X-Cat Tactics! Chiang Wan-an Doesn't Want to Debate! Will Trump Change His Policy Toward Ukraine?

This episode mainly discusses the performance and strategies of Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an when facing debates and issues, and analyzes the corresponding responses from Puma Shen. At the same time, the program explores the domestic pressure on U.S. President Trump ahead of the midterm elections, his adjustments and considerations regarding policies toward Ukraine and Russia, as well as the impact of the situation in Iran on U.S. politics. Finally, it reviews the security situation facing the Baltic states and Finland, along with the threat of Russian infiltration.

Video link:

Full transcript:

Hard-hitting news, listening to the news with satisfaction. I am your host, Stan. Welcome everyone, and I hope you are all doing well. The topics we are discussing today are quite fascinating and very important, but I need to first confirm if there are any issues with our live stream. It seems it hasn't started broadcasting yet; my computer here doesn't show it, so I need to check what exactly is going on.

Everyone should find the cover image quite exciting; it was made by our team member. We are going to talk about Chiang Wan-an today, specifically Chiang Wan-an's "dead cat strategy" and the ins and outs of his reluctance to debate. Finally, we will also talk about whether the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine will become more tense recently, and because the midterm elections are coming up, Trump has his own considerations, so we will discuss this. I also want to talk about President Lai's speech at the National Day ceremony.

Alright, please also confirm if the video and audio are okay, and then let's set a donation goal. Because I hope, since our channel is an independent channel, if we reach our donation goal, I will add an extra live stream next week. We can have multiple live streams and debates, no problem. We are not Chiang Wan-an; Chiang Wan-an is all about avoiding issues, Chiang Wan-an is afraid of everything, but we are not Chiang Wan-an.

We will hold an extra live stream next week, so everyone is very welcome. If you feel that the content we make on Hard News is excellent and worth watching, and that Shitian is very serious, you can support us. Because we have no financial backers behind us, our financial backers are all of you—those who are willing to donate to Hard News. The reports we produce, the political analysis we do, the articles we publish, and the content we create are worth everyone's support because we are independent, with no organizations or groups behind us, doing our own research. For example, the things we publish on media outlets like The Washington Times, or when I was at Nine Dash Line, or at The Diplomat, or in Taiwan's media including the Liberty Times, Newtalk, and Vision Times, take a lot of time and require deeper research. At the same time, I am also doing academic-related research. Did everyone notice during the debate with Kuo Cheng-liang last time? Shitian, I saw you guys were very close, Shitian also has a doctoral degree, yes, I am also a researcher at Akio Yarita's think tank as his researcher, and I have also cooperated with the Taiwan Association of Security Studies for a while, and will cooperate with more academic units in the future. I have an academic background. So, internet celebrities don't read books? Right, of course, we need to read more books, everyone needs to read more books, I admit that, but I think saying internet celebrities don't read books... I am not an internet celebrity, you can say I am a standard kind of analyst, I can read a bit more of course, I was talking about Wang Chieh-ming, but I think you can also read more, everyone needs to read more, everyone understands. But I think this matter of reading more is quite funny, the Blue and White camps also like to tell people to read more, that Huang Kuo-chang, he also casually tells people to read more, he hasn't even read that many books, he only has a bachelor's degree, yet he tells others to read more. Alright, you should also work hard, you should also work hard, you all need to read more. Someone said Trump is really hopeless; I don't think Trump is hopeless, you can't say it like that, but his domestic pressure is huge, his domestic pressure is really huge.

Chiang Wan-an even flips over [makes a blunder] when appearing on echo-chamber shows; this really causes blunders, I completely agree that it causes blunders, including on Tang Hsiang-lung's and Kuo Cheng-liang's shows, he will flip over, and it makes people feel awkward. For example, on Kuo Cheng-liang's show, suddenly—after being completely quiet for four years—he suddenly said he wanted to take Taoyuan Airport, relocate Songshan Airport, and suddenly said he wanted to build a nuclear power plant. This is quite funny, meaning that even people currently living in Taiwan, like Michael Turton and other analysts doing Taiwan-related analysis, would laugh at Chiang Wan-an. So you want to move the airport away and put a nuclear power plant inside it? A nuclear power plant is not suitable to be placed in the city center of any city, no matter how you look at it, it isn't. So at a glance, Chiang Wan-an really feels like he is treating being the mayor of Taipei as playing SimCity. Have you guys ever played SimCity? I believe everyone has, and I think it's quite funny how many people like to—I won't name names, but they like to mess with the Sims and get them killed, for example, first building a swimming pool, telling them to swim in it, and then removing the ladder so they drown, or intentionally telling them to start a fire and calling the Grim Reaper. Chiang Wan-an is applying this SimCity-playing spirit to being the mayor of Taipei: meaning, here is an airport, the airport is doing just fine, and I'll take it away and put a nuclear power plant inside to see if they will get themselves killed, you know? And then see if the Grim Reaper will come to Taipei. This is utterly foolish, this is truly utterly foolish.

And then in The Sims, people also love to teach them how to cook, only for a fire to break out halfway through cooking; then they run around in panic, the whole house catches fire, and the Grim Reaper floats over. Chiang Wan-an is just the same. Back when he handled the Taipei Dome, the Dome caught fire, and those simulated Taipei citizens smoked, and then the Grim Reaper floated over. In The Sims, you can also deliberately leave out spoiled food to give them food poisoning. I know a lot of people playing The Sims love finding ways to kill off those Sims. The mayor of Taipei is just like that—aside from the child abuse case, his simulated citizens also get told to have diarrhea, making kids get diarrhea; there are just such wicked players, such bad players. I play Tropico. As president, you have to care about public opinion. Tropico is about being that dictator, a South American dictator, right, not bad, right, not bad. But with The Sims, I could just turn on cheat codes to play, and Chiang Wan-an is just the same, Chiang Wan-an is just the same, isn't he? His cheat code: you have to enter a password, and the password is called "my surname is Chiang", and suddenly, he will never step down, you know? You say you play in cheat mode, and Chiang Wan-an is doing the exact same thing; he got a surname Chiang, but that's not how it should work. It's like I said: if his surname wasn't Chiang, how could he become mayor? Because his sole political accomplishment is his surname, you know? He is the first mayor to have undergone a "trans-gender" procedure—a "trans-surname" mayor—just by changing his surname, he became a mayor. Because aside from this procedure of changing his surname, he has no other political achievements whatsoever, truly zero, zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero, nothing at all, doing nothing at all.

