Krystal and Saagar discuss Obama badgers Muslim voters, Elon sued over million dollar giveaways, Bezos panics as 200k cancel WAPO membership, Rogan pushes Kamala for studio interview, insane Trump Rogan moment.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
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.
(00:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Let's take a listen. If you're a.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
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
(01:31):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
More lecturing, pandering and uh, hectoring from the Obamas, How
will it work out?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
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
(02:20):
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
(02:43):
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
(03:05):
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,
(03:26):
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,
(03:49):
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
(04:10):
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.
(04:33):
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.
(04:57):
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?
Speaker 3 (05:18):
I just see.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
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.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Pragmatism is not wanting to hear right now. That's why
I saw it.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Very much as kind of hectoring, lecturing, well, the other
side is worse.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I think that works on abortion.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
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.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
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
(06:36):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
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.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
You know, their family.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
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
(07:32):
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.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
He's like, what the hell do you have to lose?
Speaker 1 (07:47):
You know?
Speaker 3 (07:48):
I mean that's basically how it feels. Clearly it's landing.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
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
(08:11):
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
(08:32):
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.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
They may have good people.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
I'm sorry, I don't take a risk with people that
are taught to kill Americans at two.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I'm on the side of Israel. You're on the side
of Israel.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
Donald Trump's on the side of Israel, and they're on
the side.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Of the terrorists.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Of course, an incredible thing to say.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Get me set you out of two thousand and three.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
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
(09:45):
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
(10:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
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
(10:38):
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
(10:59):
in Troit.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
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
(11:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
No racially profiled him.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah, they were like, oh, there was an Arab dude here.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Got to get out of a protester.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Yeah, I mean, what kind of bullshit you know? Can you?
Speaker 7 (11:44):
Then?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
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.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It does look delicious.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Let him know that he is absolutely welcoming the Democratic
Party and he never should have been removed from the
Harris event.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
But you know, the row on janitorial duty is just
not going to cut it.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
It's just not And you know I talked about Dearborn.
Let's put that one next.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Please. Here you have Abdullah Hamoud.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
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.
(12:45):
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
(13:05):
no reason why Arab Americans and Muslim Americans would not
feel the same way as people in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Wis Conciner mission.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
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
(13:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's true.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
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
(14:02):
possibility that you opened up directly for them to be
able to say.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
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,
(14:32):
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
(14:55):
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
(15:15):
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
(15:36):
to be able to sign this petition.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
This petition is.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
In favor of what is the first Amendment or free
speech or I think whatever, first and second amendment.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Okay, fine, So if it was just that, then okay.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
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,
(16:24):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
So that's the.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
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,
(17:16):
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
(17:38):
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
(17:59):
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.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
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.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Nobody tells them my door where I live, Please don't knock.
I live in all of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
You don't want to go there.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
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
(19:00):
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
(19:22):
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
(19:43):
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.
(20:04):
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.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
This is the problem with outsourcing the ground game, actually,
and that's going to be the biggest one.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
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
(20:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Pretty bought it. It's a shitty job.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
This is classic in every election.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
And this would be a lesson for elections.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Yeah, yeah, whether.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
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.
(22:16):
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,
(22:37):
it's not like the Trump campaign has ever taken canvassing
all that seriously, and they've done pretty well in the
past exactly.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
So that's right.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
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.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
I don't. I'm not sure I buy it anymore.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
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
(23:15):
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.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
This is this. I'm more relish in this, folks. Let's
put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
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
(23:51):
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?
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Am I doing that?
Speaker 8 (24:09):
Math?
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Is it five hundred times? In terms of the big.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Versus the people that they gained, and he was already
losing one hundred million a year operating the paper.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
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.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
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.
(24:51):
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,
(25:15):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I subscribe to the Washing Post for yes, okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
So I feel bad saying this because frankly they're probably
in jeopardy now.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
But you know, at a pure media level, this.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Is also the problem with having a freaking fickle billionaire
owner at the top end point.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
That's how it goes on.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
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
(26:08):
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.
(26:31):
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.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
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
(27:06):
intervene against Amazons.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Yes, they ended up succesfully suing a court though, so
it's not like it didn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
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.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Okay, Yeah, he claimed he had no idea. I mean,
maybe he didn't.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
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.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
So, and you're going to tell me that you really
came to this rock solid, bedrock principle a week before election.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
Yeah, I don't believe that just purely out.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
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
(28:04):
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
(28:26):
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.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Is actually it's actually Bezos.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
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
(29:06):
Thompson thing, is he was perfectly fine whenever it was
democracy dies in the darkness.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And they were making a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
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
(29:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Many people don't know this. He owns the largest house.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
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.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Yeah, it's always been this way.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
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
(30:41):
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
(31:02):
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.
