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.
Reporter from More Perfect Union recently went to a Pennsylvania Trump rally and instead of trying to find like the craziest people he possibly could at the rally, actually try to have a conversation with people and see if they might be able to find some common ground on something.
Here's a little bit of how that went.
Why Trump instead of Bernie Sanders?
What I look at is more progressives like the Bernie Sanders factions and stuff like that. We actually see a lot of the same problems.
And I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I vote for like a Ted Cruiser, market rubio.
Things are more expensive.
I think people were more scared.
Our money doesn't have no value, and that's why people that's why we're having problems, this whole inflation thing.
It's been building a building for multi decades and it's getting close. Now.
You work in McDonald's, I do.
Do you feel like you're getting everything out of work that you're putting into it.
I believe that you get paid more.
All I am doing is I'm working my ass off to get my money.
I'm a hard worker, and I feel like I deserved more.
I worked down in West Virginia. Yeah, on the rigs for Evil Big Red Haliburton, Oh my god, Halliburton. We were two weeks on, one week off, so you never got to go home. We were the lowest paid of all the workers out there. I only made thirteen to fifty when I got hired on for Halliburt. For Halliburton, YEP. Probably wouldn't have an Iraq War if it wouldn't have been for the Halliburton. There's cheney and stuff.
We were expendable, that's all it was.
Haliburton, Big Red they called it. You're just part of the machine, and the machine can be replaced.
Can you really trust a billionaire help me understand why that's the thing for you.
Yeah, So with billionaires, I would say, honestly, no, you can't, I'll say with Trump when he debated Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, she said all these things about the tax laws, all this, and Trump said, where have you been for thirty years? You know you haven't done anything about it. And then he said, I know you're not going to do it because all your donors who fund your campaign benefit from the same tax breaks and tax.
Laws I do.
So whether it's left or right, these people they're not really going to change the tax laws from the donors that are funding their campaign.
We lost our we lost our republic decades ago.
We're living in an oligarchy.
And that reporter John Russell, who not only does work for More Perfect Union but also has his own sub stack at the haller joins us.
Now, great to see my friend, Good to.
See you, manod Moarning everybody, thanks for having me on.
Yeah, of course, So just talk to us a little bit about your approach here. How did you like was this the general consensus from the people that you talked to, or was this like kind of cherry pick the things that overlapped with some of your you know, worldview.
Look, I poured drinks in the rust belt where I live.
I'm above it. Right now forever.
And you know, the county I worked in voted for Trump by seventy one percent. So when you know the bartender is like me, a white guy with a mullet, people kind of assume that you're on the same page. But when they find out I'm a card carryon labor leftist, I make no bones about that, there's always shock that sometimes we are on the same page. This was the hunch that I brought up to that Trump rally. I
wanted to have organizing conversations. What would it be You know, if we're going to have mass movements and really address a lot of our problems, it's going to require not half of the working class, but everybody in it. So I wanted to see what would it be like if you had those organizing conversations with people in line.
At the Trump rally, we you know, cuture the best parts that came out of there.
There's a lot of crazy things in there too, But people are complicated, and if we're going to meet them where they are, you have to wade through that to get down to that class solidarity and see what's possible when you can get people into the same boat.
Yeah, I mean, I thought that the best part of the interview. We see how many people are out there and being like, oh my god, this one guy to Trump rally said something crazy and it's like goes viral. Obviously you took a different tactic here. What are some of the shared assumptions that you found whenever you were talking with some people at the rally.
Well everybody, I mean we really, as you step back and think about it, we live in unbelievable times, you know, and we're all reacting to that in our own different ways. So the shared things were a sense of disbelief.
Pick your issue.
I mean, Elon Musk recently lost two hundred billion dollars, right and somehow still the second richest man on earth. You heard somebody who was working for Halliburton right there. He was making thirteen dollars an hour for Halliburton, and this was you know that there was a part of his.
Interview that didn't make the cut.
He said, we were pulling double digit millions, high double digit millions of natural gas out of the ground and we're getting paid thirteen bucks an hour. This is Elon Musks losing two hundred billion and being their world second richest man. I mean, everybody, regardless of where you're coming from on the spectrum, knows that that's crazy, right, and we're all having different reactions about what to do about it.
But a lot of the times, the political landscape doesn't have a lot of alternatives to do something.
