Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
That is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, Let's get to the show. Let's move over to Michigan. And we've been holding this story and there's been some interesting developments actually also where you've seen some Muslim and Arab leaders in Michigan come out and explicitly endorsed Donald Trump.
You've also seen obviously movement away from the Democratic Party there and it could be a significant effect in the overall Michigan vote because of the Israel Gaza war and Kamala Harris's support for Israel. Here, President Obama took to the stump last night to lecture Muslim Americans about why they should vote for Democrats and for Kamala Harris.
Let's take a listen. If you're a.
Muslim American and and and you're upset about what's happening in the Middle East? Why why, why would you put your faith in somebody who passed a Muslim band, and and and and repeatedly suggested that somehow you weren't part of our American community. It if you're an African American or Latino, if you're you're from Puerto Rico, and and and you see somebody who whose values seemed to indicate that you're not part of their equation. How do you
think it's okay? How how can you tell yourself it's okay as long as our side wins.
More lecturing, pandering and uh, hectoring from the Obamas, How will it work out?
This doesn't land poorly with I mean, he's basically saying like, look, if you think that you're part of their club, you're not. And they may want your vote right now, but like you know, post election day, you're going to once again not be in the club because we can hear what they're saying about you now and what they've said about you in the past, et cetera. I think Bertie Sanders, he put on a video, what did he say? He
made the case. He was like, listen, I get this question all the time about how you can vote for Kamala Harris when she supports He doesn't say genocide. I think he says like Israel's Warren Gazer or something like that, and he's like, listen, I'm with you. I also really, you know, disagree with the direction. And he lays on a couple things. Number one, he believes that that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden will be more moveable on the issue.
I think there's something to that. I mean the Trump coalition. There's like he is not going to care what college students have to say on the issue. They're not part of his coalition. There is no part of his coalition in significant numbers. That is as to the direction in Israel, Phoebe wants him to win. He's said, you know, he's complained about Biden from the Rights saying he hasn't given
Bebe carte blanche enough. So Bernie makes the case that you know, you're going to have more of a chance, even on this issue to move Kamala Harris than you are to move Donald Trump. And then he says this is not to you know, dismiss how important these atrocities are and how much people care about it. But you know, there are another set of issues too, where it's very clear he talks about climate change, he talks about women's rights.
I probably talks about economics. I can't remember specifically, on which Kamala Harris is clearly superior. So you know, I get it, I see you. I agree with you in many senses, but this is the path to go down. So that was the case that he's making to me.
The takeaway both from Obama's comments here and Bernie Sanders comments, and you know, some of the pastorings from the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris I think had some Muslim leaders up on stage with her that were endorsing her in the state of Michigan, is they recognize that this is an issue. And I think they recognize Bernie Sanders comments in particular.
Obam is part of what I object to is that he just flip frames it around like this is only an issue for Muslim Americans, which is like, actually, no, it's an issue for a vast swath of your coalition, young people, non white people. Yes, Arab Americans, yes, Muslim Americans too, But you don't have to have a direct like familial or cultural connect to the conflict to care about a genocide being perpetrated with your dollars in and your name. So I sort of object to that framing.
But you know, they clearly recognize this is a weak spot for them. They clearly recognize they're having trouble bringing some of their coalition home in the final days because of this one issue. And I think the Harris campaign just fundamentally miscalculated how much of a problem this was for them. On you know, you can't feel like, oh, I'm supporting the good guys when you see what they're supporting.
And so while very few people say this is like their number one issue, it does paint a bigger picture of number one, you care more about this than you do about me, and number two, you're not what you claim you are. Like you say that Donald Trump is the fascist and we got to stop the bad guy, et cetera, et cetera. And I agree with you, But how can I see you as a white knight when I see what you're enabling in Goalsa?
I just see.
Look, the direct quote is you know what xs Trump is worse and that pragmatism in what is obviously deeply emotional and I mean, look, let's restrict it purely he's talking about Mostlim Americans in Michigan and specifically like Dearborn and others where you may literally have people who have lost family members.
Pragmatism is not wanting to hear right now. That's why I saw it.
Very much as kind of hectoring, lecturing, well, the other side is worse.
I think that works on abortion.
I think that works on that economy, On a family's member's death, I don't think so. You know, that is where just straight up not voting or voting for punishments purposes. That's where things can get very different. And you see some of this too with the Muslim support now for Donald Trump. We saw this at one of his more recent rallies in Michigan. Let's take a listen.
Good afternoon, Michigan Anders. As the President said, we just had a positive meeting with President Trump. We as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace. He promises peace, not war. We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised and war in the Middle East and Ukraine. The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make that happen.
I mean, that's basically Hail Mary you know, from these Muslim leaders and actually can consistently and throughout Michigan through these rallies and others. He keeps bringing up the Cheney family and he's like, she is running with somebody who's responsible for more deaths of Muslim ortant.
You know, their family.
Dictaney, I guess is responsible for more Muslim deaths and any American politician in all of history. So how can you support someone like our Now, look, you can make the pragmatis argument, well Trump is more pro Israel and all of this, but it does seem as if this is cutting through. We saw what the semaphore pole Arab Americans supporting Trump by one point margin, basically a tie with a group that voted two three times you know for Biden versus Trump. So clearly something is going on.
