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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: Let's get to the show. Let's move over to Michigan.
Speaker 2: And we've been holding this story and there's been some
Speaker 2: interesting developments actually also where you've seen some Muslim and
Speaker 2: Arab leaders in Michigan come out and explicitly endorsed Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: You've also seen obviously movement away from the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: there and it could be a significant effect in the
Speaker 2: overall Michigan vote because of the Israel Gaza war and
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris's support for Israel. Here, President Obama took to
Speaker 2: the stump last night to lecture Muslim Americans about why
Speaker 2: they should vote for Democrats and for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen. If you're a.
Speaker 4: Muslim American and and and you're upset about what's happening
Speaker 4: in the Middle East? Why why, why would you put
Speaker 4: your faith in somebody who passed a Muslim band, and
Speaker 4: and and and repeatedly suggested that somehow you weren't part
Speaker 4: of our American community. It if you're an African American
Speaker 4: or Latino, if you're you're from Puerto Rico, and and
Speaker 4: and you see somebody who whose values seemed to indicate
Speaker 4: that you're not part of their equation. How do you
Speaker 4: think it's okay? How how can you tell yourself it's
Speaker 4: okay as long as our side wins.
Speaker 2: More lecturing, pandering and uh, hectoring from the Obamas, How
Speaker 2: will it work out?
Speaker 1: This doesn't land poorly with I mean, he's basically saying like, look,
Speaker 1: if you think that you're part of their club, you're not.
Speaker 1: And they may want your vote right now, but like
Speaker 1: you know, post election day, you're going to once again
Speaker 1: not be in the club because we can hear what
Speaker 1: they're saying about you now and what they've said about
Speaker 1: you in the past, et cetera. I think Bertie Sanders,
Speaker 1: he put on a video, what did he say? He
Speaker 1: made the case. He was like, listen, I get this
Speaker 1: question all the time about how you can vote for
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris when she supports He doesn't say genocide. I
Speaker 1: think he says like Israel's Warren Gazer or something like that,
Speaker 1: and he's like, listen, I'm with you. I also really,
Speaker 1: you know, disagree with the direction. And he lays on
Speaker 1: a couple things. Number one, he believes that that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and Joe Biden will be more moveable on the issue.
Speaker 1: I think there's something to that. I mean the Trump coalition.
Speaker 1: There's like he is not going to care what college
Speaker 1: students have to say on the issue. They're not part
Speaker 1: of his coalition. There is no part of his coalition
Speaker 1: in significant numbers. That is as to the direction in Israel,
Speaker 1: Phoebe wants him to win. He's said, you know, he's
Speaker 1: complained about Biden from the Rights saying he hasn't given
Speaker 1: Bebe carte blanche enough. So Bernie makes the case that
Speaker 1: you know, you're going to have more of a chance,
Speaker 1: even on this issue to move Kamala Harris than you
Speaker 1: are to move Donald Trump. And then he says this
Speaker 1: is not to you know, dismiss how important these atrocities
Speaker 1: are and how much people care about it. But you know,
Speaker 1: there are another set of issues too, where it's very
Speaker 1: clear he talks about climate change, he talks about women's rights.
Speaker 1: I probably talks about economics. I can't remember specifically, on
Speaker 1: which Kamala Harris is clearly superior. So you know, I
Speaker 1: get it, I see you. I agree with you in
Speaker 1: many senses, but this is the path to go down.
Speaker 1: So that was the case that he's making to me.
Speaker 1: The takeaway both from Obama's comments here and Bernie Sanders comments,
Speaker 1: and you know, some of the pastorings from the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris I think had some Muslim leaders up on
Speaker 1: stage with her that were endorsing her in the state
Speaker 1: of Michigan, is they recognize that this is an issue.
Speaker 1: And I think they recognize Bernie Sanders comments in particular.
Speaker 1: Obam is part of what I object to is that
Speaker 1: he just flip frames it around like this is only
Speaker 1: an issue for Muslim Americans, which is like, actually, no,
Speaker 1: it's an issue for a vast swath of your coalition,
Speaker 1: young people, non white people. Yes, Arab Americans, yes, Muslim
Speaker 1: Americans too, But you don't have to have a direct
Speaker 1: like familial or cultural connect to the conflict to care
Speaker 1: about a genocide being perpetrated with your dollars in and
Speaker 1: your name. So I sort of object to that framing.
Speaker 1: But you know, they clearly recognize this is a weak
Speaker 1: spot for them. They clearly recognize they're having trouble bringing
Speaker 1: some of their coalition home in the final days because
Speaker 1: of this one issue. And I think the Harris campaign
Speaker 1: just fundamentally miscalculated how much of a problem this was
Speaker 1: for them. On you know, you can't feel like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm supporting the good guys when you see what they're supporting.
Speaker 1: And so while very few people say this is like
Speaker 1: their number one issue, it does paint a bigger picture
Speaker 1: of number one, you care more about this than you
Speaker 1: do about me, and number two, you're not what you
Speaker 1: claim you are. Like you say that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: the fascist and we got to stop the bad guy,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And I agree with you, But
Speaker 1: how can I see you as a white knight when
Speaker 1: I see what you're enabling in Goalsa?
Speaker 3: I just see.
Speaker 2: Look, the direct quote is you know what xs Trump
Speaker 2: is worse and that pragmatism in what is obviously deeply
Speaker 2: emotional and I mean, look, let's restrict it purely he's
Speaker 2: talking about Mostlim Americans in Michigan and specifically like Dearborn
Speaker 2: and others where you may literally have people who have
Speaker 2: lost family members.
Speaker 3: Pragmatism is not wanting to hear right now. That's why
Speaker 3: I saw it.
Speaker 2: Very much as kind of hectoring, lecturing, well, the other
Speaker 2: side is worse.
Speaker 3: I think that works on abortion.
Speaker 2: I think that works on that economy, On a family's
Speaker 2: member's death, I don't think so. You know, that is
Speaker 2: where just straight up not voting or voting for punishments purposes.
Speaker 2: That's where things can get very different. And you see
Speaker 2: some of this too with the Muslim support now for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. We saw this at one of his more
Speaker 2: recent rallies in Michigan. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon, Michigan Anders. As the President said, we just
Speaker 5: had a positive meeting with President Trump. We as Muslims,
Speaker 5: stand with President Trump because he promises peace. He promises peace,
Speaker 5: not war. We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised
Speaker 5: and war in the Middle East and Ukraine. The bloodshed
Speaker 5: has to stop all over the world, and I think
Speaker 5: this man can make that happen.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's basically Hail Mary you know, from these
Speaker 2: Muslim leaders and actually can consistently and throughout Michigan through
Speaker 2: these rallies and others. He keeps bringing up the Cheney
Speaker 2: family and he's like, she is running with somebody who's
Speaker 2: responsible for more deaths of Muslim ortant.
Speaker 3: You know, their family.
Speaker 2: Dictaney, I guess is responsible for more Muslim deaths and
Speaker 2: any American politician in all of history. So how can
Speaker 2: you support someone like our Now, look, you can make
Speaker 2: the pragmatis argument, well Trump is more pro Israel and
Speaker 2: all of this, but it does seem as if this
Speaker 2: is cutting through. We saw what the semaphore pole Arab
Speaker 2: Americans supporting Trump by one point margin, basically a tie
Speaker 2: with a group that voted two three times you know
Speaker 2: for Biden versus Trump. So clearly something is going on.
Speaker 2: I think it really comes down to like a hail Mary.