So John, at this point, a Trump presidency isn't like a theoretical possible future. We lived through a Trump presidency. We know what the priorities were. They were class war, all right, But you know of the sort that we've had in this country for multiple generations at this point is big accomplishment was this giant you know, corporate tax cutting, three sense of which went to the top earners in the country, et cetera.
Et cetera.
So how do you still, based on your conversations with these individuals, but also based on your own analysis, how you to hold on to this idea that he's going to be on the side of the working class when it just wasn't the case when he actually had the power of the presidency.
There's so many things I think about here, but we're really in the infant stages of trying to build working class solidarity. We haven't had the kind of movement that stick around and really work, not just on an election cycle basis at building working class solidarity, but you know, over the long term, partly because you know, the status
quo doesn't want that to happen. If the left and the right of the working class were to ever unite on the themes that came up in these interviews, raining in billionaire power, ending all these forever wars, if working class people got together on those things, we would have a lot to win. The ruling class would have a far way to fall. So those kind of movements have really been kept down. But you know, you never really know what something's going to be like until you have it.
So I think people are looking at Donald Trump and they're saying, well, you know, this guy who might go into a rally and do literally anything. I mean, humph the American flag. Right, That's just one example, but it's a sure sign to people that this billionaire is not like the others. They don't he doesn't fit into polite society that's handed down, you know, forty years of this painful stat nation that we all kind of feel. Now, is he going to go to that for the working class?
Is he going to show up on a picket line like some of the people hoped he would.
In our interviews. No, I don't think he's going to do that.
But the big point to me is that the folks on at his rally they want him to show up on a pick of the line.
They want him to support unions.
You know, we can all have our best whether or not that's going to happen, But the big thing to me is that there is an apptite for anti establishment labor left organizing among the people you would least expect.
To have that opinion.
Yeah, there's been research from Jacovin in partnership with a think tank focused on working class politics. They've done a number of field sudi's testing different messaging and they found exactly what you're saying here is that Listen, you're not going to convert hardcore Trump supporters overnight.
But can you start to shift back.
Some of the class realignment that has happened in the Trump era if you use economic populist messaging.
Yes.
On the other hand, you know, the issues that seem to be top of mind in a lot of ways among at least some significant portion of their publican base, are these cultural like lightning Rod, You know, transgender issues
is big right now. CRT was big a minute ago, and so it seems like there's almost more interest or the voting behavior tracks more with the cultural issues than it is with the economic interest that you know, we see the polls of the number who want to curb corporate power and want to lift the minimum wage, et cetera, et cetera, but that doesn't seem to be the what dictates the voting behavior.
Yeah, my response to that is that we it's not surprising because we live we all live in this environment of engineered division. It's not to cheapen any of those issues. But do any of us really think that there's a good faith discussion that the reason why critical race theory is in the headlines has anything to do with a good faith discussion about anything in terms of racial equality.
I mean, this is here, this is splashed all across the headlines with the intent to divide people, not to have a good faith conversation that should be part of building race and class solidarity. What we hear is you know,
a know, divide and conquer tactic. I mean, there's a small group one percent of the people, the merchant class is the super rich they want to run things, they don't have enough numbers to do that, so they have to divide the working class and add their one percent to the fifty percent that hates the other fifty percent. I mean, really, it's simple to me, but I think we all have to remember that's what's happening and not take that for granted because it's having you know, it's
keeping us apart, and it's just a false choice. And we have to if we're going to break ourselves out of that, realize who.
The division from.
All of these hot button issues that dominate the press, that that suck all the air out of the room that you could use to have a solidarity conversation, we have to realize who that.
Division is serving. And people are smart.
You know. My beef with all of the videos that go up to these Trump rallies is it's like, you know, oh, let's go stare at the zoo animals and let's pick out the craziest one so we can profit off of the clicks. Now, if you have a conversation with people in line, they can understand that they will say that back to you. But we got to get our politics
in order. In a hurry to do something a little more than just react to these hot button things that are you know, engineered and have been pushed for forty years and financial billions of dollars to generate the reactions that we see all the time in our politics.
We got to get beyond that and actually talk to people.