I think it really comes down to like a hail Mary. It's almost like I remember when Trump I was twenty sixteen, he was talking to black voters.
He's like, what the hell do you have to lose?
You know?
I mean that's basically how it feels. Clearly it's landing.
Yeah, what listen, I can say which is true, that is performative and cynical, which it is. And we'll show you some of the comments from the you know, Madison Square Garden rally that proved the point. But if you're the Democratic Party and you've managed to lose the Arab American Muslim American vote to the Muslim band, people like that's unbelievable. That's honestly unbelievable. In fact, let's go in
queue up. This is D six. This is Rudy Giuliani at the Madison Square Garden rally, framing all Palestinians from the age of two years old as being terrorists, which, by the way, you know, it's consistent with language. Donald Trump has used the term Palestinian as a flur to describe various people, including Chuck Schumer. But you know this is this is the party, this is the representative of the party that you were losing the Arab American vote to. Let's take a listen to this.
And the Palestinians are taught to tell us at two years old, they won't let a Palestinian in Jordan, they will let a Palestinian in Egypt. And Harris wants to bring them to you.
They may have good people.
I'm sorry, I don't take a risk with people that are taught to kill Americans at two.
I'm on the side of Israel. You're on the side of Israel.
Donald Trump's on the side of Israel, and they're on the side.
Of the terrorists.
Of course, an incredible thing to say.
Get me set you out of two thousand and three.
How many yeah, true? How many two year old Palestinians are laying dead in the rubble right now as we speak. But yeah, this is this is the party that you're losing the Muslim vote to the Arab American vote to in particular like that is extraordinary. I can also point out, as I have before, I do think that Trump is worse on the issue. I think because of his coalition. I think because of his you know, past record in office. I think because of the money that he takes from
Miriam Maddilson. I think because of his own words. He was out there encouraging Israel to bomb Around's nuclear sites and really spark World War three. I can tell you all of this, but I also have to say very clearly it is a manifest and obvious and blatant Democratic Party failure that has led to it even being a question that you would support, you know, the party that this is their messaging at their big closing Madison Square Garden.
Rau as I said yesterday, the Trump coalition is a big tent for grievance and that is basically what holds the entire thing together. I mean, that's why it logically makes sense to have an RFK junior at Tulsea Gabbert, a Tom Cotton, a Mike Pompeo, all within the same thing. And now these Muslim leaders, it is basically a hail Mary.
The current system is not working and there has been I mean, the other reason why I kind of get it, and maybe even in terms of them trying to leverage it is just the disrespect that they have been treated with. So for example, let's put what is it, D two please up on the screen. You had this Muslim community leader who was literally ejected from a Kamala Harris rally in Troit.
What was that?
It was on October twenty fifth, just some couple of days ago. He attended the invite only event. It was in Royal Oak, Michigan, excited to hear from Harris Liz Cheney. He went through security checkpoints, sat down on his seat was answering emails. Ten minutes later, staffers from the Harris campaign came to his seat and asked him to step to the back. He was asked to leave the venue, told by authorities if he didn't leave that he would be arrested. So he was literally invited then kicked out.
They assumed, I guess that he was going to be either asking a critical question or was going to speak out against both Gaza and or Liz Chang.
No racially profiled him.
Yeah, they were like, oh, there was an Arab dude here.
Got to get out of a protester.
Yeah, I mean, what kind of bullshit you know? Can you?
Then?
That's kind of what I mean I talked about with the Latino thing earlier. When you have that level of like rhetoric on one level and then action on another, some people just want to burn it all down. That's what I think a lot of this Trump support is now. Ro Kanna has been trying to clean this up. We can put the one up on the screen. D three, please, he said, I invited doctor Ganim for a delicious Yemeny meal.
It does look delicious.
Let him know that he is absolutely welcoming the Democratic Party and he never should have been removed from the Harris event.
But you know, the row on janitorial duty is just not going to cut it.
It's just not And you know I talked about Dearborn. Let's put that one next.
Please. Here you have Abdullah Hamoud.
He's the mayor of Deborn, Michigan, and he says Dearborn specifically said he is not endorsing. I am not here to endorse any single candidate. He said people should vote their conscience, and he said we cannot condone any present that uplifts, any administration that bombs every school, decimating children to smithereens. That is the message we have and those are the values we will take with us through November. So if you put Stein vote plus Trump vote there together,
you're looking for a real upset. And you know, I mean, in a certain sense, I understand it. I understand it as much as I understand Latino support or any of the other I talked about the MAGA rally and as gene like what it really it's about to screw you, fuck you, you know, basically to higher institutions. And there's no reason why Arab Americans and Muslim Americans would not feel the same way as people in Pennsylvania.
Wis Conciner mission.
Yeah, I mean I I'm the message there from the dear born mayor who we've had on this program a number of times, and it has been a thoughtful and open minded critic I think from the beginning, like, how can you tell people that they have to or coerce them into voting when they see what's going on. So you know, the thing we put up briefly was Rokanna saying, I'll look at these cynical billboards tying layers and listen, that's not cynical.
It's true.
You are campaigning with her like, so you know they're running around together doing joint town halls. You yourselves are trying to tie them together. Now you recognize that it's opened up an area of exploitation from the Trump campaign, like, of course they're going to walk through that when you know, yes, it's cynical, sure, but it's also totally predictable. And the possibility that you opened up directly for them to be able to say.