And then I feel like he has also offended his own faction. Today, that Kuo Cheng-liang scolded him, saying you don't know how to win issues, you don't know how to respond to issues. Then Tang Xiang-lung said, well then just say you are Chinese; nobody dares say they are Chinese. You don't want to be Chinese, I get it; as Taiwanese, nobody wants to be Chinese. Look at the polls, nobody thinks they are Chinese, the number is only two percent, two-percenters, just a tiny sliver, and it drops lower year by year; indeed, nobody wants to be Chinese. Then if you don't want to be Chinese, don't take the surname Chiang; if you don't want to be Chinese, just don't be a Chiang. Chiang is a very fine surname. Just be Mayor Chang instead. But he insists on playing in that gray, ambiguous zone: "I have ties to the Chiang family, I am Chiang Ching-kuo's grandson," yet he doesn't dare say he is Chinese. Even Chiang Kai-shek, you know? I think Chiang Wan-an is extraordinarily shameless in doing this, because your great-grandfather forced Taiwanese people to be Chinese. Every school in Taiwan had signs written, "Be an upright, proper Chinese person." Now you say you don't want to be Chinese, then just don't have the surname Chiang; just don't be a Chiang, it's that simple. But you know what? That attitude of privilege, of flaunting privilege as part of the elite, keeps leaking out. He wants so badly to hide it, but it constantly leaks out. And every time he is asked a question—for example, about drugs or pharmaceuticals—today a reporter asked him, they mentioned Puma Shen said he didn't support marijuana legalization, and then Chiang Wan-an's team thought Puma Shen wanted to spread poison, that was their claim. When a reporter asked about this, how did Chiang Wan-an answer? "I made Taipei—not Taipei Main Station—I brought the Taipei Dome to completion, and every household drinks fresh milk." It's completely "Paolyta-B"—answering B when asked about A. But you know, I don't like people calling him Paolyta-B, because Paolyta-B is actually pretty good, while Chiang Wan-an is not good at all, with nothing good about him. Besides, the commercials for Paolyta-B are made with so much, you know, willpower, sending such a positive message: working so hard at your job, and then coming home to a Paolyta-B. But what about him? Did he work hard? Not at all! He plays The Sims on cheat mode—call that working hard?

And you know what? Puma Shen, are you a democratic country? Is Taiwan a democratic country? Debates in Taiwan are naturally part of democratic debate norms. Besides, as a public servant, your hard work means solving problems for citizens and answering the questions citizens ask you. What kind of debate coordination is this? He said that if that debate is to happen, Chiang Wan-an said it should be coordinated in advance. What does that mean? What does that mean? Why coordinate in advance? You are the mayor, aren't you clear about everything? You should answer directly, and everything has to be played by your rules? No, it's not like that. You should answer questions instead of coordinating first. What does coordination mean? It means this question I don't want to discuss, this question cannot be asked, I cannot answer this way, and then make the rules of the game as favorable to Chiang Wan-an as possible. For example, the debate, you know? I think this is already a huge concession, letting TVBS host the debate. Honestly, we care a lot about American politics. Everyone is watching American politics, and everyone should understand what is happening in the United States. If we look at Trump's debates, Trump with Biden, or later with Harris, Trump also made concessions, you know? Real substance cannot be hidden. This is like today's—not today, yesterday, President Lai Ching-te's speech at the National Day ceremony. What is Taiwan? It is a city upon a hill. This is a sentence from the Gospel of Matthew, a city upon a hill, meaning it is something everyone can see and cannot be hidden, which is extremely important for negotiation. And Trump? He is also a president with real substance. Back then, whatever rules Biden or Harris made to benefit themselves, and it had to be on CNN, it had to be held on a more pro-Democratic platform, it was still Trump in the end. In the end, they still couldn't debate better than him. And I think Puma Shen's situation is somewhat similar. Initially, no one was optimistic about him, and then you see Chiang Wan-an's state apparatus, municipal apparatus, from the Department of Health, to the Department of Labor, to all kinds of Taipei City departments, all covering up for him. And the debate, it's going to be held on TVBS. TVBS leans blue, and look, Puma Shen went on Jaw Shaw-kong's show. I know we often scold Jaw Shaw-kong, but I must say Jaw Shaw-kong is a veteran media person. He understands media operations, and I looked at that piece by Jaw Shaw-kong roasting Chiang Wan-an. Jaw Shaw-kong's communication and narrative skills completely surpassed Chiang Wan-an's. There is no doubt about this. He is best at it; he makes money by talking, works by talking, and makes a living by talking. The questions he asked Puma Shen were all very difficult to answer, and sometimes asked very maliciously, yet Puma Shen answered them all very clearly, without dodging, and without answering irrelevant things. He directly stated his thoughts, his stance, and if he was slandered or rumored about, he would say it's not like that. For example, regarding the issue of marijuana, indeed I did lead students to do research on marijuana legalization, but you didn't look at the results of this research, which is that it is temporarily inappropriate. I think he answered very well, so in the end, Jaw Shaw-kong respected Puma Shen, and one could even say Jaw Shaw-kong appreciated Puma Shen. I think those old foxes of the blue camp nowadays—not the pro-unification ones, not those bureaucratic politicians who blindly push figureheads and blindly push Chiang Wan-an—they all quite appreciate Puma Shen. His narrative ability, his thinking, his mindset, and his performance on the show, because he is truly an intellectual.