Yeah we will shut John, Yeah, well John, I've always appreciated your work, and I do recommend people go check out the holler on substack because you live from the area, live in the area, work at a dive bar, like it's real for you, and so this image that comes from partisan media, whether it's you know, MSNBC or Fox News of like, oh my god, we're on the verge of civil war now.
I live in a conservative area as well, where I grew up born and raised.
I used to live actually in the area where you live, and we're born and raised now, and it never struck me as being accurate. It never struck me as like a reflection of the people that I know and interact with and friends with in my day to day life. So I appreciate you doing some work to highlight some of the areas where there's potential common ground and things that we could build from It's always great to see you.
Thanks for having me on.
Thanks ma'am.
Interesting little catch on a new line in zooms terms of service. Trust me, this is interesting. I know it sounds like a very boring setup, but put this up on the screen. So they are now saying in their terms of service that you have to allow AI to train on all your data, audio, facial recognition, private conversations, unconditionally and irrevocably, with no opt out.
Let me just read you.
The specific lines here, So keep this up on the screen. They say, quote, you consent to Zoom's access use, collection, creation, modification, distribution, processing, sharing,
maintenance and storage of service generated data. So that means when you're on Zoom and you're like doing your thing, they're collecting all of that for any purpose to the extent and in the manner permitted under applicable law machine and it's to be used for machine learning or artificial intelligence, including for the purposes of training and tuning of algorithms and models. This is something that I've been focused on
a lot. I mean, this is a whole new world because the way that these new AI large language models work is they scoop up the technical term is scrape all of this data that they feed into these models to train them on human language and information and research and creative all of this stuff. And so there's a lot of questions about, well, are you just allowed to take whatever you want? Sarah Silverman and other comedians and
writers are pushing back. They're actually suing these big tech companies to regain you know, to get compensated at the very least, or set some sort of legal boundaries around what these companies are allowed to scoop up. But Zoom clearly working, you know here in Connections saying listen, we are going to use anything that you do on our platform.
We are allowed to use in whatever way we want.
Yeah, this is totally crazy.
I'm definitely going to uninstall Zoom or at least try to use it as little as possible.
You know, you just never know though. It's like, is Apple going to do this? You know, who's actually taking your data?
This is just thankfully this guy was able to catch it in the terms of service. But that's that's it, I mean, and this is part of the creepy thing. You're always being recorded now, You're always, like I was with some friends, we're staying into Airbnb and we were out on the porch and one of them was saying something about his job. He works in a sensitive job. And I was like, hey, man, you shouldn't say that. Here he's like talking about I said, look these airbnbs,
these things are all wired with ring cameras. Yeah, sure enough. I look up, there's like one sitting right there. Wow. It's like, you know, you have to be kind of used to this world where there's like a privatized surveillance regime literally everywhere, and then in the world of AI they are using that even if the person who owns the camera is not using it, it lives on the ring server.
What is Amazon going to do with that?
Maybe they'll feed it into their algorithms to detect stuff. I mean, we're already at a point where they are talking about facial recognition and all that stuff for crime. We know that this happened during the January sixth investigation. For example, you can read in the indictments they literally sent images the FBI did to the facial recognition team and we're able to id people off of that.
That's the government.
I mean, they have all of our you know, from licenses from passport photos, all kinds of information that they're ready to tap with zero warrant or any of that. And that's you know, you know, in terms of how the government is and who's stopping them from contracting some of the sperms and all these other end to get more.
So it's a creepy situation.
Extremely it also shows you how almost inherently exploited of these terms of service contracting are I mean you just you know, you download zoom they say like check the box that you agree. Who is really reading through the thirty pages or whatever a fine print of what exactly you're signing up for? And what choice do you have if you're you know, going to be a breaking points
guest and we're like here's your Zoom link. Are you really going to be like, oh, I can't do this segment now because I don't agree with you know, paragraph thirty two, subsection B, part seven of the terms of service.
No one is doing that.
So basically, they set the rules and you have no choice if you're going to live in modern society but to agree to them. And sometimes those those rules are really dystopian and disturbing, as in this case.
Yeah, totally so anyway, raising awareness. Fascinating and crazy story going on with We Work. As if the saga can't can still continue, just put this up there on the screen. We Work is warning of bankruptcy after years of losses and warns that the cancelation rate of current clients makes it so that it may be unsustainable to continue the business.
