Speaker 1: Welcome to another edition of the schmid Storm. You have questions,
Speaker 1: I have answers. Let's get started. The question is with
Speaker 1: a third party candidacy break the Maga grip in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight? I don't think so. In fact, it is
Speaker 1: the case that a third party candidacy might help elect
Speaker 1: the extremist candidate. Here's the thing. A healthy political system
Speaker 1: does not produce to Trump presidencies. A healthy society does
Speaker 1: not countenance Donald Trump being the all dominant figure in
Speaker 1: the culture for ten years. It just doesn't. And so
Speaker 1: the question is, when you give consideration to a third
Speaker 1: party candidacy, who is going to say what about the
Speaker 1: shouts of spoiler? The system is rotten, It's completely broken.
Speaker 1: There are seven twenty six million plus people that voted
Speaker 1: for Kamala Harris. But the truth is the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is controlled by about seventy five people. Those seventy five
Speaker 1: people aren't on your side. They don't care about your family.
Speaker 1: What they care about are consulting contracts. What they care
Speaker 1: about is power, just like their Maga brethren. And so
Speaker 1: it is theoretically possible for an independent candidacy to thread
Speaker 1: the needle to win the presidency. It's a billion dollar project.
Speaker 1: It will take somebody tough as nails. But the truth
Speaker 1: is can it be done? Yes? Should it be done?
Speaker 1: It should? Does it deserve to be done? Of course?
Speaker 1: Who will be the first person to rise up will
Speaker 1: be the people who are around Joe Biden shouting spoiler.
Speaker 1: Politics is about the preservation of power, and the one
Speaker 1: thing that the American people are alive to all the
Speaker 1: time about is this notion that these two institutions, the
Speaker 1: Republican and Democratic parties, the first and third oldest political
Speaker 1: parties in the world, have nothing in common. They have
Speaker 1: a lot in common, and the thing they have most
Speaker 1: in common is they want the other to remain the
Speaker 1: only competition. It's a duopoly. And they're not looking for
Speaker 1: any outside forces to say you're both left up. And
Speaker 1: the reason you're hurting the country is because we've watched
Speaker 1: for a quarter century the dance of the scorpions, the
Speaker 1: two rattlesnakes living together in a bottle, and the result
Speaker 1: for the country has been awful. The question is, with
Speaker 1: the horrific state of the American media, with so many
Speaker 1: acts of capitulation, who can we trust, Who can we
Speaker 1: get the news from? Who is on our side. Great question.
Speaker 1: Let me go through a couple of things that I
Speaker 1: read every day. I read The Guardian, I read Puck
Speaker 1: News on substack. I'm thrilled that the veteran reporter journalist
Speaker 1: Ron Fournier is starting to write. I read Joe Klein
Speaker 1: on substack, and Chris Solizza, Claire Berlinsky, Sasha Ingberg. When
Speaker 1: it comes to politics, I trust Nicole Wallace, I trust
Speaker 1: George Stephanopoulos, but I don't trust the management at ABC.
Speaker 1: And I think David Muir is a preposterous figure. He's
Speaker 1: an actor and a reader. Call him whatever you will,
Speaker 1: but he's more Gap model or Abercrombie pin up guy
Speaker 1: than he is what Peter Jennings was David from Peter Wayner.
Speaker 1: Many writers at The Atlantic are must reads. I read
Speaker 1: The New York Times and it has some of the
Speaker 1: greatest journalists in the world, but its political coverage is
Speaker 1: a complete and total disaster, and I don't go there
Speaker 1: for that. I think the Wall Street Journal, by and
Speaker 1: large and its news coverage is a superb newspaper, and
Speaker 1: it has claimed, with the collapse of The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: to be the best in the country, which is incredible.
Speaker 1: Given that it's owned by the Murdochs, the free press
Speaker 1: has become essentral reading for me every day. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what an answer to this question, We will
Speaker 1: publish a list of people that I think are trusted,
Speaker 1: that are ethical, and most importantly, people you may disagree with,
Speaker 1: but will never bow down, will never put themselves before
Speaker 1: your interest in knowing what is happening. Why is the
Speaker 1: banning of TikTok in the United States such an important
Speaker 1: issue to so many politicians. That's a simple answer. It
Speaker 1: is a tool that can be used to reach every
Speaker 1: American young person, It can collect the data of every
Speaker 1: American who uses it, and it's controlled by the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party, which is a hostile foreign power. Politicians in
Speaker 1: America look at this and they react to it in
Speaker 1: a couple of different ways. As a parent, I see it,
Speaker 1: I look at my kids. I shake my head because
Speaker 1: of the idiotization that flows from it. But that's not
Speaker 1: a reason to ban it. The reason to ban it
Speaker 1: is that no country in the world would tolerate the
Speaker 1: reciprocal that TikTok represents with the Chinese Communist Party, tolerate
Speaker 1: an American owned information platform that communicates and accumulates data
Speaker 1: directly on every Chinese citizen absolutely not. They would not,
Speaker 1: and so Supreme Court today is likely to uphold this ban,
Speaker 1: and the ban is likely in the interest of America's
Speaker 1: kids and America's national security because for the previous point,
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party is neither benign, harmless or on
Speaker 1: your side. I'm Steve Schmidt. This is the warning and
Speaker 1: I invite you to join. Subscribe on our substack, on
Speaker 1: our YouTube channel follow us. Welcome to the community.