Let's move on to Elon Musk, let's gohead and put this up there on the screen. We brought you previously the story of one million dollar checks being handed out at these events every single day until election day by Elon Musk. You now have the Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner. Those of you might remember him from some of the
previous consternations around SOROSDA or whatever. He survived election there, but he is now suing to halt the one million dollar giveaway that was after Josh Shapiro, the governor of the state, said that law enforcement should look into it. The suit filed in Philadelphia Common Police Court first legal action there, and what it comes down to is it grants Krasner, the prosecutor, the opportunity to basically investigate, to quote take on Musk and to block this one million
dollar type giveaway. The thing is, though, is that currently they said that they have already committed to extending this through election on November five, they're claiming that this must be stopped immediately. The background of it is twofold. One is that they're basically alleging it's an illegal lottery scheme
to influence the election. So people should go watch maybe our previous segment on this, But it all comes down to whether vote it's illegal lottery and two if it is a coercion to register to votes, because the current statute of the US Criminal Code says it is blatantly illegal to pay people to register them for vote. He is claiming, well, you have to be registered to vote to be able to sign this petition.
This petition is.
In favor of what is the first Amendment or free speech or I think whatever, first and second amendment.
Okay, fine, So if it was just that, then okay.
But because of the preconditions for being able to sign the petition, you have effectively created a new lottery scheme to get around voter registration. Is an actually interesting case in terms of how these laws should be applied and the actual interpretation. It's somewhere in the gray area as I understand it.
I don't yeah, I don't know. I think at the federal level it's actually more clear because there is a federal election law prohibition on inducing people to register using money, favors whatever, and I mean election lawyers seem to feel like this pretty clearly meets that standard definition. Who knows how it gets, you know, litigated. The catch here for Krasner is that he has to operate on Pennsylvania state law, which does not have a prohibition against inducing people to
register to vote. So that's why he's using the like you're running an illegal lottery and not following the rules, like only the state can run lottery number one, number two. You're not even following like the legal requirements for running a lottery.
So that's the.
Direction he's going in with this lawsuit. So we'll see where, you know, where this goes and if it has any impact the I know, when we looked at the federal law, the punishment was like a ten thousand dollars find. Yeah, surely, well, it's not gonna be sweating that.
It doesn't really matter.
Not gonna be sweating that too much. Yeah, we've been wanting to talk though a little bit about So Elon is running a significant part of the ground game for Trump, the field operation you know that goes and knots on doors and tries to turn out voters early, et cetera, et cetera, and tracks them how much are they supporting Trump or are they on the other team side, et cetera, et cetera. So the sort of like classic field canvassing operation, A lot of that has fallen too. Elon Musk's super pack,
specifically in the state of Pennsylvania. Guardian has been digging into the reality of the situation, the FKC of this situation, and they had previously were ported to put this up on the screen that counterpoints cover this briefly that they are appear to be getting a lot of quote unquote fraudulent door knocks, meaning that they're paying canvassers to go out and knock doors for the Trump campaign, and that actually almost always runs into problems because these are not
people who are true believers. They're just they're trying to get a paycheck, and there are lots of ways that you can cheat and make it seem like you're knocking on those doors, but really you're just filling in your app like, yeah, I totally talked to Mary Smith and she's on team Trump, and don't worry, she voted already, even though you're just sitting at home in your living
room or standing on the street or whatever. Because I don't know if you guys have ever gone out canvassing, but it is a little bit like it's you know, it takes a certain personality right to go and knock on a stranger's door, and like prosblytize because I'm about Canada.
If they're on your side, I mean, look, I don't know about you. For me, I just stare at my ring camera until somebody leaves, regardless to whether it's politics.
Nobody tells them my door where I live, Please don't knock. I live in all of nowhere.
I should if I really had the strength, I would put the no solicitors sign up, which but that's a whole other level of Karen.
You don't want to go there.
So in any case, already indications that some twenty five percent roughly of the door knocks that are being you know, conducted on behalf of you on super pac are probably fraudulent. And now we've got new documentation. Put this up on the screen. Guardian got their hands on a video that is meant to show other canvassers four Musks Superpack how to cheat, specifically using like GPS spoofing, and this went out to hundreds of canvassers like listen, here's how you
do it. You pull up the map, you pull up this app, you click on the house. Then it thinks that you're in the place. Because obviously these canvassing operations they are aware of the fact that people like to cheat on this and not actually go and knock on the doors, so they put in place mechanisms like GPS tracking to try to make sure you're actually knocking on the doors that you say that you're knocking on. And this is a video how to guide of how to
get around that. We don't know how widely it was disseminated, how many people were using these tricks, etc. But another indication that perhaps the door knocks are not happening in the way that the Trump people would like them to be happening. It's funny in the video they have a quote from and they say, okay, so here's the part the matter. You click the house you want to do not home for about five houses, so you click the not home shit left literature bo boom, and then you
want to put a survey in. This is the survey. You click available for survey. This is what I do. I clicked definitely yes, Donald Trump, early vote no and survey. It's pretty much that simple. So they're telling you not only how to do the GPS boothing, but then also how to fake the data in a way that doesn't flag that you're fraudulently mentoring this.
