WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.339 You know that feeling? When the ground just feels 00:00:02.339 --> 00:00:06.339 about shaky under your feet. Like that mix of 00:00:06.339 --> 00:00:09.800 economic jitters and, well, political surprises. 00:00:09.980 --> 00:00:12.179 It definitely feels like one of those times right 00:00:12.179 --> 00:00:15.619 now. So for this deep dive, we're going straight 00:00:15.619 --> 00:00:18.100 into the heart of it. We've got this really detailed 00:00:18.100 --> 00:00:21.239 financial analysis from Schwab, their dominoes, 00:00:21.339 --> 00:00:24.379 recession's history guide. Right. And we're putting 00:00:24.379 --> 00:00:26.600 that alongside some sharp political insights 00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:30.899 from electoral vote news. And our goal is, well, 00:00:31.120 --> 00:00:33.880 pretty simple, really. Pull out the vital info 00:00:33.880 --> 00:00:36.140 from these sources. We're looking at the potential 00:00:36.140 --> 00:00:40.460 for a U .S. recession and also the recent political 00:00:40.460 --> 00:00:43.259 twists and turns in Canada and the U .S. Yeah, 00:00:43.280 --> 00:00:44.799 we want to give you that clear understanding 00:00:44.799 --> 00:00:46.560 you need without getting totally bogged down 00:00:46.560 --> 00:00:49.200 in endless details. Cut through the noise a bit. 00:00:49.380 --> 00:00:51.659 OK, so let's unpack the big picture first. U 00:00:51.659 --> 00:00:54.700 .S. economy. the looming question of recession. 00:00:54.939 --> 00:00:57.179 The Schwab report, it makes a pretty strong case, 00:00:57.200 --> 00:01:00.100 doesn't it? It does. Their main point really 00:01:00.100 --> 00:01:02.219 is that the risk of recession isn't just sort 00:01:02.219 --> 00:01:06.680 of there, it's elevated and the primary driver. 00:01:08.099 --> 00:01:09.959 Policy uncertainty. Yeah. Especially, you know, 00:01:10.180 --> 00:01:12.900 tariffs. Tariffs. That's the core argument. They 00:01:12.900 --> 00:01:14.819 actually say a recession right now would largely 00:01:14.819 --> 00:01:18.260 be a policy choice. Basically hinging on what 00:01:18.260 --> 00:01:20.540 happens with those trade policy policy choice. 00:01:20.579 --> 00:01:24.400 Yeah now they do mention a couple of potential 00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:28.540 Counter -forces like deregulation and maybe extensions 00:01:28.540 --> 00:01:32.359 to the 2017 tax cuts, okay But their analysis 00:01:32.359 --> 00:01:35.939 suggests these might only well partially cushion 00:01:35.939 --> 00:01:38.620 the blow from the tariff situation So Schwab's 00:01:38.620 --> 00:01:40.120 view is really that the vulnerabilities we see, 00:01:40.459 --> 00:01:41.859 they aren't necessarily inherent weaknesses, 00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:43.680 but they stem from these, you know, deliberate 00:01:43.680 --> 00:01:45.780 policy decisions, mainly trade. OK, that makes 00:01:45.780 --> 00:01:48.319 sense. And here's where it gets really interesting 00:01:48.319 --> 00:01:50.719 for me. They talk about this idea of tariff front 00:01:50.719 --> 00:01:54.439 running. Apparently this like rush to import 00:01:54.439 --> 00:01:57.180 goods before potential tariffs kick in. It's 00:01:57.180 --> 00:01:59.099 probably making some of the current economic 00:01:59.099 --> 00:02:01.540 numbers look, well, better than they really are. 00:02:01.719 --> 00:02:03.640 Exactly. It's like this temporary artificial 00:02:03.640 --> 00:02:06.280 boost in activity that doesn't necessarily reflect 00:02:06.280 --> 00:02:10.020 the underlying strength. So it could be masking 00:02:10.020 --> 00:02:13.139 weakness. It could. And that creates this sort 00:02:13.139 --> 00:02:15.520 of precarious situation where, you know, the 00:02:15.520 --> 00:02:19.400 good -looking data might lull people into a false 00:02:19.400 --> 00:02:21.479 sense of security, maybe delaying action, if 00:02:21.479 --> 00:02:23.979 things really do weaken underneath. Gotcha. Now, 00:02:24.259 --> 00:02:27.240 shifting gears a bit to the labor market, the 00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:29.580 Schwab report flags some trends that historically 00:02:29.580 --> 00:02:32.939 have been pretty significant signals for recessions. 