And I think, because both have academic backgrounds, Chiang Wan-an, you know? Why is it that we answered questions, and why do I keep scolding Chiang Wan-an for describing himself as a doctor? Because you don't have the qualities of a doctor! A doctor is the person who does the most academic research. The first thing an academic person should do is accept rebuttal and challenge, but you don't! You haven't written a single decent research paper, and then you want advance coordination for everything, and you don't dare to answer any question directly, yet you still say you are a doctor? You still say you are a doctor, have you no shame? Because you aren't one! You just obtained a professional degree, just a professional title degree. Even your good friend Peng Wen-cheng said that Chiang Wan-an calling himself a doctor is a bit of a clout-chasing, it's clout-chasing. Peng Wen-cheng, you are great, you said this sentence, very impressive. The purpose of my live stream back then was to let Peng Wen-cheng say out loud that Chiang Wan-an describing himself as a doctor is clout-chasing. Indeed, indeed, I still encourage everyone to watch that live stream, it's very interesting. As for Peng Wen-cheng, I think he is truly in love with Tsai Ing-wen, but he always wants to talk about Tsai Ing-wen. His narrative ability is there; he can debate with her, and can discuss many things with her, but he is too nitpicky about President Tsai's thesis, and then he ended up riding a tiger and difficult to get off, because he cannot admit a mistake, he cannot admit a mistake, so he stubbornly persists to the end.

That's fine then, and they still have the nerve to bring up recalls. You mentioned Jaw Shaw-kong; Wang Wei-chung also brought up recalls before. I think Puma also answered very well, saying that regarding recalls, because of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), I—I have recorded everything from the very beginning to the end. I was there from the start, from the Bluebird movement to the passage of the three major evil laws, then the Winter Bluebird movement. At that time, many people took to the streets, and then came 419. You could hear that everyone was really fed up with the Kuomintang (KMT). It was the public who were really fed up with the KMT, feeling that they were selling out Taiwan and paralyzing the Constitutional Court, and that Huang Kuo-chang and Fu Kun-chi were working together to destroy Taiwan's democratic system and democratic procedures. OK, so a huge crowd took to the streets, and the recall is yours—the current constitutional system of Taiwan gives this right to every citizen. The DPP originally really didn't want to support it, so the DPP only in the end—and that was the first stage, the petition forms had already passed the first stage, and some reached the second stage, only then did the DPP say, 'Fine, we support it.' The KMT was trembling with fear because the DPP also didn't want to cause trouble; the DPP was just like that based on the election results. But you really angered the voters, KMT, you really angered the Taiwanese people, and then they went to propose the major recalls. Regarding Puma, Legislator Puma, he also only started to support the recalls more openly after the third stage. And for the first stage of the recalls, he also just followed the civil rights, letting them do whatever they wanted. I remember at that time, during the first stage of the recalls, because I happened to be in Taiwan, I happened to record all those weekly protests, from the main faction, I recorded them all, I interviewed them all, I interviewed passersby, and I basically interviewed every recall group in the north because I was really curious why so many people suddenly wanted to organize them. From my perspective as a media person, this was a big deal, and there was really no party behind it. The recall groups would tell me, 'We hope the DPP can come out to support us,' and the DPP's attitude at that time was one of detachment; it was only later that they started. So Puma said, the recall groups also worked very hard, because it was the recall groups' decision, it was the recall groups' choice.

So you know what? At that time, when the mass recall didn't succeed, I went to the United States. Wang Dan and I held something like a seminar at the June Fourth (Tiananmen) Memorial Museum. We discussed this recall issue, and an audience member asked me why it had failed. Actually, you can't really call it a failure, because it made the Kuomintang so nervous, and in very deep-blue constituencies, many of them reached the second stage. But why didn't it succeed? The reason it didn't succeed is quite simple: they tried to recall too many people at the same time. And because society in Taiwan is quite, quite polarized, on the one hand you anger people, but at the same time, the recall threshold is also quite high. So if you look at the recall votes at that time, many people agreed with the recall—more than those who disagreed with it—but maybe it didn't meet the threshold, because people were just really pissed off at that Kuomintang.

So I think the Kuomintang (KMT), you people, Han Kuo-yu, Fu Kun-chi, Huang Kuo-chang, and those pro-KMT commentators, like Kuo Cheng-liang, and then Tang Hsiang-lung whose son is in the US still having the nerve to mention recall, Jaw Shaw-kong having the nerve to mention recall—it is your KMT that infuriated the voters. It takes an opposition party being so terrible for everyone to come out and recall them. How do you still have the nerve to ask Puma? This has nothing to do with Puma, you know? It's that feeling of shifting the concept, and then clinging tightly onto that death penalty issue. For a candidate running for Mayor of Taipei, what does he have to do with the death penalty? When he runs for legislator, you can ask, but a mayor? Can a mayor decide the death penalty? What does the death penalty have to do with anything? Whether he supports it or not, he also said this is an issue being hotly debated in academia. When we talk about death penalty matters, actually, it's best if you ask me, because what I studied was human rights. For this kind of thing, you actually have to look at global developments. For instance, in Europe, even Russia has abolished the death penalty. Even those at war, Russia and Ukraine, both have abolished it; Ukraine abolished it completely, and Russia suspended all death penalties. Since 1996, I used to do related work and have read relevant books. The United States is more complicated; some are abolitionist states, some are death penalty states, and right now the debate is also very heated. Just by coincidence on the death penalty issue, last week, there was that Crystal Pike. Crystal Pike murdered someone in 1996 or 1997, extremely violently, and was sentenced to death. The execution was scheduled for last week, but it failed, still using the lethal injection. And he was hospitalized, seemingly still in the hospital, not knowing whether he can regain consciousness or has already regained consciousness, and now they are debating whether to try again. Because apart from the death penalty itself, there are also issues of supporting measures, as well as the question of how to carry it out. For example, regarding pharmaceuticals, there are many issues in the US, because very few pharmaceutical companies are willing to provide that pentobarbital, the drug specifically used for executions. Very few, because it violates medical ethics. You cannot kill people; you cannot kill people. Along with this topic, there is also another death penalty case: next week they seem to be executing a terrorist who killed dozens of soldiers inside the US. Originally, he was also serving in the US military as a psychological counselor in the army, and then he took a gun and killed many people. This will reportedly be the first time in a year that an execution is broadcast live publicly. This is a very famous case in the US, and both sides are debating it right now, including Republican senators who strongly support the death penalty, like from Alaska, they all say—and Republican senators from North Carolina, they all commented—an execution can be carried out, but why broadcast it live publicly? Why publicly do this kind of thing? So this issue itself is very complicated. And I think in Taiwan, as of now, the person who wanted to reduce the number of death penalties was Ma Ying-jeou, you know? It was Ma Ying-jeou who advocated reducing the execution of the death penalty. Down to the end, if you ask for my thoughts, I think, first of all, there must be a complete supporting system. If Taiwan really wants to reduce the number of death penalties and cases, it must first have a complete life imprisonment system, and a life imprisonment system without parole. But you must complete this part first. Once you have this part, then discuss whether to suspend the death penalty. Or like, I think South Korea's approach is something Taiwan could take into consideration, because South Korea, they have a moratorium, they haven't abolished it, they put a moratorium on the death penalty. And if they really sentence someone to death, it equals life imprisonment, and you cannot be granted parole. That is also an approach. Currently the global trend is that abolitionist countries are growing in number, because it has all sorts of problems; it has a philosophical question, a philosophical question in political science: to what extent can the power of the state reach? Puma has also written relevant analyses on this before. Because as a scholar, you cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach. My position—naturally I have my own position, but a scholar also needs to maintain a distance, a distance between himself and his research topic. And Puma did the same; he just provided various reference concepts for you. Then that book by the Japanese judge, the affirmation of the death penalty theory, he also recommended everyone to read it, because Japan supports the death penalty. Then what kind of path has Taiwan taken? I just need, first, a broader discussion within Taiwan's academia, because in Taiwan, the death penalty issue has completely turned into a political issue. It has shifted from an academic, ethical, and theoretical question of political science into a life-or-death confrontation for everyone. And this situation is not very healthy. And where does the reason for it not being healthy lie? It lies in the fact that you have no way to discuss it normally. And look, for instance, in the mayoral election: does the mayor support the death penalty? This is not the mayor's issue; this is not a municipal governance issue. A mayor has no way to decide whether the country has a death penalty system, because he is merely a mayor; he is only handling municipal governance.

