Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Speaking of I guess expanding the math, Kamala Harris was
Speaker 1: down in Texas for a big rally with Beyonce and
Speaker 1: also with Michelle Obama trying to boost Colin Alright's chances
Speaker 1: in the Senate against Ted Cruz.
Speaker 4: Michelle Obama, kind of following.
Speaker 1: In our husband's footsteps, had some very specific messaging towards men.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 5: But see anyone out there thinking about sitting out this
Speaker 5: election or voting for Donald Trump or a third party
Speaker 5: candidate in protests because you're fed up.
Speaker 3: Let me warn.
Speaker 5: You, your rage does not exist in a vacuum. If
Speaker 5: we don't get this election right, your wife, your daughter,
Speaker 5: your mother, we as women will become collateral damage to
Speaker 5: your rage.
Speaker 4: Are you, as men prepared.
Speaker 5: To look into the eyes of the women and children
Speaker 5: you love and tell them that you supported this assault
Speaker 5: on our safety and to the women listening, we have
Speaker 5: every right to demand that the men in our lives do.
Speaker 4: Better by us.
Speaker 5: We have to and how it will affect every single
Speaker 5: woman in your life. Your girlfriend could be the one
Speaker 5: in legal jeopardy if she needs a pill from out
Speaker 5: of state or overseas, or if she has to travel
Speaker 5: across state lines because the local clinic closed up. Your
Speaker 5: wife or mother could be the ones at higher risk
Speaker 5: of dying from undiagnosed cervical cancer because they have no
Speaker 5: access to.
Speaker 4: Regular gynecological care.
Speaker 5: Your daughter could be the one too terrified to call
Speaker 5: the doctor if she's bleeding during an unexpected pregnancy. And
Speaker 5: this will not just affect women, It will affect you
Speaker 5: and your sons. The devastating consequences of teen pregnancy won't
Speaker 5: just be born by young girls, but also by the
Speaker 5: young men who are the fathers. They too will have
Speaker 5: their dreams of going to college, their entire future is
Speaker 5: totally upended by an unwanted pregnancy, her pressure dropping as
Speaker 5: she loses more and more blood or some unforeseen infection spreads,
Speaker 5: and her doctors aren't sure if they can act. You
Speaker 5: will be the one praying that it's not too late.
Speaker 5: You will be the one pleading for somebody, anybody, to
Speaker 5: do something. And then there is the tragic but very
Speaker 5: real possibility that in the worst case scenario, you just
Speaker 5: might be the one holding flowers at the funeral. You
Speaker 5: might be the one left to raise your children alone.
Speaker 6: Do not put our lives in the hands of politicians,
Speaker 6: mostly men who have no clue or do not care
Speaker 6: about what we as women are going through.
Speaker 1: So there were kind of two parts of that message.
Speaker 1: The first part where she's very like, you know, you
Speaker 1: have every reason women to expect your men to do better,
Speaker 1: and then you need to do better. The second part,
Speaker 1: I think much more effective, where she's like personalizing it
Speaker 1: and talking about some of the most dire consequences of
Speaker 1: losing the right to abortion care. But I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't think that when you're out there tell it
Speaker 1: on this issue, right, we know that this is not
Speaker 1: the number.
Speaker 3: One she's for men, right, literally not the number.
Speaker 1: One, And so I don't even know if this message
Speaker 1: really is for men. But it comes off it's similar
Speaker 1: to Obama's of like, you know, lecturing.
Speaker 3: Hectoring and lecturing this Las Obamas.
Speaker 1: Like you're thinking about this wrong, et cetera, and so,
Speaker 1: like I said, the second part of that, I think
Speaker 1: is actually very effective. I think it's consistent with like
Speaker 1: the way Kamala Harris has talked about abortion, how some
Speaker 1: of the most effective surrogates have talked about these specific
Speaker 1: consequences which we have seen, and the way that yes,
Speaker 1: if you're a man, this could affect somebody you love
Speaker 1: in your life.
Speaker 4: I think that's effective.
Speaker 1: I think anytime you go on on the direction of
Speaker 1: like could even be construed as lecturing, I think you're
Speaker 1: on very shaky grounds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's why I was, like, I was honestly
Speaker 2: so pissed off by it, because I just hate this
Speaker 2: hectoring and lecturing, specifically from the Obamas, where you have
Speaker 2: these people who are in charge of the country for
Speaker 2: eight years and then this, you know, as the male
Speaker 2: shift has happened, and there's a lot of reasons as
Speaker 2: to why, but abortion is a key reason why a
Speaker 2: lot of women are voting, and there's absolutely nothing wrong
Speaker 2: with that. But this whole like we have reason to
Speaker 2: expect better from the men in our lives, and it's
Speaker 2: you know what, does she say, the consequences of your rage?
Speaker 2: The thing is, and we just had a whole conversation
Speaker 2: about this with the Trump thing. Whenever people are mad,
Speaker 2: validating why they are, specifically in a small deed democratic
Speaker 2: context is really important. Dismissing and saying you're wrong is
Speaker 2: quite literally one of the most least effective political strategies
Speaker 2: that is out there. So in general, being in the
Speaker 2: position of lecturing people, especially from the heights of people
Speaker 2: were in charge of the country, just completely like counterproductive. Now,
Speaker 2: the latter part of that message, I agree. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's one of those where the most effective abortion ads
Speaker 2: I've seen is when it's a couple and was that
Speaker 2: I forget the people who work spoke at the DNC
Speaker 2: and there was a man and wife and she had
Speaker 2: she needed like an abortion or something, and then the
Speaker 2: doctors denied her one.
Speaker 3: She was left with consequences for that.
Speaker 4: And he's it was a Texas.
Speaker 2: One and he's all the husbands up there being like
Speaker 2: my wife and I wanted more children, and this is
Speaker 2: a I mean, that's a powerful ad. That's a family
Speaker 2: ad that's one that looks at you know, as a unit.