00:02:33.219 --> 00:02:35.099 Like the full -time employment rollover? They 00:02:35.099 --> 00:02:37.340 talk about that, right? They do. The data they 00:02:37.340 --> 00:02:40.860 show points to a, well, a recent dip in the percentage 00:02:40.860 --> 00:02:43.560 of people working full -time. Okay. And their 00:02:43.560 --> 00:02:45.620 point is, historically, when you have those mid 00:02:45.620 --> 00:02:48.740 -cycle slowdowns, you know, the economy cools 00:02:48.740 --> 00:02:51.300 but avoids a full recession. Yeah. You typically 00:02:51.300 --> 00:02:53.360 don't see a big drop in full -time work then. 00:02:53.360 --> 00:02:55.199 It's usually the recessions that really bring 00:02:55.199 --> 00:02:58.219 that number down. So fewer people in permanent 00:02:58.219 --> 00:03:01.449 full -time jobs. That's a... Definitely a worrying 00:03:01.449 --> 00:03:05.009 sign. Precisely. You know, a dip in temporary 00:03:05.009 --> 00:03:08.009 hiring might just mean employers are being cautious, 00:03:08.509 --> 00:03:11.509 but a drop in full -time work suggests something, 00:03:11.629 --> 00:03:14.569 well, maybe more fundamental is weakening. It's 00:03:14.569 --> 00:03:16.189 an interesting distinction they're drawing. Yeah, 00:03:16.189 --> 00:03:19.770 it is. And connecting to that, the report points 00:03:19.770 --> 00:03:22.389 to the University of Michigan survey. It shows 00:03:22.389 --> 00:03:25.930 a significant jump in consumers expecting higher 00:03:25.930 --> 00:03:28.509 unemployment ahead. How big a jump? Two -thirds. 00:03:28.860 --> 00:03:31.099 Two -thirds of people surveyed now think job 00:03:31.099 --> 00:03:34.199 losses are coming. Wow, two -thirds. They actually 00:03:34.199 --> 00:03:38.699 say that level is very clearly in recession territory 00:03:38.699 --> 00:03:42.280 based on past patterns. It gives you a stark 00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:45.139 sense of how folks are feeling about their job 00:03:45.139 --> 00:03:48.180 security. OK. And it's really crucial to grasp 00:03:48.180 --> 00:03:50.840 their perspective on unemployment itself. They 00:03:50.840 --> 00:03:52.939 stress that unemployment, it's a lagging indicator. 00:03:53.060 --> 00:03:54.719 Right. We always hear, you can't be in a recession 00:03:54.719 --> 00:03:57.340 until unemployment spikes. Exactly. But Schwab 00:03:57.340 --> 00:04:00.699 kind of flips that. They argue that recessions 00:04:00.699 --> 00:04:03.080 happen first, and then unemployment rises sharply 00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:05.560 because of it. Ah. So if you're waiting for that 00:04:05.560 --> 00:04:07.879 big jump in unemployment to confirm a recession, 00:04:08.460 --> 00:04:10.280 well, you might have already been in the downturn 00:04:10.280 --> 00:04:12.520 for a bit. The dominoes have already started 00:04:12.520 --> 00:04:15.389 falling by then. Right. OK. Now, they also shared 00:04:15.389 --> 00:04:18.750 some pretty eye -opening anecdotes, stuff about 00:04:18.750 --> 00:04:21.470 plunging traffic in the U .S. economy. Yeah, 00:04:21.529 --> 00:04:23.790 a couple of striking examples. The first is this 00:04:23.790 --> 00:04:27.509 dramatic collapse in container traffic from China 00:04:27.509 --> 00:04:29.889 to the U .S. A collapse. That's the word they 00:04:29.889 --> 00:04:32.399 use. well, a direct consequence of all the trade 00:04:32.399 --> 