This is the problem with outsourcing the ground game, actually, and that's going to be the biggest one.
You know.
I'm surprised by the decision from them because I know a lot of people who worked at the R and C over the years, and one of the things that they were always so proud of was the pre eminence of their ground game, of investment in their technology of door knocking. This was a big story in twenty twenty. What happened in twenty twenty is a Trump campaign. The RNC had a joint fund, so it basically was a
joint operation and they invested a lot in technology. Obviously, door knocking was less during COVID, but this time by outsourcing it to Elon. This also demonstrates the problem with the pay to play model of basically paying people to canvas because if you think about it too, you know, canvassers you got to be.
Pretty bought it. It's a shitty job.
And then yeah, you can pay them to do it, but that leads to even if you knock on your door and there's not enthusiasm, you're not engaging with them, sure it's going to be a lot less likely to come out, and then you've got people who are just in this for a free paycheck, you know, basically out there.
This is classic in every election.
There's just people, you know, like seasonal workers who are just always out there looking for a buck of like, oh, you want me to go handout signs? Cool, you know, ten dollars an hour, easy money. And so I think you could see some of that there. But if you do see a Pennsylvania loss, this could certainly come I mean, especially within the margin, this would be a big problem.
And this would be a lesson for elections.
Do not outsource this stuff outside of your control because you know, even with the super pack, because of the way that the laws work, you can't talk to each other directly, you can't cross off you know, your own numbers, like you have a lot less institutional ability to see where you're at there in PA. This presumes that any of the stuff actually matters, which I still remain skeptical.
Yeah, yeah, whether.
This is one of those stories wanted to cover just to put a pin in it. If at the end of the Trump people don't turn out their people at the same level, because we do know and Weigel confirmed this for us too. He was on the ground door knocking with Democrats in Wisconsin. He said, the Trump side has a much less organized operation. The Democrats are much more organized in terms of their field canvassing turn out. You know, field organizers claimate can move the election result
by a couple of points. So, you know, if that's if that's the story post election day, then we may look back at this and say, like, oh, this was more of a problem for the Trump people. Then maybe it seemed at the time, and perhaps don't outsource a key function of the campaign. Then again, to your point, it's not like the Trump campaign has ever taken canvassing all that seriously, and they've done pretty well in the past exactly.
So that's right.
I always come, you know, these political consultants. They want to convince you that the swing state ads matter. They want to say ground game.
I don't. I'm not sure I buy it anymore.
I think in the nationalization, the celebritization of politics, I think it's all just you know, a to the national media, the vibe. You know, things that could like, for example, if Kamala loses the election, how much of it is Kamala Harris, how much of it is just Joe Biden twenty twenty one, You know, I mean probably a huge part. Was there anything you could really do? Probably not same
with terms of Trump. Maybe the election was cooked on the day of January seventh, right for Donald Trump, certainly box could. Let's move on to a Washington Post. Let's put this up there on the score. We had to put this.
This is this. I'm more relish in this, folks. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Over two hundred thousand subscribers have canceled their Washington Post subscription after Jeff Bezos blocked a Kamala Harris endorsement. Now, for context, there are roughly two point five million subscribers at the Washington Post. That means about eight to ten percent of those people have now canceled. Keep in mind, this two hundred thousand figure was as of yesterday. Almost certainly even more and people are going to pile on
after this news came out. But more importantly, you should know that the Post boasted about netting only four thousand new subscribers to the Washington Post in just the last calendar year, meaning what is that fifty times?
Am I doing that?
Math?
Is it five hundred times? In terms of the big.
Versus the people that they gained, and he was already losing one hundred million a year operating the paper.
So yeah, And you know, I've seen people out there be like, well, this just shows people don't want unbiased news and ba bl I'm like, okay, listen, I'm not disagreeing with you.
But at the same time, they sold bound copies of the Mother Report. They put democracy dyes in darkness on their freaking subhead masththead. They sold the tote bag New Yorker vision to everybody here in Washington about standing up to Donald Trump, about being the heart of the resistance. They hired Robert Kagan, they hired Jennifer Ruby that can go on forever at Max boot, all these other folks to give them columns to build them up. They were
the beating heart of Russiagate. They were the beating heart of resistance. So when you sell that vision to people, how can you blame them for canceling. I'm not mad at these libs for canceling, because look, nobody subscribed to the Post for news. Okay, nobody. It's not the best newspaper, hasn't been for a long time. They do it for the vibe, and so when you explicitly turn that on a dime, yeah, you should cancel it. I'm gonna defend all these resistance liberals.
I subscribe to the Washing Post for yes, okay, all right.
Yes, I mean I feel bad. I've got beyond Jeff. I have a lot of people, I have a lot of friends who actually work there.
So I feel bad saying this because frankly they're probably in jeopardy now.
But you know, at a pure media level, this.
Is also the problem with having a freaking fickle billionaire owner at the top end point.
That's how it goes on.
If you think, if you genuinely think Jeff Bezos made this move a week before election day out of his principles, which is what he's biased coverage like I of bridge to sell you, that is not what's going on here.