So in a new filing to the SEC, the company said it had posted Crystal a net loss of seven hundred million in the first six months of twenty twenty three, after recording ten point seven billion in net loss over the previous three years. Quote, our losses and negatives cattionals from operating activities raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a growing concern.
Yeah, you might call that a growing concern in business.
The company reported it has two point nine billion in long term debt as of June thirtieth. So this is just the latest casualty of the work from home crisis. This in commercial real estate. A lot of people Crystal actually thought that we Work would survive work from home because they were like, oh, well, the flexible business model means that you know, people only need a place like one or just times a week.
They don't need to.
Use it as much, and there was a good argument for it, except reality is caught up and it turns out that people really aren't coming in at all or just like basically defaulting into like coffee shops, and this entire business may collapse completely, which is crazy considering the entire history of this company.
I mean, this was such a hot company for a while. The CEO did great job creating this whole like hip image around it, you know, huge investments that came in. They quote an expert here who I think really sums it up, who says they were brilliant in creating an aura of being the next big thing, but they were never financially successful. So even at the height of the we work hype cycle, they were not really making it.
And so now in the pandemic when workers were forced to work from home and then decided that hey, I actually kind of like this at least hybrid remote work situation, and you have massive office vacancy rates. You know, when people say like work from home, they don't mean work from we work. They have increasingly set up their own dedicated spaces in their houses or apartments where they have an office setup where they are comfortable and able to
then manage some of their like personal life responsibilities more adequately. So, yeah, people aren't really interested in commuting into where we work in the same way they're not interested in commuting into.
Their office, exactly correct. And the other thing that's very interesting.
I mean, if you look at the history of this company, I don't know why it was obsessible we work for a while. There's a bunch of great books on we work. There's like four or five out there. The Apple series. Jared Leto plays Adam Newman, and his Anne Hathway does an incredible job of playing his wife Gwydeth Really no, sorry, not Gwenda Paltrow.
Gwidea Paltrow's cousin life, who certainly makes it known throughout her life that she is Paltrow.
Interesting though, is that this company was basically the poster child of the.
Zero interest rate phenomenon.
Where we Work basically fooled its investors, which, look, it's a good idea, let's be honest. But you know, there's a lot of other companies out there that do what they do. Industrious Green whatever, Green Desk, I think that was one of their original name, etc.
What they did is they fooled people in thinking.
They were technology company by saying they were going to have proprietary whatever linked up the startup movement. They were getting forty times multiples, even though I think it was Scott Galloway actually wrote at the time, He's like, this is just a commercial real estate company.
He's like, why is this being valued as.
A startup because the upside of startup actually exists in software.
This is not a software multiple. This is just rent.
And Adam Newman convinced soft Bank to basically give it billions of dollars and effectively like throw it away and
buy a bunch of leases. The only reason Crystal that this company had any value whatsoever, even post Newman crash, was because he had spent such colossal sums of money going out and acquiring leases at all these buildings that when you write down the forty billion or whatever valuation back to whatever the sane one was, they're like, yeah, maybe we can actually squeeze some value out of this thing.
I believe they went public Vice.
Back for I think a fraction of what they originally wanted, but they still have so much debt on their books that the company still looks like it could fail. Yeah, seven hundred million dollar loss, even after all the riote offs,
all the layoffs and all the other nonsense. So it's it's a massive indictment of business and venture capital and the venture capital just like banks, everybody was willing to give this guy money, Masayoshi san over at SoftBank, all of the you know, foolishness that they were up to in the twenty tens with we Work and with Uber, both which the Saudis were also invested in. Yeah, look, reality eventually catches up. That's we're finding out here Uber.
Even by the way, in a lot of their filings, they're still burning through cash like nobody's business.
It's like, when is this company going to turn a profit?
Right?
A lot of and you pointed to the zero indust rate from That's exactly what it is. Because when money is super cheap, then these funders is like, all right, well, let's just keep floating them, Let's keep funneling more cash into them, and they can keep you know, servicing their
interest payments on their debt et cetera, et cetera. Now that interest rates have gone up quite a bit, you see a lot of these I mean this is not a tech company, as you pointed out, but it positioned itself as tech adjacent by creating this certain brand and a certain look in the space, like let's put in beanbag chairs and have an app for it and convince
you it's a tech company. It kind of reminds me of a little bit of what's happening right now with the AI craze, where it's like every startup is like, let's find some way to position ourselves as AI related in order to get funding. So, to be honest with you, I sort of thought that they already were headed to bankruptcy a long time ago, but it makes sense that Covid would be and the work from home remote work revolution would be the death now for this company.
