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: Okay, So a lot going on, a lot that's very disturbing.
Speaker 1: We're going to get to that with regard to the
Speaker 1: latest Israeli strike on Gaza, but wanted to start with this.
Speaker 4: You can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Latest numbers are that sixty seven people were wounded. These
Speaker 1: were all soldiers wounded Sunday after a drone struck an
Speaker 1: IDF base in Israel. This was a Heswula drone strike.
Speaker 1: You also had a number of people four who I
Speaker 1: believe were killed. So you've had a significant number of
Speaker 1: casualties here. And part of what is so significant here
Speaker 1: is that this drone was able to get through their
Speaker 1: you know, extensive anti anti missile defense systems, so iron
Speaker 1: Dome failed and they're looking into why that happened and
Speaker 1: how this was able to get through. Apparently there was
Speaker 1: another drone that attempted to get through as well. They
Speaker 1: were able to intercept that one, but this one was successful.
Speaker 1: The army, they say, is investigating why no sirns are
Speaker 1: sound and why interception attempts failed as well as the
Speaker 1: drone's route. In addition, earlier in that same day, twenty
Speaker 1: eight IDF soldiers were wounded by anti tank fire in
Speaker 1: two separate incidents in Lebanon. We can put up on
Speaker 1: the screen this image of the cross border attacks because
Speaker 1: I just don't want people to get a false impression here.
Speaker 1: So obviously Heswela has been firing back, but it's still
Speaker 1: a very one sided conflict. Overall, it's very, you know,
Speaker 1: very unbalanced towards the Israeli side. You have twelve thousand
Speaker 1: roughly combined cross border attacks. Eight hundred and ninety one
Speaker 1: of those were Israeli attacks on Lebanin. You've had two
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty three which were HESBLA and others
Speaker 1: attacks on Israel. Total combined desks one thousand, five hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty two of those, almost all of them were
Speaker 1: Lebanese people one thy five hundred and twenty nine, just
Speaker 1: thirty three Israelis killed in these cross order attacks. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: are obviously incredibly significant in terms of Israeli's sense of security.
Speaker 1: They've been sold by their leadership class that the way
Speaker 1: for them to be safe and to be able to
Speaker 1: return to northern Israel towns that have been evacuated since
Speaker 1: October seventh is through war, is through bullets and guns
Speaker 1: and missiles and drones and bombs.
Speaker 4: And they also, you know, I.
Speaker 1: Think really thought they degraded Hesbla to the point that
Speaker 1: the it was probably just going to kind of fall apart.
Speaker 1: Sata assassinated in Esralla, you had that massage, massive pager
Speaker 1: and walkie talkie attack, and Hezbela showing here that they
Speaker 1: still have a lot of fighting power and still have
Speaker 1: an ability to strike within Israel.
Speaker 4: Important though, I really want.
Speaker 1: To emphasize the fact that you know, Hesbla here striking
Speaker 1: a legitimate military target. And I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people should ponder the fact that the military that we're backing,
Speaker 1: which we're about to count to talk about in a minute,
Speaker 1: the IDF, the one that worshipping the bombs for just
Speaker 1: attacked a hospital with a tense city of refugees filled
Speaker 1: with patients, you know, and children and women, and the
Speaker 1: ones that we call terrorists are attacking legitimate military targets
Speaker 1: and going after soldiers.
Speaker 2: Well, what I think it highlights is more the lack
Speaker 2: of security and the ability for them to actually penetrate
Speaker 2: IDF defenses. And it just is the same thing where look, yes,
Speaker 2: you can wipe out Inncerala and all that, but everything
Speaker 2: kept saying here Hasbola is a much more capable force. Also,
Speaker 2: I want everybody to understand how much that this is
Speaker 2: the preview of what warfare looks like in the twenty
Speaker 2: first century. This drone hitting a cafeteria, This is been
Speaker 2: going on in Ukraine now for three straight years, and
Speaker 2: that's exactly how they've been able to kill a ton
Speaker 2: of Ukrainians, to kill over a ton of Russians. There
Speaker 2: are so many horrible drone videos out there of them
Speaker 2: just following people. So the point is that this type
Speaker 2: of warfare is exactly the way that they're trying to
Speaker 2: get around traditional weapon systems, rockets, missiles and all that
Speaker 2: penetrate it very very small and still be able to
Speaker 2: really you know, cause significant amounts of damage. This is
Speaker 2: one of a very deadly incident inside of Israel for
Speaker 2: the IDEF.
Speaker 3: Another one is.
Speaker 2: Let's underscore the US commitment to this. Not nearly enough
Speaker 2: people are understanding the gravity of what has now been
Speaker 2: announced by the Biden administration. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. US is going to deploy one hundred
Speaker 2: troops to operate an advanced anti missile system in Israel
Speaker 2: amidst high tensions. What we are talking about is the
Speaker 2: THAD missile defense system, the Terminal high Altitude Area Defense.
