What struck me about the two hosts is that they have this obsession with using American power to promote democracy but fail to actually draw that thread to its end goal - democratic control of government is desirable because it results in democratic allocation of resources and services that then create prosperity for the entire populace (instead of a small group). But instead of articulating that, the hosts hold democratic principles themselves, like free speech and adequate representation, as desirable end goals instead of avenues to further improvement. I believe these guys genuinely wish the best for the populations they discussed, but it's telling when their imagination stops at "institute democracy (but not as "flawed" as American democracy) so the people can vote for representatives who can vote for policy that will improve people's lives." Especially when Danny just skips to the end and proposes actually improving people's material reality with immediate redistributive actions.

Additionally, one of the hosts spent a ton of time trying to get Danny to specifically lay out the path to enact these policies (even literally starting with "how will you get congress to support you") and it was refreshing to hear Danny avoid that trap. Like of course there would be political obstacles to changing the main objectives of US foreign policy, but it does nothing to argue the point that they shouldn't be changed in that matter. And it's also interesting how the hosts fail to apply their own standard of what is realistic policy to their own genius plan of "continue to arm the Saudis, but demand they have elections or whatever."

Overall, neolibs get owned, a better world is possible.