Speaker 2: It's almost like I remember when Trump I was twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: he was talking to black voters.
Speaker 3: He's like, what the hell do you have to lose?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 3: I mean that's basically how it feels. Clearly it's landing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what listen, I can say which is true, that
Speaker 1: is performative and cynical, which it is. And we'll show
Speaker 1: you some of the comments from the you know, Madison
Speaker 1: Square Garden rally that proved the point. But if you're
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party and you've managed to lose the Arab
Speaker 1: American Muslim American vote to the Muslim band, people like
Speaker 1: that's unbelievable. That's honestly unbelievable. In fact, let's go in
Speaker 1: queue up. This is D six. This is Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: at the Madison Square Garden rally, framing all Palestinians from
Speaker 1: the age of two years old as being terrorists, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, it's consistent with language. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has used the term Palestinian as a flur to
Speaker 1: describe various people, including Chuck Schumer. But you know this
Speaker 1: is this is the party, this is the representative of
Speaker 1: the party that you were losing the Arab American vote to.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to this.
Speaker 6: And the Palestinians are taught to tell us at two
Speaker 6: years old, they won't let a Palestinian in Jordan, they
Speaker 6: will let a Palestinian in Egypt. And Harris wants to
Speaker 6: bring them to you.
Speaker 3: They may have good people.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, I don't take a risk with people that
Speaker 6: are taught to kill Americans at two.
Speaker 3: I'm on the side of Israel. You're on the side
Speaker 3: of Israel.
Speaker 6: Donald Trump's on the side of Israel, and they're on
Speaker 6: the side.
Speaker 3: Of the terrorists.
Speaker 1: Of course, an incredible thing to say.
Speaker 3: Get me set you out of two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: How many yeah, true? How many two year old Palestinians
Speaker 1: are laying dead in the rubble right now as we speak.
Speaker 1: But yeah, this is this is the party that you're
Speaker 1: losing the Muslim vote to the Arab American vote to
Speaker 1: in particular like that is extraordinary. I can also point out,
Speaker 1: as I have before, I do think that Trump is
Speaker 1: worse on the issue. I think because of his coalition.
Speaker 1: I think because of his you know, past record in office.
Speaker 1: I think because of the money that he takes from
Speaker 1: Miriam Maddilson. I think because of his own words. He
Speaker 1: was out there encouraging Israel to bomb Around's nuclear sites
Speaker 1: and really spark World War three. I can tell you
Speaker 1: all of this, but I also have to say very
Speaker 1: clearly it is a manifest and obvious and blatant Democratic
Speaker 1: Party failure that has led to it even being a
Speaker 1: question that you would support, you know, the party that
Speaker 1: this is their messaging at their big closing Madison Square Garden.
Speaker 2: Rau as I said yesterday, the Trump coalition is a
Speaker 2: big tent for grievance and that is basically what holds
Speaker 2: the entire thing together. I mean, that's why it logically
Speaker 2: makes sense to have an RFK junior at Tulsea Gabbert,
Speaker 2: a Tom Cotton, a Mike Pompeo, all within the same thing.
Speaker 2: And now these Muslim leaders, it is basically a hail Mary.
Speaker 2: The current system is not working and there has been
Speaker 2: I mean, the other reason why I kind of get it,
Speaker 2: and maybe even in terms of them trying to leverage
Speaker 2: it is just the disrespect that they have been treated with.
Speaker 2: So for example, let's put what is it, D two
Speaker 2: please up on the screen. You had this Muslim community
Speaker 2: leader who was literally ejected from a Kamala Harris rally
Speaker 2: in Troit.
Speaker 3: What was that?
Speaker 2: It was on October twenty fifth, just some couple of
Speaker 2: days ago. He attended the invite only event. It was
Speaker 2: in Royal Oak, Michigan, excited to hear from Harris Liz Cheney.
Speaker 2: He went through security checkpoints, sat down on his seat
Speaker 2: was answering emails. Ten minutes later, staffers from the Harris
Speaker 2: campaign came to his seat and asked him to step
Speaker 2: to the back. He was asked to leave the venue,
Speaker 2: told by authorities if he didn't leave that he would
Speaker 2: be arrested. So he was literally invited then kicked out.
Speaker 2: They assumed, I guess that he was going to be
Speaker 2: either asking a critical question or was going to speak
Speaker 2: out against both Gaza and or Liz Chang.
Speaker 1: No racially profiled him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were like, oh, there was an Arab dude here.
Speaker 1: Got to get out of a protester.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, what kind of bullshit you know? Can you?
Speaker 7: Then?
Speaker 2: That's kind of what I mean I talked about with
Speaker 2: the Latino thing earlier. When you have that level of
Speaker 2: like rhetoric on one level and then action on another,
Speaker 2: some people just want to burn it all down. That's
Speaker 2: what I think a lot of this Trump support is now.
Speaker 2: Ro Kanna has been trying to clean this up. We
Speaker 2: can put the one up on the screen. D three, please,
Speaker 2: he said, I invited doctor Ganim for a delicious Yemeny meal.
Speaker 3: It does look delicious.
Speaker 2: Let him know that he is absolutely welcoming the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party and he never should have been removed from the
Speaker 2: Harris event.
Speaker 3: But you know, the row on janitorial duty is just
Speaker 3: not going to cut it.
Speaker 2: It's just not And you know I talked about Dearborn.
Speaker 2: Let's put that one next.
Speaker 3: Please. Here you have Abdullah Hamoud.
Speaker 2: He's the mayor of Deborn, Michigan, and he says Dearborn
Speaker 2: specifically said he is not endorsing. I am not here
Speaker 2: to endorse any single candidate. He said people should vote
Speaker 2: their conscience, and he said we cannot condone any present
Speaker 2: that uplifts, any administration that bombs every school, decimating children
Speaker 2: to smithereens. That is the message we have and those
Speaker 2: are the values we will take with us through November.
Speaker 2: So if you put Stein vote plus Trump vote there together,
Speaker 2: you're looking for a real upset. And you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: in a certain sense, I understand it. I understand it
Speaker 2: as much as I understand Latino support or any of
Speaker 2: the other I talked about the MAGA rally and as
Speaker 2: gene like what it really it's about to screw you,
Speaker 2: fuck you, you know, basically to higher institutions. And there's
Speaker 2: no reason why Arab Americans and Muslim Americans would not
Speaker 2: feel the same way as people in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3: Wis Conciner mission.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I I'm the message there from the
Speaker 1: dear born mayor who we've had on this program a
Speaker 1: number of times, and it has been a thoughtful and
Speaker 1: open minded critic I think from the beginning, like, how
Speaker 1: can you tell people that they have to or coerce
Speaker 1: them into voting when they see what's going on. So
Speaker 1: you know, the thing we put up briefly was Rokanna saying,
Speaker 1: I'll look at these cynical billboards tying layers and listen,
Speaker 1: that's not cynical.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 1: You are campaigning with her like, so you know they're
Speaker 1: running around together doing joint town halls. You yourselves are
Speaker 1: trying to tie them together. Now you recognize that it's
Speaker 1: opened up an area of exploitation from the Trump campaign, like,
Speaker 1: of course they're going to walk through that when you know, yes,
Speaker 1: it's cynical, sure, but it's also totally predictable. And the
Speaker 1: possibility that you opened up directly for them to be
Speaker 1: able to say.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to Elon Musk, let's gohead and put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. We brought you previously
Speaker 2: the story of one million dollar checks being handed out
Speaker 2: at these events every single day until election day by
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. You now have the Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner.