The funniest thing is that even those deep-blue or even red-leaning people look down on Chiang Wan-an. It's just because of his background and his connection to Chiang Kai-shek that they have to save face and continue to support him publicly, but they must be cursing him to death in private—he's just a straw man. If he didn't have the Chiang name, he wouldn't even be the mayor of Taipei. By the way, you wrote very well, this analysis is very precise. You can go watch the short video I filmed yesterday. My wife and I dug into videos from inside the Great Firewall to see how Chinese people view Chiang Wan-an. I saw one of the most sarcastic comments—the person was likely a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—saying, 'We don't have ballots,' meaning Chinese people don't have ballots. 'So what if you Taiwanese have ballots? You still elected Chiang Wan-an.' It's very embarrassing, very insulting. It's very insulting—how did Taiwan elect a straw man as mayor? Exactly, Taipei needs that... this time is a good opportunity for Taipei residents, I think, to reverse the mistake made in the 2022 election.

I'm here. I want to ask, will the U.S. abandon its strategy for South Korea? No, because of South Korea's importance. But currently, the plans Biden passed for South Korea, including the Washington Declaration and placing nuclear submarines near Seoul—these things haven't changed; they are still there. Trump only withdrew the THAAD missiles. The reason for the withdrawal is also that North Korea won't take action in the short term. Trump has channels; he can monitor North Korea and exert some influence over it, so the THAAD missiles are temporarily being redeployed to the Middle East. To some extent, this is also a lesson to South Korea and a lesson to Lee Jae-myung. But I think this is within a manageable risk control situation. I will discuss some of Trump's current approaches in more detail; they are actually all consistent. You know I support the Republican Party and I am a conservative, but when criticism is due, it must be given. I think these are also related to the inability to end the war in Iran quickly—being stuck there for too long—and now that the midterm elections are approaching, he has started doing these things, starting to make adjustments from the periphery, including the issue of diesel and his attitude toward Ukraine, because the midterm elections don't look very optimistic for the Republican Party. It's just not very optimistic; the Senate might be held, but the House is very difficult. On the other hand, the socialists in the Democratic Party have also been very arrogant recently.

If the mainland dares to attack Taiwan, South Korea will attack North Korea to contain the CCP. I don't think South Korea will take the initiative to attack North Korea. It's impossible with Lee Jae-myung as president; he is a pro-North Korea and pro-China president. And even if their conservative party were in power, I don't think it's possible to attack North Korea. That's a bit... that's a bit unrealistic. South Korea nominally wouldn't support it either. Moreover, the CCP wouldn't dare to attack Taiwan in the short term. I even think that, strategically speaking, it's unfavorable for them. And in the short term, Taiwan is currently performing very excellently in national security and defense, which has a deterrent effect. It really has deterred the CCP's ambition for expansion. I even think that, although we cannot rule out the possibility that Xi Jinping might take some action against Taiwan to ensure the continuation of his own regime, I don't think it will be a full-scale invasion. It might be the Pratas Islands, it might be Kinmen, it might be Matsu—it might be the outer islands, or it might be a blockade. That is also an act of war, and all these are possible, but I think in the short term, it would be easier for him to take action against Russia, because no one knows what will happen there in the future, and the overall situation within Russia is also very bad, very bad.

Does Taiwan have a secret alliance with South Korea? Under U.S. leadership, Taiwan's relationship with Japan is closer. As for South Korea, let me tell you, it depends on who is in power. When South Korea's conservative party is in power, the relationship with Taiwan is generally quite good. When their Democratic Party—that group around Lee Jae-myung, the pro-China and pro-North Korea people—is in power, the relationship with Taiwan won't get too close. Because you are pro-China, right? It all depends on who is in power.