Speaker 2: I was actually pretty familiar with that. I covered a
Speaker 2: lot of it with respect to South Korea. It is
Speaker 2: one of our most advanced missile anti missile defense technologies,
Speaker 2: and it is one of those that is you can
Speaker 2: see it actually in front of you on the mobile
Speaker 2: trucks and makes it very easy to deploy and all
Speaker 2: of that. But the point is is that if you
Speaker 2: think about this system and why it's so important, is
Speaker 2: it is physically incapable to run it without American soldiers
Speaker 2: on the ground. It's one of the reasons why the
Speaker 2: Ukrainians have been begging America for a bad system for
Speaker 2: the begin basically since the beginning of the war, and
Speaker 2: we're like, no, we're not going to do it because
Speaker 2: we'd have to put our own guys on the ground.
Speaker 2: But now think about this, Not only would we have
Speaker 2: our guys operating an anti missile defense system, but what
Speaker 2: do you think the number one target of a drone
Speaker 2: or any of these other places is going to be?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: And so that means we're putting our people in an
Speaker 2: extremely high risk situation, and nobody in the US political
Speaker 2: establishment is saying a damn word about it. Joe Biden
Speaker 2: promised there will be no troops that boots on the ground,
Speaker 2: you know, for the defense of Israel. Well, already that
Speaker 2: was a lie with the whole Gaza peer situation. It
Speaker 2: was a lie previously whenever three of our guys were
Speaker 2: killed in that Jordanian Syria insane raid, which are in
Speaker 2: the drone attack, which still nobody's ever answered any questions about.
Speaker 2: But this is the most direct intervention by the United States.
Speaker 2: It also just increases It also shows you, you know,
Speaker 2: the Israelis brag about Arrow three and Arrow two and
Speaker 2: all of that, but when it comes down to it,
Speaker 2: and there's some worries with Iran, what are they doing
Speaker 2: and they're like, hey, we need fat What does that
Speaker 2: tell you? It shows you that their missile defense technology,
Speaker 2: which we pay for and build, is still not all
Speaker 2: that operable and they need some of the highest level
Speaker 2: of US defense to keep them where they're at. But worse,
Speaker 2: I think is that it gives them the ability they
Speaker 2: can do whatever they want. Now you know, you can
Speaker 2: go and hit a nuclear site if you want to.
Speaker 2: Now you've got big Daddy America and one hundred US
Speaker 2: soldiers who are defending you. And this is basically an
Speaker 2: insurance policy for the coming massive strike on Iran.
Speaker 3: That's right, that will happen.
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm scared, because there are now our
Speaker 2: people are the ones who are in danger.
Speaker 4: That's exactly right, And you're so right to point out
Speaker 4: to that.
Speaker 1: Listen, our boots are already on the ground because we
Speaker 1: have forty thousand people in the region and it's a
Speaker 1: regional war. And if you think it's not, just look
Speaker 1: at all of the countries that are being bombed right now.
Speaker 1: Like you're deluding yourself if you don't think that those
Speaker 1: soldiers are already at risk. But with regard to this
Speaker 1: move specifically, you know, we're getting these reports that Biden
Speaker 1: talked to Bob and he doesn't want them to strike
Speaker 1: Iranian oil infrastructure, that he doesn't want him to strike
Speaker 1: Iranian nuclear sites. But then you're giving him all the
Speaker 1: protection in the world so that he can operate with
Speaker 1: impunity and not bear any of the cost. So again,
Speaker 1: obviously Bbe is going to do exactly what he wants
Speaker 1: because you are not using any leverage. In fact, you're
Speaker 1: doing the opposite of that. You are enabling this behavior
Speaker 1: because they will not bear any of the cost. Instead,
Speaker 1: we're putting our soldiers' lives at risk and putting this,
Speaker 1: you know, expensive system into the region. It's just from
Speaker 1: a policy perspective, it's utterly, utterly insane. But you know,
Speaker 1: that's that's where we are. And the total lack of
Speaker 1: any discussion, debate, controversy around this is astonishing, you know,
Speaker 1: it's utterly astonishing what we stand on the precipice of
Speaker 1: and how little care concerned discussion debate there is in
Speaker 1: the United States Congress or certainly on the cable news airwaves.
Speaker 1: You At the same time, we wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: and bring you this the Israelis struck un peacekeepers, These
Speaker 1: Irish peacekeepers who you know this, This UN peacekeeping force
Speaker 1: has been in southern Lebanon for quite a long time,
Speaker 1: and the Israelis told them, you need to leave, and
Speaker 1: they said, no, we're going to hold our posts like
Speaker 1: we have an important mission. You don't get to tell
Speaker 1: us when we're going to leave, so we're going to stay.
Speaker 1: So Benjamin attiaw you can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: It was in Hebrew, so I'll just read some of
Speaker 1: the translation here. He demanded that these forces be evacuated
Speaker 1: from removed from South Lebanon immediately. He says that they're
Speaker 1: going to be used as human shields by Hesbola. He says, specifically,
Speaker 1: I appeal to the UN Secretary General. Your refusal to
Speaker 1: evacuate UNIFIL soldiers has turned them into hostages of Hesbola.
Speaker 1: So we all know when the Israelis break out that
Speaker 1: human shield language, that means you're a target. That means
Speaker 1: we are not going to care whether you live or die.
Speaker 1: In fact, if anything, we're happy for you to die.