Speaker 2: Those of you might remember him from some of the
Speaker 2: previous consternations around SOROSDA or whatever. He survived election there,
Speaker 2: but he is now suing to halt the one million
Speaker 2: dollar giveaway that was after Josh Shapiro, the governor of
Speaker 2: the state, said that law enforcement should look into it.
Speaker 2: The suit filed in Philadelphia Common Police Court first legal
Speaker 2: action there, and what it comes down to is it
Speaker 2: grants Krasner, the prosecutor, the opportunity to basically investigate, to
Speaker 2: quote take on Musk and to block this one million
Speaker 2: dollar type giveaway. The thing is, though, is that currently
Speaker 2: they said that they have already committed to extending this
Speaker 2: through election on November five, they're claiming that this must
Speaker 2: be stopped immediately. The background of it is twofold. One
Speaker 2: is that they're basically alleging it's an illegal lottery scheme
Speaker 2: to influence the election. So people should go watch maybe
Speaker 2: our previous segment on this, But it all comes down
Speaker 2: to whether vote it's illegal lottery and two if it
Speaker 2: is a coercion to register to votes, because the current
Speaker 2: statute of the US Criminal Code says it is blatantly
Speaker 2: illegal to pay people to register them for vote. He
Speaker 2: is claiming, well, you have to be registered to vote
Speaker 2: to be able to sign this petition.
Speaker 3: This petition is.
Speaker 2: In favor of what is the first Amendment or free
Speaker 2: speech or I think whatever, first and second amendment.
Speaker 3: Okay, fine, So if it was just that, then okay.
Speaker 2: But because of the preconditions for being able to sign
Speaker 2: the petition, you have effectively created a new lottery scheme
Speaker 2: to get around voter registration. Is an actually interesting case
Speaker 2: in terms of how these laws should be applied and
Speaker 2: the actual interpretation. It's somewhere in the gray area as
Speaker 2: I understand it.
Speaker 1: I don't yeah, I don't know. I think at the
Speaker 1: federal level it's actually more clear because there is a
Speaker 1: federal election law prohibition on inducing people to register using money,
Speaker 1: favors whatever, and I mean election lawyers seem to feel
Speaker 1: like this pretty clearly meets that standard definition. Who knows
Speaker 1: how it gets, you know, litigated. The catch here for
Speaker 1: Krasner is that he has to operate on Pennsylvania state law,
Speaker 1: which does not have a prohibition against inducing people to
Speaker 1: register to vote. So that's why he's using the like
Speaker 1: you're running an illegal lottery and not following the rules,
Speaker 1: like only the state can run lottery number one, number two.
Speaker 1: You're not even following like the legal requirements for running
Speaker 1: a lottery.
Speaker 3: So that's the.
Speaker 1: Direction he's going in with this lawsuit. So we'll see where,
Speaker 1: you know, where this goes and if it has any
Speaker 1: impact the I know, when we looked at the federal law,
Speaker 1: the punishment was like a ten thousand dollars find. Yeah, surely, well,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be sweating that.
Speaker 3: It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: Not gonna be sweating that too much. Yeah, we've been
Speaker 1: wanting to talk though a little bit about So Elon
Speaker 1: is running a significant part of the ground game for Trump,
Speaker 1: the field operation you know that goes and knots on
Speaker 1: doors and tries to turn out voters early, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and tracks them how much are they supporting
Speaker 1: Trump or are they on the other team side, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So the sort of like classic field canvassing operation,
Speaker 1: A lot of that has fallen too. Elon Musk's super pack,
Speaker 1: specifically in the state of Pennsylvania. Guardian has been digging
Speaker 1: into the reality of the situation, the FKC of this situation,
Speaker 1: and they had previously were ported to put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen that counterpoints cover this briefly that they
Speaker 1: are appear to be getting a lot of quote unquote
Speaker 1: fraudulent door knocks, meaning that they're paying canvassers to go
Speaker 1: out and knock doors for the Trump campaign, and that
Speaker 1: actually almost always runs into problems because these are not
Speaker 1: people who are true believers. They're just they're trying to
Speaker 1: get a paycheck, and there are lots of ways that
Speaker 1: you can cheat and make it seem like you're knocking
Speaker 1: on those doors, but really you're just filling in your
Speaker 1: app like, yeah, I totally talked to Mary Smith and
Speaker 1: she's on team Trump, and don't worry, she voted already,
Speaker 1: even though you're just sitting at home in your living
Speaker 1: room or standing on the street or whatever. Because I
Speaker 1: don't know if you guys have ever gone out canvassing,
Speaker 1: but it is a little bit like it's you know,
Speaker 1: it takes a certain personality right to go and knock
Speaker 1: on a stranger's door, and like prosblytize because I'm about Canada.
Speaker 2: If they're on your side, I mean, look, I don't
Speaker 2: know about you. For me, I just stare at my
Speaker 2: ring camera until somebody leaves, regardless to whether it's politics.
Speaker 1: Nobody tells them my door where I live, Please don't knock.
Speaker 1: I live in all of nowhere.
Speaker 2: I should if I really had the strength, I would
Speaker 2: put the no solicitors sign up, which but that's a
Speaker 2: whole other level of Karen.
Speaker 3: You don't want to go there.
Speaker 1: So in any case, already indications that some twenty five
Speaker 1: percent roughly of the door knocks that are being you know,
Speaker 1: conducted on behalf of you on super pac are probably fraudulent.
Speaker 1: And now we've got new documentation. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Guardian got their hands on a video that
Speaker 1: is meant to show other canvassers four Musks Superpack how
Speaker 1: to cheat, specifically using like GPS spoofing, and this went
Speaker 1: out to hundreds of canvassers like listen, here's how you
Speaker 1: do it. You pull up the map, you pull up
Speaker 1: this app, you click on the house. Then it thinks
Speaker 1: that you're in the place. Because obviously these canvassing operations
Speaker 1: they are aware of the fact that people like to
Speaker 1: cheat on this and not actually go and knock on
Speaker 1: the doors, so they put in place mechanisms like GPS
Speaker 1: tracking to try to make sure you're actually knocking on
Speaker 1: the doors that you say that you're knocking on. And
Speaker 1: this is a video how to guide of how to
Speaker 1: get around that. We don't know how widely it was disseminated,
Speaker 1: how many people were using these tricks, etc. But another
Speaker 1: indication that perhaps the door knocks are not happening in
Speaker 1: the way that the Trump people would like them to
Speaker 1: be happening. It's funny in the video they have a
Speaker 1: quote from and they say, okay, so here's the part
Speaker 1: the matter. You click the house you want to do
Speaker 1: not home for about five houses, so you click the
Speaker 1: not home shit left literature bo boom, and then you
Speaker 1: want to put a survey in. This is the survey.
Speaker 1: You click available for survey. This is what I do.
Speaker 1: I clicked definitely yes, Donald Trump, early vote no and survey.
Speaker 1: It's pretty much that simple. So they're telling you not
Speaker 1: only how to do the GPS boothing, but then also
Speaker 1: how to fake the data in a way that doesn't
Speaker 1: flag that you're fraudulently mentoring this.