Yeah. Absolutely, Yeah, it's a sad end, to be honest.
There are a lot of people who put their whole life savings in this company, worked at the company, believed in Adam Newman, investors, all those A lot of those people already went pretty bust and now to go all the way to zero, that's a really ignominious end to the story. But anyway I said, I genuinely encourage people to watch that mini series.
It's very good. The acting in it is incredible.
Excuse me, guys, are you guys together? Have you guys ever been divorced? Have you been divorced?
Have been divorced?
Excuse me?
Have either of you ever been divorced? It might be sensitive because you're to get divorced. It's not just something that your parents constantly reassure you wasn't your fault, even when you're not asking. It's also something that's political. I eat divorced laws. Who can get divorced?
Who can't get divorced?
Well?
Wait, what do you mean can't get divorced? Is it a thing to want a divorce but not be able to get one? And what does that sound like to you? Does that sound like a curtailing of freedom? The idea of not being able to leave a marriage because some people think there are too many divorces, that divorce laws have gotten out of hand and we should go back to the old way. But what does that even mean? So there's something called no fault divorces opposed to fault
based divorce. Do you know what no fault divorces?
Yeah, it's like without a reason, right.
No fault divorce is what you file when you just want to dissolve your marriage, and you're not trying to assign blame to anyone. No one committed any mortal sins against your marriage. I mean maybe they did, but you just want to move on, so you file no fault divorce and let it be done. But for most of history that has not been the case. Do you think one person should be allowed to leave no matter what the other person thinks?
No, no, No.
That's too free, it's too liberal, it's just too.
Up until the eighteen hundreds in England, it was basically impossible to get divorced. The law was such that a woman was, in a sense property of the man, and you can imagine how that might affect one's autonomy. So actually you had to get Parliament to approve divorces. Only about ten were passed in Parliament each year, and they were available only to the very wealthy, because if you're rich,
you can do whatever you want. And that's always been true. Now, in the US, divorce has always been left to the states, and going into the nineteenth century, grounds for divorce were expanding. This worried some people. In eighteen forty seven, the Missouri Supreme Court noted that too great a facility in obtaining divorces is exceedingly injurious to the good morals and happiness
of domestic life. Now, to many of us, divorce is just something you do when your first family finds out about your second family, and it's basically no big deal. But many people are still worried about the deletarious effects of divorce. Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro and Timpoole and Stephen Crowder have all essentially blamed no fault divorce for family breakdown.
Hi, this is Office of Commerce and Nadler.
Hi, I'm a constituent. Basically, I'm calling because my wife is trying to divorce me, and I'm just wondering what the congressman can do about that.
So unfortunately, we're only able to assist with federal agencies.
Okay, thank you so much.
Of course, take care of me.
Bye.
One person in the Washington Examiner frames the fact that your spouse can divorce you unilaterally as a violation of your constitutional rights. The fourteenth Amendment mandates that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, but spouse's sued for divorce have no right to their day in court, no weighing of evidence
takes place. Only one spouse need allege without proof or specificity irreconcilable differences, or that the marriage has irrevocably broken down, or Stephen Crowder saying my then wife decided that she didn't want to be married anymore, and in the state of Texas that is completely permitted now. The first no fault divorce law was signed by Ronald Reagan in California in nineteen sixty nine. What was the last thing, Oh, state?
That was Idaho?
It's good, yuess, it's actually New York.
You know a year New York U.
Seventy nine.
No, No, that's not true.
But there are still obstacles to getting divorced. I recently sat down with Naomi Khan, co director of University of Virginia Law's Family Law Center, to get some clarification on this stuff.
No fault in most states does not mean that you just drive down to the court, say to the clerk, I want a divorce, and you're divorced two minutes later. In some limited circumstances, in some states it can be much quicker, but in many states, if not most states, there needs to be some waiting period. There needs to be some separation or there needs to be a finding of irreconcilable differences before a divorce can be issued.