Speaker 1: It wasn't long before we got this I troops quote
Speaker 1: accounted for after reported Lebanon strike, UN sources told Reuters
Speaker 1: that Israeli troops open fire at three positions held by
Speaker 1: UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon on Thursday. You know this
Speaker 1: is this United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has been
Speaker 1: there since nineteen seventy eight. It's meant to monitor hostilities,
Speaker 1: helps to ensure humanitarian access to civilians.
Speaker 4: And they put on a.
Speaker 1: Long thread on Twitter on Thursday mornings saying that two
Speaker 1: peacekeepers were injured after an idea of tank fired its
Speaker 1: weapon towards an observation and tower at their headquarters, directly
Speaker 1: hitting it and causing them to fall. It said their
Speaker 1: injuries are not serious, but they do remain in the hospital.
Speaker 1: They also fired IDF soldiers on a UN position in
Speaker 1: another town, hitting the entrance to the bunker where peacekeepers
Speaker 1: were sheltering and damaging vehicles in a communication system. An
Speaker 1: IDF drone was observed flying inside the UN position up
Speaker 1: to the bunker, and in addition, peacekeepers at that position
Speaker 1: reported the firing of several rounds which emitted smoke. Despite
Speaker 1: putting on protective mass, fifteen of those peacekeepers suffered effects
Speaker 1: including skin irritation and gas intestinal reactions after the smoke
Speaker 1: entered the camp. The peacekeepers are receiving treatment, so IDF
Speaker 1: is firing on and gassing apparently un peacekeepers now, and
Speaker 1: the silence from the United States of America and the
Speaker 1: rest of the supposedly committed to human rights West is
Speaker 1: absolutely deafening.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous, isn't it.
Speaker 2: And it's also just funny because if you think about
Speaker 2: the way that we would respond, let's say, if this
Speaker 2: was a country called Russia, well then things fall apart, now,
Speaker 2: don't they.
Speaker 4: Can you imagine?
Speaker 3: Of course I can. I already know because we are.
Speaker 3: We've seen it.
Speaker 2: You know, look at all these look at the number
Speaker 2: of times but way Biden and all of them talk about, oh,
Speaker 2: the United Nations is spoken out against the Ukraine invasion.
Speaker 3: And all that.
Speaker 2: So if you're Russia, also, what's the lesson from this?
Speaker 2: You're like, yeah, we can just do whatever we want.
Speaker 2: They're like, they don't mean anything. If you're China, if
Speaker 2: you're any of these people, you're like, look at these
Speaker 2: is this people are a joke. They're like, all these
Speaker 2: international institutions mean nothing. I mean, the entire basis of
Speaker 2: their theory of the international rules based order and all
Speaker 2: of that is being undermined here. Also, again I just
Speaker 2: can't get away from the cost. You know, that costs
Speaker 2: a billion dollars plus we have one hundred dollars one
Speaker 2: hundred people who are put in harm's way. The general
Speaker 2: back in the Napkin math is it takes one million
Speaker 2: dollars per year per soldier to keep them deployed abroad.
Speaker 3: So that's one hundred mil. And then you to add
Speaker 3: in another bill.
Speaker 2: They're like, okay, you know, one point one billion here
Speaker 2: just to make sure that they can do whatever they
Speaker 2: want to. Iran not to mention the billion dollars we
Speaker 2: just fired off, and more like what is who's why
Speaker 2: should we pay this bill? Why is this worth it?
Speaker 2: For what possible reason? And then the damage to the
Speaker 2: overall US image is just ridiculous now at this point.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean it's what can you even say at
Speaker 1: this point, Like there's things that we're about to talk
Speaker 1: about this, Things that would have been a controversy a
Speaker 1: year ago now just happened and no one even noticed this.
Speaker 1: I mean, remember there was a whole propaganda campaign around
Speaker 1: justifying the invasion of one hospital. Now hospitals just get bombed,
Speaker 1: schools just get bombed. Refugee shelters just get bombed un peacekeepers. Okay,
Speaker 1: and now we're in, you know, bombing the hell on
Speaker 1: a bay route and you know, dropping eighty six two
Speaker 1: thousand pounds bunker buster bombs to get one dude, slaughtering
Speaker 1: civilians who are not Hamas, have nothing to do with Hamas, et.
Speaker 4: Cetera, et cetera. And it's just like a shoulder shrug.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's so incredibly, so incredibly dark. And
Speaker 1: it is also totally clear that the most nihilistic, most
Speaker 1: cynical analysis of Israeli plans for genocide, ethnic cleansing, regional
Speaker 1: war with Iran dragging us into it, the most cynical
Speaker 1: analysis that occurred on you know, October eighth, turned out
Speaker 1: to be one hundred percent correct, if not sort of
Speaker 1: understating where we'd ultimately had. I've previewed this absolute trigger
Speaker 1: warning for the images I'm about to show you, But
Speaker 1: there is a horrific IDF strike on a hospital in
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip. Because while this is all going on
Speaker 1: with HASWLA, they continue to completely annihilate the Gaza Strip
Speaker 1: and you know, extreminate so many people there. We have
Speaker 1: no idea what the death toll is at this point.
