10/29/24: Obama Badgers Muslim Voters, Elon Sued For Million Dollar Giveaway, Bezos Panic After WAPO Cancellations, Rogan Pushes For Kamala Interview, Insane Trump Clip Ignored
51:45 Share

Oh, the places you'll go when you go in Tom's, the beloved family footwear brand. Over the years, we've learned a thing or two about style and comfort. Our fall collection offers hundreds of styles for women, men, and kids at great prices. Boots, sneakers, wedges, loafers, flats, and our iconic All For Goddess lip balms. When you buy Tom's, you help make a difference in the lives of others. Together, we've positively impacted over 100 million people to date, and we're just getting started. Shop the full fall assortment now at Tom's.com.

There's a crucial election coming up. I feel enthusiastic to vote for Kamala Harris. And every week on The Middle with Jeremy Hobson. I'm voting for former President Trump. We bring together an all-star panel. Mark Cuban, so great to have you on The Middle. Thanks for having me, Jeremy. Neil deGrasse Tyson, welcome to The Middle.

Thanks for having me. And listen, not to the extremes, but to the people who will decide who wins. My name is Anna. I'm calling from Las Vegas. Listen to The Middle with Jeremy Hobson on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.

Let's move over to Michigan. And we've been holding this story. And there's been some interesting developments actually also, where you've seen some Muslim and Arab leaders in Michigan come out and explicitly endorse Donald Trump. You've also seen obviously movement away from the Democratic Party there. And it could be a significant effect in the overall Michigan vote because of the Israel-Gaza war and Kamala Harris's support for Israel. Here, President Obama...

took to the stump last night to lecture Muslim Americans about why they should vote for Democrats and for Kamala Harris. Let's take a listen. If you're a Muslim American and you're upset about what's happening in the Middle East, why would you put your faith in somebody who passed a Muslim ban and repeatedly suggested that somehow you weren't part of our American community? If you're an African American or...

If you're from Puerto Rico and you see somebody whose values seem to indicate that you're not part of their equation, how do you think it's okay? How can you tell yourself it's okay as long as our side wins? Hmm.

Hmm. More lecturing, pandering and hectoring from the Obamas. How will it work out? This doesn't land poorly with me. I mean, he's basically saying, like, look, if you think that you're part of their club, you're not. And they may want your vote right now. But like, you know, post-election day, you're going to once again not be in the club because we can hear what they're saying about you now and what they've said about you in the past, etc.,

I think Bernie Sanders, he put on a video. What did he say? He made the case. He was like, listen, I get this question all the time about how you can vote for Kamala Harris when she supports, he doesn't say genocide. I think he says like Israel's war in Gaza or something like that. And he's like, listen, I'm with you. I also really disagree with the direction. And

He lays on a couple things. Number one, he believes that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden will be more movable on the issue. I think there's something to that. I mean, the Trump coalition,

He is not gonna care what college students have to say on the issue. They're not part of his coalition. There is no part of his coalition in significant numbers that is opposed to the direction in Israel. Bibi wants him to win. He's complained about Biden from the right saying he hasn't given Bibi carte blanche enough. So Bernie makes the case that

that you're gonna have more of a chance, even on this issue, to move Kamala Harris than you are to move Donald Trump. And then he says, this is not to dismiss how important these atrocities are and how much people care about it. But there are another set of issues too, where it's very clear, he talks about climate change, he talks about women's rights, he probably talks about economics, I can't remember specifically.

on which Kamala Harris is clearly superior. So, I get it, I see you, I agree with you in many senses, but this is the path to go down. So that was the case that he's making.

To me, the takeaway both from Obama's comments here and Bernie Sanders' comments and some of the posturing from the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris I think had some Muslim leaders up on stage with her that were endorsing her in the state of Michigan, is they recognize that this is an issue. And I think they recognize, Bernie Sanders' comments in particular, are

Obama is part of what I object to is that he just frames it around like this is an only an issue for Muslim Americans which is like actually no, it's an issue for a vast swath of your coalition young people non-white people Yes, Arab Americans. Yes Muslim Americans, too But you don't have to have a direct like familial or cultural connect to the conflict to care about a genocide being perpetrated with your dollars and in your name So I sort of object to that

that framing. But they clearly recognize this is a weak spot for them. They clearly recognize they're having trouble bringing some of their coalition home in the final days because of this one issue. And I think the Harris campaign just fundamentally miscalculated how much

of a problem this was for them on, you can't feel like, I'm supporting the good guys when you see what they're supporting. And so while very few people say this is like their number one issue,

It does paint a bigger picture of number one, you care more about this than you do about me. And number two, you're not what you claim you are. Like you say that Donald Trump is the fascist and we got to stop the bad guy, et cetera, et cetera. And I agree with you. But how can I see you as a white knight when I see what you're enabling in Gaza? I just see, look, the direct quote is, you know, X is Trump is worse. And that pragmatism

In what is obviously deeply emotional, and I mean, look, let's restrict it purely. He's talking about Muslim Americans in Michigan, and specifically like Dearborn and others, where you may literally have people who have lost family members. Pragmatism is not one of you here right now. That's why I saw it very much as kind of hectoring, lecturing. Well, the other side is worse. I think that works on abortion. I think that works on that economy. On a family member's death,

I don't think so. You know, that is where just straight up not voting or voting for punishment purposes, that's where things can get very different. And you see some of this too with the Muslim support now for Donald Trump. We saw this at one of his more recent rallies in Michigan. Let's take a listen. Good afternoon, Michiganders. As the president said, we just had a positive meeting with President Trump. We as Muslims stand with President Trump because he promises peace.

He promises peace, not war. We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine. The bloodshed has to stop all over the world. And I think this man can make that happen.

