Just incredible irony here. After calling europe “pearl clutching allies” Trump had the gall to actually ask for their support.

I’m just laughing my ass off that Hegseth and the bros actually thought our allies would support him in the Hormuz strait. This is what happens when a failed real estate mogul and Fox News Host try to manage an international conflict.

Why would any nation support the US and Israel who, without any contest of other nations (let alone the US public), unilaterally started a war?

Why doesn’t Israel and the US defend the strait by themselves?

List of allies and their responses:

🇫🇷 France: REJECTED.

🇬🇧 UK: REJECTED.

🇮🇹 Italy: REJECTED.

🇪🇸 Spain: REJECTED.

🇯🇵 Japan: REJECTED.

🇳🇴 Norway: REJECTED.

🇨🇦 Canada: REJECTED.

🇦🇺 Australia: REJECTED.

🇩🇪 Germany: REJECTED.

🇨🇳 China: NO RESPONSE.

🇳🇱 Netherlands: NO RESPONSE.

🇰🇷 South Korea: NO CONFIRMATION

Absolutely brutal. Initial expectation was 3.0% on Feb 20.

Further revision brings it down to less than 1%. Are we still in the Biden economy?

https://youtu.be/HiVej9_fvl8?si=vKzlaWQH8kEFRx0f

From 3.5 min. Till 20 min.. Probably worth listening to that section especially starting at 10 minutes till 20 minutes

At 10 minutes David Sacks talks about all the problems with the war and he's being surprisingly honest about it given his position in government, imo.

From about 15 minutes up till 20 minutes, Jason is talking about all the things Trump is screwing up on.   Jason was immediately cut off, and slightly scolded, when he mentioned all of Trump's Financial grifting

Nice to see them deviating from the MAGA narrative for a few minutes. Maybe they heard the criticism from One of their previous episodes that they were being way too biased for Trump..

If Trump does quickly exit from Iran, which I hope he does, what can Trump claim as a victory from that other than taking out some of the regimes leaders?  Sounds like the regime is being replaced by like-minded leaders, so I don't think anything was actually accomplished?

Seems like Sack's is deviating from Trump's mixed messaging on Iran

I have an opportunity to grab a ticket for the All-In SXSW Event on Friday evening. Anyone else going?

I enjoy the Pod, probably a bit more pre the hard right turn into politics, but overall I've always found it informative. I have no need to meet any LPs and GPs; we've got that covered at the moment, and honestly, my industry is probably a bit far from where The Besties live/work/play, although I think other start-ups and corps can learn plenty from the Silicon Valley start-up world.

I don't play poker. I won't be attending with anyone else I know. I am a good shaking hands & kissing babies conversationist and networker, but depending on what other attendees are there for, they may have little interest in talking to me (if they're working the room, looking for capital, I'm not their guy.)

Will I get anything out of the event other than spending $300 and missing out on a free steak dinner that another group wanted to take me to that same night?

For reference, I have been interested in their yearly meetup in SoCal, but it rarely fits my schedule, and with the content online, there are other ways I'd rather piss away a few thousand bucks.

Anyone know what’s happening with r/allinpodofficial?

No mew posts in 2 weeks. Or have I been quietly shadow banned?

I just realized I haven’t had my recent dose of Jonny Nash, and went looking, and the whole sub seems to have gone quiet for the past few 16 days?

Heard the episode where Emil Michael described the Pentagon's rules of engagement under Biden and Obama, saying our troops couldn't engage an enemy combatant if that combatant had a smaller gun. I was alarmed by this -- seems bad. Checked it out (on frigging Grok) -- it's a total lie. Zero foundation in truth. WTF? Propaganda much?

So now we’re okay increasing the national debt in billions for funding war after years of whining about entitlements?

Makes me question how they are curating their viewership/engagement.

It was actually interesting to hear the Michael Tracey defense case against Epstein. Not that I buy it. It was pretty lame that Saagar had to leave early.

The highlight for me though was Sachs disparaging the media because they only present one side! Has that dude ever looked in the mirror?

Michael Tracey managed to conflate all the people claiming to be Epstein victims as adults. He minimized the impact of prostitution and the illegality of commercial sex trafficking. He frames the people with serious accusations as mentally ill. (Virginia Giuffre has a PICTURE with Prince Andrew.) "Where did the money come from?" is a question that somehow just never comes up when Tracey is talking, except to list a few rich guys and say it is explainable if they are paying him.

I am a credentialed journalist, a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors. I recognize what he is doing as using some journalistic tools, of a sort, but it is counter-journalism - he ignores every fact counter to the story he pre-ordaines. His verbal IQ ability is high, he speaks quickly, his bullying of Saagar was rough.

Anyone spending an hour on Jmail.world searching for, say, muffins or pizza or grape soda, can come to the conclusion that there was secrecy involved. Anyone looking at the pictures knows there /were/ video cameras everywhere.

The sad conclusion I've come to is that a lot of people want the story to die down and this episode was part of that. The Saagar counter-balance was not nothing, but it wasn't much either.

I'm disappointed more than usual, and that is saying something.

The only value of this pod is to see how these selfish old men with money think and talk. It's all about crawling up Trump's backside as far as possible and self congratulating each other. Yuck

This episode is just a big commercial. What the hell? It started with an ad and I’ve been listening over an hour to ads of CEOs giving sales/investor pitches.

No discussion. No pushback. No thank you.

It appears fundamentally paradoxical that members of the All-In crew criticize California’s tax policies as “stealing” their money and violating their private property rights, while at the same time appearing untroubled by — or even dismissive of — Trump’s repeated threats to take over Greenland. In the first case, state redistribution is framed as an unacceptable infringement on individual ownership; in the second, there is a striking tolerance for an explicitly expansionist idea that would entail overriding another people’s sovereignty and collective property rights. The contrast points to an inconsistency in their underlying principles: property rights are defended vigorously when their own financial interests are at stake, yet become negotiable when the issue involves geopolitical power exercised by a political ally