Speaker 1: And in the course of attacking this hospital, they lit
Speaker 1: on fire a tent camp filled with refugees, including many
Speaker 1: you know, innocent men, women and children and patients who
Speaker 1: were hooked up to ivs, many of whom had just
Speaker 1: fled and were trying to get treatment from a school
Speaker 1: that was bombed, that was being used as a shelter,
Speaker 1: that was recently bombed by the IDs. So let's kind
Speaker 1: of put these images up on the screen. So again,
Speaker 1: these images profoundly disturbing. Here you can see the strike
Speaker 1: on the hospital complex.
Speaker 4: And the resulting fire.
Speaker 1: You know, it was a real judgment call whether it
Speaker 1: include the images you're about to see in the show,
Speaker 1: because they are so horrifying. These are people who you know,
Speaker 1: are being burned alive inside their tents, suffering severe burns
Speaker 1: and injuries. But you know, we felt like it was
Speaker 1: important to show what your taxpayer dollars are funding. Drop
Speaker 1: Site actually pulled out some of these images. This is
Speaker 1: someone being engulfed in flames who is hooked up to
Speaker 1: an IV As I said before, for this is a
Speaker 1: hospital where many people were receiving treatment after an Israeli
Speaker 1: bombing of a school uh turned shelter. I'll go ahead
Speaker 1: and tell you the Israelis claimed that this was you know,
Speaker 1: a Hamas command and control center, a justification of course,
Speaker 1: that they've used for destroying effectively the entire Gaza Strip.
Speaker 1: At this point, we also know that they have told
Speaker 1: everyone to leave Northern Gaza, but then also are firing
Speaker 1: upon people who were trying.
Speaker 4: To leave Northern Gaza.
Speaker 1: So there's just literally nowhere that is safe in the
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip. Of course, we know many times that there,
Speaker 1: you know, people have gone to the supposed safe zones
Speaker 1: only to be bombed, drone struck, all of those things.
Speaker 1: So just the latest horror that you know, like I
Speaker 1: said before, I think early in the conflict, this would
Speaker 1: have ignited a news cycle, would have you know, caused
Speaker 1: a significant discussion debate. Israelis would have had to come
Speaker 1: on and spin and do their whole full haspara.
Speaker 4: Now you know, New York Times mentioned it, but that's
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 1: That's about as far as it will go, and these
Speaker 1: scenes of daily horror just sort of fade into the
Speaker 1: background at this point. In addition, we can put D
Speaker 1: eight up on the screen as well, we've got just
Speaker 1: more images of the destruction in Northern Gaza, just to
Speaker 1: you know, add to the point of this. This is
Speaker 1: what is ongoing, so supposedly, you know Northern Gaza, this
Speaker 1: was where they originally had invaded, and you know, massive devastation.
Speaker 1: These are families that are sheltering and in the background
Speaker 1: you can actually hear bombs being dropped or tanks firing.
Speaker 1: You can hear the violence outside and these children are
Speaker 1: cowering and wondering if they're gonna escape with their lives.
Speaker 1: Let's put the next piece up on the screen here.
Speaker 1: In addition to the violence, no food has entered northern
Speaker 1: this month, So in all of October it's now October fourteenth,
Speaker 1: no food has entered whatsoever Ciena no pines, putting one
Speaker 1: million people at risk of starvation, and of course Israel's
Speaker 1: blocking this aid from coming in. They track that in
Speaker 1: August you had about seven hundred AID trucks out in
Speaker 1: Northern Gaza, already wildly insufficient. In September only four hundred,
Speaker 1: and now in October, according to the World Food Program,
Speaker 1: no food trucks have entered Northern Gaza, and bib At
Speaker 1: Yahoo is actively floating, starving that population in order to
Speaker 1: try to starve Hamas like this is as blatantly, you know,
Speaker 1: horrific and atrocity as you can possibly imagine. It's the
Speaker 1: definition of collective punishment. And none of us can claim
Speaker 1: we didn't know, because it's happening all in front of
Speaker 1: our eyes. Many of the bakeries in northern Gaza have
Speaker 1: been shut down for days at this point because they
Speaker 1: have no food, no fuel, no flower, no ability to
Speaker 1: produce bread, which has become like the staple food item
Speaker 1: for Palestinians in Gaza. So even as we continue to
Speaker 1: watch what's happening with Hesbla and with Iran and all
Speaker 1: these other things, the atrocities in Gaza just continue a
Speaker 1: pace and if anything escalate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what the Israelis have decided to do is basically
Speaker 2: like declare war on all fronts. So you have Hesba Lah,
Speaker 2: you have Lebanon, you also have the Gaza stuff that
Speaker 2: is ramping up. But really what you're watching is the
Speaker 2: total survival of bb Netchanngahu and also of explicitly ditching
Speaker 2: any sort of mentioning of the remaining hostages inside of Israel,
Speaker 2: which I'm still waiting just to see if there will
Speaker 2: be any sort of domestic pushback. We have that story
Speaker 2: about those IDF soldiers who are like, we won't fight
Speaker 2: if it's not about the hostages. But I think he's
Speaker 2: pretty successfully moved it now from this and when you
Speaker 2: move past the hostages, then nothing really is restraining you
Speaker 2: from doing whatever you want, either in Gaza, in Lebanon
Speaker 2: or anywhere else, because now it's about some bigger project.