(31:24):
What's your reaction, Soccer.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
Well, twofold.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
Yeah, for only.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
An shorter political interview.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
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
(32:14):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I have read. I'm serious. Let me lay up my case.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
I kind of agree here.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
That's a bad person. John F. Kennedy.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Didn't care. I mean, I could go on for Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
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.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
A lot of these people, they're not good people.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
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
(33:57):
think that the psychology of what it takes to be
president or to even get to the level of Kamma
or Trump produces.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
Quote unquote good people. I also don't care about that.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
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
(34:31):
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.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
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.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
These people are. The more I know, the worst that
it gets.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
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
(35:33):
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
(35:56):
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,
(36:17):
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
(36:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
I think here's why I think it's worth it.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
I mean, she's going to be.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Honest with you. She does the worst when she gets
asked like you know, personal, like what's your biggest mistakes?
Speaker 7 (37:19):
Like that?
Speaker 1 (37:19):
She actually I think she'd be better off if she's like,
I only want to talk about policy.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
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.
(37:44):
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
(38:06):
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
(38:28):
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
(38:48):
did that work out? Yeah, it doesn't work out well.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
It makes me think of Bernie Sanders and his absolute
aversion to talking about amuse.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
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,
(39:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (39:31):
I would like it to work that yeah, but people
delude themselves. You know.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
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.
Speaker 4 (39:38):
You know.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
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.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
I'm sorry I'm going off on this, but this is
something I think about.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
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.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
You know what he does.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
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.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Didn't she like not talk to him for months or
something else?
Speaker 3 (40:14):
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.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Different time too.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
Well that's just makes you. But I claim there is.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
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.
Speaker 3 (40:32):
And it was nineteen fifty five. You think all husbands
were acting like that in nineteen fifty five? Now?
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Yeah, anyway, Bristol, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1 (40:43):
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.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Take a look, did you just float out the idea
of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs?
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Well, okay, we're serious about that?
Speaker 8 (41:07):
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
(41:30):
enemy to come in and take our jobs, and take
our factories, and take our workers, and take our families.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
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
(41:59):
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.
(42:19):
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
(42:40):
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
(43:00):
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
(43:21):
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
(43:43):
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
(44:04):
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
(44:25):
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
(44:45):
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
(45:07):
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
(45:28):
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
(45:49):
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.
Speaker 9 (45:57):
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?
Speaker 7 (46:08):
Well, I think we could do at least two trillion.
Speaker 3 (46:11):
Yeah, yes, two trillion.
Speaker 7 (46:16):
I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
You're being taxed.
Speaker 7 (46:21):
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.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
Is going to fix that.
Speaker 10 (46:35):
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.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
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,
(47:09):
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
(47:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (47:43):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
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
(48:06):
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,
(48:28):
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
(48:51):
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
(49:13):
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.
(49:36):
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
(49:57):
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.
(50:21):
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
(50:41):
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
(51:03):
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.
(51:25):
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.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
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.
(00:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Let's take a listen. If you're a.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
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
(01:31):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
More lecturing, pandering and uh, hectoring from the Obamas, How
will it work out?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
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
(02:20):
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
(02:43):
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
(03:05):
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,
(03:26):
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,
(03:49):
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
(04:10):
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.
(04:33):
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.
(04:57):
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?
Speaker 3 (05:18):
I just see.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
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.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Pragmatism is not wanting to hear right now. That's why
I saw it.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Very much as kind of hectoring, lecturing, well, the other
side is worse.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I think that works on abortion.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
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.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
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
(06:36):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
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.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
You know, their family.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
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
(07:32):
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.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
He's like, what the hell do you have to lose?
Speaker 1 (07:47):
You know?
Speaker 3 (07:48):
I mean that's basically how it feels. Clearly it's landing.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
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
(08:11):
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
(08:32):
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.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
They may have good people.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
I'm sorry, I don't take a risk with people that
are taught to kill Americans at two.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I'm on the side of Israel. You're on the side
of Israel.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
Donald Trump's on the side of Israel, and they're on
the side.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Of the terrorists.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Of course, an incredible thing to say.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Get me set you out of two thousand and three.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
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
(09:45):
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
(10:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
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
(10:38):
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
(10:59):
in Troit.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
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
(11:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
No racially profiled him.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah, they were like, oh, there was an Arab dude here.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Got to get out of a protester.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Yeah, I mean, what kind of bullshit you know? Can you?
Speaker 7 (11:44):
Then?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
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.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It does look delicious.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Let him know that he is absolutely welcoming the Democratic
Party and he never should have been removed from the
Harris event.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
But you know, the row on janitorial duty is just
not going to cut it.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
It's just not And you know I talked about Dearborn.
Let's put that one next.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Please. Here you have Abdullah Hamoud.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
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.
(12:45):
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
(13:05):
no reason why Arab Americans and Muslim Americans would not
feel the same way as people in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Wis Conciner mission.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
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
(13:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's true.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
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
(14:02):
possibility that you opened up directly for them to be
able to say.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
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,
(14:32):
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
(14:55):
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
(15:15):
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
(15:36):
to be able to sign this petition.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
This petition is.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
In favor of what is the first Amendment or free
speech or I think whatever, first and second amendment.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Okay, fine, So if it was just that, then okay.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
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,
(16:24):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
So that's the.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
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.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
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,
(17:16):
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
(17:38):
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
(17:59):
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.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
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.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Nobody tells them my door where I live, Please don't knock.