In Taipei's voter demographics, the Pan-Blue camp has always had a surplus advantage over the Pan-Green, so whether Shen Pao-yang can get elected still requires the effort of everyone, including the voters—meaning the voters need to push the hardest. I say Shen Pao-yang has a chance to win, but that doesn't mean he is certain to win. You know, he is one Taipei mayoral candidate who, I think, has run the most successful campaign in Taipei since Chen Shui-bian. And he won't run into a three-way race issue this time, right? This time it's very clear: Chiang Wan-an versus Shen Pao-yang. Look at Chiang Wan-an last time, in 2022, he got forty-something percent of the vote. And that forty-something percent was because back then, the DPP put forward Chen Shih-chung, and the TPP put forward Huang Shan-shan. Those voters of Huang Shan-shan are unlikely to vote for Chiang Wan-an now. Even though there are relevant polls showing that among those who supported Huang Shan-shan in the past, a portion has now decided to back Chiang Wan-an, a larger share will likely lean toward Puma. But you have to remember, those who voted for Chiang Wan-an the first time might not necessarily vote for him a second time. Because they've seen his poor administration. People voted for Chiang Wan-an in 2022 mainly because Ko Wen-je had done such a terrible job, and they never expected someone even worse would come along, you know? They never expected a buffoon would take over. A buffoon of a mayor, with rats scurrying all over the corridors, making Taipei look nothing like a capital city—rats scurrying everywhere, children getting diarrhea, designated smoking areas built all over the place, even next to schools, and then catching fire. Having this buffoon as mayor has been utterly terrible, truly terrible. So I think Puma has a shot. However, in Taipei, there are still quite a lot of older, Pan-Blue-leaning voters. To them, even a trash bin could get elected, because trash bins are blue—or like living trash bags, since Taipei's trash bags are blue. That's pretty much how it goes. That's why people need to vote properly—this time, people must go home and vote. Even voters living overseas, overseas Taiwanese must come back, go home and vote properly, and support Puma. Puma truly deserves everyone's support.

Speaking of the Celestial Empire—excuse me, Zhubei—Zhubei is also very interesting. That electoral district in Zhubei is very interesting. I think the DPP is actually doing pretty well this time. As for Chen Ping-an in Miaoli, although his current polling numbers isn't great, I think he is a very outstanding candidate. I interviewed him in the United States. And for Taichung, Ho Hsin-chun, I also strongly support her, strongly support her. And of course, Kaohsiung and Tainan must be held, they must both be defended.

Chinese media have Party branches, so those media won't report news that is unfavorable to China. Chinese media—and as for the pro-China media in Taiwan, which ones speak for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? There's CTV, then CTi, and TVBS. EBC heavily reads the room and follows the wind. Aside from FTV and SET, most TV stations—and even FTV and SET have to watch the atmosphere day by day, and sometimes they don't dare go too hard against the KMT. I know this. There were whistleblowers revealing that even those two suppressed news stories—stories unfavorable to the KMT were suppressed, according to those revelations. Yes.

OK, so right, we were talking about this debate issue. You need to coordinate first—coordinate what? You are a mayor, can you not answer questions about your municipal administration? Look at any mayor in the United States, whether Democrat or Republican; if you ask them a question, they will answer directly. They won't tell you, "My Big Dome is open." No, they won't. So, this thing is called—we could euphemistically say "answering B when asked about A." In political science, this is called the dead cat strategy. The dead cat strategy. This is what those pan-blue pundits love doing most. I mean, the death penalty—why ask a Taipei mayoral candidate about the death penalty? That is what is called—no, not "so-called," it literally is—the dead cat strategy. What is the dead cat strategy? For instance, suppose a group of people is having dinner, discussing a very serious topic. For example, everyone is talking—everyone is having a company dinner, discussing the arrival of a client next week, and what to keep in mind when the client visits the company. Suddenly someone walks in and tosses a dead cat onto the table. Tosses it onto the table—a dead cat, which obviously won't say meow anymore. A dead cat, a dead cat on the table, a dead cat on the table. And then you see it, and there's food—maybe there's a bowl of chicken soup over there. I think chicken soup in Taiwan can look pretty terrifying sometimes, with the chicken head and feet, you know? The chicken head and feet sticking out. And the dead cat gets tossed right into that pot of chicken soup, splashing everywhere, and then—a dead cat, how can there be a dead cat? Then no one discusses the client matter anymore because of the dead cat. In the same way, you see, compared to discussing municipal administration—because after all, there's not much municipal administration to speak of. As for Puma, attacking his speeches is really too easy, because he has no real political achievements, and there are far too many flaws, far too many flaws. And actually, I think the dead cat strategy is a very good metaphor, because every pan-blue pundit is throwing out those dead cat issues, including Tang Xianglong and Guo Zhengliang. They are those dead cats, and they themselves look a lot like dead cats, constantly throwing dead cat issues into that chicken soup. The death penalty, you know? Throwing in a dead cat—the death penalty. Can a Taipei mayor decide whether a country has the death penalty or not? No. And then drugs—did you once advocate for decriminalizing drugs? No, and drug decriminalization isn't municipal administration either. A single city cannot decide the plan and direction of a whole nation. Then there was mention of the American experience—those rehab centers, those community clinics that are like small clinics, just like the clinics in Taiwan. I've also made a video explaining this to everyone. In the US, you can go check it out. Right now, you can do this: search for "Harm Reduction Center," say in Los Angeles County, or Los Angeles City, or New York—wherever, or Boston, or Providence, Rhode Island—just search any city. It will show you centers that provide harm reduction programs. It's just a clinic, maybe in a strip mall, next to a dental clinic, and right next to it is this community center, this community center. Inside it's the same: there are doctors, there are nurses, and people in need go there. And of course, they get checked up, confirm their issues, and then help them reintegrate into society. That's harm reduction. Harm reduction includes several programs: clean needles is one; another is substitution therapy, like methadone, which people have been hotly discussing lately. Methadone helps people taper off gradually, because it is addictive, but it still allows a person to maintain normal cognitive and bodily functioning. It doesn't get you high. It targets the receptor inside brain cells—I don't know the exact Chinese term—it binds with it so that people don't crave those drugs anymore, and they can function, they can work, they can take care of their family, you know? They can slowly return to society. This harm reduction is about that, and Taiwan is doing it too. The issue in Taiwan is that they are all attacking Puma, claiming he supports drug decriminalization. Taiwan is also practicing harm reduction, and Taipei City is doing harm reduction as well. When Chiang Wan-an was a legislator, he also passed relevant legislation regarding harm reduction. Yet it was portrayed in such a wretched way by those pan-blue figures—that's just a dead cat. Because that wasn't an issue in the first place, you know? When we discuss municipal administration, that's chicken soup. We are drinking chicken soup and discussing chicken soup, and then you throw that dead cat—that dead cat that looks like Guo Zhengliang—right into that chicken soup. Now the soup can't be eaten, and nobody discusses real business; everyone ends up discussing that dead cat, this fake issue. I keep talking about dead cats, do you think I—I apologize to our cat at home, because hearing "dead cat" surely makes you unhappy: "Because of that dead cat thing, but I'm still alive, I still have a long life ahead!" Yes, you still have a long life ahead. I spent so much money treating your cancer, I spent so much money. Two surgeries, and then you went through four rounds of chemotherapy, and you still have two more rounds of chemo to go. A dead cat—our cat is alive, our cat