I mean, that's basically Hail Mary, you know, from these Muslim leaders. And actually, consistently throughout Michigan, through these rallies and others, he keeps bringing up the Cheney family. And he's like, she is running with somebody who's responsible for more deaths of Muslim or, you know,

Their family, Dick Cheney, I guess, is responsible for more Muslim deaths than any American politician in all of history. So how can you support someone like her? Now, look, you can make the pragmatist argument, well, Trump is more pro-Israel and all of this. But it does seem as if this is cutting through. We saw what, the semaphore poll, Arab Americans supporting Trump by a one-point margin, basically a tie.

with a group that voted two, three times for Biden versus Trump. So clearly something is going on. I think it really comes down to like a Hail Mary. It's almost like, I remember when Trump, that was 2016, he was talking to black voters. He was like, what the hell do you have to lose? I mean, that's basically how it feels. And clearly it's landing somewhat. Listen, I can say, which is true, that it's performative and cynical, which it is. And we'll show you some of the comments from the Madison Square Garden rally that prove the point.

But if you're the Democratic Party and you've managed to lose the Arab American, Muslim American vote to the Muslim ban people like, that's unbelievable. That's honestly unbelievable. In fact, let's go ahead and queue up. This is D6. This is Rudy Giuliani at

at the Madison Square Garden rally, framing all Palestinians from the age of two years old as being terrorists, which by the way, you know, is consistent with language. Donald Trump has used the term Palestinian as a slur to describe various people, including Chuck Schumer. But, you know, this is the party. This is the representative of the party that you are losing the Arab American vote to. Let's take a listen to this.

And the Palestinians are taught to kill us at two years old. They won't let a Palestinian in Jordan. They won't let a Palestinian in Egypt. And Harris wants to bring them to you. They may have good people. I'm sorry, I don't take a risk with people that are taught to kill Americans at two. I'm on the side of Israel. You're on the side of Israel.

Donald Trump's on the side of Israel and they're on the side of the terrorists. Of course, an incredible thing to say. Speech out of 2003. How many? Yeah, true. How many two-year-old Palestinians are laying dead in the rubble right now as we speak? But yeah, this is the party that you're losing the Muslim vote to, the Arab American vote to in particular. Like,

That is extraordinary. I can also point out, as I have before, I do think that Trump is worse on the issue. I think because of his coalition, I think because of his past record in office, I think because of the money that he takes from Miriam Adelson, I think because of his own words. He was out there encouraging Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear sites and really spark World War III. I can tell you all of this. But I also have to say very clearly, it is a manifest and obvious and blatant Democratic Party failure.

that has led to it even being a question that you would support the party that this is their messaging at their big closing Madison Square Garden rally. As I said yesterday, the Trump coalition is a big tent for grievance and that is basically what holds the entire thing together. I mean, that's why it logically makes sense to have an RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo all within the same thing. And now these Muslim leaders, it is basically a Hail Mary. The current system is not working.

And there has been, I mean, the other reason why I kind of get it and maybe even in terms of them trying to leverage it is just the disrespect that they have been treated with. So for example, let's put, what is it, D2 please, up on the screen. You had this Muslim community leader who was literally ejected from a Kamala Harris rally in Detroit,

What was that? It was on October 25th, just some couple of days ago. He attended the invite-only event. It was in Royal Oak, Michigan. Excited to hear from Harris and Liz Cheney, he went through security checkpoints, sat down in his seat, was answering emails. Ten minutes later, staffers from the Harris campaign came to his seat and asked him to step to the back

He was asked to leave the venue, told by authorities if he didn't leave that he would be arrested. So he was literally invited, then kicked out. They assumed, I guess, that he was going to be either asking a critical question or was going to speak out against both Gaza and/or Liz Cheney. - They racially profiled him.

I mean, that's the bottom line. Oh, there's an Arab dude here. Gotta get out. He can't have that. He must be a protester. Yeah, I mean, what kind of bullshit, you know, can you... Then that's kind of what I'm... I mean, I talked about with the Latino thing earlier. When you have that level of, like, rhetoric on one level and then action...

on another. Some people just want to burn it all down. That's what I think a lot of this Trump support is. Now, Ro Khanna has been trying to clean this up. We can put the next one up on the screen. D3, please. He said, I invited Dr. Ghanim for a delicious Yemeni meal. It does look delicious. Let him know that he is absolutely welcome in the Democratic Party and he never should have been removed from the Harris event. But, you know, the janitorial duty is just not going to

cut it. It's just not. And I talked about Dearborn. Let's put that one next, please. Here you have Abdullah Hamoud. He's the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. And he says Dearborn specifically said he is not endorsing. I am not here to endorse any single candidate. He said people should vote their conscience.

And he said, we cannot condone any president that uplifts any administration that bombs every school, decimating children of smithereens. That is the message we have. And those are the values we will take with us through November. So if you put Stein vote plus Trump vote there together, you're looking for a real upset. And, you know, I mean, in a certain sense, I agree.

I understand it. I understand it as much as I understand Latino support or any of the other. I talked about the MAGA rally and MSG and like what it really it's about. Screw you. Fuck you. You know, basically to higher institutions. And there's no reason why Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans would not feel the same way as people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan.

Yeah, I mean, I co-signed the message there from the dear-born mayor who we've had on this program a number of times and has been a thoughtful and open-minded critic, I think, from the beginning. Like, how can you tell people that they have to or coerce them into voting when they see what's going on? So...