00:04:35.720 tension. As tariffs loom and uncertainty hangs 00:04:35.720 --> 00:04:38.600 there, the flow of goods is just slowing way 00:04:38.600 --> 00:04:41.300 down. And the consequences. Potentially substantial, 00:04:41.459 --> 00:04:44.399 as the report details. You can see empty shelves 00:04:44.399 --> 00:04:47.959 for consumers, shortages for U .S. businesses 00:04:47.959 --> 00:04:50.660 needing parts from China, and, of course, rising 00:04:50.660 --> 00:04:53.220 inflation expectations because while China exports 00:04:53.220 --> 00:04:55.660 so much globally. And the jobs impact. They mentioned 00:04:55.660 --> 00:04:58.839 huge numbers, right? Huge. Nine million people 00:04:58.839 --> 00:05:01.560 in trucking -related jobs, 16 million in retail. 00:05:02.060 --> 00:05:04.980 A slowdown in goods coming in. It directly hits 00:05:04.980 --> 00:05:08.800 those sectors. Potential for significant layoffs 00:05:08.800 --> 00:05:11.360 there. Yeah, it's sobering to think about the, 00:05:11.360 --> 00:05:14.519 you know, the real human impact of these big 00:05:14.519 --> 00:05:17.019 economic shifts. Absolutely. It's all interconnected, 00:05:17.139 --> 00:05:19.600 isn't it? Disruptions in one place just ripple 00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:23.139 outwards. And the second... traffic anecdote 00:05:23.139 --> 00:05:26.060 they flag is this really significant drop in 00:05:26.060 --> 00:05:30.199 US tourism, almost 12 % down compared to last 00:05:30.199 --> 00:05:33.480 year. 12%. That's massive. And they said, what, 00:05:33.680 --> 00:05:35.459 outside the pandemic, that's the biggest drop 00:05:35.459 --> 00:05:37.639 since the global financial crisis. That's right. 00:05:37.819 --> 00:05:40.560 Excluding the pandemic lockdowns. Yeah. It paints 00:05:40.560 --> 00:05:43.600 a picture of weakening demand, potentially less 00:05:43.600 --> 00:05:45.759 economic activity across all those sectors that 00:05:45.759 --> 00:05:48.519 rely on tourism. Hospitality, restaurants, entertainment. 00:05:49.250 --> 00:05:51.730 They don't feel that. You think so, yeah. The 00:05:51.730 --> 00:05:53.449 report doesn't break it down sector by sector 00:05:53.449 --> 00:05:55.310 within tourism, but those are the obvious ones. 00:05:55.769 --> 00:05:57.930 And the broader effects could be less investment 00:05:57.930 --> 00:06:00.230 in those areas, maybe more downward pressure 00:06:00.230 --> 00:06:02.730 on jobs too. So both goods traffic and people 00:06:02.730 --> 00:06:05.629 traffic are pointing down. Seems that way. Both 00:06:05.629 --> 00:06:08.370 pointing towards a cooling economy, which reinforces 00:06:08.370 --> 00:06:10.209 that elevated recession risk they talked about 00:06:10.209 --> 00:06:14.480 earlier. OK. Let's pivot to corporate earnings 00:06:14.480 --> 00:06:17.339 then, another key indicator they track. Right. 00:06:17.819 --> 00:06:20.079 Beyond those direct activity measures like trade 00:06:20.079 --> 00:06:24.720 and tourism, the outlook for corporate profits 00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:27.660 gives us more clues. And they mentioned Citi's 00:06:27.660 --> 00:06:30.300 earnings revisions index. took a notable plunge, 00:06:30.420 --> 00:06:32.540 I think they said. Yeah, and it's now close to 00:06:32.540 --> 00:06:34.720 what they'd consider recessionary levels, just 00:06:34.720 --> 00:06:37.800 looking at the data since 2000. So basically, 00:06:38.019 --> 00:06:40.899 analysts are getting less optimistic about how 00:06:40.899 --> 00:06:43.160 companies are going to do. That downward revision 00:06:43.160 --> 00:06:46.129 trend, it's significant. It suggests companies 00:06:46.129 --> 00:06:48.290 themselves might be anticipating weaker results 00:06:48.290 --> 00:06:50.629 and the analysts are adjusting their forecasts 00:06:50.629 --> 00:06:54.550 that often, you