He obviously, recognizing what a massive catastrophe this is for the paper and how much damage has been done, he scrambled and put together his own op ed which ran in his own paper, where he clearly you know, has a lot of influence and directs coverage, and he claims, I think preposterously that this had nothing to do with his own massive corporate interests, both at Amazon and at Blue Origin, both of which get huge federal government contracts. Blue Origin, I believe. I think it was Blue Origin
last time around was punished by Trump. You know, he's looking at the landscape as like Trump could win and I don't want my shit to be canceled. Was it Amazon the cloud that's cloud contract.
It's kind of complicated because yes, Trump did seek to punish them, but also Amazon was not the best bidder in that contract. So I actually looked a lot into this. It is a big problem because we're talking about ten billion dollars. Whether it's on between Microsoft and Amazon, I don't think other of them should have got it actually, because it just was more like big tech like basically stopsody from the federal government. But yeah, Trump tried to intervene against Amazons.
Yes, they ended up succesfully suing a court though, so it's not like it didn't work.
But he's looking the landscape. He wants to hedge his bets, and he says, oh, it was just it was just an accident that the Blue Origin executives met with Trump literally that same day.
Okay, Yeah, he claimed he had no idea. I mean, maybe he didn't.
But what's funny is that it doesn't even matter if he didn't because he still has a direct financial interest in that happening.
Right.
So, and you're going to tell me that you really came to this rock solid, bedrock principle a week before election.
Yeah, I don't believe that just purely out.
Of disinterested, you know, ideology that you're in favor. Come on. Derek Thompson was tweeting about this. He was like, anytime someone's you know, newfound principle happens to align with their own personal financial self interest, you should probably be pretty skeptical of that. But we can put Jeff's ap ed up on the screen and like I said, some of this is really wild. But he says, I wish we'd made the change earlier than we did, in a moment
further from the election, the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, not some intentional strategy. He also says, when it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of the post. Oh you think every day somewhere some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies. I owner invest in is meeting with government officials. Yeah, that's the problem. I once wrote that the Post is a complexifier for me.
It is, but it turns out I'm also a complexifier for the Post. So really the real victim in all of the soccer.
Is actually it's actually Bezos.
In the words of Charlie Munger, show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. And look, if you read through this op ed, it's bullshit. I mean, Jeff Bezos bought the Post in twenty twenty three. He has invested probably over half a billion dollars into the enterprise and it loses money. Now, the main reason why I don't believe him, like you just said with the Derek Thompson thing, is he was perfectly fine whenever it was democracy dies in the darkness.
And they were making a lot of money.
But also when it seems to possibly clash with his own massive one hundred billion or two hundred billion dollar wealth or whatever it is, now it's worth maybe taking that hit there to make sure that the stock price and other financial incentives over here don't How exactly did these principles not flare up when you were literally the home of Russia Gate. Like, spare me, that's that's exactly how I feel. You gave a one hundred million dollars
to the Obama Foundation. You're giving these genius grants to Van Jones and all that. When it was very popular and safe to be a Democrat. Now, whenever you're looking at it differently and perhaps that there is a democratic move for antitrust, now you're changing your position. But whenever big business the Democratic Party was there, you were happily.
Many people don't know this. He owns the largest house.
Here in Washington, DC, and it was for one specific purpose to hold salon parties, to go to the gridiron, and specifically to become like the gathering place for the Washington elite where Republicans and Democrats are often seen coming in and out for dinner. What do you think you think that's for social reasons? Like, come on, this is the tale as old as time.
Yeah, it's always been this way.
Yeah, no, absolutely, And you know, basically, Bernie was right when he said it's a problem that this guy owns the Post. It impacts their coverage, it's a conflict of interest, It is all of those things. And you know, I think it's really precious if you're someone out there who thinks this billionaire oligarc with a raft of federal government
contracts is really just taking a principled stand. At this point in favor of not making endorsement, we had one other quick media story we wanted to sneak in here, even though it's already a long show and I still have a monologue to do. But obviously Donald Trump went on with Joe Rogan. Rogan in that interview we showed you, Trump brought up Kammlin. Rogan kind defended her and was like, no, I still want to have a conversation with her, Like I'm still hoping that may happen. He tweeted this out
as an update. He says, for the record, the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her. They only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just have a nice conversation, get to know her as a human being. I really hope we can make it happen. What's your reaction, Soccer.
Well, twofold.
I get him wanting to do it in the studio in Austin, but with this close to the election, it may not be possible, and it would be worth in my opinion, compromising a little bit on that. In terms of time, Trump went for three hours. I think that's great if Harris could do it, but you know, he did have Bernie Sanders on. I looked what was it wasn't in only an hour, so there is press.
Yeah, for only.
An shorter political interview.
I mean it does show a sign of weakness. If they only want to do an hour, I think they should just do the three and just eat it. I mean I looked at her schedules. She's got five interviews today, right, so it's probably worth you know, I would say that this one interview is worth three. Whatever local television news hits.
They're obviously nervous. They want to cover their basis. That said Joe in his after action report on a fight Companion was asked about common He was like, if they want preconditions and they don't want to bring up policy, that's fine. I'm interested in talking to her as a human being. Now, I actually I think it's worth meditating on this, and maybe you tell me. I was talking with one of my friends. I'm actually not interested in politicians as a human being.
I have read. I'm serious. Let me lay up my case.