Speaker 2: And remember we still have not yet seen the Israeli
Speaker 2: retaliation on Iran, which people's say could come any day now.
Speaker 2: And I would be a fool if I didn't think
Speaker 2: it would be politically calculated as well, you know, to
Speaker 2: come at the maximum point of impact for politics here
Speaker 2: in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean now they're just openly talking about
Speaker 1: ethnic cleansing, like it's not even hitten below the surface,
Speaker 1: Like it's just openly floating plans of effectively a final
Speaker 1: solution here, because they've decided that there is no possibility
Speaker 1: of peaceful coexistence. They've decided absolutely any ends is justified.
Speaker 1: They've decided that their own safety and security can be
Speaker 1: secured through bombing and guns and starvation and annihilation and
Speaker 1: weapons and you know, I don't think that that's true,
Speaker 1: even if you don't care about the human costs, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, moral outrage of unconscionable levels. I don't think
Speaker 1: you secure safety and security by breeding hatred for your
Speaker 1: state and your government and your people throughout the entire
Speaker 1: region that you're going to continue to.
Speaker 4: Have to live in.
Speaker 1: So in any case, that's the latest horror for you.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm sorry in a sense to have
Speaker 1: to show you those images, But as I said before,
Speaker 1: I think it's important that we continue to look at
Speaker 1: what our government and our taxpayers, what is being done
Speaker 1: in our name.
Speaker 4: Make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: Those horrific images of patients being burned alive in tents.
Speaker 1: That's being done with the United States of America's name
Speaker 1: written all over it. So horrifying, just utterly horrifying, brutal.
Speaker 2: We're going to turn down to some domestic politics. So Crystal,
Speaker 2: what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: In Jade Vance's recent interview with The New York Times,
Speaker 1: he refused on five separate occasions to say that Trump
Speaker 1: lost the twenty twenty election. This, of course, comes on
Speaker 1: the heels of his similar refusal to admit that Trump
Speaker 1: lost on the debate stage when he was asked directly
Speaker 1: by Tim Walls. Both times, he claimed that tech company's
Speaker 1: handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story rendered that election
Speaker 1: unfair and invalid.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what he had to say
Speaker 4: in the debate.
Speaker 5: You were asked to clarify if you believe Trump lost
Speaker 5: the twenty twenty election. Do you believe he lost the
Speaker 5: twenty twenty election?
Speaker 6: I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised
Speaker 6: a number of issues with the twenty twenty election, but
Speaker 6: were focused on the future. I think there's an obsession
Speaker 6: here with focusing on twenty twenty. I'm much more worried
Speaker 6: about what happened after twenty twenty, which is a wide
Speaker 6: open border, groceries that are unaffordable.
Speaker 5: And look, Senator yes or no? Did Donald Trump lose
Speaker 5: the twenty twenty elections?
Speaker 6: Let me ask you a question. Is it okay that
Speaker 6: big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which
Speaker 6: independent analysis have said cost Donald Trump millions of votes?
Speaker 5: Senator Vance, I'm going to ask you again, did Donald
Speaker 5: Trump lose the twenty twenty election?
Speaker 6: Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies
Speaker 6: have suggest us that would have cost Trump millions of votes.
Speaker 5: And that's the question I'm going to ask you again,
Speaker 5: did Donald Trump lose the twenty.
Speaker 6: Nine I've answered your question with another question. You answer
Speaker 6: my question, and all answer yours.
Speaker 1: Now, this is a wild answer to begin with. Of course,
Speaker 1: I say this as someone, by the way, who objected
Speaker 1: to the censorship of the Hunter laptop story still does
Speaker 1: object to the censorship of the Hunter laptop story.
Speaker 4: You can go back and roll.
Speaker 1: The tapes if you want to check that that is true.
Speaker 1: The notion though, that because a tech company didn't handle
Speaker 1: something the way you wanted it to, an entire election
Speaker 1: is null and void and the votes of over one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million people rendered invalid. That is frankly insane.
Speaker 1: But that's the marker that JD. Vans and many others
Speaker 1: have laid down. So what do we make now of this?
Speaker 1: The New York Times is reporting that the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: coordinated with billionaire Elon Musk to censor reporting on the JD.
Speaker 1: Vans vetting dossier on Twitter and to suspend the account
Speaker 1: of journalist Ken Clippenstein on that platform. Now, Twitter justified
Speaker 1: this suspension by claiming that Ken had i leaded the
Speaker 1: rules of the platform by failing to redact personal details
Speaker 1: like jd Vance's address. It was always pretty clear, though,
Speaker 1: the real motivations here, where political, had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this supposed doxing. First of all, Can actually sought
Speaker 1: to comply by going ahead and redacting those personal details
Speaker 1: and re uploading the dossier, but to no avail. More
Speaker 1: to the point, though, one of the primary complaints that
Speaker 1: Elon had about the previous Twitter management, and part of
Speaker 1: his rationale for buying the company, was their censorship of
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop story. However, that story had far
Speaker 1: more personal details of private individuals, by the way, including
Speaker 1: credit card details nude photos, than the jd vance dossio,
Speaker 1: which only included a few easily googleable items. In other words,
Speaker 1: there is no consistent standard by which the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: info would be allowed, but the jdvance info would be blocked.