You know, the thing we put up briefly was Ro Khanna saying, oh, look at these cynical billboards tying Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney together. That's not cynical. It's true. You are campaigning with her. So, you know, they're running around together doing joint town halls. You yourselves are trying to tie them together. Now you recognize that it's opened up an area of exploitation from the Trump campaign. Like, of course, they're going to walk through that when, you know, yes, it's cynical, sure. But it's

it's also totally predictable and a possibility that you opened up directly for them to be able to say, yeah. Did you know there's no Tom at Tom's our name reflects our commitment to creating better tomorrows this season embrace cozy comfort with Tom's from chic boots and everyday sneakers to wedges and our iconic Alpargata slip bonds. Our cloud bound insoles deliver exceptional cushioning. Perfect for morning meetings, yoga sessions, farmer's markets, and quiet moments at home. When you buy Tom's you help make a difference in the lives of others.

Together, we've positively impacted over 100 million people to date, and we're only getting started. Shop fall footwear essentials now at toms.com. Let's move on to Elon Musk. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. We brought you previously the story of $1 million checks being handed out at these events every single day.

Until election day by Elon Musk, you now have the Philadelphia DA, Larry Krasner. Those of you might remember him from some of the previous consternations around Soros DA or whatever. He survived an election there. But he is now suing to halt the $1 million giveaway. That was AFLA.

after Josh Shapiro, the governor of the state, said that law enforcement should look into it. The suit filed in Philadelphia Common Police Court, first legal action there. And what it comes down to is it grants Krasner, the prosecutor, the operative,

opportunity to basically investigate to quote take on Musk and to block this $1 million type giveaway. The thing is though is that currently they said that they have already committed to extending this through election on November 5. They're claiming that this must be stopped immediately.

of it is twofold. One is that they're basically alleging it's an illegal lottery scheme to influence the election. So people should go watch maybe our previous segment on this. But it all comes down to whether both if illegal lottery and two, if it is a coercion to register to vote.

because the current statute of the U.S. Criminal Code says it is blatantly illegal to pay people to register them for a vote. He is claiming, well, you have to be registered to vote to be able to sign this petition. This petition is in favor of what is it, the First Amendment or free speech or whatever? I think it's the First and Second Amendment or something. First and Second Amendment. Okay, fine.

So if it was just that, then okay. But because of the preconditions for being able to sign the petition, you have effectively created a new lottery scheme to get around voter registration. It is an actually interesting case in terms of how these laws should be applied and the actual interpretation. It's somewhere in the gray area, as I understand it. I don't, yeah, I don't know. I think at the federal level,

On a federal level, it's actually more clear because there is a federal election law prohibition on inducing people to register using money favors, whatever. And I mean, election lawyers seem to feel like this pretty clearly meets that standard definition. Who knows how it gets litigated.

The catch here for Krasner is that he has to operate on Pennsylvania state law, which does not have a prohibition against inducing people to register to vote. So that's why he's using the like, you're running an illegal lottery and not following the rules. Like only the state can run a lottery, number one. Number two, you're not even following like the legal requirements for running a lottery. So that's the direction he's going in with this lawsuit. So we'll see where this goes and if it has any impact. I know when we looked at the federal legislation,

the punishment was like a $10,000 fine. So I'm sure Elon's not gonna be sweating that too much. Kinda doesn't really matter. Not gonna be sweating that too much. Yeah. We've been wanting to talk though a little bit about, so-

Elon is running a significant part of the ground game for Trump. The field operation that goes and knocks on doors and tries to turn out voters early, etc., etc., and tracks them, how much are they supporting Trump, are they on the other team's side, etc., etc. So the sort of like classic field canvassing operation, a lot of that has fallen to Elon Musk's super PAC.

specifically in the state of Pennsylvania. Guardian has been digging into the reality of the situation, the efficacy of the situation. And they had previously reported, you can put this up on the screen, that counterpoints covered this briefly, that they are appealing

appear to be getting a lot of, quote unquote, fraudulent door knocks, meaning that they're paying canvassers to go out and knock doors for the Trump campaign. And that actually almost always runs into problems because these are not people who are true believers. They're just, they're trying to get a paycheck. And there are lots of ways that you can cheat and make it seem like you're knocking on those doors. But really, you're just filling in your app like, yeah, I totally talked to Mary Smith and she's on Team Trump.

and don't worry, she voted already, even though you're just sitting at home in your living room or standing on the street or whatever, because I don't know if you guys have ever gone out canvassing, but it is a little bit like it's,

you know, it takes a certain personality, right? To go and knock on a stranger's door and like proselytize to them about a candidate. Even if they're on your side. I mean, look, I don't know about you. For me, I just stare at my ring camera until somebody leaves, regardless of whether it's politics. Nobody comes to my door where I live. Please don't knock on my door. I live in the middle of nowhere. I should, if I really had the strength, I would put the no solicitors sign up, which, but that's a whole other level of Karen. You don't want to go there. So in any case, our

Already indications that some 25% roughly of the door knocks that are being conducted on behalf of Elon's super PAC are probably fraudulent. And now we've got new documentation, we can put this up on the screen. Guardian got their hands on a video that is meant to show other canvassers for Musk's super PAC how to cheat specifically using like GPS spoofing.