Speaker 2: This was very much like kind of both pitting men
Speaker 2: and women against each other, but more importantly it was
Speaker 2: lecturing against the men. And so I think that the
Speaker 2: most effective is to message like to that unit as
Speaker 2: a family specifically people were in a marriage, and you know,
Speaker 2: it really also celebrated this this this like hyper individualism,
Speaker 2: which is connect you know, that whole teen pregnancy message.
Speaker 2: I don't even necessarily disagree. It's more just like putting
Speaker 2: it in that way is I think quite gross, and
Speaker 2: it's like all of them which part, just the part
Speaker 2: was like, oh, their lives will be ruined by having
Speaker 2: a baby. I just think that's I don't know that
Speaker 2: to me, that one it reads wrong just because it
Speaker 2: very much looks at as like as as something that
Speaker 2: will quote ruin your life, and there are a lot
Speaker 2: of consequences teen pregnancy, et cetera. But I just think
Speaker 2: talking about it in that way very much like centering
Speaker 2: the teenager and the teenage girl and boy and like
Speaker 2: their ability to go on and like do whatever they
Speaker 2: want and this like individualism that kind of does validate
Speaker 2: some of the pro life way that people criticize.
Speaker 3: But I don't know the whole thing to me just
Speaker 3: read wrong.
Speaker 2: The best part of their message is just trying to
Speaker 2: message to people as a unit and why it's consequential
Speaker 2: for you. But outside of that, lecturing and putting people
Speaker 2: against each other I always think is the wrong move.
Speaker 1: Kalin Harris actually did a very good job at the
Speaker 1: debate talking about this, and you know she she had
Speaker 1: those specifics. I mean, one of the most effective ads
Speaker 1: we've ever seen on the topic of abortion was the
Speaker 1: young woman in Kentucky who had been raped repeatedly by
Speaker 1: her stepfather and who said, listen, I would not have
Speaker 1: had the ability to have choices if it was you know,
Speaker 1: Daniel Cameron, who was the one who was running for governor,
Speaker 1: and you end up with a Democrat winning the state
Speaker 1: of Kentucky focused on an issue of abortion. So so yeah,
Speaker 1: that part of the message I do think is very effective,
Speaker 1: but the other part not so much. The same time,
Speaker 1: we got a little hot mic moment from Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: She's at a bar with Gretchen Whitmer and seems to
Speaker 1: get caught saying something like, you know, we need to
Speaker 1: make up ground with male voters. And then she says like, oh,
Speaker 1: there's microphones around ship. Lol, let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: how this all went down.
Speaker 4: Yeah, oh we have microphones and listening to everything.
Speaker 5: I didn't realize that, Okay, Weds, I just told the
Speaker 5: family secret ship.
Speaker 7: Anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the audio is muffled. But yeah, basically we
Speaker 3: need to move.
Speaker 4: Ground, move ground among that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so anyway, some indication that they which I mean
Speaker 1: we've seen. Actually she's doing a podcast.
Speaker 3: It's no secret. It makes it's not a secret.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but I mean to hear her acknowledge it.
Speaker 2: Whatever.
Speaker 4: It's a thing. Right, she got caught saying something she
Speaker 4: didn't mean to say publicly. This is the thing.
Speaker 1: But yeah, she's doing the Shannon Sharp podcast today Club
Speaker 1: Club Chase. So we'll take a listen to that tonight.
Speaker 1: And she's you know, enlisted. I guess Tim Walls is
Speaker 1: playing mad Football on Twitch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, although that was a bomb only they didn't have
Speaker 2: that many streamers on it. Really, this isn't like Tim
Speaker 2: Wall's derangements and so subjectively it was like ten thouts,
Speaker 2: which I mean we you know, we get more.
Speaker 3: On that than our live streams.
Speaker 4: It's not impressed those are not impressed it.
Speaker 1: She's made a number of conservative efforts to try to
Speaker 1: go into more mail spaces and you know, put out
Speaker 1: surguts that she thinks will be effective, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: clearly they realize this is an area that they've got
Speaker 1: to shore up in order to be to prevail on
Speaker 1: election day.
Speaker 2: Yes, either, I don want to get to a clip
Speaker 2: to talking of so many I referenced earlier. Here is
Speaker 2: John Fetterman talking to a New York Times reporter on
Speaker 2: their podcast specifically about that cultural phenomenon I referenced earlier,
Speaker 2: and explaining to her what truck nuts are.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: You know, I I'll never forget. I lived directly across
Speaker 8: the street from the steel Mill and we were doing
Speaker 8: an event there for Clinton, and I asked the Union President.
Speaker 8: I'm like, hey, where we are on Trump? And he's like, yeah,
Speaker 8: probably half or sixty percent two thirds are voting for him.
Speaker 8: And I was like, Oh, that sucks. And then immediately
Speaker 8: there was a guy getting off and he had a
Speaker 8: truck and he had truck nuts on it. You know
Speaker 8: what truck nuts are?
Speaker 9: Do?
Speaker 3: I look like I know what?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's ball hung on the hitch of a truck
Speaker 8: and he honked and he was like, oh Trump as
Speaker 8: he drove by, and it's like, hey, we're in trouble.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does not surprise me that the truck nuts
Speaker 1: guys are for Trump. I actually respect the fact that
Speaker 1: she was like, do I look like do I look
Speaker 1: like the kind of person who knows.
Speaker 4: What truck nuts?
Speaker 3: I mean, I weur suit every day.