It's alive, our cat is very cute, very cute, very gentle. Well, it's gotten a bit thinner lately, and its appetite isn't very good, but because that chemotherapy affects its appetite, it won't eat the canned cat food it used to like, and lately it's just been devouring kibble. I'm thinking we might need to buy some different canned food for it to try out, yeah. Poor thing, it still has to go through two more rounds of chemo for that breast cancer. What language does it listen to? International, our old lady speaks international at home, so its international is pretty good, isn't it? I think the transliteration should be quite good. Polish, we hardly speak Polish at home, but I speak Polish with Polish people, speak Polish with other Polish people, so... but at home we speak mostly Chinese. It should know Japanese too, it probably understands German as well, English, English, Chinese, Polish, it probably knows them all. At our place, I found it hilarious, when my wife talks to Ququ, she speaks Taiwanese to her. You don't speak... why do you speak Taiwanese, I don't know, you know? It's just so funny, seeing the cat and talking to it, it doesn't matter. The Pan-Blue camp is really good at taking things out of context, yeah, and then they just love playing that dead cat strategy, you know? It's not just for that one coin, it completely brings up an entirely irrelevant issue and gets everyone discussing it, something you originally weren't going to discuss at all, just a dead cat strategy. It's like you're drinking delicious chicken soup and then you throw, throw that Guo Zhengliang right into the chicken soup. Sometimes the part where I speak Korean to my dad, of course, does your dad know Korean, so impressive! My wife's grandma speaks Japanese, speaks Japanese, doesn't know Korean, we and Korea, our family has no relation to Korea, right, yes, okay, alright, then let's chat, chat about another topic, which is that I want to discuss with everyone, the recent matter about Trump, about Trump. OK, Receptor, right, how do you say Receptor? Pumpkin Bunny, you wrote Receptor, but you didn't tell me what Receptor is. Alright, I'm curious myself now. "Shouti" (receptor), not "jieshouqi" (receiver). "Jieshouqi" is more like a machine; the word I found is "shouti". Just earlier I mentioned discussing a part about Trump, this must be talked about, but before we enter this topic, I just thought of one thing, which is those Pan-Blue people, I think Tang Xianglong is the most disgusting. I would directly ask the comments if they have ever done drugs, because having stayed in the US for a long time, and then in the US there's this thing like the legalization of cannabis. Is Tang Xianglong really ignorant? I think based on Tang Xianglong's understanding of medicine, it's not even at an elementary school student's level. Because you say whether someone has used cannabis, what is cannabis? Moreover, cannabis has been legalized in the US for a long time, and actually, using cannabis is also something mainstream medicine in countries all over the world—including very conservative ones, including Poland—has opened up to for a long time, because if you think about it, it is a relatively natural substance. Well then, have Americans used fentanyl? Have Taiwanese people used fentanyl? Taiwanese people have too, that is, if you have had surgery, having had surgery also uses those anesthetic drugs, which are all those "drugs" that the Pan-Blue camp talks about. And to be completely honest, compared to those drugs, cannabis is still considered the most harmless to the human body and nervous system. For example, stage four cancer, I also talked about this last time on my livestream, and I talked about my dad's experience. My dad passed away from pancreatic cancer, and in the end it was all using morphine, yeah, the hospital prescribed morphine for him, right, and then he just slept. Some would choose cannabis as an alternative, but it still depends on how much pain you're in, right? Some pain can be relieved by cannabis, some cannot. And cannabis doesn't make people fall asleep like those narcotic-like drugs; one can still interact with people, one can still live a relatively normal life. So these are all currently... because medicine hasn't stayed in... alright, let me tell you Tang Xianglong, medicine hasn't stayed in the 19th century either. I know you're a person from the 19th century, you still think Taiwan should belong to the Qing Dynasty, you were born before 1895, but medicine hasn't stayed in the 19th century. Come on, we are already in the 21st century. You are a 19th-century Chinese person, so go live your life, don't harm Taiwanese people, because our standard of living has already broken through past yours by more than 100 years, we have already progressed. You live in the 19th century, OK, you go live your life, don't use anesthesia, don't wear Western suits either, it's enough that you live in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century, we use contemporary medicine, we solve contemporary problems with contemporary methods. So according to their logic, every Taiwanese person who has had surgery is a drug user or dealer, because anesthetics are also made of those ingredients, including fentanyl, including those, they're all those ingredients, right? Called synthetic drugs, narcotics, pharmaceuticals, they're the same thing. If you obtain it through illegal channels, then it's called an illicit drug; if you use it to get yourself intoxicated, then it's called an illicit drug; if you use it in a hospital setting for anesthesia, for pain relief, then it's called medicine.

Yeah, I forgot where I saw it, but it seems soldiers in World War II all had to take drugs. Germany, let me tell you, many of the drugs we have today were also invented in Germany; methadone also came from Germany. And then there was a drug in Nazi Germany called Pervitin. That Pervitin, it was amphetamine, methamphetamine. Why did they say German soldiers fought so fiercely back then, and seemed to feel no pain and never slept? Because they were all taking methamphetamine. The U.S. military also seemed to use some performance-enhancing drugs, and you can even look at the advertisements for Pervitin; it's quite interesting—crystal meth. Yes, yes, yes, crystal meth. Back then, Nazi Germany used it in pill form, one pill at a time, and there were even advertisements. Pfizer, Pfizer also invented heroin; heroin was originally used to treat coughs in orthopedics before it became addictive. This is just medical development. And I think Tang Xianglong is a person living in the BC era, he's well-preserved, a person from BC, before the birth of Jesus Christ. It's a pity that people from the BC era still have influence over Taiwanese people today; it's a bit of a shame. But even as a person from the BC era, he still knew how to send his children to the United States, you know? A person from the BC era still knew how to send his children to the United States; that's actually quite impressive. I still have to give Tang Xianglong a slightly higher score.