Speaker 1: The motivation was politics, pure and simple, as is now
Speaker 1: confirmed by the New York Times. Now, since that New
Speaker 1: York Times reporting, Musk actually reinstated Ken, potentially due to
Speaker 1: legal concerns actually, but the underlying material continues to suppressed.
Speaker 1: So to everyone on the right who cried foul on
Speaker 1: the laptop, and especially to those who claim that it's
Speaker 1: censorship constituted election interference sufficient to nullify the results of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. What say you now, is this also disqualifying
Speaker 1: election fraud? Is it also a constitution ending threat to
Speaker 1: free speech? Because the irony here is that the thing
Speaker 1: that they accused Jack Dorsey and prior Twitter management of
Speaker 1: which was running the platform in a way that favored Democrats,
Speaker 1: that is now being done openly and explicitly by Musk,
Speaker 1: one of the richest men in the world, except not
Speaker 1: for Democrats this time, but for Republicans, not only by
Speaker 1: suspending Ken and banning links to the jd Vance dossier,
Speaker 1: but by engineering Twitter's algorithm to boost pro Trump messaging,
Speaker 1: and by using Elon's own account, which is in everyone's feed,
Speaker 1: whether they followim or not, to promote right wing propaganda
Speaker 1: and sometimes derange conspiracy theories. But Musk's election and influence
Speaker 1: goes far beyond Kenklippenstein, and even far beyond Twitter. Elon is,
Speaker 1: after all, Donald Trump's largest supporter by dot figures and
Speaker 1: by campaign involvement. Now we don't fully know how much
Speaker 1: money Musk has put in, but Trump is bragging that
Speaker 1: the number is around five hundred million dollars half a
Speaker 1: billion dollars. But that is actually even that just the
Speaker 1: beginning of Musk's support. We all know he jumped for
Speaker 1: Joy at a Trump rally and Butler Pennsylvania. What you
Speaker 1: may not know, though, is that he has effectively moved
Speaker 1: to Pennsylvania full time to run a turnout operation on
Speaker 1: behalf of Trump in the critical swing state. According to
Speaker 1: The New York Times, Musk is quote personally steering the
Speaker 1: actions of a super pack that he has funded with
Speaker 1: tens of millions of dollars to turn out the vote
Speaker 1: from mister Trump, not just in Pennsylvania but across the country.
Speaker 1: He's even proposed taking a campaign bus tour across Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: and knocking on doors himself, in part to see how
Speaker 1: his money is being used. They went on to quote
Speaker 1: a historian of the ultra rich saying that the level
Speaker 1: of funding and the direct involvement here from Musk is
Speaker 1: without precedent in modern history. In Musk, of course, he's
Speaker 1: no disinterested actor. His company profit to the tune of
Speaker 1: tens of billions of dollars from federal government contracts. In fact,
Speaker 1: according to Politico, he is among the largest Pentagon contractors.
Speaker 1: Tesla and SpaceX alone received over fifteen billion dollars of
Speaker 1: our tax dollars just last year. In other words, Musk
Speaker 1: is one of the deep state's top beneficiaries and allies.
Speaker 1: Elon also happens to be at war right now with
Speaker 1: the federal government on a wide variety of fronts. So
Speaker 1: SpaceX is fighting with aviation regulators to.
Speaker 4: Loosen their rules.
Speaker 1: It's also at war with the nation's body governing labor
Speaker 1: relations that's the NLRB, over the illegal firing of workers.
Speaker 1: In fact, contrary to Trump's new union careerious approach, Elon
Speaker 1: is seeking to have the entire National Labor Relations Board
Speaker 1: deemed unconstitutional and dismantled, an outcome which would be tantamount to.
Speaker 4: A death sentence for unions.
Speaker 1: SpaceX is also in conflict with the EPA over wastewater
Speaker 1: discharges in Texas. Meanwhile, Tesla has been sued for discrimination
Speaker 1: by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission overclaims of racism and
Speaker 1: a legal retaliation for Trump to win, Elon could well
Speaker 1: be in a position to influence these regulatory and enforcement decisions.
Speaker 1: After all, Trump has already promised him a plum government
Speaker 1: gig should the former president return to the White House.
Speaker 4: Trump has said he would.
Speaker 1: Put Elon on top of a government efficiency task force,
Speaker 1: which would give him potentially all sorts of power to
Speaker 1: squeeze his competitors and further faten his own coffers.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of fat in government that you would
Speaker 4: want to So what agencies would you want to shut down?
Speaker 7: Well, let me have you asked another person that, because
Speaker 7: I'm going to have Elon Musk. He's he is dying
Speaker 7: to do this. You know, he's a great business guy.
Speaker 7: Actually you think of him for science and rockets. And
Speaker 7: every time I think he's telling me about a new
Speaker 7: screw was developed, he's developed a new screw. Screws of
Speaker 7: difficult and it's made out of titanium and it's so exciting.
Speaker 7: But you know what, he's a great business guy. And
Speaker 7: he's a great cost cutter. You've seen that. And he
Speaker 7: said I could cut cost without affecting anybody.