Speaker 2: I don't know what trucknuts are, right, I guess I
Speaker 2: was raised in Texas. You know, I remember the first
Speaker 2: time I ever saw a pair. I don't know, I
Speaker 2: mean to me culturally, I think that was important. And look,
Speaker 2: you can give it to Fetterman and he did win
Speaker 2: state by five. He says that they're in trouble. What
Speaker 2: else did he say? He said, he's like the level
Speaker 2: of Trump support is astonishing. I believe that was the
Speaker 2: word that he used specifically where he lives, you know,
Speaker 2: in Pittsburgh so or in that in the Steel area,
Speaker 2: which is interesting. I'm curious, like there's been a this
Speaker 2: is pure Pa politics. Yeah, Harris just recently released an
Speaker 2: ad like centering herself around the city of Philadelphia. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and it was like celebrating Philly and I was like
Speaker 2: an Eagles game, but I was like, you know, culturally,
Speaker 2: this is very interesting because there is like such a
Speaker 2: massive cultural divide between Philly the mainline suburbs. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got the urban population, you've got the white college educated,
Speaker 2: the celebration of the city of Philadelphia, and then you've
Speaker 2: got Pittsburgh and all the other areas so they're a
Speaker 2: rural and pa that are much more like culturally conservative.
Speaker 2: So it does seem like there are picking sides. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure which way it's going to go.
Speaker 1: Well, Pittsburgh is also quite democratic. The city itself and
Speaker 1: the surrounding suburbs are quite you know democratic in general.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean between Philly and Pittsburgh, you have
Speaker 1: a lot of rural, very conservative areas.
Speaker 3: They call it like Pencil Tucky.
Speaker 1: And yeah, remember after when Hillary was running in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: wasn't it Schumer that said that thing about like for
Speaker 1: every person we lose in rural Pennsylvania, were going to
Speaker 1: pick up two in the suburbs and didn't work out
Speaker 1: for Hillary, but a it worked out for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: It may well work out for Kalma Harris this time.
Speaker 9: Around.
Speaker 1: We'll see if that electoral calculation has has blossomed for them.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I guess a real cultural divide on display
Speaker 1: there between the New York Times lady and John Fetterman.
Speaker 2: Absolutely all right. Last part is Beyonce also was at
Speaker 2: that event. Let's take a listen to what she had
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 7: I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother,
Speaker 7: a mother who cares deeply about the world. My children
Speaker 7: and all of our children live in a world where
Speaker 7: we have the freedom to control our bodies.
Speaker 2: A world war.
Speaker 7: We're not divided. Our past, our present, our future merge and.
Speaker 9: We need you.
Speaker 7: It's time to sing a new song, a song that
Speaker 7: began two hundred and forty eight years ago.
Speaker 4: The old notes of.
Speaker 7: Downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved
Speaker 7: ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling,
Speaker 7: an anthem.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It makes me nervous. All the selection makes me so nervous.
Speaker 1: Does remind me so much of Hillary?
Speaker 2: Leo came out to endorse Kamala Leo DiCaprio, Oh jokes
Speaker 2: about that else.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the first time me back to a woman
Speaker 4: who was over twenty five.
Speaker 3: No, it's he saw twenty twenty four and got confused.
Speaker 3: Just a joke, Leo, like, I love you.
Speaker 2: Of age, But yeah, yeah, exactly, will see it does
Speaker 2: seem very twenty sixteen. And she got the tweet the
Speaker 2: Springsteen rally with Obama, the exact same thing that happened
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 7: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: Going to Houston, I mean, both of these candidates now
Speaker 2: it's Kamala, why are in Houston?
Speaker 3: Trump? Why are you going to New Mexico?
Speaker 4: Yes, going on here.
Speaker 1: I mean Texas makes a little bit of sense because
Speaker 1: of coloradulright as one of their best chances to steal
Speaker 1: a seat from Republicans. And I think they also liked
Speaker 1: the backdrop of Texas has been the site of some
Speaker 1: of the most horrifying stories of women, you know, women's.
Speaker 4: Health, and so I think I think they liked that
Speaker 4: backdrop as well. But yeah, I mean, Comma's not gonna
Speaker 4: win tex right exactly.
Speaker 2: You know, every time somebody talks about the Senate races,
Speaker 2: I just always think your job's not to get the
Speaker 2: Senate elected.
Speaker 3: Your job is to you know, be president. So anyway,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: She probably she maybe had some fund raisers. There's a
Speaker 4: lot of money there too, because that's fun. Razors.
Speaker 2: When Trump flies all the way to Montana to do
Speaker 2: a rally, I'm it's fucking Montana.
Speaker 3: Like, less than a million people live in Montana. What
Speaker 3: are you doing? You know, it's like or Coachella in California.
Speaker 2: It's the same thing. Yeah, I mean, but you know,
Speaker 2: we just talked about the nationalization. That's certainly part of it. Okay,
Speaker 2: we've talked way too much today, so we can't do
Speaker 2: Michigan today tomorrow, promise. Sorry, everybody, don't freak out, don't
Speaker 2: leave any for crazy comments. What happened to Michigan. It's
Speaker 2: not being censored. Let's get to endorsement. Turning down to endorsements.
Speaker 2: Huge story here in Washington. The Washington Post, the local
Speaker 2: hometown paper, has decided not to endorse in this year's
Speaker 2: presidential election.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This decision was announced by the Post internally somewhat nine
Speaker 2: days before the election. The decision was made by this
Speaker 2: new editor. His name is will Lewis, a former Rupert
Speaker 2: Murdoch employee from the UK. Calling back to the history
Speaker 2: of the Washington Post pre nineteen sixty and they're not
Speaker 2: making presidential endorsements.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: There has been quite a lot of discussion about this,
Speaker 2: certainly because you may have noticed. But at the very
Speaker 2: top of the Washington Post there's a little line on
Speaker 2: beneath it it says democracy dies in the darkness. And
Speaker 2: I seem to recall, you know, millions of dollars and
Speaker 2: lots of people here in DC signing up for the
Speaker 2: Washington Post for democracy dies in the darkness, and lots
Speaker 2: of resistance liberalism and columnists there who signed up for
Speaker 2: that vision under Jeff Bezos, and then Bezos himself deciding
Speaker 2: nine days before the election is like, yeah, you.