Speaker 2: This is the problem with outsourcing the ground game, actually,
Speaker 2: and that's going to be the biggest one.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I'm surprised by the decision from them because I know
Speaker 2: a lot of people who worked at the R and
Speaker 2: C over the years, and one of the things that
Speaker 2: they were always so proud of was the pre eminence
Speaker 2: of their ground game, of investment in their technology of
Speaker 2: door knocking. This was a big story in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: What happened in twenty twenty is a Trump campaign. The
Speaker 2: RNC had a joint fund, so it basically was a
Speaker 2: joint operation and they invested a lot in technology. Obviously,
Speaker 2: door knocking was less during COVID, but this time by
Speaker 2: outsourcing it to Elon. This also demonstrates the problem with
Speaker 2: the pay to play model of basically paying people to
Speaker 2: canvas because if you think about it too, you know,
Speaker 2: canvassers you got to be.
Speaker 3: Pretty bought it. It's a shitty job.
Speaker 2: And then yeah, you can pay them to do it,
Speaker 2: but that leads to even if you knock on your
Speaker 2: door and there's not enthusiasm, you're not engaging with them,
Speaker 2: sure it's going to be a lot less likely to
Speaker 2: come out, and then you've got people who are just
Speaker 2: in this for a free paycheck, you know, basically out there.
Speaker 3: This is classic in every election.
Speaker 2: There's just people, you know, like seasonal workers who are
Speaker 2: just always out there looking for a buck of like, oh,
Speaker 2: you want me to go handout signs? Cool, you know,
Speaker 2: ten dollars an hour, easy money. And so I think
Speaker 2: you could see some of that there. But if you
Speaker 2: do see a Pennsylvania loss, this could certainly come I mean,
Speaker 2: especially within the margin, this would be a big problem.
Speaker 3: And this would be a lesson for elections.
Speaker 2: Do not outsource this stuff outside of your control because
Speaker 2: you know, even with the super pack, because of the
Speaker 2: way that the laws work, you can't talk to each
Speaker 2: other directly, you can't cross off you know, your own numbers,
Speaker 2: like you have a lot less institutional ability to see
Speaker 2: where you're at there in PA. This presumes that any
Speaker 2: of the stuff actually matters, which I still remain skeptical.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, whether.
Speaker 1: This is one of those stories wanted to cover just
Speaker 1: to put a pin in it. If at the end
Speaker 1: of the Trump people don't turn out their people at
Speaker 1: the same level, because we do know and Weigel confirmed
Speaker 1: this for us too. He was on the ground door
Speaker 1: knocking with Democrats in Wisconsin. He said, the Trump side
Speaker 1: has a much less organized operation. The Democrats are much
Speaker 1: more organized in terms of their field canvassing turn out.
Speaker 1: You know, field organizers claimate can move the election result
Speaker 1: by a couple of points. So, you know, if that's
Speaker 1: if that's the story post election day, then we may
Speaker 1: look back at this and say, like, oh, this was
Speaker 1: more of a problem for the Trump people. Then maybe
Speaker 1: it seemed at the time, and perhaps don't outsource a
Speaker 1: key function of the campaign. Then again, to your point,
Speaker 1: it's not like the Trump campaign has ever taken canvassing
Speaker 1: all that seriously, and they've done pretty well in the
Speaker 1: past exactly.
Speaker 3: So that's right.
Speaker 2: I always come, you know, these political consultants. They want
Speaker 2: to convince you that the swing state ads matter. They
Speaker 2: want to say ground game.
Speaker 3: I don't. I'm not sure I buy it anymore.
Speaker 2: I think in the nationalization, the celebritization of politics, I
Speaker 2: think it's all just you know, a to the national media,
Speaker 2: the vibe. You know, things that could like, for example,
Speaker 2: if Kamala loses the election, how much of it is
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris, how much of it is just Joe Biden
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, You know, I mean probably a huge part.
Speaker 2: Was there anything you could really do? Probably not same
Speaker 2: with terms of Trump. Maybe the election was cooked on
Speaker 2: the day of January seventh, right for Donald Trump, certainly
Speaker 2: box could. Let's move on to a Washington Post. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the score. We had to
Speaker 2: put this.
Speaker 3: This is this. I'm more relish in this, folks. Let's
Speaker 3: put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Over two hundred thousand subscribers have canceled their Washington Post
Speaker 2: subscription after Jeff Bezos blocked a Kamala Harris endorsement. Now,
Speaker 2: for context, there are roughly two point five million subscribers
Speaker 2: at the Washington Post. That means about eight to ten
Speaker 2: percent of those people have now canceled. Keep in mind,
Speaker 2: this two hundred thousand figure was as of yesterday. Almost
Speaker 2: certainly even more and people are going to pile on
Speaker 2: after this news came out. But more importantly, you should
Speaker 2: know that the Post boasted about netting only four thousand
Speaker 2: new subscribers to the Washington Post in just the last
Speaker 2: calendar year, meaning what is that fifty times?
Speaker 3: Am I doing that?
Speaker 8: Math?
Speaker 3: Is it five hundred times? In terms of the big.
Speaker 2: Versus the people that they gained, and he was already
Speaker 2: losing one hundred million a year operating the paper.
Speaker 3: So yeah, And you know, I've seen people out there
Speaker 3: be like, well, this just shows people don't want unbiased
Speaker 3: news and ba bl I'm like, okay, listen, I'm not
Speaker 3: disagreeing with you.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, they sold bound copies of
Speaker 2: the Mother Report. They put democracy dyes in darkness on
Speaker 2: their freaking subhead masththead. They sold the tote bag New
Speaker 2: Yorker vision to everybody here in Washington about standing up
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump, about being the heart of the resistance.
Speaker 2: They hired Robert Kagan, they hired Jennifer Ruby that can
Speaker 2: go on forever at Max boot, all these other folks
Speaker 2: to give them columns to build them up. They were
Speaker 2: the beating heart of Russiagate. They were the beating heart
Speaker 2: of resistance. So when you sell that vision to people,
Speaker 2: how can you blame them for canceling. I'm not mad
Speaker 2: at these libs for canceling, because look, nobody subscribed to
Speaker 2: the Post for news. Okay, nobody. It's not the best newspaper,
Speaker 2: hasn't been for a long time. They do it for
Speaker 2: the vibe, and so when you explicitly turn that on
Speaker 2: a dime, yeah, you should cancel it. I'm gonna defend
Speaker 2: all these resistance liberals.
Speaker 1: I subscribe to the Washing Post for yes, okay, all right.
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean I feel bad. I've got beyond Jeff.
Speaker 3: I have a lot of people, I have a lot
Speaker 3: of friends who actually work there.
Speaker 2: So I feel bad saying this because frankly they're probably
Speaker 2: in jeopardy now.
Speaker 3: But you know, at a pure media level, this.
Speaker 2: Is also the problem with having a freaking fickle billionaire
Speaker 2: owner at the top end point.
Speaker 3: That's how it goes on.
Speaker 1: If you think, if you genuinely think Jeff Bezos made
Speaker 1: this move a week before election day out of his principles,
Speaker 1: which is what he's biased coverage like I of bridge
Speaker 1: to sell you, that is not what's going on here.
Speaker 1: He obviously, recognizing what a massive catastrophe this is for
Speaker 1: the paper and how much damage has been done, he
Speaker 1: scrambled and put together his own op ed which ran
Speaker 1: in his own paper, where he clearly you know, has
Speaker 1: a lot of influence and directs coverage, and he claims,
Speaker 1: I think preposterously that this had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: his own massive corporate interests, both at Amazon and at
Speaker 1: Blue Origin, both of which get huge federal government contracts.