And this went out to hundreds of canvassers like, listen, here's how you do it. You pull up the map, you pull up this app, you click on the house, then it thinks that you're in the place because obviously these canvassing operations, they are aware of the fact that people like to cheat on this and not actually go and knock on the doors. So they put in place

like GPS tracking to try to make sure you're actually knocking on the doors that you say that you're knocking on. And this is a video how-to guide of how to get around that. We don't know how widely it was disseminated, how many people were using these tricks, et cetera, but another indication that perhaps the door knocks are not happening in the way that the

Trump people would like them to be happening. It's funny in the video, they have a quote from they say, okay, so here's the part that matters. You click the house you wanna do, not home for about five houses. So you click the not home shit, left literature, boom, and then you wanna put a survey in. This is the survey you click, available for survey. This is what I do. I click definitely yes, Donald Trump, early vote no, end survey. It's pretty much that simple. So they're telling you not only how to do the GPS spoofing, but then also how to fake the data in a way that doesn't flag

that you're fraudulently mentoring this. This is the problem with outsourcing the ground game actually, and that's going to be the biggest one. I'm surprised by the decision from them because I know a lot of people who worked at the RNC over the years, and one of the things that they were always so proud of was the preeminence of their ground game of investment in their technology of door knocking. This was a big story in 2020. What happened in 2020 is a Trump campaign, the RNC had a joint fund, so it basically was a

joint operation and they invested a lot in technology. Obviously, door knocking was less during COVID. But this time by outsourcing it to Elon, this also demonstrates the problem with the pay to play model of basically paying people to Canvas. Because if you think about it too, you know, Canvassers, you got to be pretty bought in.

Like, it's a shitty job. And then, yeah, you can pay them to do it, but that leads to, even if you knock on your door and there's not enthusiasm, you're not engaging with them, it's going to be a lot less likely to come out. And then you got people who are just in this for a free paycheck, you know, basically out there. This is classic in every election. There's just people, you know, like seasonal workers who are just always out there looking for a buck

of like, oh, you want me to go hand out signs? Cool. You know, $10 an hour, easy money. And so I think you could see some of that there. But if you do see a Pennsylvania loss, this could certainly come, I mean, especially within the margin, this would be a big problem. And this would be a lesson for elections. Do not outsource this stuff outside of your control because, you know, even with the super PAC, because of the way that the laws work, you can't talk to each other directly. You can't cross off, you know, your own numbers. Like you have a lot less

institutional ability to see where you're at there in PA, this presumes that any of this stuff actually matters, which I still remain skeptical. Yeah, I think that's entirely fair. This is one of those stories we wanted to cover just to put a pin in it. If at the end of the day, the Trump people don't turn out their people at

the same level. Because we do know, and Weigel confirmed this for us too, he was on the ground door knocking with Democrats in Wisconsin. He said the Trump side has a much less organized operation. The Democrats are much more organized in terms of their field canvassing turnout. You know, field organizers claim it can move the election result by a couple of points.

So, you know, if that's the story post election day, then we may look back at this and say like, oh, this was more of a problem for the Trump people than maybe it seemed at the time and perhaps don't outsource a key function of the campaign.

And to your point, it's not like the Trump campaign has ever taken canvassing all that seriously. And they've done pretty well in the past. Exactly. That's why I always come, you know, these political consultants, they want to convince you that these swing state ads matter. They want to say ground game ads. I don't like it.

I'm not sure I buy it anymore. I think in the nationalization, the celebritization of politics, I think it's all just up to the national media, the vibe, things that could... Like for example, if Kamala loses the election, how much of it is Kamala Harris? How much of it is just Joe Biden 2021? I mean, probably a huge part. Was there anything you could really do? Probably not.

Same with terms of Trump. Maybe the election was cooked on the day of January 7th, right? For Donald Trump. Could be. Certainly possible, right? Could be. Let's move on to Washington Post. Let's put this up there on the screen. We had to put this in the screen. Unbelievable. I'm relishing this, folks. Let's put this up there on the screen. Over 200,000 subscribers have

have canceled their Washington Post subscription after Jeff Bezos blocked a Kamala Harris endorsement. Now for context, there are roughly 2.5 million subscribers at the Washington Post. That means about 8 to 10% of those people have now canceled. Keep in mind, this 200,000 figure was as of yesterday, almost certainly even more, and people are gonna pile on after this news came out. But more importantly, you should know,

that the Post boasted about netting only 4,000 new subscribers to the Washington Post in just the last calendar year. Meaning, what is that, 50 times? Am I doing that math right? Is it 500 times? In terms of the people who- Don't make me do math, Sucker. Canceled?

versus the people that they gained. And he was already losing 100 million a year operating the paper. So, yeah. And, you know, I've seen people out there be like, well, this just shows people don't want unbiased news and blah, blah, blah. I'm like, okay, listen, I'm not disagreeing with you. But at the same time, they sold bound copies of the Mueller report.

They put democracy dies in darkness on their freaking subhead, masthead. They sort of,

sold the tote bag New Yorker vision to everybody here in Washington about standing up to Donald Trump, about being the heart of the resistance. They hired Robert Kagan, they hired Jennifer Rubin, I can go on forever, Max Boot, all these other folks to give them columns, to build them up. They were the beating heart of Russiagate. They were the beating heart of resistance. So when you sell that vision to people,

how can you blame them for canceling? I'm not mad at these libs for canceling because look, nobody subscribes to the Post for news, okay? Nobody. It's not the best newspaper, hasn't been for a long time. They do it for the vibe. And so when you explicitly turn that on a dime, yeah, you should cancel it. I'm gonna defend all these people, resistance liberals. - I subscribe to the Washington Post for Jeff Stein specifically. - Okay, all right, well, yeah, sorry. I mean, I feel bad. Beyond Jeff, I have a lot of people, I have a lot of friends who actually work there.

So I feel bad saying this because, frankly, they're probably in jeopardy now. But, you know, at a pure media level, this is also the problem with having a freaking fickle billionaire owner at the top. And that's how it goes sometimes. If you think, if you genuinely think Jeff Bezos made this move a week before Election Day out of his principles in favor of unbiased coverage, like, I'm not.

I have a bridge to sell you. That is not what's going on here. He obviously recognizing what a massive catastrophe this is for the paper and how much damage has been done, he scrambled and put together his own op-ed, which ran in his own paper, where he clearly has a lot of influence and directs coverage.