So today let's chat a bit about the United States, because recently a lot of news has been discussing Russia and Ukraine, and then discussing the U.S. midterm elections, as well as the current developments in the Indo-Pacific and Iran. Currently, it feels like this war with Iran will not end at least until after the U.S. midterm elections. Trump originally also said after the election, because if you think about it, what is Iran's theocratic regime gambling on? They believe that as long as the Democrats can control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, they might be able to get rid of Trump, and that would also lead to a change in policy toward Iran. Another possibility they consider is that if the Democrats are elected, even if they can't get rid of Trump, they can block many of Trump's actions and policies—meaning Congress can block him. Does their thinking make sense? It does make sense to a certain extent. So Trump thinks, alright, then I'll fight you with everything I've got, because there are only about 50-plus days left until the election. You see, Taiwan's nine-in-one elections and the U.S. midterms are very close, so Trump is now trying to find ways to help the Republicans get re-elected—that is, to continue holding a majority of seats in Congress. The House is very difficult, but there is a chance in the Senate. Now let's talk about what he needs to do, because as for the reasons people currently don't support Trump, if you look at Trump's track record over the past two years, it really is there, from international politics... actually, domestic and foreign affairs are somewhat connected, somewhat connected. Because of Trump's foreign actions—for example, in Venezuela, his arrest of Maduro—this caused the drugs flooding the United States to decrease significantly, and the crime rate also dropped; crime rates dropped in many places, the number of illegal immigrants also declined, and employment, interestingly enough, employment went up, including employment among minority groups. He does have some achievements. However, because things are too expensive—inflation—and the scariest thing is oil prices, so oil prices can't stay this high, and the reason also lies in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, where oil cannot get out, and the supply chain cannot respond so quickly. Therefore, Trump decided to negotiate with Russia, because Russia is a major diesel-producing country, which is something we cannot deny. So he negotiated with Russia, asking Russia to release diesel onto that market, onto that market. Right, right, right, thanks for the reminder, the U.S. election is less than 50 days away, the U.S. election is about 20-some days away, on November 3, on November 3, thank you for the reminder. So how does he get the grassroots out to vote for Republicans? Through what means? By bringing oil prices down. On the one hand, opening up U.S. oil, which is something oil has always been doing, and on the other hand, urgently lifting some sanctions on Russia, allowing Russia to release diesel onto the market. Zelenskyy certainly does not support this; Zelenskyy opposes this matter, because if you think about it, from the U.S. perspective, Trump needs to fight for re-election; from Ukraine's perspective, Ukraine needs to survive. Ukraine's way to survive, first, is to attack Russian oil refineries so that the Russian economy cannot make money, cannot function, cannot continue to manufacture weapons, and cannot send more people to kill Ukrainians—this is Zelenskyy's approach. Trump wants re-election, so he needs to lower oil prices, while Zelenskyy cannot stop attacking Russian oil refineries. So what does this lead to? This leads to Trump now saying again that Zelenskyy needs to hold an election and Ukraine needs to change presidents. At present, this is impossible, because Ukraine cannot even hold an election right now; in terms of how to calculate the Ukrainian territory actually under control and the Ukrainian population, the Ukrainian government currently cannot do it. Moreover, in the middle of a war, in a state of war, how can you hold an election? So when Trump says this, he is clearly speaking out of anger, because his election prospects are not very optimistic, the race is not very optimistic, the race is not optimistic, and what does this cause? He will just try to push here and press there, seeing if he can pull Russia over to his side. Putin wants money, so of course he compromises; whatever terms Trump offers him, he will follow, because releasing that diesel also makes him money. And you also have to consider, Trump has never abandoned his idea of aligning with Russia to counter the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Strategically speaking, there is nothing wrong with this line of thought; strategically speaking, there is nothing wrong with this line of thought, after all, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Russia originally had conflicts of interest, and China has constantly been taking advantage of Russia, while Russia has also been selling that oil and natural gas to China at dirt-cheap prices, not making a profit, and Russia wants to return to that open market. Many Republicans would also support courting them to counter China, but under the condition that he continues to attack Ukraine, and under the condition that Putin continues to rule, it simply cannot be done. Putin is unreliable, he cannot be trusted, so will Trump's approach succeed? I don't think it will. But because there isn't much time left, he wants to take a shot at it: if oil prices drop, and the Republicans keep holding a majority of seats, he will have greater leverage against Iran, and he can also help on the Ukraine side. I understand this way of thinking, but I believe that no matter the outcome of the midterm elections, Iran will not compromise with him. This Iran issue will be stuck for a long time, because after the Iranian theocratic regime suffers a crushing defeat, they will not give up building nuclear weapons either.

So if you want to bring about regime change in Iran, it is very difficult to solve without sending troops. Otherwise, you have to withdraw, or you have to see how to reach an agreement and how to compromise. At the same time, you have to force Russia to negotiate, because Russia originally agreed with all these approaches. If you really want to bring Russia back to the table, you have to put pressure on them. Do you need to put pressure on them? So, Trump has had some successes in his foreign policy, such as in South America, or easing the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the former Soviet Union. Is Trump the one who provided the most weapons? To Taiwan or to whom? They have always been provided, but are they lacking now? Did he provide so much that there is a shortage domestically? Because of the Middle East, the Middle East has dragged them down, so many people say they shouldn't have participated in that operation in Iran. So, we will see the development of the United States in the next two years, which all depends on whether the war in Iran can be ended quickly. If Iran is resolved, there is a chance; if Iran cannot be resolved, it may drag down the United States, which will create greater pressure on the U.S. domestic situation. And then, in 2028, it is very likely that the Republican Party will not be able to—that is, the next president will not be a Republican. My analysis is like this, it is very interesting, and unpredictable, very unpredictable, but these problems all stem from Iran. The approach of the U.S. State Department is understandable, but Putin cannot be trusted. This is what they need to think clearly about; negotiating with him will only be used by him.