Speaker 3: So he will be in the cabinet.
Speaker 7: Not in the cabinet. He doesn't want to be in
Speaker 7: the cab He just wants to be in charge of
Speaker 7: cost cutting, who have a new position, Secretary of cost cutting. Okay,
Speaker 7: Elon wants to do that, and we have incredible people.
Speaker 7: He's running a big business. You know, he can't just say, oh,
Speaker 7: I think I'll go into the cabinet. You know, other
Speaker 7: people can.
Speaker 4: He can't.
Speaker 7: But Elon's a little bit different in that sense, and
Speaker 7: besays that I wanted to send the rocket up to Mars.
Speaker 7: He said, He's made me a promise he'll get to
Speaker 7: Mars before the end of my administration, which will be
Speaker 7: long before hopefully China or Russia.
Speaker 1: So that's the official campaign position that's been floated, not
Speaker 1: to say nothing of the favors that Elon could curry
Speaker 1: with Trump himself or the giant tax breaks that Trump
Speaker 1: is promising to all billionaires. As the wealthiest man in
Speaker 1: the world with business interests across a range of industries,
Speaker 1: maybe no one stands to gain or lose more depending
Speaker 1: on the administration in power than Elon Musk, a point
Speaker 1: he actually joked about recently with Tucker Carlson, remarking that
Speaker 1: if Trump loses, he is screwed. It goes without saying
Speaker 1: the billionaires buying government to protect their class interests is
Speaker 1: exactly the sort of thing that anyone actually committed to
Speaker 1: democracy should strenuously oppose, regardless of partisan affiliation. Billionaire political influence,
Speaker 1: after all, is nothing new. It knows no political party.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has already raised a billion dollars in less
Speaker 1: than three months on the trail. Mark Cuban and Reid Hoffman,
Speaker 1: among others, are using their influence right now to try
Speaker 1: to shape a future Harris administration's anti trust and sec
Speaker 1: enforcement strategies, with Lena Khan firmly in their cross hairs,
Speaker 1: something we have covered multiple times on this show. But
Speaker 1: when you put it all together, no exaggeration to say
Speaker 1: that Musk is single handedly testing the limits of how
Speaker 1: far one billionaire can go to buy an election and
Speaker 1: remake the government to suit himself and his business's needs.
Speaker 1: You can only imagine the level of freak out on
Speaker 1: the right if this situation was reversed.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Probably the closest equivalent to Elon on the harriside is
Speaker 1: Reied Hoffman. That is, the LinkedIn billionaire has become its
Speaker 1: democratic donor. Donations are not fully transparent in the American
Speaker 1: political system, so we can't say exactly how much Hoffman
Speaker 1: or Musk have given, But the latest numbers suggest Hoffman
Speaker 1: has given seven million.
Speaker 4: To Harris affiliated packs.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of money, but it is pennies compared
Speaker 1: to the five hundred million Musk is supposedly throwing in
Speaker 1: on Trump's side. Hoffman also doesn't have substantial government contracts.
Speaker 1: He doesn't run an entire social media platform to benefit
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. There is truly no parallel for the influence
Speaker 1: of a single individual on the Democratic side that comes
Speaker 1: anywhere close to the staggering influence this election of Elon Musk. Now,
Speaker 1: back in twenty sixteen, you'll recall Trump ran on draining
Speaker 1: the swamp. He ran against the corruption of money and politics,
Speaker 1: famously held himself out as uncorruptible because of his own
Speaker 1: personal wealth, claiming that he alone could dismantle this corrupt
Speaker 1: influence pedaling scheme because as a wealthy donor himself, he
Speaker 1: knew all too well how all of this favor trading works.
Speaker 1: Now he's openly celebrating when the world's richest men funneling
Speaker 1: him five hundred million dollars, directing crucial components of his
Speaker 1: campaign and running a social media giant on his behalf
Speaker 1: Musk claims that if Trump doesn't win this election, democracy
Speaker 1: will be over. Kind of a preposterous claim given the
Speaker 1: guy who's backing literally tried to overturn our democratic results
Speaker 1: and blot the peaceful transfer of power last time around.
Speaker 1: But in truth, even considering the disgrace of January sixth
Speaker 1: and the fake elector scheme, I actually think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say Musk himself might represent a more dire threat
Speaker 1: to democracy. The politics he's pursuing puts the whims of
Speaker 1: one billionaire oligarch, his ideology, his business interests over the
Speaker 1: will of the people, putting him in position to run
Speaker 1: the federal government with the bias and impunity with which
Speaker 1: he runs X. In such a system where money is power,
Speaker 1: no matter which candidate wins, the people of the country.
Speaker 4: Will always lose. And I really think there's been two little.
Speaker 2: Spirit And if you want to hear my reaction to
Speaker 2: Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: There was also Alius incident that we wanted to spotlight.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure exactly what it shows us about America,
Speaker 2: but certainly something. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan participating in
Speaker 2: a TikTok trend that was weird. Some might say, let's
Speaker 2: take a listen. Okay, so what you saw there that
Speaker 2: was what's your name, Liz playing That's right, Liz Plank.
