien, they could have at least stopped and said, congrats to Trump for closing the border. But they didn't even do that. They couldn't highlight that one win. That was one of their main points on the campaign trail. The border's broken. It needs legislation. We're trying to fix it. Donald Trump blocked it. OK, well, if that was a Democrat priority just a second ago, why can you not at least applaud Donald Trump for fixing that problem? But they ask Hakeem Jeffries what the Democrat Party stands for, because from their perspective, it seems like they just exist to oppose Trump. Here's Walmart Obama's answer to that question. Well, actually, I'll tell you what we stand for, Joe. It's pretty clear. As Democrats, we believe in a strong floor and no ceiling. In America, you work hard. You play by the rules. You should be able to live the good life. And there should be no ceiling on your success, on your capacity to do anything in the United States of America. That's the great promise of this country. At the same period of time, there should be a strong floor. Now, we know he doesn't believe what he said about unlimited upside. That's clear because the Democrat Party's want to tax billionaires out of existence to pay for that ever rising floor for the poorest. But he certainly believes in the floor. In fact, that's where all Democrats want people to exist in because we'll all be permanent government dependents at that point. The Democrats' power will explode in significance. Now, obviously, we need a safety net for people who are down on hard times. And I think that most Americans would agree. In fact, they'd be happy to contribute to that safety net. But the problem with wanting that floor to be so strong, as Hakeem said, is you can't give people a government funded life that is on par, if not better, than the life they'd be able to live if they were working full time. Because then what's their incentive to ever get off of it? It becomes lifestyle preservation at that point. Lazy people will be on food stamps, Section 8, and government health care for their entire life if you let them. Yes, we have to make sure nobody starves in America. Yes, we have to make sure children aren't out on the street. Yes, we don't want down on their luck single mothers to not be able to give their children health care. But that system only works if the people who find themselves on it are simultaneously doing everything within their power to get off of it. And that's the problem of the Democrats' philosophy of free everything, this strong floor. Because all they're doing is using semantics. What they're really talking about is socialism. If people have to get up every single day and bust their ass at work, and they are living a worse quality of life than someone who sits at home all day and mooches off of the government, that system will eventually crumble. Because the government can only afford to pay that person's free lifestyle from the taxes they get from the person who is working every day. And here's where they question Hakeem Jeffries on Zoran Mamdani and his socialism. And this is where Hakeem really begins to rage. And how do you think about the message of socialism, or being a socialist, and what that may portend for the Democratic Party? Well, I think, as I indicated, listen, my view about what we as Democrats stand for, what we're fighting for, we need to lower the high cost of living in the United States of America. We need to fix our broken health care system. And we need to clean up corruption in Washington, D.C. So we actually have a government that works for the American people, for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers, as opposed to working for the privileged few, which is what the Republican plan is right now. I'm curious where you land on things like, you know, freezing rent, free buses, giving away, you know, free food at supermarkets and the like, and what you just think of that idea and what it represents. Listen, Zoran is going to have to make the case to the people of New York City, including in the neighborhoods that I represent, that these ideas, which are designed to address affordability. Do you agree with those approaches as a solution? Look, you and I agree. Affordability is this number one issue. New York is the number one issue in the country. And so he has done a great job of identifying that issue and articulating that issue. The question is how you attack that issue. And what I'm asking you is whether you agree with the solutions that he's offering. Now, I cut the clip right there because I didn't want it to run for too long, but I'll tell you his answer. He starts advocating for more homes to be built to combat the low supply and bring down housing costs, advocating for free market capitalism as the solution to this problem, which is completely contradictory to his previous statement about believing there should be a very strong floor, which includes rent freezes that directly disincentivize builders from building the very new homes that you need. The problem with the Democrats, and it's really highlighted through their leader, Hakeem Jeffries, is they have no identity and no direction. They're trying to play both sides of the fence. Oh yeah, we love socialism and we love socialist policies that supposedly help out the working class because that's what the radical base wants to hear. But then they'll say, we're also pro capitalism. We're pro free market solutions. We believe in private sector partnerships because they also want the backing of their rich donor class. But the problem is they're not good at all at explaining either one of those positions. Both of them sound like incoherent word salad rambling, not somebody who truly believes something speaking with conviction. And so the host calls Hakeem Jeffries out for his blatant hypocrisy. And this is where Hakeem starts to scream at them. We're talking about a free market. This is why I wanted to go there because you're talking about a free market on one side and being an advocate for a free market on one side. But at the same time, we just had a whole conversation about an individual who's running for mayor in New York City who is genuinely titling themselves a socialist. And you're saying that you might ultimately support them. And so I'm trying to understand why you would spend a significant amount of time asking me about the Democratic nominee who's not even the mayor. And it's not a legitimate point to raise about a president who is regularly attacking the free market economy, bullying corporations, bullying universities, bullying law firms. He just recently called upon the CEO of Goldman Sachs to fire their chief economist. That's not problematic. He's the leader of the free world, the president of the United States of America. He's in office right now and he's attacking the market based economy. Now, I said, I love how the guy who ripped Hakeem Jeffries at the very beginning never gets another question in. And I think that's because he wasn't interested in conducting an interview and listening to Hakeem Jeffries lie the entire time. He was speaking for people like me, people like you guys who want to call Hakeem out for being a farce. But as you can see, even the other guy who's conducting the interview has been interrupting Hakeem the entire time, clarifying, specifying his question, not letting Hakeem weasel his way out of a non-answer. But he has to keep interrupting him and cutting him off because it wastes everybody's time hearing Hakeem Jeffries rattle off about this delusional fairy tale imagination world. And that's why Walmart Obama starts freaking out. He's tired of being exposed as unscrupulous, as having no moral compass, a walking contradiction. Instead, as he clearly states to them, he's here to talk about Donald Trump. He wants to talk about all the bad things Trump is doing, all the harm Trump is causing, all the fascism Donald Trump is ushering in. He doesn't want to talk about the lack of convictions from himself and the Democrat party. He's admitting without saying it, no, I don't like Zoran Mamdani, but I can't condemn him because we're so desperate for voters that the Democrat approval rating might get even worse if the radical socialist base feels like the leader of the Democrat party isn't with them. They are politically backed into a corner. But in the middle of Hakeem's Trump deranged meltdown, the host fact checks Hakeem and reminds him that both Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden have been accused of doing the same thing he's condemning Trump of. And this is where Hakeem just finally loses it. Watch. Just in fairness, and I wonder whether you think that they're the same or they're not the same. There have been people that have criticized Elizabeth Warren for years for individually attacking and going after and naming specific CEOs in America, specific companies in America over again and over again. President Biden famously didn't invite Elon Musk to the White House, probably caused him to actually support this president originally. And so the question is whether those are the same or they're different. It's interesting that we're talking about Joe Biden, no longer the president, Elizabeth Warren, who's a senator, as opposed to Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America, his administration, as well as complete control of government in Washington, D.C., the House and the Senate. That's the problem that we are confronting right now.