Speaker 1: Blue Origin, I believe. I think it was Blue Origin
Speaker 1: last time around was punished by Trump. You know, he's
Speaker 1: looking at the landscape as like Trump could win and
Speaker 1: I don't want my shit to be canceled. Was it
Speaker 1: Amazon the cloud that's cloud contract.
Speaker 2: It's kind of complicated because yes, Trump did seek to
Speaker 2: punish them, but also Amazon was not the best bidder
Speaker 2: in that contract. So I actually looked a lot into this.
Speaker 2: It is a big problem because we're talking about ten
Speaker 2: billion dollars. Whether it's on between Microsoft and Amazon, I
Speaker 2: don't think other of them should have got it actually,
Speaker 2: because it just was more like big tech like basically
Speaker 2: stopsody from the federal government. But yeah, Trump tried to
Speaker 2: intervene against Amazons.
Speaker 3: Yes, they ended up succesfully suing a court though, so
Speaker 3: it's not like it didn't work.
Speaker 1: But he's looking the landscape. He wants to hedge his bets,
Speaker 1: and he says, oh, it was just it was just
Speaker 1: an accident that the Blue Origin executives met with Trump
Speaker 1: literally that same day.
Speaker 3: Okay, Yeah, he claimed he had no idea. I mean,
Speaker 3: maybe he didn't.
Speaker 2: But what's funny is that it doesn't even matter if
Speaker 2: he didn't because he still has a direct financial interest
Speaker 2: in that happening.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So, and you're going to tell me that you really
Speaker 1: came to this rock solid, bedrock principle a week before election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't believe that just purely out.
Speaker 1: Of disinterested, you know, ideology that you're in favor. Come on.
Speaker 1: Derek Thompson was tweeting about this. He was like, anytime
Speaker 1: someone's you know, newfound principle happens to align with their
Speaker 1: own personal financial self interest, you should probably be pretty
Speaker 1: skeptical of that. But we can put Jeff's ap ed
Speaker 1: up on the screen and like I said, some of
Speaker 1: this is really wild. But he says, I wish we'd
Speaker 1: made the change earlier than we did, in a moment
Speaker 1: further from the election, the emotions around it. That was
Speaker 1: inadequate planning, not some intentional strategy. He also says, when
Speaker 1: it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not
Speaker 1: an ideal owner of the post. Oh you think every
Speaker 1: day somewhere some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or
Speaker 1: someone from the other philanthropies and companies. I owner invest
Speaker 1: in is meeting with government officials. Yeah, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: I once wrote that the Post is a complexifier for me.
Speaker 1: It is, but it turns out I'm also a complexifier
Speaker 1: for the Post. So really the real victim in all
Speaker 1: of the soccer.
Speaker 3: Is actually it's actually Bezos.
Speaker 2: In the words of Charlie Munger, show me the incentive
Speaker 2: and I'll show you the outcome. And look, if you
Speaker 2: read through this op ed, it's bullshit. I mean, Jeff
Speaker 2: Bezos bought the Post in twenty twenty three. He has
Speaker 2: invested probably over half a billion dollars into the enterprise
Speaker 2: and it loses money. Now, the main reason why I
Speaker 2: don't believe him, like you just said with the Derek
Speaker 2: Thompson thing, is he was perfectly fine whenever it was
Speaker 2: democracy dies in the darkness.
Speaker 3: And they were making a lot of money.
Speaker 2: But also when it seems to possibly clash with his
Speaker 2: own massive one hundred billion or two hundred billion dollar
Speaker 2: wealth or whatever it is, now it's worth maybe taking
Speaker 2: that hit there to make sure that the stock price
Speaker 2: and other financial incentives over here don't How exactly did
Speaker 2: these principles not flare up when you were literally the
Speaker 2: home of Russia Gate. Like, spare me, that's that's exactly
Speaker 2: how I feel. You gave a one hundred million dollars
Speaker 2: to the Obama Foundation. You're giving these genius grants to
Speaker 2: Van Jones and all that. When it was very popular
Speaker 2: and safe to be a Democrat. Now, whenever you're looking
Speaker 2: at it differently and perhaps that there is a democratic
Speaker 2: move for antitrust, now you're changing your position. But whenever
Speaker 2: big business the Democratic Party was there, you were happily.
Speaker 3: Many people don't know this. He owns the largest house.
Speaker 2: Here in Washington, DC, and it was for one specific
Speaker 2: purpose to hold salon parties, to go to the gridiron,
Speaker 2: and specifically to become like the gathering place for the
Speaker 2: Washington elite where Republicans and Democrats are often seen coming
Speaker 2: in and out for dinner. What do you think you
Speaker 2: think that's for social reasons? Like, come on, this is
Speaker 2: the tale as old as time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's always been this way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, absolutely, And you know, basically, Bernie was right
Speaker 1: when he said it's a problem that this guy owns
Speaker 1: the Post. It impacts their coverage, it's a conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: It is all of those things. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's really precious if you're someone out there who
Speaker 1: thinks this billionaire oligarc with a raft of federal government
Speaker 1: contracts is really just taking a principled stand. At this
Speaker 1: point in favor of not making endorsement, we had one
Speaker 1: other quick media story we wanted to sneak in here,
Speaker 1: even though it's already a long show and I still
Speaker 1: have a monologue to do. But obviously Donald Trump went
Speaker 1: on with Joe Rogan. Rogan in that interview we showed you,
Speaker 1: Trump brought up Kammlin. Rogan kind defended her and was like, no,
Speaker 1: I still want to have a conversation with her, Like
Speaker 1: I'm still hoping that may happen. He tweeted this out
Speaker 1: as an update. He says, for the record, the Harris
Speaker 1: campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered
Speaker 1: a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to
Speaker 1: travel to her. They only wanted to do an hour.
Speaker 1: I strongly feel the best way to do it is
Speaker 1: in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to
Speaker 1: just have a nice conversation, get to know her as
Speaker 1: a human being. I really hope we can make it happen.
Speaker 1: What's your reaction, Soccer.
Speaker 3: Well, twofold.
Speaker 2: I get him wanting to do it in the studio
Speaker 2: in Austin, but with this close to the election, it
Speaker 2: may not be possible, and it would be worth in
Speaker 2: my opinion, compromising a little bit on that. In terms
Speaker 2: of time, Trump went for three hours. I think that's
Speaker 2: great if Harris could do it, but you know, he
Speaker 2: did have Bernie Sanders on. I looked what was it
Speaker 2: wasn't in only an hour, so there is press.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for only.
Speaker 1: An shorter political interview.
Speaker 2: I mean it does show a sign of weakness. If
Speaker 2: they only want to do an hour, I think they
Speaker 2: should just do the three and just eat it. I
Speaker 2: mean I looked at her schedules. She's got five interviews today, right,
Speaker 2: so it's probably worth you know, I would say that
Speaker 2: this one interview is worth three. Whatever local television news hits.
Speaker 2: They're obviously nervous. They want to cover their basis. That
Speaker 2: said Joe in his after action report on a fight
Speaker 2: Companion was asked about common He was like, if they
Speaker 2: want preconditions and they don't want to bring up policy,
Speaker 2: that's fine. I'm interested in talking to her as a
Speaker 2: human being. Now, I actually I think it's worth meditating
Speaker 2: on this, and maybe you tell me. I was talking
Speaker 2: with one of my friends. I'm actually not interested in
Speaker 2: politicians as a human being.
Speaker 3: I have read. I'm serious. Let me lay up my case.
Speaker 1: I kind of agree here.