I kind of agree here.
So my political heroes were terrible people, absolutely awful. LBJ, who I believe is the single most effective politician of all time, rampantly cheated on his wife, was a virulent personal racist, often denigrated his female staff to the point of tears, took a shit, and forced his aids to transcribe his notes.
That's a bad person. John F. Kennedy.
I mean, go read about a nineteen year old girl who was White House intern and what she alleges happened with him. And that's one girl out of probably hundreds. FDR humiliated Eleanor Roosevelt by sleeping with his secretary, refusing to fire her, and he died with her, not with his own wife.
Didn't care. I mean, I could go on for Teddy Roosevelt.
He loses his wife and his mom on the same day that his child is born, takes his daughter, parks it with his sister and says, hey, good luck, I'm going to South Dakota for three years.
A lot of these people, they're not good people.
Now, I don't really care about that on one level, because they did a lot of good for the country. So how does it affect my life? How does it affect the you know, the trajectory of the country. Does it matter if FDR or sorry LBJ was a frequent N word user, if he passedes Still Rights Act. If you're a black person, I would leave that up to you.
And that's kind of my point is like, I don't think that the psychology of what it takes to be president or to even get to the level of Kamma or Trump produces.
Quote unquote good people. I also don't care about that.
So that's where there's a little bit of a flaw in terms of, like I want to see who they are as people. I'm like, I don't. I'm not all that interested in who you are as people, as a voter or as a citizen. I want to know what you're gonna do for me. And maybe that's a very cynical people often say Indian immigrant way of looking at it, But I mean, I've just read too much. I mean, for example, Barack Obama, if you read Michelle Obama's memoirs and his He openly admits that Michelle never wanted him
to run for Congress for Senate. Specifically, he filed without really telling her. She is furious to the point of thinking about divorcing him, miserable for eight years in the White House.
I mean, I'm gonna ask you, I can't imagine treating my wife that way. Ever, if she told me I don't want to do this, it's over. It doesn't matter.
Imagine yourself in a marriage, as a family unit, treating your spouse that way with your own ambition. I mean, I think that's sick and honestly gross, but that's kind of what it takes to suffer through all of this. So that's just a long way of saying, like, I don't care who.
These people are. The more I know, the worst that it gets.
I guess we'll take a moderate path on this, because, like you know, with Kamala in particular, there's this really very open, continued open question of like what makes you like what? Because it translates into I don't think the personal and the public are totally separate, because it translates into is there something core here that you're going to fight for you know, And so that's why I think there is something to be learned, something to be gained
with regard to specifically. At this point, I don't even think that there's much benefit for Kamala Harris to go on Rogan's pod like at des late in the game.
His audience is overwhelmingly pro Trump. They have a they are clips, They are happy, but they're happy with the meta narrative that's in place right now, which is like Trump had his like Carnival of bracest at Madison Square Garden and you know, that's kind of they're happy to close on that note, it would be too close to election day if there was some screw up from her, which we should all be very like, like, that's very possible, you know, that she would have a moment that was
really bad for her, So they'd be too close to election day to clean that up. It would shift the narrative into you know, potentially more fraud or risky territory. And so if she had done it earlier on, I
think it could have made some sense. But as I said to you previously when we were talking about the roguan Trump, and are you like she already did her go in the lions Den thing with Brett Baer, She already proved some level of like I can go into a space that's someone hostile and I can hold my own. So I'm just not sure how much there is to be gained from an appearance, and it does have significant
risk at this point. So I understand why they're kind of like, Eh, maybe this isn't worth making it happen.
I think here's why I think it's worth it.
Why not would be a challenge coming in after Trump, It would be a position of strength. It would also I mean, especially if Joe literally said, if they don't want to talk about policy, then that's fine.
I mean, she's going to be.
Honest with you. She does the worst when she gets asked like you know, personal, like what's your biggest mistakes?
Like that?
She actually I think she'd be better off if she's like, I only want to talk about policy.
Look, they claim a lot of stuff. They claim she's in the Formula one. I'm like, okay, you know, I'll hear you out. You know, they claim I was listening to her with Shannon Sharp. She seems like a diet you know, she seems like, well acquainted with food and diet. Right, she said she eats this, She leves to cook. Omlet likes to cook every morning. She says that she works out. Rogan is a workout freak, and he knows a lot about foods. I'd be curious to hear about the morning room.
I can see why some normal people and all that would be into that, But I guess my general heuristic is these people you have to understand what the psychology it is to spend your life on the road, to sleep in different hotel rooms, to literally have the idolatry and the ego to think that you can have the supreme power of mankind in your hands, and to give up everything else in your life to get to that position. I don't think people quite understand it. And we're not
talking about just four years. It takes a Kamala Harris, how old is she's sixty? Right, She's been a professional politician for thirty five years. That means you don't have a personal life. Every single thing that you do is literally revolves around getting to this position, about getting up the next rung. I mean, even with Trump, it's like, you know, even whether he's mar A Lago he's working. Right, when you're having dinner, you're always having dinner with people
who are in the business. You need to be born for this, and like it takes a very it takes a type of personality which most people would not actually like, you know, in terms of in terms of relatability, like with George W. Bush, like the whole, Like I want to have a beer with him. I'm like, well, how did that work out? Yeah, it doesn't work out well.