know, precedes or happens alongside 00:06:54.550 --> 00:06:57.329 broader economic downturns. OK. And then, of 00:06:57.329 --> 00:06:58.949 course, the stock market, how does that fit in? 00:06:58.990 --> 00:07:02.639 They looked at the S &P 500 around. past recessions, 00:07:02.639 --> 00:07:04.980 right? It did. Both before and after the NBER, 00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:06.879 that's the National Bureau of Economic Research, 00:07:07.279 --> 00:07:09.339 the folks who officially date U .S. recessions 00:07:09.339 --> 00:07:11.879 before and after they started dating them. And 00:07:11.879 --> 00:07:13.439 the really interesting takeaway is that the market 00:07:13.439 --> 00:07:15.759 bottom, the lowest point, often happens during 00:07:15.759 --> 00:07:18.240 the recession itself. Not necessarily before 00:07:18.240 --> 00:07:20.860 it starts or after it ends. Exactly. Not always 00:07:20.860 --> 00:07:23.180 before, not always after, often right in the 00:07:23.180 --> 00:07:25.920 middle of it. That's a crucial point for investors, 00:07:25.939 --> 00:07:29.060 I guess. Trying to time the bottom is... Tricky. 00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:31.879 Notoriously difficult, yeah. History suggests 00:07:31.879 --> 00:07:34.399 the worst of the market downturn can actually 00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:36.399 coincide with the period when the economy is 00:07:36.399 --> 00:07:38.910 officially you know, in recession. Did they look 00:07:38.910 --> 00:07:41.689 at specific sectors? Like, do some do better 00:07:41.689 --> 00:07:43.449 than others during recession? They did, going 00:07:43.449 --> 00:07:46.709 back to 1990. And it looks like, well, defensive 00:07:46.709 --> 00:07:49.649 sectors think consumer staples, healthcare they 00:07:49.649 --> 00:07:52.069 tend to do relatively better, yeah. But there's 00:07:52.069 --> 00:07:55.250 no, like, strong, consistent pattern every single 00:07:55.250 --> 00:07:57.769 time. It's a bit of a mixed bag. So maybe it's 00:07:57.769 --> 00:07:59.769 not just the sector, but the specific companies 00:07:59.769 --> 00:08:02.850 within it? or other industry things going on? 00:08:02.930 --> 00:08:04.949 That's a very insightful question. And yeah, 00:08:05.029 --> 00:08:07.350 it's likely a mix. Broad trends matter, of course, 00:08:07.790 --> 00:08:10.009 but these specific strengths or weaknesses of 00:08:10.009 --> 00:08:13.189 individual companies, unique industry dynamics, 00:08:13.629 --> 00:08:16.329 they can definitely play a huge role in how they 00:08:16.329 --> 00:08:18.389 perform during a downturn. Which kind of leads 00:08:18.389 --> 00:08:20.389 us to what Charles Schwab is recommending now, 00:08:20.430 --> 00:08:23.089 right? Right. Because of all this policy uncertainty 00:08:23.089 --> 00:08:26.730 we've been talking about, they've outfully neutralized 00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:29.420 their sector recommendations, meaning they don't 00:08:29.420 --> 00:08:32.279 have any outperform or underperform ratings right 00:08:32.279 --> 00:08:35.980 now, zero, which is a pretty cautious stance. 00:08:36.179 --> 00:08:38.240 They mentioned the only other time they did this 00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:40.159 was way back in the early days of the pandemic. 00:08:40.320 --> 00:08:41.960 So that tells you something about the level of 00:08:41.960 --> 00:08:44.980 uncertainty they're seeing now. OK, so wrapping 00:08:44.980 --> 00:08:47.399 up the economics part then. The big takeaway 00:08:47.399 --> 00:08:51.240 from Schwab is recession is a very real possibility, 00:08:51.240 --> 00:08:53.240 and it's really tied closely to where tariff 00:08:53.240 --> 00:08:55.840 policy goes. The uncertainty there is fueling 00:08:55.840 --> 00:08:58.759 the risk. That's the gist of it. A policy -driven 00:08:58.759 --> 00:09:03.759 risk, primarily. Precisely. OK, let's shift gears 00:09:03.759 --> 00:09:06.919 now. Let's dive into the political side, starting 00:09:06.919 --> 00:09:09.679 with that recent Canadian federal election, as 00:09:09.679 --> 00:09:12.600 reported by Electoral Vote News. Right. So as 00:09:12.600 --> 00:09:15.139 pretty much expected, the Liberals under Mark 00:09:15.139 --> 00:09:18.139 Carney won. They'll likely form the next government. 