Speaker 3: Know what, We're not gonna endorse here. So there's quite
Speaker 3: a lot to say about it.
Speaker 2: I think it really just comes down to the capriciousness
Speaker 2: of a billionaire owned media and you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of people I don't know, Tell me if you agree
Speaker 2: with me. There's been a big thing online about people
Speaker 2: who are canceling the Washington Posts and journalists and others
Speaker 2: their subscriptions, yeah, are like, please don't cancel the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: It hurts journalists. I'm go go you know what, let
Speaker 2: me defend these folks. These people signed up for freaking
Speaker 2: democracy dies in the darkness their resistance lives. These are
Speaker 2: the people who made millions selling an annotated copy of
Speaker 2: the Mulla Report. Okay, some people Pepperig Farm remembers. So
Speaker 2: when those same people don't see a COMMA endorsement, what
Speaker 2: do you think is going to happen?
Speaker 3: You took their money gladly.
Speaker 4: I agree.
Speaker 3: When it was anti Trump, I agree with you. Sorry,
Speaker 3: you can't have it both ways.
Speaker 4: Also, like it's owned by a billions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: If he wants to kick in some more money, it
Speaker 4: will be nothing.
Speaker 2: He lost one hundred millions last year on the post.
Speaker 2: He's not gonna chap his ass to lose four thousand subscribers. Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So like if he wants to fill in that gap,
Speaker 1: then that's on him. That's not on you know, the
Speaker 1: people who are disgusted with this decision. And I don't
Speaker 1: care how you feel, abou Kama Harris or Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You should be disgusted with this decision because it's pretty clear.
Speaker 1: The Washington Posts reported that the decision did come directly
Speaker 1: from Jeff Bezos, and we all know why he's a
Speaker 1: big government contractor. Blue Origin has massive contracts with the
Speaker 1: federal government, and Trump did cancel some of his contracts
Speaker 1: last time around two. So he's looking at this and
Speaker 1: he's putting his own like class capitalist interests ahead of
Speaker 1: the way of the the journalistic integrity of the Post.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on here. He's he and by the way,
Speaker 1: we can put E two up on the screen. Friday's announcement,
Speaker 1: based right at the Guardian didn't mention Amazon and didn't
Speaker 1: mention Blue Origin, but within ours, high ranking officials of
Speaker 1: Blue Origin met with Trump after a campaign speech in Austin, Texas,
Speaker 1: as the Republican omni seeks a second presidency, Trump met
Speaker 1: with Blue Origin CEO and vice president of government relations.
Speaker 4: That means lobbying, according to the AP.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, CNN reported the Amazon CEO, Andy Jasse had also
Speaker 1: recently reached out to speak with the former president by phone.
Speaker 1: Those reported overtures were eviscerated by Washington Post Editor at
Speaker 1: large and longtime columnist Robert Kagan, which TLDR. He calls
Speaker 1: it a clear quid pro quote, and I think that's
Speaker 1: fairly obvious.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Bezos doesn't want to have his government contracts canceled.
Speaker 4: Again.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want to be crosswise with Trump. He wants
Speaker 1: to make nice with him because he thinks Trump may
Speaker 1: well be back in the White House and he knows
Speaker 1: there'll be no punishment from the Kamala Harris people if
Speaker 1: they win. They're not gonna, you know, go out for
Speaker 1: quote unquote retribution. So yeah, that's what's going on. And again,
Speaker 1: like I said, this is not to try to make
Speaker 1: a partisan point. This is to say you should be
Speaker 1: very very leary a billionaire influence in politics, billionaire influence
Speaker 1: in media, billionaire ownership.
Speaker 4: And I will also say when Bernie.
Speaker 1: Sanders made this point back in twenty twenty about how
Speaker 1: the Bezos Washing Post maybe wasn't too friendly towards him
Speaker 1: because of his class politics, he was smeared as a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist by the same people who now like you
Speaker 1: should be. You owe Bernie Sanderson apology because obviously he
Speaker 1: was right.
Speaker 3: I did so many monologues.
Speaker 2: Act some of my most viral monologues initially over at
Speaker 2: Rising were specifically about this billionaire ownership of the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: I remember, remember when Bloomberg was in the race and
Speaker 2: Bloomberg News was like, we're still objective.
Speaker 3: I go, yeah, you're definitely still objective whenever the guy
Speaker 3: of your namesake is in the goddamn race, that's right sure.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the guy justifying that, Mikelthwaite, is
Speaker 2: the same British moron who was on stage with Trump
Speaker 2: talking about tariffs. Just so people know for who exactly
Speaker 2: are like the most corrupt people in this country.
Speaker 3: And that's the point.
Speaker 2: The point though, and the irony is when democracy dies
Speaker 2: in the darkness. These people didn't give a damn about
Speaker 2: billionaire ownership because it was fine for them, and yet
Speaker 2: now it's oh my god, you know he's he's like
Speaker 2: playing with our lives and giving up on our values.
Speaker 2: And look, I have some sympathy because Jennifer Rubin, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, these brain dead resistance people, to be fair,
Speaker 2: they were courted on this basis, they were employed on
Speaker 2: the very like real idea. Even Robert Kagan, right, Okay,
Speaker 2: So for people who don't know who, Robert Kagan is
Speaker 2: literally one of the chief voices for war in Iraq,
Speaker 2: neo conservative, unreconstructed, married to Victoria Newland, who is one
Speaker 2: of the most psychotic former members of the State Department
Speaker 2: of NATO, expansion, etc. I have nothing nice to say
Speaker 2: about these people, but they were hired on the basis
Speaker 2: of being anti Trump for these quote unquote like principal reasons.