Speaker 2: So my political heroes were terrible people, absolutely awful. LBJ,
Speaker 2: who I believe is the single most effective politician of
Speaker 2: all time, rampantly cheated on his wife, was a virulent
Speaker 2: personal racist, often denigrated his female staff to the point
Speaker 2: of tears, took a shit, and forced his aids to
Speaker 2: transcribe his notes.
Speaker 3: That's a bad person. John F. Kennedy.
Speaker 2: I mean, go read about a nineteen year old girl
Speaker 2: who was White House intern and what she alleges happened
Speaker 2: with him. And that's one girl out of probably hundreds.
Speaker 2: FDR humiliated Eleanor Roosevelt by sleeping with his secretary, refusing
Speaker 2: to fire her, and he died with her, not with
Speaker 2: his own wife.
Speaker 3: Didn't care. I mean, I could go on for Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 2: He loses his wife and his mom on the same
Speaker 2: day that his child is born, takes his daughter, parks
Speaker 2: it with his sister and says, hey, good luck, I'm
Speaker 2: going to South Dakota for three years.
Speaker 3: A lot of these people, they're not good people.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't really care about that on one level,
Speaker 2: because they did a lot of good for the country.
Speaker 2: So how does it affect my life? How does it
Speaker 2: affect the you know, the trajectory of the country. Does
Speaker 2: it matter if FDR or sorry LBJ was a frequent
Speaker 2: N word user, if he passedes Still Rights Act. If
Speaker 2: you're a black person, I would leave that up to you.
Speaker 2: And that's kind of my point is like, I don't
Speaker 2: think that the psychology of what it takes to be
Speaker 2: president or to even get to the level of Kamma
Speaker 2: or Trump produces.
Speaker 3: Quote unquote good people. I also don't care about that.
Speaker 2: So that's where there's a little bit of a flaw
Speaker 2: in terms of, like I want to see who they
Speaker 2: are as people. I'm like, I don't. I'm not all
Speaker 2: that interested in who you are as people, as a
Speaker 2: voter or as a citizen. I want to know what
Speaker 2: you're gonna do for me. And maybe that's a very
Speaker 2: cynical people often say Indian immigrant way of looking at it,
Speaker 2: But I mean, I've just read too much. I mean,
Speaker 2: for example, Barack Obama, if you read Michelle Obama's memoirs
Speaker 2: and his He openly admits that Michelle never wanted him
Speaker 2: to run for Congress for Senate. Specifically, he filed without
Speaker 2: really telling her. She is furious to the point of
Speaker 2: thinking about divorcing him, miserable for eight years in the
Speaker 2: White House.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm gonna ask you, I can't imagine treating
Speaker 3: my wife that way. Ever, if she told me I
Speaker 3: don't want to do this, it's over. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Imagine yourself in a marriage, as a family unit, treating
Speaker 2: your spouse that way with your own ambition. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think that's sick and honestly gross, but that's kind
Speaker 2: of what it takes to suffer through all of this.
Speaker 2: So that's just a long way of saying, like, I
Speaker 2: don't care who.
Speaker 3: These people are. The more I know, the worst that
Speaker 3: it gets.
Speaker 1: I guess we'll take a moderate path on this, because,
Speaker 1: like you know, with Kamala in particular, there's this really
Speaker 1: very open, continued open question of like what makes you
Speaker 1: like what? Because it translates into I don't think the
Speaker 1: personal and the public are totally separate, because it translates
Speaker 1: into is there something core here that you're going to
Speaker 1: fight for you know, And so that's why I think
Speaker 1: there is something to be learned, something to be gained
Speaker 1: with regard to specifically. At this point, I don't even
Speaker 1: think that there's much benefit for Kamala Harris to go
Speaker 1: on Rogan's pod like at des late in the game.
Speaker 1: His audience is overwhelmingly pro Trump. They have a they
Speaker 1: are clips, They are happy, but they're happy with the
Speaker 1: meta narrative that's in place right now, which is like
Speaker 1: Trump had his like Carnival of bracest at Madison Square
Speaker 1: Garden and you know, that's kind of they're happy to
Speaker 1: close on that note, it would be too close to
Speaker 1: election day if there was some screw up from her,
Speaker 1: which we should all be very like, like, that's very possible,
Speaker 1: you know, that she would have a moment that was
Speaker 1: really bad for her, So they'd be too close to
Speaker 1: election day to clean that up. It would shift the
Speaker 1: narrative into you know, potentially more fraud or risky territory.
Speaker 1: And so if she had done it earlier on, I
Speaker 1: think it could have made some sense. But as I
Speaker 1: said to you previously when we were talking about the
Speaker 1: roguan Trump, and are you like she already did her
Speaker 1: go in the lions Den thing with Brett Baer, She
Speaker 1: already proved some level of like I can go into
Speaker 1: a space that's someone hostile and I can hold my own.
Speaker 1: So I'm just not sure how much there is to
Speaker 1: be gained from an appearance, and it does have significant
Speaker 1: risk at this point. So I understand why they're kind
Speaker 1: of like, Eh, maybe this isn't worth making it happen.
Speaker 3: I think here's why I think it's worth it.
Speaker 2: Why not would be a challenge coming in after Trump,
Speaker 2: It would be a position of strength. It would also
Speaker 2: I mean, especially if Joe literally said, if they don't
Speaker 2: want to talk about policy, then that's fine.
Speaker 3: I mean, she's going to be.
Speaker 1: Honest with you. She does the worst when she gets
Speaker 1: asked like you know, personal, like what's your biggest mistakes?
Speaker 7: Like that?
Speaker 1: She actually I think she'd be better off if she's like,
Speaker 1: I only want to talk about policy.
Speaker 2: Look, they claim a lot of stuff. They claim she's
Speaker 2: in the Formula one. I'm like, okay, you know, I'll
Speaker 2: hear you out. You know, they claim I was listening
Speaker 2: to her with Shannon Sharp. She seems like a diet
Speaker 2: you know, she seems like, well acquainted with food and diet. Right,
Speaker 2: she said she eats this, She leves to cook. Omlet
Speaker 2: likes to cook every morning. She says that she works out.
Speaker 2: Rogan is a workout freak, and he knows a lot
Speaker 2: about foods. I'd be curious to hear about the morning room.
Speaker 2: I can see why some normal people and all that
Speaker 2: would be into that, But I guess my general heuristic
Speaker 2: is these people you have to understand what the psychology
Speaker 2: it is to spend your life on the road, to
Speaker 2: sleep in different hotel rooms, to literally have the idolatry
Speaker 2: and the ego to think that you can have the
Speaker 2: supreme power of mankind in your hands, and to give
Speaker 2: up everything else in your life to get to that position.
Speaker 2: I don't think people quite understand it. And we're not
Speaker 2: talking about just four years. It takes a Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: how old is she's sixty? Right, She's been a professional
Speaker 2: politician for thirty five years. That means you don't have
Speaker 2: a personal life. Every single thing that you do is
Speaker 2: literally revolves around getting to this position, about getting up
Speaker 2: the next rung. I mean, even with Trump, it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, even whether he's mar A Lago he's working. Right,
Speaker 2: when you're having dinner, you're always having dinner with people
Speaker 2: who are in the business. You need to be born
Speaker 2: for this, and like it takes a very it takes
Speaker 2: a type of personality which most people would not actually like,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of in terms of relatability, like
Speaker 2: with George W. Bush, like the whole, Like I want
Speaker 2: to have a beer with him. I'm like, well, how
Speaker 2: did that work out? Yeah, it doesn't work out well.