And he claims, I think preposterously, that this had nothing to do with his own massive corporate interests, both at Amazon and at Blue Origin, both of which get huge federal government contracts. Blue Origin, I believe, I think it was Blue Origin last time around, was punished by Trump. You know, he's looking at the landscape and is like, Trump could win and I don't want my shit to be canceled. Was it Amazon, the cloud? It was Amazon, the cloud.

That's right. It's a cloud contract. I mean, it's kind of complicated because yes, Trump did seek to punish them, but also Amazon was not the best bidder in that contract. So I actually looked a lot into this. It is a big problem because we're talking about $10 billion, whether it's between Microsoft and Amazon. I don't think either of them should have gotten it actually, because it just was more like big tech, like basically subsidy from the federal government. But yeah, Trump tried to intervene against Amazon. They ended up successfully suing in court though. So it's not like it didn't

work out. But he's looking to landscape. He wants to hedge his bets. And he says, oh, it was just an accident that the Blue Origin executives met with Trump literally that same day. Okay. Yeah, he claimed he had no idea. I mean, maybe he didn't. But what's funny is that it doesn't even matter if he didn't because he still has a direct financial interest in that happening. Right. And you're going to tell me that you really came to this

Rock solid, bedrock principle, a week before election day. Yeah, I don't believe that. Just purely out of disinterested ideology that you're in favor. Come on. Derek Thompson was tweeting about this. He was like, anytime someone's newfound principle happens to align with their own personal financial self-interest, you should probably be pretty skeptical of that. But we can put Jeff's...

Op-ed up on the screen and like I said some of this is really wild But he says I wish we'd made the change earlier than we did in a moment further from the election the emotions around it That was inadequate planning not some intentional strategy. He also says when it comes to the appearance of conflict I am NOT an ideal owner of the post Oh you think?

Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. Yeah, that's the problem. I once wrote that The Post is a complexifier for me. It is, but it turns out I'm also a complexifier for The Post. So really, the real victim in all of this, Agar, is actually Jeff Bezos. Yeah, it's actually Bezos.

in the words of Charlie Munger, "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." And look, if you read through this op-ed, it's bullshit. I mean, Jeff Bezos bought the Post in 2023. He has invested probably over half a billion dollars into the enterprise and it loses money. Now, the main reason why I don't believe him, like you just said with the Derek Thompson thing, is he was perfectly fine whenever it was democracy dies in the darkness and they were making a lot of money.

But also, when it seems to possibly clash with his own massive $100 billion or $200 billion wealth or whatever it is now, it's worth maybe taking that hit there to make sure that his stock price and other financial incentives over here don't. How exactly did these principles not flare up when you were literally the home of Russiagate?

Like, spare me. That's exactly how I feel. You gave $100 million to the Obama Foundation. You've given these genius grants to Van Jones and all that when it was very popular and safe to be a Democrat. Now, whenever you're looking at it differently and perhaps that there is a Democratic move

For antitrust, now you're changing your position. But whatever big business the Democratic Party was there, you were happily. Many people don't know this. He owns the largest house here in Washington, D.C. And it was bought for one specific purpose, to hold salon parties, to go to the gridiron, and specifically to become like the gathering place-

For the Washington elite, where Republicans and Democrats are often seen coming in and out for dinner. What do you think? You think that's for social reasons? Like, come on. This is a tale as old as time. Yeah. It's always been this way. Yeah. No, absolutely. And, you know-

Basically, Bernie was right when he said it's a problem that this guy owns the Post. It impacts their coverage. It's a conflict of interest. It is all of those things. And, you know, I think it's really precious if you're someone out there who thinks this billionaire oligarch with a raft of federal government contracts is really just taking a principled stand at this point in favor of not making endorsements.

Did you know there's no Tom at Tom's? Our name reflects our commitment to creating better tomorrows. This season, embrace cozy comfort with Tom's. From chic boots and everyday sneakers to wedges and our iconic Alpargata slip-ons, our cloudbound insoles deliver exceptional cushioning, perfect for morning meetings, yoga sessions, farmer's markets, and quiet moments at home. When you buy Tom's, you help make a difference in the lives of others.

Together, we've positively impacted over 100 million people to date, and we're only getting started. Shop fall footwear essentials now at toms.com. We had one other quick media story we wanted to sneak in here, even though it's already a long show, and I still have a monologue to do, but obviously...

Donald Trump went on with Joe Rogan. Rogan, in that interview we showed you, Trump brought up Kamala and Rogan kind of defended her and was like, no, I still want to have a conversation with her. Like, I'm still hoping that may happen. He tweeted this out as an update. He says, for the record, the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for

Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her. They only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just have a nice conversation, get to know her as a human being. I really hope we can make it happen. What's your reaction, Sagar? Well, twofold. I get him wanting to do it in the studio in Austin, but with this close to the election, it may not be possible and it would be worth

In my opinion, compromising a little bit on that. In terms of time, Trump went for three hours. I think that's great if Harris could do it. But, you know, he did have Bernie Sanders on. I looked. Wasn't it only an hour? I think it was, yeah. So there is precedent for only an hour. A shorter political interview. I mean, it does show a sign of weakness if they only want to do an hour. I think they should just do the three and just eat it. I mean, I looked at her schedule. She's got five interviews today, right? So it's probably worth it.

I would say that this one interview was worth three whatever local television news hits. They're obviously nervous. They want to cover their bases. That said, Joe, in his after-action report on a fight companion, was asked about Kamala. He was like, if they want preconditions and they don't want to bring up policy, that's fine. I'm interested in talking to her as a human being. Now, I actually...

I think it's worth meditating on this. And maybe you tell me. I was talking with one of my friends. I'm actually not interested in politicians as a human being. I have read, I'm serious. Let me lay out my case.