Speaker 2: So even though I disagree with them, it's not like
Speaker 2: they don't have a coherent worldview. And so for Bezos
Speaker 2: to just change the rules of the game, which he can,
Speaker 2: is deeply disingenuous to his readers and to his employees.
Speaker 2: And that's the problem, is that when it's capricious and
Speaker 2: it's totally up to him, it's just a ludicrous position
Speaker 2: that puts, you know, it just tells.
Speaker 3: Us what the whole game is about. Yeah, and I
Speaker 3: don't want everybody to know that.
Speaker 2: And also why nobody billionaire or whatever owns a slice
Speaker 2: of this company and the only people who control it
Speaker 2: are the vast majority of our previous describers.
Speaker 1: It is also I mean, it is also like capitulation
Speaker 1: advance because they do know that Trump will, you know,
Speaker 1: will look to punish his political enemies because he's done
Speaker 1: it in the past. And there's a more reporting for
Speaker 1: the Washington Post this morning.
Speaker 4: I'm just reading. Jeff Stein tweeted this out.
Speaker 1: Some billionaires who Trump targeted are now hedging their bets
Speaker 1: as the president former president vous retribution against enemies if elected.
Speaker 1: Bezos block Swappo endorsement. Zuckerberg is promising neutrality. Warren Buffett
Speaker 1: is staying out. The Google chief reportedly called Trump to
Speaker 1: praise his McDonald's stuff. CEO's rushing to back channel to
Speaker 1: Team Trump.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 1: Trump has not had no issue calling out political enemies
Speaker 1: by name, threatening to use the force of government for retribution.
Speaker 1: Apparently that is intimidating a lot of wealthy targets. Is
Speaker 1: a very scary sign that government intimidation works is the
Speaker 1: take of one individual.
Speaker 4: So, you know, I do think this is part of
Speaker 4: a pattern of people who fear that.
Speaker 1: Trump is going to end up back in the White
Speaker 1: House and don't want to be on his bad side
Speaker 1: because they want their companies to continue to flourish. They
Speaker 1: don't want to be made, you know, an example of
Speaker 1: by Trump even by just turning them into a partisan name,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 4: So that's part of what you see going on.
Speaker 1: Lumped into this conversation, potentially unfairly was the La Times,
Speaker 1: which also decided not to endorse in this race, and
Speaker 1: I think you could similarly make a point about, like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the billionaire owner of the La Times
Speaker 1: who was also making the decisions for the newsroom about
Speaker 1: not endorsing, but seems to have a more principled reason
Speaker 1: for doing so. We can put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen with regards to La Times. So their billionaire owner
Speaker 1: says that they are protesting calmless support of Israel's war
Speaker 1: in Gaza. This is according to his daughter, a thirty
Speaker 1: one year old political activist who has been They've been
Speaker 1: consistently anti genocide in terms of the Israeli assault on Gaza,
Speaker 1: anti apartheid. She's been a consistent activist on the you know,
Speaker 1: pro Palestine side of this equation. So she said, quote,
Speaker 1: our family made the joint decision not to endorse a
Speaker 1: presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I've
Speaker 1: been involved in the process, and point to commeless support
Speaker 1: for Israel's war in Gaza. So you know, like I said,
Speaker 1: more principled. Certainly, you know, a direction I support a
Speaker 1: lot more in terms of the rationale behind it, although
Speaker 1: you still have to say, like you know, the billionaire
Speaker 1: influence part, even if it is a cause that I support,
Speaker 1: it's still a troubling direction.
Speaker 2: Well, and this, look, the whole point is to me,
Speaker 2: this just goes against the idea of the news business
Speaker 2: in the first place. I'm like, these endorsements, and specifically
Speaker 2: in the more partisan age, they're not swaying anybody. They're
Speaker 2: purely cultural signifiers, and I think that's fundamentally wrong with
Speaker 2: the way that this all should be in the first place. Like, notice,
Speaker 2: you know, nobody's been endorsing anybody over here. I did
Speaker 2: a whole monologue where I said how you should vote,
Speaker 2: and specifically it was like, how you should think about
Speaker 2: voting based on the issues that are important to you,
Speaker 2: because you're the one who.
Speaker 3: Should make that decision. Outsourcing your thinking to somebody else
Speaker 3: is frankly ridiculous.
Speaker 2: But that is the mainstay of a lot of current
Speaker 2: Republican out a lands and a lot of these democratic ones.
Speaker 2: So there's a meta conversation, I guess, yeah, to be had,
Speaker 2: But broadly, what I really come back to is these
Speaker 2: journalists who are constantly tutting everybody who's canceling their Washington
Speaker 2: Post subscription. I'll be like, hey, I hate to break
Speaker 2: it to you. The people who subscribed to it. They
Speaker 2: didn't do it for the News. They did it for
Speaker 2: this democracy dies in the darkness. Mullershit. And so you
Speaker 2: cannot be mad at them when they cancel, because they
Speaker 2: you renegged on the vision that they sold.
Speaker 3: That's the whole point.
Speaker 1: Bethos is in general, even just from a business, has
Speaker 1: been a horrendous owner of the Post. They have been
Speaker 1: bleeding subscribers. You know for a while now New York
Speaker 1: Times has been able to very successfully, like.
Speaker 4: They rolled it up their business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they have all these different verticals, the cooking
Speaker 1: and the sports and the games and all this stuff
Speaker 1: that's very popular that doesn't isn't just reliant on opposition
Speaker 1: to this one political figure. But you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: the Post is going to be fine because, like I said,
Speaker 1: they've got a billionaire owner. Who to make up that
Speaker 1: lost thousands of subscriptions is absolutely nothing. But I still
Speaker 1: someone tweet this, and I think this is probably correct
Speaker 1: that there will likely be a lot less I think
Speaker 1: these are indications that there will be a lot less
Speaker 1: institutional resistance.