Speaker 1: It makes me think of Bernie Sanders and his absolute
Speaker 1: aversion to talking about amuse.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: You know, I famously with the New York Times editorial
Speaker 1: Board's like you know, yeah, yeah, okay, And jam Aids
Speaker 1: always won his campaign. I always wanted to talk about
Speaker 1: his biography. He's like, right, and who he is in
Speaker 1: his back where I like these, you know, is uh
Speaker 1: Jewish upbringing and hard scrub working class all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and he's just like, no, I want to talk about policy.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about millions and millionaires and billionaires
Speaker 1: of what we're going to do in medicare for all.
Speaker 1: And you are not going to get me off of that.
Speaker 1: So respect, yeah, I respect. That is obviously not the
Speaker 1: way so there you go.
Speaker 3: I would like it to work that yeah, but people
Speaker 3: delude themselves. You know.
Speaker 2: The Obamas literally had a love movie made about him.
Speaker 2: That doesn't sound like a love story to me what
Speaker 2: I just laid out.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: The Clinton, I mean, that's a whole other level in
Speaker 2: terms of boy I mean, okay, So Jimmy Carter probably
Speaker 2: our nicest president, right if you read his memoir.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry I'm going off on this, but this is
Speaker 3: something I think about.
Speaker 2: If you read Jimmy Carter's memoir, he decides to quit
Speaker 2: his naval career. He's living in Hawaii with his wife.
Speaker 2: His wife loves why she hates planes Georgia. His wife,
Speaker 2: his dad dies, and he has an opportunity to go
Speaker 2: and take over his dad's job.
Speaker 3: You know what he does.
Speaker 2: He resigns from the navy and he tells her, Hey, Rosalind,
Speaker 2: we're moving back to planes. She's humiliated, she's weeping, and
Speaker 2: he's like, that's just how it's going to be.
Speaker 1: Didn't she like not talk to him for months or
Speaker 1: something else?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's who these people are. They're narcissists. They're crazy.
Speaker 3: Can you imagine acting like that in a marriage. But
Speaker 3: that's who they are. I feel like that's also just a.
Speaker 1: Different time too.
Speaker 3: Well that's just makes you. But I claim there is.
Speaker 1: Some of that of like, you know, the man is
Speaker 1: a provider, like we do. I'm the captain of the ship. Right,
Speaker 1: we do what I say we're going to do.
Speaker 3: And it was nineteen fifty five. You think all husbands
Speaker 3: were acting like that in nineteen fifty five? Now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, anyway, Bristol, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: Well? Lost in the melee of comments about whale psychologists
Speaker 1: and jokes about Puerto Rico being literal trash was a
Speaker 1: comment Trump made in his Big Rogan interview, reaffirming an
Speaker 1: economic program that is nothing short of radical. Insane might
Speaker 1: be a better word for it.
Speaker 9: Take a look, did you just float out the idea
Speaker 9: of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs?
Speaker 1: Well, okay, we're serious about that?
Speaker 8: How yeah? Sure? But why not? Because we ready our
Speaker 8: country was the richest in the relatively in the eighteen
Speaker 8: eighties and eighteen nineties. A president who was assassinated named McKinley.
Speaker 8: He was the tariff king. He spoke beautifully of tariffs.
Speaker 8: His language was really beautiful. We will not allow the
Speaker 8: enemy to come in and take our jobs, and take
Speaker 8: our factories, and take our workers, and take our families.
Speaker 1: So this is far from the first time Trump has
Speaker 1: floated this particular economic program. You might be familiar with
Speaker 1: him waxing poetic about how tariff's most beautiful word and
Speaker 1: how fantastic Gilded Age President William McKinley was. Ironically McKinley's
Speaker 1: Spanish American Wars what led to Puerto Rico's acquisition as
Speaker 1: US territory. But I digress. Now, I know It's somewhat
Speaker 1: folly to take all of Trump's utterances totally seriously. He
Speaker 1: promised everyone on healthcare, after all, and here we are
Speaker 1: all still waiting. But between Trump, his main funder Elon,
Speaker 1: and a host of new right influencers, we can discern
Speaker 1: that lines of a true ideological agenda that is equal
Speaker 1: parts radical and regressive. What's more, in my opinion, we
Speaker 1: should be evaluating presdential connundors based on their stated plans.
Speaker 1: After all, what else can we really go on? And
Speaker 1: the idea of eliminating the income tax entirely and replacing
Speaker 1: it with tariffs is quite a plan. Now, the impact
Speaker 1: a session approach is pretty obvious across the board. Terraffs
Speaker 1: will make prices on all imported goods skyrocketing prices on
Speaker 1: everything from bananas and gas to electronics and housing, they
Speaker 1: will all go up. The inflationary spiral will also likely
Speaker 1: trigger additional price gouging by corporations using the excuse of
Speaker 1: inflation to further jack up prices. This is exactly what
Speaker 1: we saw during the post COVID inflation spike. Now, the
Speaker 1: shift from income tax to tariffs to fund the government
Speaker 1: would also be wildly regressive, meaning that the horst among
Speaker 1: us will pay the most in taxes as a percent
Speaker 1: of their income, and the richest will pay the very least.
Speaker 1: After all, the poor pay vastly more of their income
Speaker 1: on things like groceries, gas, and other consumer items than
Speaker 1: the rich, to for whom these expenses are comparatively trivial.
Speaker 1: In fact, a core reason for the creation of the
Speaker 1: income tax was in order to combat Gilded Age inequality
Speaker 1: and to be able to tax the rich. Ecal Americans
Speaker 1: of course, continue to share to this day. There's also
Speaker 1: a very obvious practical problem with this policy, which is
Speaker 1: that it would be impossible to impose a tariff large
Speaker 1: enough to make up the loss of the income tax.
Speaker 1: Tariffs represent just two percent of the current federal government budget.
Speaker 1: The other ninety eight percent is largely income taxes and
Speaker 1: payroll taxes. We currently import roughly three trillion dollars of
Speaker 1: goods every year, but the federal budget is six point
Speaker 1: seventy five trillion dollars. So even if you put one
Speaker 1: hundred percent tariff on every imported good, you would still
Speaker 1: not raise even enough a revenue to fund half of
Speaker 1: the federal governments spenditures. Not to mention that applying terraffs
Speaker 1: will lead to a reduction in foreign trade, which will
Speaker 1: further reduce the amount of tariff revenue, creating a doom's
Speaker 1: viral for the federal government's budget. Now, I don't know
Speaker 1: if Trump knows or cares about this basic math, but
Speaker 1: I do know for the billionaire anarcho capitalist aligned set
Speaker 1: that is backing his campaign, people like Elon Musk, people
Speaker 1: like Peter Teele, the fact that relying on tariffs instead
Speaker 1: of income tax would require dismantling most of the federal
Speaker 1: government is a feature, not a bug. In fact, maybe
Speaker 1: even more significant than Trump's utterances on the campaign trail
Speaker 1: are Elon's. He is, after all, Trump's biggest funder, He's
Speaker 1: running substantial parts of his campaign, He's running an entire
Speaker 1: tech company on Trump's behalf, and has been promised a
Speaker 1: powerful government wide role with which he could drive his
Speaker 1: own ideological ends. He and Peter Teele were also influential
Speaker 1: in getting their ally jd vance on the presidential ticket
Speaker 1: to further their influence in the administration. So what is
Speaker 1: it exactly that Elon wants. Well, in part, he wants
Speaker 1: to bolster his own bottom line since he already is
Speaker 1: one of the federal government's largest contractors. He also wants
Speaker 1: his various legal regulatory issues with the federal government to disappear.
