. >> we will get to that in a few minutes but we had george friedman speaking about his new book, storm before the calm and he talks in the way that you do, this decade, it is extremely urgent and you wrote these years will generate a vision for democracy or solidify trajectory of the american decline. i wonder, is in every generati generation, talk about the great depression or the civil strike we experienced in the 60s, why do you feel this is really different? >> this is a moment that arises once or twice a century. i came of age in the. people talking about the end of history, whether the 90s would lead to endlessly stable state of affairs and improvement and then history came roaring back. the financial crisis that shaped the experience of my generation in so many ways and now the trump era, covid, george floyd and everything with it. i think it is just one of those moment where forces are converging and timelines not being set by politicians but just by affairs coming to a head. look at climate, it's clear they have to say, over the course of the next decade, who either permanentl

friedman, thank you for your complete and total honesty regarding all of this. in 1992, the democrat-controlled senate did not go forward with the nomination from george h.w. bush. its biggest offender at the time was joe biden. that eventually led to, as you know, the nomination and election of ruth bader ginsburg to the supreme court after bill clinton became president. 2016, the republicans reminded everyone that that took place and they referred to it as the biden will. of -- the biden rule. of course, all of this has to do with politics. you are absolutely correct area i was just wondering perhaps if you could comment a little bit on the 1992 refusal on the part of the democrats to go forward with the nomination. it so happens that i do believe that mr. garland should have received a fair hearing, but when i found out about the biden rule, i understand what has taken place. guest: there was no vacancy on areaupreme court in 1992 biden did make a statement to the effect that once a presidential election is on, that in nomination should not be made. so he has been consistent throughout. what theyam not sure made inthat was respect to, it may have been a

friedman, thank you for your complete and total honesty regarding all of this. in 1992, the democrat-controlled senate did not go forward with the nomination from george h.w.ush. its biggest offender at the time was joe biden. that eventually led to, as you know, the nomination and election of ruth bader ginsburg to the supreme court after bill clinton became president. 2016, the republicans reminded everyone that that took place and they referred to it as the biden will. of -- the biden rule. of course, all of this has to do with politics. you are absolutely correct area i was just wondering perhaps if you could comment a little bit on the 1992 refusal on the part of the democrats to go forward with the nomination. it so happens that i do believe that mr. garland should have received a fair hearing, but when i found out about the biden rule, i understand what has taken place. guest: there was no vacancy on areaupreme court in 1992 biden did make a statement to the effect that once a presidential election is on, that in nomination should not be made. so he has been consistent throughout. what theyam not sure made inthat was respect to, it may have been a v