Speaker 4: To Trump this time around.
Speaker 1: That more the mo is Let's try to be neutral,
Speaker 1: let's try to placate him, Let's try not to earn
Speaker 1: his iire, let's try not to, you know, tank like
Speaker 1: have our government contracts canceled, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: you know, we had already seen this in terms of
Speaker 1: Wall Street and Finance warming up to Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: the number of donors that he's getting from the institutional
Speaker 1: finance much larger than they were back in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: or even in twenty twenty. He has gone out of
Speaker 1: his way to make explicit promises to billionaires in the country.
Speaker 1: Obviously is backed by the wealthiest person on the planet.
Speaker 1: But I do think that that this is an indication
Speaker 1: that the strategy of lockstep institutional resistance to Trump is
Speaker 1: has basically disintegrated into no, we're going to try to
Speaker 1: appease him, try to go along, to get along, so
Speaker 1: that we don't end up in his targets.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I also just think there's like a cultural
Speaker 2: difference at this point. If Trump has been around for
Speaker 2: a long time, like the shock of his win in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, and that level of like employee walk out out,
Speaker 2: this stuff is gone, you know at this point, and
Speaker 2: if I don't see it coming back in that way,
Speaker 2: whatever resistance to Trump what form that will take. It
Speaker 2: will not be the cringe twenty seventeen version. I would
Speaker 2: hope it's much more of a deep, like actual assessment
Speaker 2: within the party about like, hey, why didn't we have
Speaker 2: a primary?
Speaker 3: Why did we prop up Biden for such a lot?
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm curious with you, do you think that'll happen
Speaker 2: or do you think they're going to go rush Agate
Speaker 2: again or like some similar like cope, what do you
Speaker 2: think the cope.
Speaker 3: It's going to be cope of course, just racism.
Speaker 1: No, I think probably they'll blame like it depends on
Speaker 1: how the election results go down, but it's certainly possible
Speaker 1: they'll blame people who you voted for Jill Stein or
Speaker 1: sat out because they were disgusted with the support for genocide. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's you know, that's a pretty clear trajectory.
Speaker 1: You already see the ads that are you know, against
Speaker 1: Jill Stein. You see those efforts under way, So that
Speaker 1: will be that will be a big part of it.
Speaker 1: But I think also secretly they'll just decide like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's sexism and we could just never run a woman.
Speaker 2: Again, right, which is so dumb. Again, like Greshen Whitmer
Speaker 2: would be way more competitive.
Speaker 4: In this race. But don't you think that's true?
Speaker 1: If Hillary and both lose to Trump, the secret assessment,
Speaker 1: the public assessment will be, you know, the public to
Speaker 1: racist b I mean, sexist, blah blah blah, and the
Speaker 1: secret assessment will be like, that's why we must only
Speaker 1: run men year on out.
Speaker 2: I think it won't be an elite assessment, unfortunately. I
Speaker 2: think a lot of it will come to voters. Democratic
Speaker 2: voters care a lot about winning, and they're less ideological
Speaker 2: in terms of.
Speaker 3: They're willing to go along with a lot and they
Speaker 3: want to win.
Speaker 2: And so if that is the assessment from elite media
Speaker 2: and others that is kind of pumped out there, then
Speaker 2: they may internalize it.
Speaker 3: Again, I think that's totally incorrect. I mean, she's not
Speaker 3: that far away.
Speaker 4: From she's doing way better than Yeah, she's so much will.
Speaker 3: You know, kind of a dumb thesis, but I could
Speaker 3: see it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I really do hope when Biden is gone and we
Speaker 2: can all talk, honestly, they we'll just talk about how
Speaker 2: insane it was to prop them up for as long
Speaker 2: as we did, how insane it was not that going
Speaker 2: to happen.
Speaker 1: That's not going to happened because they were. They're all
Speaker 1: complicit in it, you know, so they can't they can't.
Speaker 1: It can't be that, I mean the yeah, the in fact, actually,
Speaker 1: actually it's.
Speaker 4: Much more likely. The conversation you get is should have
Speaker 4: stuck with Biden.
Speaker 1: I'm telling I already see people on Twitter are like,
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced that she's better than the mind.
Speaker 4: It's like you are.
Speaker 1: Insane, you are in like, go back and watch that
Speaker 1: debate and tell me that this was the guy that
Speaker 1: Democrats should have run. No, Obviously, the much better direction
Speaker 1: would have been to actually have a primary process where
Speaker 1: voters actually got to vet these candidates, where you know,
Speaker 1: even if it doesn't end up being Kamlers, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, she has to go through the
Speaker 1: rigors of that and is strengthened by that process. That's clear,
Speaker 1: like very obvious taken. Then there's you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there'll also be a she loses Pennsylvania, They'll be that
Speaker 1: she should have picked jos Shapiro to Oh yeah, right,
Speaker 1: that'll be a big one as well. So it just
Speaker 1: still depends on the flavor of what goes down. But
Speaker 1: I think you are much more likely to see the
Speaker 1: we should have stuck with Biden than the we should
Speaker 1: have actually had a democratic process.
Speaker 3: Very possible. All right, guys, we got treat to Parsi
Speaker 3: standing by. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: So, as we're usual, we have huge updates coming out
Speaker 1: of the Middle East, and to break down the very
Speaker 1: latest with regard to Israel retaliating against Iran, we've got
Speaker 1: doctor Treta Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible state Craft.
Speaker 4: Great to see you, sir, Good to you.
Speaker 9: Good to be with you guys again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, so let's put this Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: article up on the screen. You know, I refer to
Speaker 1: these in a shorthand as retaliatory attacks. Of course, we
Speaker 1: know that that's not exactly accurate, since this is just
Speaker 1: retaliation to the latest Iranian attacks, which were retaliation for
Speaker 1: Israeli attacks.