00:09:18.539 --> 00:09:20.419 But not a majority. Looks like they'll need a 00:09:20.419 --> 00:09:22.899 coalition partner. Probably the NDP seems the 00:09:22.899 --> 00:09:26.240 most likely fit. Okay. But what's really fascinating 00:09:26.240 --> 00:09:28.279 here, or at least what the newsletter highlights, 00:09:28.799 --> 00:09:32.759 isn't just the result, but the reported influence 00:09:32.759 --> 00:09:35.240 of someone who wasn't even on the ballot, Donald 00:09:35.240 --> 00:09:39.029 Trump. Ah, yes. Electoral Vote News makes a pretty 00:09:39.029 --> 00:09:41.509 strong argument that Trump's own statements, 00:09:42.029 --> 00:09:44.350 his actions leading up to the election, actually 00:09:44.350 --> 00:09:48.009 gave the liberals a significant boost. Oh. Specifically, 00:09:48.710 --> 00:09:50.769 they pointed to Trump's social media posts suggesting 00:09:50.769 --> 00:09:54.730 Canada should become the 51st U .S. state. Oh, 00:09:54.730 --> 00:09:56.370 right. I saw that headline from the newsletter 00:09:56.370 --> 00:09:59.190 of something like F. Trump, eh? Wasn't it? That 00:09:59.190 --> 00:10:02.450 was it. They clearly saw his comments as a Well, 00:10:02.590 --> 00:10:05.129 a major plunder that backfired spectacularly 00:10:05.129 --> 00:10:07.710 on anyone hoping for a conservative win. Can 00:10:07.710 --> 00:10:09.090 you remind us what he actually said? I remember 00:10:09.090 --> 00:10:11.629 it being pretty out there. Yeah, he talked about 00:10:11.629 --> 00:10:14.289 cutting Canadian taxes in half, getting increased 00:10:14.289 --> 00:10:16.870 military power for free, quadrupling the size 00:10:16.870 --> 00:10:20.230 of Canadian businesses. With zero tariffs or 00:10:20.230 --> 00:10:23.269 taxes, he wrote, if Canada becomes the cherished 00:10:23.269 --> 00:10:27.490 51st state of the United States of America, he 00:10:27.490 --> 00:10:29.529 called the border an artificially drawn line 00:10:29.529 --> 00:10:32.570 and finished with it was meant to be. Caps and 00:10:32.570 --> 00:10:35.649 all yikes and the key thing is how that landed 00:10:35.649 --> 00:10:38.129 in Canada, right? It wasn't seen as like a friendly 00:10:38.129 --> 00:10:42.149 offer Not at all widely viewed as you know tone 00:10:42.149 --> 00:10:44.549 -deaf, maybe even disrespectful Yeah, especially 00:10:44.549 --> 00:10:47.250 given that the whole backdrop of trade tensions 00:10:47.250 --> 00:10:49.230 and terrorists the Trump administration had already 00:10:49.230 --> 00:10:52.210 imposed So Electoral Vote News basically argues 00:10:52.210 --> 00:10:54.470 Carney and the liberals couldn't have scripted 00:10:54.470 --> 00:10:56.750 a better assist to rally anti -Trump feelings. 00:10:57.049 --> 00:10:59.490 That's exactly their take. They argue it energized 00:10:59.490 --> 00:11:01.090 that sentiment, which was already there because 00:11:01.090 --> 00:11:02.909 of tariffs and other policies. Did they compare 00:11:02.909 --> 00:11:05.230 it to anything historically? They drew some pretty 00:11:05.230 --> 00:11:07.570 dramatic parallels, actually. Mentioned Hitler's 00:11:07.570 --> 00:11:09.750 actions potentially helping FDR's third term 00:11:09.750 --> 00:11:12.789 bid or Ho Chi Minh's influence on LBJ's decisions 00:11:12.789 --> 00:11:15.210 back in 68. Wow, those are heavy comparisons. 