Hypothetically, if Putin wants to attack the three Baltic states, would it be like providing funds or weapons as done against Ukraine, inciting ethnic Russians or separatists in these three countries to turn a certain area into an independent administrative region—would Putin do that? Right, right, right, not launching a direct full-scale war, but creating a puppet and constantly stirring up trouble in the three countries through these already controlled regions? Let me tell you, what you're saying makes sense, it makes sense, but only partially. Putin won't, because of this I—wait a moment, I've actually made a video on this before. Yes, I've done a related analysis, I filmed a video about it. Putin can't possibly—I'll just recommend it directly to you. Let me see which one it is. I've filmed this, I definitely filmed this 100%. Right, Europe preparing for war, the traffic from two weeks ago was pretty good, it had over 50,000 views, it's that one. You can check it out on my channel, called "Is War Really Coming to Europe? Russia is drafting an army of 300,000, but Putin actually can't afford to fight NATO at all." Your analysis is somewhat similar to mine, meaning he would incite, and then he could operate through some pro-Russian elements in the Baltic states. But not in every Baltic state; the more dangerous one is Latvia, because Latvia's ethnic Russian population is the largest among the three Baltic states, while Lithuania and Estonia have comparatively fewer. Moreover, in Lithuania they have integrated quite well locally, whereas in Latvia they don't even have citizenship; they have non-citizen status, like having a different colored passport. This is possible. And Russia is already doing this; they might quietly provide weapons, or quietly instruct them—they are already instructing them via Telegram, for example, to burn some political institutions, or carry out small-scale terrorist-like attacks, but not—harassing politicians. In Finland, they employed the "poop tactic," but they don't hire Russians; they hire local poor Finnish people, homeless people, and tell them to storm into Finnish officials' homes and poop inside. But you know what? Didn't Gym Bro (Guanzhang) say that at Xi Jinping's house, "I'll take a shit in your bathroom"? Russia genuinely hired people to go to politicians' homes—not in the toilet, just pooping right inside the house and vandalizing. Why do this? It's harassment; the physical harm is relatively minor, but it's pure harassment, making them realize that Russia is constantly monitoring them, wiretapping them, and will hire people to harass them. But if you really want to stop this practice—someone bursts into your home and poops inside, you know? Even if it's criminal law, they won't go to jail for very long, it's a very light, minor offense that won't result in a heavy sentence. So they harass through this method, the poop tactic. Just sending people everywhere to poop, just like Gym Bro taking a shit at Peng Liyuan's house, makes you wonder if Gym Bro has ties to the Russian government, with Xi Jinping still taking a shit, dropping a load in your toilet. But that's an aside; they specifically said they've done this kind of thing. So what you said is right, and looking at whether they'd take action, they are indeed doing it. But whether it will develop into a real armed force to split territory from Latvia, the risk exists, but I don't think you should treat the governments of the Baltic states as fools either. Their counter-espionage operations are quite formidable. Their monitoring, wiretapping, and intelligence gathering on espionage activities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are extremely comprehensive. In fact, if you look at most Russian opposition figures, they went to these three countries and received political asylum. These three countries have an exceptionally deep understanding of Russia. So is it possible for Putin to organize such armed units? To carry out sabotage? What kind of terrorist attacks? It's possible, and they might even be doing it already, but whether it will succeed is another question mark, another question mark. If you want to see my longer analysis, you can watch the video I made two weeks ago; I talked more about it there and had more data. The great change in Asia—the great Asian transformation is China; he loves "great change" (pooping) the most, loves it the most. Even when meeting Putin, he has to talk about the great change with him, "changes unseen in a century." Why execute the poop tactic in Finland? Because there is a border! There is a border. Currently, Finland is the largest border between NATO and Russia, so he wants to harass, that's why he harasses. I think Pumpkin Bunny, as you said, just look at the map. Look at where Finland is and where Russia is on the map. It's also the easiest to infiltrate, and that border is easier—not for invasion, but easier to send spies through. Plus, it's a massive area, a massive country for NATO deployment, so they will definitely harass it. Since Finland joined NATO, they will also use the poop tactic in the Baltic states.

All right, OK, we've been livestreaming for over an hour now. Come here, what's wrong with me? Come over here. He's being so sneaky right now because he wants to act cute and cuddly, but he doesn't like the light when I'm livestreaming here—that is, my studio light is on, and he thinks it's too bright. So, you know, he wants to cuddle and be petted, but he doesn't want to be next to that big light; it's uncomfortable for his cat eyes. So he's in this... actually, if you keep this up, I'm going to continue discussing the Kuomintang's dead cat strategy, and you won't be very happy hearing it. Let me secretly ask, what super great snacks are there in the United States? There are so many in the US, super great ones. All the snacks in the US are delicious. My favorite thing to eat is those American Takis; they're a bit like Kuai Kuai, but even tastier. And everything in America is delicious, everything is unhealthy, and everything is delicious. Actually, Putin himself really wants to end this war too, but the United States and Europe have no way to accept the terms and conditions Putin proposed for ending the war. Well, his terms are just to occupy eastern Ukraine, and then have them recognize that eastern Ukraine is occupied. Ukraine could never accept that, the United States could never accept that, and Europe could never accept that either, so he doesn't want to end it. Besides, he cheated before. I think right when Trump was elected, didn't Rubio talk about it? Didn't they talk when they met in Alaska? The condition back then was a freeze. So first you freeze the war, freeze it for 100 years, 50 years, and then we rebuild Ukraine, and Russia slowly returns to international politics. That was an extremely favorable solution for Russia. Maybe Putin himself didn't want it; even if other Russian politicians, even if other people around Putin were willing, Putin himself didn't want it, because he wants to build his Soviet Union. Because he also knows that when he ends the war, their rule won't last much longer; public resentment is too high, so he has to keep this society constantly on edge. Let me tell you, Putin is the only one who doesn't want to end the war. This war brings zero benefits to Russia, but Putin can use this war to continue squeezing and bleeding Russia dry. That's how it is. Goodnight Xiao Naonao, goodnight, it's so hard not to serve in the military. All right, then our livestream today ends here. I'm very grateful to everyone for watching, and thank you all for your support. Please sponsor and support our News Hardcore a lot. If you feel that the analysis we do is very important and very accurate, well, then we will... okay, come on, see you around, be there or be square. Bye-bye.