Speaker 1: But from an ideological perspective, we know he, like others
Speaker 1: in the libertarian tech elites, that is a fan of
Speaker 1: Argentina's anarcho capitalist president Javier Malay. Now you can catch
Speaker 1: glimpses of Elon's ideological goals when he talks about how
Speaker 1: many government agencies he wants to abolish. When he asserts
Speaker 1: that he wants to cut two trillion dollars from the budget,
Speaker 1: which is more than the entire federal government discretionary budget,
Speaker 1: also when he describes all government spending as inherently bad,
Speaker 1: and when he says that Americans will have to go
Speaker 1: through temporary hardship to deliver his imagined libertarian utopia. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of Elon fans pay too
Speaker 1: much attention exactly what Elon says. They just think he's
Speaker 1: like cool, smart, based or whatever. But it is worth
Speaker 1: listening carefully to such a powerful individual.
Speaker 9: But we set up those Yes, how much do you
Speaker 9: think we can rip out of this wasted six point
Speaker 9: five trillion dollars harvest Biden budget?
Speaker 7: Well, I think we could do at least two trillion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, two trillion.
Speaker 7: I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed.
Speaker 3: You're being taxed.
Speaker 7: All government spending is taxation. So whether it's it's direct
Speaker 7: taxation or old govern spending, it either becomes inflation or
Speaker 7: it's as direct taxation. Your money is being wasted, and
Speaker 7: the Apartment of Government Divisioncy.
Speaker 4: Is going to fix that.
Speaker 10: We have to reduce spending to look within our means.
Speaker 10: And yeah, that necessarily bolths some temporary hardship, but it
Speaker 10: will ensure long term prosperity.
Speaker 1: So these comments are all in line with that anarcho
Speaker 1: capitalist dream of dismantling government effectively letting corporations run wild,
Speaker 1: as detailed by Sam Butler over at Drop Side. Elon
Speaker 1: has also ominously incorporated a new company, officially making him
Speaker 1: the CEO of quote United States of America, Inc. Now,
Speaker 1: if you want to see how well this libertarian dream
Speaker 1: goes in reality, you might take a gander at Argentina,
Speaker 1: where Javier Malay is doing his best to put radical
Speaker 1: anti government pro corporate policies into place. In this new
Speaker 1: laissez fair paradise, poverty has skyrocketed to over fifty percent.
Speaker 1: Over three point four million Argentinians have been pushed into
Speaker 1: poverty in this year alone. Pensions are frozen, social safety
Speaker 1: netslash soup Kitchen's cut, and all public works projects have
Speaker 1: been stopped. The type of global institutions that routinely imposed
Speaker 1: economic shock therapy on poor countries are celebrating this self
Speaker 1: imposed shock therapy. But, judging by Malay's popularity knows Dive,
Speaker 1: the people of Argentina are somewhat less impressed.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Some in the JD Vance Teel David Zachs tech world
Speaker 1: are also influenced by the ideas of new right intellectual
Speaker 1: Curtis Jarvin, who argues for a complete dissolution of the
Speaker 1: federal government, an abandonment of democracy at all, in favor
Speaker 1: of a patchwork of corporate fifdoms. In his imaginings, these
Speaker 1: fightctims would be run by a CEO king with total control.
Speaker 1: See how Trump might find that idea somewhat appealing. You
Speaker 1: would lose your status as a citizen, but instead you'd
Speaker 1: have the rights of a customer, namely the right to
Speaker 1: complain impotently to customer service and to depart for a
Speaker 1: different corporate victom if you are still unhappy, assuming that
Speaker 1: is that another locale is willing to permit your immigration. Now,
Speaker 1: I know this all sounds kind of insane, but it's
Speaker 1: somewhat closer to reality than you might actually think. Special
Speaker 1: economic zones have proliferated around the world by the thousands,
Speaker 1: where the needs of corporations are in fact king. In addition,
Speaker 1: dozens of four profit charter cities have already been launched,
Speaker 1: largely in developing countries, and many with the backing of
Speaker 1: jd Vance's main benefactor, Peter Teel. What's more, Trump's shift
Speaker 1: on cryptocurrency a key ideological commitment for Elon and the
Speaker 1: tech libertarians. Is also a crucial indicator that Trump is
Speaker 1: bending more to their will than the reverse. After all,
Speaker 1: they have a fully formed ideology and that is a
Speaker 1: powerful weapon. Trump, on the other hand, has an ee
Speaker 1: go and some reactionary instincts, and is also very easily manipulated.
Speaker 1: Now it might seem like Trump's old school protectionism is
Speaker 1: an odd fit for these anarcho capitalist types, but the
Speaker 1: zero income tax policy, which was wholly absent from previous
Speaker 1: Trump runs, is what helps make this alliance work and
Speaker 1: helps it make some sense. And in the presidency of
Speaker 1: William McKinley they can find a sort of shared imagined
Speaker 1: utopian vision. As Jeffrey Kabaservis, a historian of Republicanism, told
Speaker 1: The New Republic, the GFP has formed a cult around McKinley,
Speaker 1: largely because he was the last pre progressive Republican president.
Speaker 1: Time was when conservatives love Theodore Roosevelt, but many now
Speaker 1: think of him as a big government warmonger. Rightly or wrongly,
Speaker 1: McKinley in this light appears as the last standard bearer
Speaker 1: of Republicanism's lost Eden, when government was comparatively tiny gets
Speaker 1: strong enough to make the country a great power. So
Speaker 1: in McKinley, Trump gets his tariffs and the ain Ran
Speaker 1: set gets their dismantled pre new de Ill federal government
Speaker 1: an ideal landscape for the will of corporate CEOs to
Speaker 1: trump the will of the people. Trump also seems to
Speaker 1: find McKinley appealing because he was assassinated in office of fate. Trump,
Speaker 1: of course himself darely escaped. Interestingly, though, McKinley's final speech
Speaker 1: was an effort to explain why he wanted to roll
Speaker 1: back some of the tariffs that he himself had previously championed.
Speaker 1: The period of exclusiveness, he said, is past. The expansion
Speaker 1: of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial
Speaker 1: wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and friendly
Speaker 1: trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony
Speaker 1: with the spirit of the times. Measures of retaliation are not. If, perchance,
Speaker 1: some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue
Speaker 1: or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why
Speaker 1: should they not be employed to extend and promote our
Speaker 1: markets abroad. Sounds like a regular neoliberal there. In other words,
Speaker 1: by nineteen oh one, America had already soured on the
Speaker 1: economic program, which it helped to fuel the wild inequality
Speaker 1: of the Gilded Age, pushing forward towards a progressive tax
Speaker 1: system and ultimately the New Deal, programs that redefine the
Speaker 1: federal government's relationship to the masses. Of course, it should
Speaker 1: surprise no one that today's robber barons are anxious to
Speaker 1: turn back the clock all the way to that era.
Speaker 1: Remains to be seen how successful they might be in
Speaker 1: implementing their vision, but I wouldn't underestimate them either. Billionaires
Speaker 1: have more or less had their way with America for decades,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of hard to see that changing anytime soon.
Speaker 1: So so I'm very curious for your takeover, and if you
Speaker 1: want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
Speaker 1: premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.