It makes me think of Bernie Sanders and his absolute aversion to talking about amuse.
Yeah, that's right.
You know, I famously with the New York Times editorial Board's like you know, yeah, yeah, okay, And jam Aids always won his campaign. I always wanted to talk about his biography. He's like, right, and who he is in his back where I like these, you know, is uh Jewish upbringing and hard scrub working class all this stuff, and he's just like, no, I want to talk about policy. I want to talk about millions and millionaires and billionaires of what we're going to do in medicare for all.
And you are not going to get me off of that. So respect, yeah, I respect. That is obviously not the way so there you go.
I would like it to work that yeah, but people delude themselves. You know.
The Obamas literally had a love movie made about him. That doesn't sound like a love story to me what I just laid out.
You know.
The Clinton, I mean, that's a whole other level in terms of boy I mean, okay, So Jimmy Carter probably our nicest president, right if you read his memoir.
I'm sorry I'm going off on this, but this is something I think about.
If you read Jimmy Carter's memoir, he decides to quit his naval career. He's living in Hawaii with his wife. His wife loves why she hates planes Georgia. His wife, his dad dies, and he has an opportunity to go and take over his dad's job.
You know what he does.
He resigns from the navy and he tells her, Hey, Rosalind, we're moving back to planes. She's humiliated, she's weeping, and he's like, that's just how it's going to be.
Didn't she like not talk to him for months or something else?
Yeah, that's who these people are. They're narcissists. They're crazy. Can you imagine acting like that in a marriage. But that's who they are. I feel like that's also just a.
Different time too.
Well that's just makes you. But I claim there is.
Some of that of like, you know, the man is a provider, like we do. I'm the captain of the ship. Right, we do what I say we're going to do.
And it was nineteen fifty five. You think all husbands were acting like that in nineteen fifty five? Now?
Yeah, anyway, Bristol, what are you taking a look at?
Well? Lost in the melee of comments about whale psychologists and jokes about Puerto Rico being literal trash was a comment Trump made in his Big Rogan interview, reaffirming an economic program that is nothing short of radical. Insane might be a better word for it.
Take a look, did you just float out the idea of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs?
Well, okay, we're serious about that?
How yeah? Sure? But why not? Because we ready our country was the richest in the relatively in the eighteen eighties and eighteen nineties. A president who was assassinated named McKinley. He was the tariff king. He spoke beautifully of tariffs. His language was really beautiful. We will not allow the enemy to come in and take our jobs, and take our factories, and take our workers, and take our families.
So this is far from the first time Trump has floated this particular economic program. You might be familiar with him waxing poetic about how tariff's most beautiful word and how fantastic Gilded Age President William McKinley was. Ironically McKinley's Spanish American Wars what led to Puerto Rico's acquisition as US territory. But I digress. Now, I know It's somewhat folly to take all of Trump's utterances totally seriously. He promised everyone on healthcare, after all, and here we are
all still waiting. But between Trump, his main funder Elon, and a host of new right influencers, we can discern that lines of a true ideological agenda that is equal parts radical and regressive. What's more, in my opinion, we should be evaluating presdential connundors based on their stated plans. After all, what else can we really go on? And the idea of eliminating the income tax entirely and replacing it with tariffs is quite a plan. Now, the impact
a session approach is pretty obvious across the board. Terraffs will make prices on all imported goods skyrocketing prices on everything from bananas and gas to electronics and housing, they will all go up. The inflationary spiral will also likely trigger additional price gouging by corporations using the excuse of inflation to further jack up prices. This is exactly what
we saw during the post COVID inflation spike. Now, the shift from income tax to tariffs to fund the government would also be wildly regressive, meaning that the horst among us will pay the most in taxes as a percent of their income, and the richest will pay the very least. After all, the poor pay vastly more of their income on things like groceries, gas, and other consumer items than the rich, to for whom these expenses are comparatively trivial.
In fact, a core reason for the creation of the income tax was in order to combat Gilded Age inequality and to be able to tax the rich. Ecal Americans of course, continue to share to this day. There's also a very obvious practical problem with this policy, which is that it would be impossible to impose a tariff large enough to make up the loss of the income tax. Tariffs represent just two percent of the current federal government budget. The other ninety eight percent is largely income taxes and
payroll taxes. We currently import roughly three trillion dollars of goods every year, but the federal budget is six point seventy five trillion dollars. So even if you put one hundred percent tariff on every imported good, you would still not raise even enough a revenue to fund half of the federal governments spenditures. Not to mention that applying terraffs will lead to a reduction in foreign trade, which will further reduce the amount of tariff revenue, creating a doom's
viral for the federal government's budget. Now, I don't know if Trump knows or cares about this basic math, but I do know for the billionaire anarcho capitalist aligned set that is backing his campaign, people like Elon Musk, people like Peter Teele, the fact that relying on tariffs instead of income tax would require dismantling most of the federal government is a feature, not a bug. In fact, maybe even more significant than Trump's utterances on the campaign trail
are Elon's. He is, after all, Trump's biggest funder, He's running substantial parts of his campaign, He's running an entire tech company on Trump's behalf, and has been promised a powerful government wide role with which he could drive his own ideological ends. He and Peter Teele were also influential in getting their ally jd vance on the presidential ticket to further their influence in the administration. So what is
it exactly that Elon wants. Well, in part, he wants to bolster his own bottom line since he already is one of the federal government's largest contractors. He also wants his various legal regulatory issues with the federal government to disappear. But from an ideological perspective, we know he, like others in the libertarian tech elites, that is a fan of Argentina's anarcho capitalist president Javier Malay. Now you can catch glimpses of Elon's ideological goals when he talks about how
many government agencies he wants to abolish. When he asserts that he wants to cut two trillion dollars from the budget, which is more than the entire federal government discretionary budget, also when he describes all government spending as inherently bad, and when he says that Americans will have to go through temporary hardship to deliver his imagined libertarian utopia. Now, I don't think a lot of Elon fans pay too much attention exactly what Elon says. They just think he's
like cool, smart, based or whatever. But it is worth listening carefully to such a powerful individual.