Speaker 2: She's a feminist whatever, activist, journalist, except influencer who was
Speaker 2: participating in TikTok video. There where Gretchen Whitmer is feeding
Speaker 2: her at Dorrito a la, somebody who was participating in communion.
Speaker 3: This of course.
Speaker 2: Invited a huge backlash from a Catholic community, requiring Whitmer
Speaker 2: to issue an apology. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen, she says, over twenty five years in public service,
Speaker 2: I would never do anything to denigrate someone's faith. I
Speaker 2: have used my platform to stand up for people's rights
Speaker 2: to hold a practice a person of reallyious believe. My
Speaker 2: team has spoken can to the Michigan Catholic Conference. What
Speaker 2: was supposed to be a video about the importance of
Speaker 2: the Chips Act to Michigan jobs has been construed as
Speaker 2: something it was never intended to be, and I apologize
Speaker 2: for that. So that somehow was about the Chips Act
Speaker 2: building semiconductors in a state of mission.
Speaker 3: I'm not even sure how they got there.
Speaker 4: I don't get, I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just old, I don't know. Apparently this is
Speaker 1: like a.
Speaker 3: TikTok this was a trend. Yeah.
Speaker 4: But the other thing.
Speaker 1: Is I think the chips AC thing might be in
Speaker 1: like after the fact rationalization.
Speaker 3: I think you're right.
Speaker 1: I think because when Liz initially posted the video on
Speaker 1: her Instagram for disclosure, I know Liz I used to
Speaker 1: work with her, et cetera, et cetera, she didn't.
Speaker 4: Say anything about the chips Act.
Speaker 1: She said something like if he won't, she will or
Speaker 1: something like that. I was like, I don't know, and
Speaker 1: people in the comments were like, what is this? What
Speaker 1: does this mean? And then once there started to be
Speaker 1: this backlash, then she either editor repot hosted it with
Speaker 1: something about the chips Act. So I feel like that
Speaker 1: may have been like an attempt to clean it up
Speaker 1: after the fact.
Speaker 4: But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I have no idea you actually told me. I didn't
Speaker 1: realize this that crushing Wimer is kind of big on TikTok.
Speaker 2: Yes, No, she's very very she is TikTok pilled, like
Speaker 2: beyond anyone. Yeah, she might be the most like in
Speaker 2: touch slash on TikTok National Democratic politician, as I understand,
Speaker 2: but she does all of these boards.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 4: I guess the thing is this was like being in
Speaker 4: touch with TikTok.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in a way that puts you way out of
Speaker 1: touch with what anyone else would perceive in watching this video.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, Liza, I'm not religious, so the
Speaker 1: communion thing didn't honestly come to mind.
Speaker 4: For me when I first watched. I just thought, like,
Speaker 4: what the hell is this?
Speaker 3: I've only been knew.
Speaker 2: I think I've been to a Catholic mass twice as
Speaker 2: an attendee, just funerals or.
Speaker 3: Weddings or whatever. And even I was like, oh man,
Speaker 3: I was like.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 2: The caption, by the way, actually did try and play
Speaker 2: into the Chips Act.
Speaker 3: It said, chips aren't just delicious.
Speaker 2: The Chips Act is a game changer for US tank
Speaker 2: and manufacturing, boosting domestic production of semiconductors to reduce reliance
Speaker 2: on foreign suppliers. Donald Trump would put that at risk,
Speaker 2: is what the caption reads. So I have again no
Speaker 2: idea why that you would participate in this, especially for
Speaker 2: a quote unquote chipsack.
Speaker 3: Thing for abortion.
Speaker 2: Look like taking my cringe factor out of it, Like,
Speaker 2: when I see these politicians doing these, how do you
Speaker 2: say that the apple dance or whatever?
Speaker 3: Is that brat is that Charlie? It's the extra chap.
Speaker 3: I forget whatever's Charlie a charge.
Speaker 2: So when they do the apple dance, I'm cringing, but
Speaker 2: I'm like, okay, well they're talking an abortion, like you know,
Speaker 2: it's whatever.
Speaker 3: Not for me, it's clearly to somebody else.
Speaker 2: When I see Josh Shapiro, he does a ton of
Speaker 2: tiktoks about again about abortion with like the blinking eyes
Speaker 2: thing where he's like when Republicans want to take abortion away,
Speaker 2: it's like blank blank again. I think it's cringe, but
Speaker 2: I understand and like the formulation this, I don't get it.
Speaker 2: I'm like, how did you get here? It also shows
Speaker 2: the danger of being I guess too online well from
Speaker 2: the Democratic side, and so that's why it's also worth
Speaker 2: there because.
Speaker 1: We've seen that many times on the Republican side, I guess.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the era we live in now, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, it does go perfectly with the conversation we're
Speaker 1: just having about like podcasts and rogan and how like
Speaker 1: if you want to reach this demographic. In some ways,
Speaker 1: the Republican side has sort of leaned into Twitter, like
Speaker 1: Elon's Twitter, as their sort of vibe and energy, and
Speaker 1: Democrats have sort of leaned into like TikTok as their
Speaker 1: vibe and energy this election. And you know this is
Speaker 1: some of the fallout of that. I guess that's the
Speaker 1: most substanctive point I could make.
Speaker 3: Well said, all right, we'll see you guys later.