I kind of agree. All right, so my political heroes were terrible people, absolutely awful. LBJ, who I believe is the single most effective politician of all time, rampantly cheated on his wife, was a virulent personal racist, often denigrated his female staff to the point of tears, took a shit and forced his aides to transcribe his notes.

That's a bad person. John F. Kennedy, I mean, go read about a 19-year-old girl who was a White House intern and what she alleges happened with him. And that's one girl out of probably hundreds. FDR humiliated Eleanor Roosevelt by sleeping with his secretary, refusing to fire her, and he died with her, not with his own wife. Didn't care. I mean, I could go on forever. Teddy Roosevelt, he loses his wife

And his mom on the same day that his child is born, takes his daughter, parks it with his sister and says, hey, good luck. I'm going to South Dakota for three years. A lot of these people, they're not good people. Now, I

I don't really care about that on one level because they did a lot of good for the country. So how does it affect my life? How does it affect the trajectory of the country? Does it matter if FDR or, sorry, LBJ was a frequent N-word user if he passed the Civil Rights Act? If you're a black person, I would leave that up to you. And that's kind of my point is like, I don't think that

That the psychology of what it takes to be president or to even get to the level of Kamala or Trump produces quote unquote good people, I also don't care about that.

So that's where there's a little bit of a flaw in terms of like, I want to see who they are as people. I'm like, I don't, I'm not all that interested in who you are as people, as a voter or as a citizen. I want to know what you're going to do for me. And maybe that's a very cynical, people often say Indian immigrant way of looking at it. But I mean, I've just read too much. I mean, for example, Barack Obama, if you read Michelle Obama's memoirs and his, he openly admits

that Michelle never wanted him to run for Congress, for Senate specifically. He filed without really telling her. She is furious to the point of thinking about divorcing him, miserable for eight years in the White House. I mean, I'm gonna ask you,

I can't imagine treating my wife that way ever if she told me I don't want to do this. It's over It doesn't matter imagine yourself in a marriage as a family unit treating your spouse that way with your own ambition I mean, I think that's sick and honestly gross, but that's kind of what it takes to suffer through all of it So that's just a long way of saying like I don't care who these people are

It depends who they are as people. The more I know, the worse it gets. I guess I'll take a moderate path on this. Because, like, you know, with Kamala in particular, there's this really very open, continued open question of, like, what makes you – like, what – because it translates into – I don't think the personal and the public are totally separate. Because it translates into –

is there something core here that you're gonna fight for? And so that's why I think there is something to be learned, something to be gained. With regard to specifically,

At this point, I don't even think that there's much benefit for Kamala Harris to go on Rogan's pod. Really? Yeah, at this late in the game, his audience is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. The clips could be big. But they're happy with the meta-narrative that's in place right now, which is Trump had his

carnival of racists at Madison Square Garden. And that's kind of, they're happy to close on that note. It would be too close to election day if there was some screw up from her, which we should all be very like, that's very possible, that she would have a moment that was really bad for her.

So, they'll be too close to election day to clean that up. It would shift the narrative into potentially more fraught or risky territory. And so, if she had done it earlier on, I think it could have made some sense. But as I said to you previously when we were talking about the Rogan Trump interview, she

already did her go in the lion's den thing with Brett Baer. She already proved some level of like, I can go into a space that's somewhat hostile and I can hold my own. So I'm just not sure how much there is to be gained from an appearance. And it does have significant risk at this point. So I understand why they're kind of like, eh.

maybe this isn't worth making it happen. I think, here's why I think it's worth it. Why not? It would be a challenge coming in after Trump. It would be a position of strength. It would also, I mean, especially if Joe literally said, if they don't want to talk about policy, then that's fine. I mean, she allegedly- Although to be honest with you, she does the worst when she gets asked personal, what's your biggest mistake, questions like that is where she actually wins. I would want to talk about policy. I think she'd be better off if

off if she's like, I only want to talk about policy. Look, they claim a lot of stuff. They claim she's into Formula One. I'm like, okay, I'll hear you out. I was listening to her with Shannon Sharp. She seems like a diet, you know, she seems like well acquainted with food and diet, right? She said she eats a spinach omelet, likes to cook every morning. She says that she works out. Rogan is a workout freak and he knows a lot about foods. I'd be curious to hear about the morning. I can see why some normal people and all that would be into that. But I guess my general heuristic is, you

These people, you have to understand what the psychology it is to spend your life on the road, to sleep in different hotel rooms, to literally have the idolatry and the ego, to think that you can have the supreme power of mankind in your hands.

and to give up everything else in your life to get to that position. I don't think people quite understand it. And we're not talking about just four years. It takes a Kamala Harris. How old is she? 60, right? She's been a professional politician for 35 years. That means you don't have a personal life. Every single thing that you do

is literally revolves around getting to this position, about getting up the next rung. I mean, even with Trump, it's like, you know, even when he's Mar-a-Lago, he's working, right? When you're having dinner, you're always having dinner with people who are in the business. You need to be born for this. And like, it takes a very, it takes a type of personality, which most people would not actually like, you know, in terms of, in terms of relatability, like with George W. Bush, like the whole, like, I want to have a beer with him. I'm like, well, how did that work out?

It doesn't work out well. It makes me think of Bernie Sanders and his absolute aversion to talking about himself. Yeah, that's right. You know, famously with the New York Times editorial board, he's like, you know, I'm not going to call you on your birthday, okay? Yeah.

That's what I'm talking about. And his aides always want his campaign. I always wanted to talk about his biography. He's like, right. And who he is and his back. I like these, you know, his Jewish upbringing and hardscrow working class, all this stuff. And he's just like, no, I want to talk about policy. I want to talk about millions, millionaires and billionaires and what we're going to do and Medicare for all. And you are not going to get me off of that. So respect. Yeah. Respect that.