00:11:15.629 --> 00:11:18.860 Very. But they did emphasize that Trump's impact 00:11:18.860 --> 00:11:22.840 felt much more immediate and direct, generating 00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:25.779 significant anger in Canada, almost out of thin 00:11:25.779 --> 00:11:28.139 air, as they put it, in just a short time. Just 00:11:28.139 --> 00:11:30.419 thinking about why that reaction was so strong, 00:11:30.799 --> 00:11:32.679 obviously keeping neutral here, maybe it's that 00:11:32.679 --> 00:11:35.159 sense of national identity, like suggestions 00:11:35.159 --> 00:11:37.980 of annexation, especially framed like that, just 00:11:37.980 --> 00:11:39.600 hit a nerve. That's likely a big part of it, 00:11:39.740 --> 00:11:41.899 yeah. That strong sense of Canadian sovereignty. 00:11:42.539 --> 00:11:45.519 And plus, given the recent trade disputes, His 00:11:45.519 --> 00:11:47.600 comments might have just sounded disingenuous 00:11:47.600 --> 00:11:50.340 or maybe even like a veiled threat to some. It 00:11:50.340 --> 00:11:53.059 probably fueled a lot of negative reaction. So 00:11:53.059 --> 00:11:55.639 the expected outcome now, according to the newsletter. 00:11:55.879 --> 00:11:57.840 A liberal -led government in Canada that will 00:11:57.840 --> 00:12:02.019 likely keep a largely hostile stance toward the 00:12:02.019 --> 00:12:03.720 Trump administration for the rest of his term. 00:12:03.820 --> 00:12:06.539 Which suggests, you know, potentially more friction, 00:12:06.720 --> 00:12:09.080 more challenges in the U .S.-Canada relationship 00:12:09.080 --> 00:12:11.600 ahead. Seems likely. based on their analysis. 00:12:12.240 --> 00:12:15.379 OK. Now turning our attention fully back to the 00:12:15.379 --> 00:12:18.320 U .S. political scene, electoral vote news keeps 00:12:18.320 --> 00:12:22.059 highlighting some deeply concerning things. These 00:12:22.059 --> 00:12:24.600 crazy pants deportations, as they call them. 00:12:24.659 --> 00:12:27.379 Yeah. This refers to some really disturbing reports. 00:12:27.960 --> 00:12:30.600 U .S. citizen children, including, tragically, 00:12:31.139 --> 00:12:33.659 one child with stage four cancer. apparently 00:12:33.659 --> 00:12:36.259 being deported, along with their non -citizen 00:12:36.259 --> 00:12:39.220 mothers, during what were supposed to be routine 00:12:39.220 --> 00:12:42.080 immigration check -ins. That sounds awful. The 00:12:42.080 --> 00:12:45.129 allegations are serious. denial of access to 00:12:45.129 --> 00:12:46.970 lawyers, preventing the kids from being placed 00:12:46.970 --> 00:12:49.210 with other family members already in the U .S. 00:12:49.210 --> 00:12:52.029 It's truly appalling. And didn't a federal judge 00:12:52.029 --> 00:12:54.470 get involved? Yes, a judge in Louisiana ordered 00:12:54.470 --> 00:12:56.990 the administration to appear in court. The judge 00:12:56.990 --> 00:12:58.929 stated a strong suspicion that the government 00:12:58.929 --> 00:13:01.750 just deported a U .S. citizen with no meaningful 00:13:01.750 --> 00:13:04.610 process. Wow. They even cite one case where a 00:13:04.610 --> 00:13:06.809 woman and her two citizen kids were apparently 00:13:06.809 --> 00:13:09.169 put on a plane while their lawyers were literally 00:13:09.169 --> 00:13:11.210 trying to get into court to stop it. Unbelievable. 00:13:11.309 --> 00:13:13.330 And then there's this memo from the attorney 00:13:13.330 --> 00:13:15.809 general. Right. The newsletter brings attention 00:13:15.809 --> 00:13:20.350 to a memo reportedly from AG Pam Bondi. It allegedly 00:13:20.350 --> 00:13:25.429 authorizes ICE agents to potentially disregard 00:13:25.429 --> 00:13:28.870 constitutional protections. Like what? Specifically 00:13:28.870 --> 00:13:32.350 mentioning entering homes without warrants based 00:13:32.350 --> 00:13:35.429 just on a reasonable belief that someone inside 00:13:35.429 --> 00:13:38.629 has alien enemy status. Alien enemy status. Yeah. 00:13:38.830 --> 00:13:41.490 And crucially, the memo reportedly claims that 00:13:41.490 --> 00:13:43.509 this determination whether someone is an alien 00:13:43.509 --> 00:13:46.029 enemy is not subject to review by the courts. 