Speaker 4: But in any case, we've.
Speaker 1: Got a Wall Street Journal article here arguing that Biden
Speaker 1: pushed Israel to limit their attacks on Iran, yet still
Speaker 1: inflict a heavy blow. Based on what we know about
Speaker 1: the sites that Israel did strike, what can we say
Speaker 1: about the level of these attacks and the potential response.
Speaker 9: Well, the interesting thing is we actually cannot say that much. Clearly,
Speaker 9: the Israelis struck. Clearly, they were successful in striking at
Speaker 9: least twenty sites. They left about five people killed. That
Speaker 9: number may increase. There's definitely been some damage. The extent
Speaker 9: to which that damage has occurred, however, is unclear. The
Speaker 9: Israelis are saying that they've essentially taken out all of
Speaker 9: Yvan's long range anti defense missiles and systems. The iranis
Speaker 9: of course downplaying it. I think the Israelis are exaggerating.
Speaker 9: The truth may be somewhere in between, but we frankly
Speaker 9: just don't know quite yet. But this is very important
Speaker 9: because if the Israeli narrative turns out to be true,
Speaker 9: and I'm personally skeptical, part of the reason I'm skeptical
Speaker 9: is because it actually serves the interests of those in
Speaker 9: Israel or in power. We want to see further escalation
Speaker 9: because the argument they're essentially making is see Yran no
Speaker 9: longer has long range anti defense missiles. As a result,
Speaker 9: it is going to be relatively easy now to strike
Speaker 9: the nuclear program. What are we waiting for? Let's just
Speaker 9: go for it and then hoping that either the Bide
Speaker 9: administration or the Trump admonstration would go along with it.
Speaker 9: I'm very skeptical of this for several reasons. A because
Speaker 9: we don't know quite yet the extent of the damage.
Speaker 9: We don't know how long it will take Vanians to
Speaker 9: recuperate from whatever that damage is. But also no one
Speaker 9: thought that the danger with striking Van's nuclear program was
Speaker 9: Yvon's anti defense missiles. That has not been the reason
Speaker 9: as to why the strikes have not taken place. The
Speaker 9: reason why the strikes hasn't taken place is because it's
Speaker 9: quite clear if the nuclear sites are struck, the Ivanians
Speaker 9: will weaponize their program, they will leave the MPT. And
Speaker 9: given how deeply much of the program is underground, the
Speaker 9: US it's self has made the assessment that whe or
Speaker 9: without anti defense missiles in place, the ability to actually
Speaker 9: take out the facilities underground is very very limited. If
Speaker 9: the US has that calculation, restitualt Israeli simply cannot do it.
Speaker 9: So there's a lot of fog and a lot of
Speaker 9: smoke right now, and it is all about establishing various narratives.
Speaker 9: And from the Israeli side, of course, the narrative they
Speaker 9: want is see this was easy. The Iranians couldn't do
Speaker 9: that much about it. What are we waiting for unleash
Speaker 9: us and allow us to take out everything?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, doctor Parsi, in terms of the Iranian regime
Speaker 2: and just the way they have reacted to this, what
Speaker 2: does it tell us? Is it similar to last time
Speaker 2: around where we consider the matter closed? How is the
Speaker 2: message that is currently coming out of media and others
Speaker 2: in response to this.
Speaker 9: So initially, almost even before any real assessment could be
Speaker 9: made of what the damage was, they were downplaying it,
Speaker 9: which sent a clear signal they don't want to see
Speaker 9: further escalation. They're not the ones who started this exchange
Speaker 9: of direct fire between Israel and Yvon. That's what the
Speaker 9: Israelis started on April first, when they struck the Ivanian
Speaker 9: consular section of the embassy in Damascus. But as time
Speaker 9: has passed, and as we have seen, most importantly that
Speaker 9: there has been casualties, you are seeing things happening in
Speaker 9: the Ivanian debate in which there is a lot of
Speaker 9: anger and a lot of belief that not responding may
Speaker 9: actually be a mistake. What they don't want to see
Speaker 9: is the idea of striking Tehran becoming normalized in the
Speaker 9: same way that striking Damascus or striking Beirut has become
Speaker 9: normalized for these Raelis. They do it regularly. It's hardly
Speaker 9: news any longer, certainly not in the mainstream American media.
Speaker 9: They almost never report on those things. The Ivanis don't
Speaker 9: want to end up in that situation in which Israel
Speaker 9: striking Tehran will become a normalized issue, and that is
Speaker 9: one of the pressures internally for them to do something.
Speaker 9: The question, of course is what could they do without
Speaker 9: sparking the larger ward that the Israelis want and these
Speaker 9: Iranians do not want.
Speaker 1: Interesting. Yeah, that's such a great point. I hadn't thought
Speaker 1: about about the normalization of those Israeli attacks on Bayvorud
Speaker 1: and on Damascus. I wanted to ask you what you
Speaker 1: made of this reporting inside of the Wall Street journal
Speaker 1: piece we just had at They say that the White
Speaker 1: House use Israel's request for that anti missile battery as
Speaker 1: leverage after the Pentagon indicated Israel wanted the system to
Speaker 1: bolster its defenses against Iran. Tony Blinkin recommended at a
Speaker 1: meeting with Biden. The US agreed to send it only
Speaker 1: if Israel promised to strike only military sites.
Speaker 4: What do you make of that assertion of the use of.
Speaker 1: That anti missile battery basically to sort of coerce the
Speaker 1: Israelis into not striking nuclear sites.
Speaker 9: I think this whole thing is a bit of a fallacy.