But we set up those Yes, how much do you think we can rip out of this wasted six point five trillion dollars harvest Biden budget?
Well, I think we could do at least two trillion.
Yeah, yes, two trillion.
I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed.
You're being taxed.
All government spending is taxation. So whether it's it's direct taxation or old govern spending, it either becomes inflation or it's as direct taxation. Your money is being wasted, and the Apartment of Government Divisioncy.
Is going to fix that.
We have to reduce spending to look within our means. And yeah, that necessarily bolths some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long term prosperity.
So these comments are all in line with that anarcho capitalist dream of dismantling government effectively letting corporations run wild, as detailed by Sam Butler over at Drop Side. Elon has also ominously incorporated a new company, officially making him the CEO of quote United States of America, Inc. Now, if you want to see how well this libertarian dream goes in reality, you might take a gander at Argentina, where Javier Malay is doing his best to put radical
anti government pro corporate policies into place. In this new laissez fair paradise, poverty has skyrocketed to over fifty percent. Over three point four million Argentinians have been pushed into poverty in this year alone. Pensions are frozen, social safety netslash soup Kitchen's cut, and all public works projects have been stopped. The type of global institutions that routinely imposed economic shock therapy on poor countries are celebrating this self
imposed shock therapy. But, judging by Malay's popularity knows Dive, the people of Argentina are somewhat less impressed.
Now.
Some in the JD Vance Teel David Zachs tech world are also influenced by the ideas of new right intellectual Curtis Jarvin, who argues for a complete dissolution of the federal government, an abandonment of democracy at all, in favor of a patchwork of corporate fifdoms. In his imaginings, these fightctims would be run by a CEO king with total control.
See how Trump might find that idea somewhat appealing. You would lose your status as a citizen, but instead you'd have the rights of a customer, namely the right to complain impotently to customer service and to depart for a different corporate victom if you are still unhappy, assuming that is that another locale is willing to permit your immigration. Now, I know this all sounds kind of insane, but it's
somewhat closer to reality than you might actually think. Special economic zones have proliferated around the world by the thousands, where the needs of corporations are in fact king. In addition, dozens of four profit charter cities have already been launched, largely in developing countries, and many with the backing of jd Vance's main benefactor, Peter Teel. What's more, Trump's shift on cryptocurrency a key ideological commitment for Elon and the
tech libertarians. Is also a crucial indicator that Trump is bending more to their will than the reverse. After all, they have a fully formed ideology and that is a powerful weapon. Trump, on the other hand, has an ee go and some reactionary instincts, and is also very easily manipulated.
Now it might seem like Trump's old school protectionism is an odd fit for these anarcho capitalist types, but the zero income tax policy, which was wholly absent from previous Trump runs, is what helps make this alliance work and helps it make some sense. And in the presidency of William McKinley they can find a sort of shared imagined
utopian vision. As Jeffrey Kabaservis, a historian of Republicanism, told The New Republic, the GFP has formed a cult around McKinley, largely because he was the last pre progressive Republican president. Time was when conservatives love Theodore Roosevelt, but many now think of him as a big government warmonger. Rightly or wrongly, McKinley in this light appears as the last standard bearer of Republicanism's lost Eden, when government was comparatively tiny gets
strong enough to make the country a great power. So in McKinley, Trump gets his tariffs and the ain Ran set gets their dismantled pre new de Ill federal government an ideal landscape for the will of corporate CEOs to trump the will of the people. Trump also seems to find McKinley appealing because he was assassinated in office of fate. Trump,
of course himself darely escaped. Interestingly, though, McKinley's final speech was an effort to explain why he wanted to roll back some of the tariffs that he himself had previously championed. The period of exclusiveness, he said, is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony
with the spirit of the times. Measures of retaliation are not. If, perchance, some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our
markets abroad. Sounds like a regular neoliberal there. In other words, by nineteen oh one, America had already soured on the economic program, which it helped to fuel the wild inequality of the Gilded Age, pushing forward towards a progressive tax system and ultimately the New Deal, programs that redefine the federal government's relationship to the masses. Of course, it should surprise no one that today's robber barons are anxious to turn back the clock all the way to that era.
Remains to be seen how successful they might be in implementing their vision, but I wouldn't underestimate them either. Billionaires have more or less had their way with America for decades, and it's kind of hard to see that changing anytime soon. So so I'm very curious for your takeover, and if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.