00:13:46.549 --> 00:13:48.909 That sounds legally questionable. They mentioned 00:13:48.909 --> 00:13:50.830 the Bivens case, right? Could you just briefly 00:13:50.830 --> 00:13:52.850 explain what that is? Sure. The Bivens case, 00:13:52.950 --> 00:13:55.230 it's a Supreme Court ruling. It basically established 00:13:55.230 --> 00:13:57.850 that in certain situations, people can sue federal 00:13:57.850 --> 00:14:00.269 officials directly. personally for violating 00:14:00.269 --> 00:14:02.450 their constitutional rights. OK. So the relevance 00:14:02.450 --> 00:14:05.509 here is it raises the possibility that ICE agents 00:14:05.509 --> 00:14:07.389 carrying out orders that are later found to be 00:14:07.389 --> 00:14:09.789 unlawful could actually be held personally liable 00:14:09.789 --> 00:14:12.529 for damages. Gotcha. So it underscores the seriousness, 00:14:12.690 --> 00:14:15.230 the potential legal fallout for the agents themselves. 00:14:15.429 --> 00:14:17.750 Exactly. It highlights the potential risks involved 00:14:17.750 --> 00:14:21.250 for those executing these policies. OK. And finally, 00:14:22.570 --> 00:14:25.710 electoral vote news gets into Donald Trump's 00:14:25.710 --> 00:14:29.360 apparent interest in. a third term. Yeah, the 00:14:29.360 --> 00:14:32.179 appearance of Trump 2028 merchandise, you know, 00:14:32.240 --> 00:14:34.840 with that slogan, change the rules. It certainly 00:14:34.840 --> 00:14:37.139 suggests he's, well, at least floating the idea. 00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:39.700 But changing the constitution for that seems. 00:14:40.500 --> 00:14:42.919 Unlikely. Oh, extremely unlikely. The newsletter 00:14:42.919 --> 00:14:45.240 quickly dismisses a constitutional amendment 00:14:45.240 --> 00:14:47.659 as virtually impossible. The hurdles are just 00:14:47.659 --> 00:14:49.659 way too high. So are there other ways people 00:14:49.659 --> 00:14:51.759 are speculating about? They briefly touch on 00:14:51.759 --> 00:14:54.299 some other, you know, highly speculative and 00:14:54.299 --> 00:14:57.360 legally dubious ideas like running for VP and 00:14:57.360 --> 00:14:59.159 hoping the president steps aside or the Speaker 00:14:59.159 --> 00:15:01.139 of the House somehow ascending to the presidency 00:15:01.139 --> 00:15:03.659 in a convoluted scenario, mostly seen as far 00:15:03.659 --> 00:15:05.480 -fetched. Right. But their main argument isn't 00:15:05.480 --> 00:15:07.279 really about whether he could get a third term. 00:15:07.580 --> 00:15:09.440 It's about the effect this talk is having now 00:15:09.440 --> 00:15:11.720 on the Republican Party. How so? What's the effect? 00:15:12.259 --> 00:15:14.340 Well, the newsletter argues it essentially freezes 00:15:14.340 --> 00:15:17.299 the GOP's 2028 nomination process. Creases it. 00:15:17.440 --> 00:15:20.059 Yeah. As long as Trump is hinting he might run 00:15:20.059 --> 00:15:22.440 again, other potential Republican candidates 00:15:22.440 --> 00:15:24.440 are likely going to hesitate, right? They won't 00:15:24.440 --> 00:15:27.159 want to challenge him directly yet. Ah, OK. So 00:15:27.159 --> 00:15:29.200 it stalls things for everyone else. Exactly. 00:15:29.539 --> 00:15:33.279 Which hinders the party's ability to cultivate 00:15:33.279 --> 00:15:35.519 new leaders, plan effectively for the future 00:15:35.519 --> 00:15:37.940 election cycle. But it benefits Trump personally. 