Speaker 9: I don't doubt that the story is true, and I
Speaker 9: wouldn't doubt that Blincoln would have agreed to the fads
Speaker 9: even if he got nothing from these Raelis. The bottom
Speaker 9: line is the fact that they didn't strike the nuclear
Speaker 9: facilities may not be that relevant if this continues to escalate,
Speaker 9: And there's much to indicate that, even though the Vanians
Speaker 9: may not respond quickly, that this is not the end
Speaker 9: of this story. This may be the end of one chapter.
Speaker 9: But unfortunately, as long as the United States helps Israel
Speaker 9: reduce the cost of its own escalations by rushing in
Speaker 9: and protecting it every time it happens, and every time
Speaker 9: these Raelis want to escalate, instead of saying no, we
Speaker 9: don't want to war in the region, they can drag
Speaker 9: us in. Instead, we say we'll just strike here, just
Speaker 9: strike there, and we'll give you more missiles so you
Speaker 9: don't have to be the cost of it. If that
Speaker 9: is our approach, all we're doing is that we're ensuring escalation,
Speaker 9: We're just ensuring it at a slower pace than if
Speaker 9: we didn't provide those if we didn't push back against
Speaker 9: those initial targets, this may very well end up with
Speaker 9: strikes against the nuclear sides and a complete war. So
Speaker 9: just slowing it down, which is what the Bid demonstration
Speaker 9: at best have done, is simply not good enough. If
Speaker 9: we believe that the US is interest in all of
Speaker 9: this is for us not to get dragged into another war, individual.
Speaker 2: Which I think we all do at least here, And
Speaker 2: that's my question. My last question really is how do
Speaker 2: you think that the Israelis will calibrate and will they
Speaker 2: escalate if Donald Trump does win the election in eight days.
Speaker 9: I think there's a degree of nervousness in Israel. Israelis
Speaker 9: I've spoken to. They're not saying that they don't prefer Trump,
Speaker 9: but there is a degree of nervousness because they know
Speaker 9: very well that if Trump changes his mind and doesn't
Speaker 9: want to see discontinue, there's going to be a high
Speaker 9: cost for the Israelis to do to Trump what they
Speaker 9: have done to Biden. They have disregarded almost every red
Speaker 9: line that Biden has put forward, Biden himself has clearly
Speaker 9: not been serious about those different things, but the Israelis
Speaker 9: have taken pleasure in humiliating Biden publicly. I don't think
Speaker 9: the Israelis would do that easily with Trump. They know
Speaker 9: that the reactions can be quite unpredictable. I think it's
Speaker 9: also very interesting that as much as the Trump administration
Speaker 9: is saying things such as, you know, you got to
Speaker 9: do what you got to do, go do the job, etc.
Speaker 9: They're not saying anything about what the US would do
Speaker 9: in terms of supporting Isrum. And one line that I
Speaker 9: think is coming out of the Trump camp is we
Speaker 9: don't want to restrain these Ralis, but we also don't
Speaker 9: want to help them do what they're doing because we
Speaker 9: don't want to get into a war. Jdvans themselves said
Speaker 9: in an interview that it's a clear interest with you
Speaker 9: as not to get into a war with you. Blan.
Speaker 9: So I think you may end up seeing a policy
Speaker 9: in which the pretense of restrictions that I think the
Speaker 9: Bidendmistration has put forward will simply not be there. They
Speaker 9: may even be active encouragement, but perhaps without a very
Speaker 9: large part, if not all, of the materials supported the
Speaker 9: Biden demonstration has provided the how does.
Speaker 1: That square with some of the significant interest groups on
Speaker 1: the Republican side, Not only you know, the evangelical base,
Speaker 1: which has been Trump's largest, most core supporters, highest level
Speaker 1: of support, who actually they have a higher favorability rating
Speaker 1: for bb net Yahoo than American Jews do. Miriam Addilson,
Speaker 1: being one of his largest donors, know a commitment to
Speaker 1: Israel being her largest issue. Reporting suggests that, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that she wants out of Trump
Speaker 1: is for him to allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
Speaker 4: You know, officially within.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party you have versus the Democratic Party of
Speaker 1: much stronger support for Israel, for shipping weapons to Israel,
Speaker 1: much more hawkish views visa vi Iran. So how does
Speaker 1: that Trump assessment square with some of those critical interest
Speaker 1: groups and donors on the Republican side.
Speaker 9: You're absolutely right, Chryst that that is a critical element
Speaker 9: within the Trump camp as well, that you have those
Speaker 9: who not only want to continue to do this, but
Speaker 9: also want to see even greater American support for it.
Speaker 9: And I don't think that the battle within the Trump
Speaker 9: administration has been entirely square it out when it comes
Speaker 9: to this, I'm just judging it based on what Trump
Speaker 9: himself has said so far, which is going quite far
Speaker 9: out there and in terms of expressing support for Israel
Speaker 9: but saying very little about what the US role would be.
Speaker 9: And then you listen to Jdvans and there you have
Speaker 9: a bit more detail in terms of even being more
Speaker 9: in favor of not putting restrictions on Israel, but also
Speaker 9: even more clear about the US not necessarily being part
Speaker 9: of it and not getting involved in the war. I
Speaker 9: think at the end of the day, we have to
Speaker 9: be very frank we do not know what the Trump
Speaker 9: administration would do because it is quite unpredictable, particularly mindful
Speaker 9: of the very elements that you mentioned. And this is
Speaker 9: going back to Stargar's question. Part of the reason why
Speaker 9: there's a degree of nervousness in Israel about Trump as well.
Speaker 9: They know that in many ways he may actually be
Speaker 9: much better for them, but they also know that if
Speaker 9: Trump were to change his mind and decide to go
Speaker 9: on a path that they're not happy with, it probably
Speaker 9: cannot do too much about it.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, doctor Parci. Always great to have your analysis.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's our play too.
Speaker 3: Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thanks to all our premium subscribers breakingpoints dot com if
Speaker 2: you want to become one otherwise, We'll see you all
Speaker 2: tomorrow