Obviously, though, he's not in the White House, so there you go. I would like it to work, though. Yeah, but people delude themselves. You know, the Obamas literally had a love movie made about them. That doesn't sound like a love story to me, what I just laid out. You know, the Clintons, I mean, that's a whole other level in terms of the Clintons. I mean, okay, so Jimmy Carter, probably our nicest president, right? If you read his memoir, I'm sorry, I'm going off.

on this, but this is something I think about a lot. If you read Jimmy Carter's memoir, he decides to quit his Naval career. He's living in Hawaii with his wife. His wife loves Hawaii. She hates Plains, Georgia. His dad dies and he has an opportunity to go and take over his dad's job. You know what he does? He resigns from the Navy and he tells her, "Hey, Rosalynn, we're moving back to Plains.

She's humiliated. She's weeping. And he's like, that's just how it's going to be. Didn't she not talk to him for months or something? That's who these people are. They're narcissists. They're crazy. Can you imagine acting like that in a marriage? But that's who they are. I feel like that's also just a different time to vote. Well, that's what he claims. But I do think there is some of that of like, you know, the man is the provider. Like we do. I'm the captain of the ship. Right. We do what I say we're going to do. It was 1955.

You think that all husbands were acting like that in 1955? I don't think so. Seems like it. Anyway.

Oh, the places you'll go when you go in Tom's, the beloved family footwear brand. Over the years, we've learned a thing or two about style and comfort. Our fall collection offers hundreds of styles for women, men, and kids at great prices. Boots, sneakers, wedges, loafers, flats, and our iconic Alpragada slip-ons. When you buy Tom's, you help make a difference in the lives of others. Together, we've positively impacted over 100 million people to date, and we're just getting started. Shop the full fall assortment now at Tom's.com.

Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, lost in the melee of comments about whale psychologists and jokes about Puerto Rico being literal trash was a comment Trump made in his big Rogan interview, reaffirming an economic program that is nothing short of radical.

Insane might be a better word for it. Take a listen. Did you just float out the idea of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs? Well, OK. Are we serious about that? Yeah, sure. But why not? Because we – ready? Our country was the richest in the – relatively in the 1880s and 1890s.

A president who was assassinated named McKinley. He was the tariff king. He spoke beautifully of tariffs. His language was really beautiful. We will not allow...

the enemy to come in and take our jobs and take our factories and take our workers and take our families. So this is far from the first time Trump has floated this particular economic program. You might be familiar with him waxing poetic about how tariffs the most beautiful word and how fantastic Gilded Age President William McKinley was. Ironically, McKinley's Spanish-American War is what led to Puerto Rico's acquisition as U.S. territory, but I digress. Now, I'm

Now, I know it's somewhat folly to take all of Trump's utterances totally seriously. He promised everyone health care after all, and here we are all still waiting. But between Trump, his main funder, Elon, and a host of new right influencers, we can discern the outlines of a true ideological agenda that is equal parts radical and regressive.

What's more, in my opinion, we should be evaluating presidential contenders based on their stated plans. After all, what else can we really go on? And the idea of eliminating the income tax entirely and replacing it with tariffs is quite a plan. Now, the impact of such an approach is pretty obvious. Across-the-board tariffs will make prices on all imported goods skyrocket.

skyrocketed. Prices on everything from bananas and gas to electronics and housing, they will all go up. The inflationary spiral will also likely trigger additional price gouging by corporations using the excuse of inflation to further jack up prices. This is exactly what we saw during the post-COVID inflation spike.

Now, the shift from income tax to tariffs to fund the government would also be wildly regressive, meaning that the poorest among us will pay the most in taxes as a percent of their income, and the richest will pay the very least. After all, the poor pay vastly more of their income on things like groceries, gas, and other consumer items than the rich do, for whom these expenses are comparatively trivial.

In fact, a core reason for the creation of the income tax was in order to combat Gilded Age inequality and to be able to tax the rich. A goal Americans, of course, continue to share to this day. There's also a very obvious practical problem with this policy, which is that it would be impossible to impose a tariff large enough to make up the loss of the income tax. Tariffs represent just two

2% of the current federal government budget. The other 98% is largely income taxes and payroll taxes. We currently import roughly $3 trillion of goods every year, but the federal budget is $6.75 trillion. So even if you put 100% tariff on every imported good, you would still not raise even enough a revenue to fund half of the federal government's expenditures.

Not to mention that applying tariffs will lead to a reduction in foreign trade, which will further reduce the amount of tariff revenue, creating a doom spiral for the federal government's budget. Now, I don't

I don't know if Trump knows or cares about this basic math, but I do know for the billionaire anarcho-capitalist aligned set that is backing his campaign, people like Elon Musk, people like Peter Thiel, the fact that relying on tariffs instead of income tax would require dismantling most of the federal government is a feature, not a bug.

In fact, maybe even more significant than Trump's utterances on the campaign trail are Elon's. He is, after all, Trump's biggest funder. He's running substantial parts of his campaign. He's running an entire tech company on Trump's behalf and has been promised a powerful government-wide role with which he could drive his own ideological ends. He and Peter Thiel were also influential in getting their ally, J.D. Vance, on the presidential ticket to further their influence in the administration.

So what is it exactly that Elon wants? Well, in part, he wants to bolster his own bottom line since he already is one of the federal government's largest contractors. He also wants his various legal regulatory issues with the federal government to disappear.

But from an ideological perspective, we know he, like others in the libertarian tech elite set, is a fan of Argentina's anarcho-capitalist president, Javier Millay. Now, you can catch glimpses of Elon's ideological goals when he talks about how many government agencies he wants to abolish, when he asserts that he wants to cut $2 trillion from the budget, which is more than the entire federal government discretionary budget.