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:40.340 Seems that way. It keeps him in the spotlight, 00:15:40.840 --> 00:15:42.700 helps fill his campaign bank account through 00:15:42.700 --> 00:15:45.820 selling that Trump 2028 merch, maintains his 00:15:45.820 --> 00:15:49.080 influence. But according to this analysis, it 00:15:49.080 --> 00:15:51.120 leaves the Republican Party itself kind of stuck 00:15:51.120 --> 00:15:53.799 in limbo, unable to fully plan ahead. Right. 00:15:53.919 --> 00:15:57.399 They even included that wild 100 days Billy Joel 00:15:57.399 --> 00:15:59.970 style satirical lyric thing, didn't they? They 00:15:59.970 --> 00:16:03.409 did sort of a snapshot, really, of the intense 00:16:03.409 --> 00:16:06.110 negative feeling some people have about a hypothetical 00:16:06.110 --> 00:16:08.929 second Trump term, listing out a whole catalog 00:16:08.929 --> 00:16:12.330 of criticisms in a, well, memorable format. Definitely 00:16:12.330 --> 00:16:14.330 memorable. It certainly captures a particular 00:16:14.330 --> 00:16:16.649 viewpoint on what another Trump presidency might 00:16:16.649 --> 00:16:20.500 look like. OK. So as we sort of. draw this deep 00:16:20.500 --> 00:16:23.299 dive to a close, we can see some pretty clear 00:16:23.299 --> 00:16:26.639 and maybe concerning connections emerging here. 00:16:27.259 --> 00:16:30.539 Absolutely. We've gone through Schwab's analysis, 00:16:31.159 --> 00:16:33.519 highlighting these significant U .S. recession 00:16:33.519 --> 00:16:36.100 risks, really driven by policy choices. They 00:16:36.100 --> 00:16:38.379 always shifted to that fascinating Canadian election 00:16:38.379 --> 00:16:40.940 story, how U .S. rhetoric seemed to play such 00:16:40.940 --> 00:16:43.639 a big role. Yeah, the Trump effect. And finally, 00:16:44.120 --> 00:16:47.080 we looked at some of these concerning political 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:49.340 developments here in the U .S. as reported by 00:16:49.340 --> 00:16:52.019 Electoral Vote News, the deportations, the third 00:16:52.019 --> 00:16:54.720 term talks. Absolutely. It really feels interconnected. 00:16:54.759 --> 00:16:57.700 You have this elevated economic risk in the U 00:16:57.700 --> 00:17:00.179 .S., heavily influenced by policy. Then you see 00:17:00.179 --> 00:17:02.879 how U .S. policy and rhetoric directly impacted 00:17:02.879 --> 00:17:05.140 maybe even decisively an election in Canada. 00:17:05.240 --> 00:17:07.500 Right. And meanwhile, you've got these ongoing 00:17:07.500 --> 00:17:09.700 controversial political actions happening here 00:17:09.700 --> 00:17:13.140 that raise serious legal and ethical flags. Understanding 00:17:13.140 --> 00:17:15.819 how these pieces fit together, how economic certainty 00:17:15.819 --> 00:17:17.980 in one place and political shifts can influence 00:17:17.980 --> 00:17:20.180 each other across borders, it gives you a much 00:17:20.180 --> 00:17:22.920 clearer, well, maybe more complex, but definitely 00:17:22.920 --> 00:17:26.460 clear picture of what's going on. It does. So 00:17:26.460 --> 00:17:29.299 maybe here's a thought to leave you with. How 00:17:29.299 --> 00:17:32.259 might these economic jitters and these evolving 00:17:32.259 --> 00:17:35.039 political scenes in both the US and Canada, how 00:17:35.039 --> 00:17:38.380 might they continue to interact and influence 00:17:38.380 --> 00:17:40.339 each other in the coming months? What sort of 00:17:40.339 --> 00:17:42.849 unexpected ripple effects might we see? That's 00:17:42.849 --> 00:17:45.369 a great question. It's definitely a time that 00:17:45.369 --> 00:17:48.730 demands close attention and some critical thinking. 00:17:49.170 --> 00:17:51.089 We really encourage you to maybe explore these 00:17:51.089 --> 00:17:52.950 topics further, look into the sources if you 00:17:52.950 --> 00:17:55.049 get a chance, and just think about the implications 00:17:55.049 --> 00:17:57.609 for your own understanding of the world around 00:17:57.609 --> 00:17:57.890 us.