It depends on the state. But if you live and say Louisiana, you and your spouse must have lived separate and apart for three hundred and sixty five days, if you have children, one hundred and eighty days.
If you don't, what about.
Waiting periods for getting a divorce, You mean.
Like you have to be separated for a year or something like that.
Ambivalent on that, I'd.
Say, if there's a mutual decision and there's no love loss, then they shouldn't be a witless.
Fer A waiting period could if anything, if it's a high conflict divorce, it could make the conflict become even more extreme. To think about where there's violence, think about where there's another relationship. But it's very hard to do these to do these studies, and so we don't really have great statistics on whether a waiting period would help.
Waiting periods are especially a thing in covenant marriages. What is a covenant marriage? People in a covenant marriage who want a divorce must go through marriage counseling and be separated for at least eighteen months if they have underage children. In other cases, including those involving spousal or child abuse, couples in covenant marriages have to be separated for at least a year before a divorce can be granted.
If there's an abuse involved.
I with who daughter when is married out?
O U T out capital let is out.
So that's in Louisiana and covenant marriage is only in three states and almost no one chooses that option, but some people love the idea. The Texas GOP recently added to its party platform. We urge the legislature to rescind unilateral no fault divorce laws to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.
It's not finding very few people opt into the covenant marriage, but three states do have that as as an option.
Steven Crowder also lays out this scenario. If a woman cheats on you, she leaves, she takes half.
States will divide something that they call either community property or marital property, and that generally speaking will be the property that was acquired by either spouse through the efforts of either spouse during the course of the marriage. In
some states, there's a presumption of equal division. In most states there is not its equitable and equitable can made that one spouse would get seventy percent of the assets and the other would get thirty, but it's up to the court or Since about ninety five percent of divorce cases settle, it's up to the people or to their attorneys doing the negotiation.
Who would actually be impacted by going back to a no fault system.
There's been some evidence that the introduction of no fault divorce has actually led to a reduction of female suicide.
That's right. In states that introduced a unilateral divorce, we find an eight to sixteen percent decline in females suicide, roughly a thirty percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and a ten percent decline in females murdered by their partners. Domestic violence appears to have declined by somewhere between a quarter and a half between nineteen seventy six and nineteen eighty five in those states that reformed their divorce laws. So, despite this available data and
the massive inconvenience getting divorced already is. There are a number of legislators who are pushing for this. The Nebraska GOP has affirmed its belief that no fault divorce should only be accessible to couples without children. Louisiana is debating
whether to recommend the elimination of no fault divorce. Senator from Ohio jd Vance said, these marriages were fundamentally you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy, and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they changed their underwear, that's going to make people happier in the long term. And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skept to call, but it really didn't work
out for the kids of those marriages. Now, I've seen no data supporting the idea that making it harder for people to get divorced helps anyone, and that maintaining some family unit, even though it's terribly acrimonious or maybe even violent, offers any benefit to the parents or the kids. What if only one person doesn't want to be in that relationship anymore.
You can't force you can't force that person to stay in the relationship they don't want anymore. You can try as much as you want, but if that's their.
Decision, you have to get divorced.
But you have to mutually respect that person's decision. If they don't want to be with you anymore, you can't force them.
Historically, stricter divorce laws haven't even done a great job of keeping people from getting divorced. In the eighteen fifties, Indiana was known as a divorce mill because of its lacks divorce laws, so they ended up dealing with what they called migratory divorce. And so the thing here is that most divorces are mutually upon, so couples just figure out how to make it happen. Couples often colluded to attain a divorce the state did not want them to have,
and divorce became increasingly easy to obtain. Collusion was the norm. For example, in New York, you could only get a divorce on grounds of adultery, so an entire cottage industry had developed to fabricate evidence of adultery that could be used in divorce court. Okay, now, despite there certainly being people in power and even federally who seem unhappy with divorce laws as they stand. This is right now, not a top concern for lawmakers. This still seems pretty fringe,
although you never know how things can change. And to my knowledge, no presidential candidate has mentioned this, but if they have and I'm wrong, leave a comment down below. If you had any thoughts on this at all, leave a comment. If you didn't like my hair, leave a comment. Share, Subscribe to Breaking Points so you don't miss videos like this. We also have a personal YouTube channel that will be linked below in the description. Thank you to Breaking Points.
Thank you for watching, and I'll see in the next one.