I live in all of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
You don't want to go there.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
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
(19:00):
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
(19:22):
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
(19:43):
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.
(20:04):
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.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
This is the problem with outsourcing the ground game, actually,
and that's going to be the biggest one.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
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
(20:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Pretty bought it. It's a shitty job.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
This is classic in every election.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
And this would be a lesson for elections.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Yeah, yeah, whether.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
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.
(22:16):
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,
(22:37):
it's not like the Trump campaign has ever taken canvassing
all that seriously, and they've done pretty well in the
past exactly.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
So that's right.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
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.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
I don't. I'm not sure I buy it anymore.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
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
(23:15):
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.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
This is this. I'm more relish in this, folks. Let's
put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
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
(23:51):
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?
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Am I doing that?
Speaker 8 (24:09):
Math?
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Is it five hundred times? In terms of the big.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Versus the people that they gained, and he was already
losing one hundred million a year operating the paper.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
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.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
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.
(24:51):
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,
(25:15):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I subscribe to the Washing Post for yes, okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
So I feel bad saying this because frankly they're probably
in jeopardy now.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
But you know, at a pure media level, this.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Is also the problem with having a freaking fickle billionaire
owner at the top end point.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
That's how it goes on.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
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
(26:08):
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.
(26:31):
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.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
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
(27:06):
intervene against Amazons.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Yes, they ended up succesfully suing a court though, so
it's not like it didn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
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.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Okay, Yeah, he claimed he had no idea. I mean,
maybe he didn't.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
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.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
So, and you're going to tell me that you really
came to this rock solid, bedrock principle a week before election.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
Yeah, I don't believe that just purely out.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
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
(28:04):
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
(28:26):
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.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Is actually it's actually Bezos.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
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
(29:06):
Thompson thing, is he was perfectly fine whenever it was
democracy dies in the darkness.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And they were making a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
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
(29:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Many people don't know this. He owns the largest house.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
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.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Yeah, it's always been this way.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
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
(30:41):
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
(31:02):
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.
(31:24):
What's your reaction, Soccer.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
Well, twofold.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
Yeah, for only.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
An shorter political interview.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
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
(32:14):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I have read. I'm serious. Let me lay up my case.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
I kind of agree here.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
That's a bad person. John F. Kennedy.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
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.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Didn't care. I mean, I could go on for Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
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.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
A lot of these people, they're not good people.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
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
(33:57):
think that the psychology of what it takes to be
president or to even get to the level of Kamma
or Trump produces.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
Quote unquote good people. I also don't care about that.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
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
(34:31):
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.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
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.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
These people are. The more I know, the worst that
it gets.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
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
(35:33):
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
(35:56):
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,
(36:17):
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
(36:37):
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.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
I think here's why I think it's worth it.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
I mean, she's going to be.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Honest with you. She does the worst when she gets
asked like you know, personal, like what's your biggest mistakes?
Speaker 7 (37:19):
Like that?
Speaker 1 (37:19):
She actually I think she'd be better off if she's like,
I only want to talk about policy.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
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.
(37:44):
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
(38:06):
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
(38:28):
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
(38:48):
did that work out? Yeah, it doesn't work out well.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
It makes me think of Bernie Sanders and his absolute
aversion to talking about amuse.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
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,
(39:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (39:31):
I would like it to work that yeah, but people
delude themselves. You know.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
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.
Speaker 4 (39:38):
You know.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
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.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
I'm sorry I'm going off on this, but this is
something I think about.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
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.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
You know what he does.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
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.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Didn't she like not talk to him for months or
something else?
Speaker 3 (40:14):
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.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Different time too.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
Well that's just makes you. But I claim there is.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
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.
Speaker 3 (40:32):
And it was nineteen fifty five. You think all husbands
were acting like that in nineteen fifty five? Now?
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Yeah, anyway, Bristol, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1 (40:43):
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.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Take a look, did you just float out the idea
of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs?
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Well, okay, we're serious about that?
Speaker 8 (41:07):
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
(41:30):
enemy to come in and take our jobs, and take
our factories, and take our workers, and take our families.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
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
(41:59):
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.
(42:19):
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
(42:40):
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
(43:00):
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
(43:21):
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
(43:43):
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
(44:04):
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
(44:25):
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
(44:45):
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
(45:07):
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
(45:28):
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
(45:49):
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.
Speaker 9 (45:57):
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?
Speaker 7 (46:08):
Well, I think we could do at least two trillion.
Speaker 3 (46:11):
Yeah, yes, two trillion.
Speaker 7 (46:16):
I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
You're being taxed.
Speaker 7 (46:21):
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.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
Is going to fix that.
Speaker 10 (46:35):
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.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
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,
(47:09):
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
(47:33):
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.
Speaker 3 (47:43):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
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
(48:06):
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,
(48:28):
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
(48:51):
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
(49:13):
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.
(49:36):
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
(49:57):
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.
(50:21):
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
(50:41):
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
(51:03):
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.
(51:25):
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.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com