Also, when he describes all government spending as inherently bad and when he says that Americans will have to go through temporary hardship to deliver his imagined libertarian utopia. Now, I don't think a lot of Elon fans pay too much attention to exactly what Elon says. They just think he's like cool, smart, based or whatever. But it is worth listening carefully to such a powerful individual. But we set up Doge.

Yes. How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget? Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion. Yeah! Yes. $2 trillion. I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed. You're being taxed.

All government spending is taxation. So whether it's direct taxation or all government spending, it either becomes inflation or it's direct taxation. Your money is being wasted and the Department of Government Efficiency is going to fix that. We have to reduce spending to live within our means. And

Yeah, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity. So these comments are all in line with that anarcho-capitalist dream of dismantling government and effectively letting corporations run wild. As detailed by Sam Butler over at Dropsite, Elon has also ominously incorporated a new company, officially making him the CEO of, quote, United States of America, Inc.

Now, if you want to see how well this libertarian dream goes in reality, you might take a gander at Argentina, where Javier Millay is doing his best to put radical anti-government pro-corporate policies into place.

In this new laissez-faire paradise, poverty has skyrocketed to over 50%. Over 3.4 million Argentinians have been pushed into poverty in this year alone. Pensions are frozen, social safety nets slashed, soup kitchens cut, and all public works projects have been stopped. The type of global institutions that routinely imposed economic shock therapy on poor countries are celebrating this self-imposed shock therapy. But judging by Malay's popularity nosedive, the people of Argentina are somewhat less impressed.

Now, some in the J.D. Vance, Teal, David Sachs tech world are also influenced by the ideas of new right intellectual Curtis Yarvin, who argues for a complete dissolution of the federal government and abandonment of democracy at all in favor of a patchwork of corporate fiefdoms. In his imaginings, these fiefdoms would be run by a CEO king with total control. You can see how Trump might find that idea somewhat appealing.

You would lose your status as a citizen, but instead you'd have the rights of a customer, namely the right to complain impotently to customer service and to depart for a different corporate fiefdom if you are still unhappy, assuming that is that another locale is willing to permit your immigration. Now, I know this all sounds kind of insane, but it's somewhat closer to reality than you might actually think.

Special economic zones have proliferated around the world by the thousands, where the needs of corporations are in fact king. In addition, dozens of for-profit charter cities have already been launched, largely in developing countries, and many with the backing of J.D. Vance's main benefactor, Peter Thiel. What's more, Trump's shift on cryptocurrency, a key ideological commitment for Elon and the tech libertarians, is also a crucial indicator that Trump is bending more to their will than the reverse.

After all, they have a fully formed ideology and that is a powerful weapon. Trump, on the other hand, has an ego and some reactionary instincts and is also very easily manipulated. Now, it might seem like Trump's old school protectionism is an odd fit for these anarcho-capitalist types, but the zero income tax policy, which was wholly absent from previous Trump runs, is what helps make this alliance work and helps it make some sense. And in the presidency of William McKinley, they can find a sort of

a sort of shared imagined utopian vision. As Jeffrey Cabaservis, a historian of republicanism, told The New Republic, the GOP has formed a cult around McKinley, largely because he was the last pre-progressive Republican president. Time was when conservatives loved Theodore Roosevelt, but many now think of him as a big government warmonger, rightly or wrongly. McKinley, in this light, appears as the last standard bearer

of republicanism's lost Eden, when government was comparatively tiny, yet strong enough to make the country a great power. So in McKinley, Trump gets his tariffs and the Ayn Rand set gets their dismantled pre-New Deal federal government, an ideal landscape for the will of corporate CEOs to trump the will of the people. Trump also seems to find McKinley appealing because he was assassinated in office, a fate Trump, of course, himself, darely escaped.

Interestingly, though, McKinley's final speech was an effort to explain why he wanted to "roll back" some of the tariffs that he himself had previously championed.

Sounds like a regular neoliberal there.

In other words, by 1901, America had already soured on the economic program, which had helped to fuel the wild inequality of the Gilded Age, pushing forward towards a progressive tax system and ultimately the New Deal programs that redefined the federal government's relationship to the masses. Of course, it should surprise no one that today's robber barons are anxious to turn back the clock all the way to that era. Remains to be seen how successful they might be in implementing their vision, but I would not

I wouldn't underestimate them either. Billionaires have more or less had their way with America for decades, and it's kind of hard to see that changing any time soon. So, Sagar, very curious for your take on it. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

Did you know there's no Tom at Tom's? Our name reflects our commitment to creating better tomorrows. This season, embrace cozy comfort with Tom's. From chic boots and everyday sneakers to wedges and our iconic Alpargata slip-ons, our cloudbound insoles deliver exceptional cushioning, perfect for morning meetings, yoga sessions, farmer's markets, and quiet moments at home. When you buy Tom's, you help make a difference in the lives of others.

Together, we've positively impacted over 100 million people to date, and we're only getting started. Shop ball footwear essentials now at toms.com. Hate has been winning for too long. It's at an all-time high, and too many people are facing too much hate all over this country. To turn the tide, we have to stand together. As a united team, we can change the momentum. It's time to take a timeout against hate. Visit standuptoallhate.org to help.

Join us in calling for a hashtag, timeout against hate, by following at what's up with hate or posting the blue square emoji. I'm Jeremy Hobson. The election is just days away. And on the Middle Podcast, we open the phones to everyday Americans. Hi, this is Anna from Tennessee. This is Amari calling from Houston. I find it's always good to talk things out rather than bottling things up. So why not open the conversation up to our closest neighbor, Canada? They are America's biggest trading partner after all.

And even though they can't vote, our election does matter to them. So keep an ear out for a special cross-border conversation only on The Middle with Jeremy Hobson on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.