Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - All In Podcast's David Sacks SOUNDS OFF On Biden's Ukraine, Gaza FAILURES

Episode Date: March 10, 2024

Saagar interviews David Sacks on Biden, Ukraine, and Gaza.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Joining me now is my friend David Sachs. He's a venture capitalist at Kraft Ventures and host of the All In podcast. David, it's great to see you in person, my friend. Yeah, good to be here. All right, so David, you were the Cassandra on Ukraine. You have been now for two years,

far before it was in vogue. So day one, the Ukraine war is happening. You all of a sudden, I mean, in some people's estimation, I think especially for the neocons, you come out of nowhere and you're very counter-narrative. So where did that come from? Just give us some of the background as to why you decided to speak out on the conflict from very, very early days and really be intimately involved in trying to help shape the narrative away from the mainstream on Ukraine aid, on how the Ukrainians were doing, and on some of the historical background of the conflict. Well, I started paying attention to it in January of 2022 because we covered it on our podcast. So like you mentioned, All In is a weekly podcast.

We do current events, a lot of business and markets, but we also do geopolitics and politics. In any event, in January of 2022, the media started reporting that there was this conflict that could even become a war. And I was a little bit familiar with the conflict and with the idea that NATO expansion was something that the Russians really didn't like. And so I started advocating on the pod that we should just take NATO expansion off the table.

That's clearly a huge irritant here in the situation. And even if you believe that Putin is just using that as a pretext for whatever he's going to do, we should rob him of that pretext by just saying that, you know, Ukraine's not going to become part of NATO. So I started saying that on the pod before the war broke out. And then when the war broke out, I gave a talk here at American Moment, reiterating that position. And the more I kind of got into it, and the more I sort of researched it, the more I realized that this was all kind of the result of a deliberate U.S. policy, kind of a neocon policy, that either wanted this war or certainly wasn't willing to avoid this war, that NATO expansion. They weren't willing to take NATO

expansion off the table to avoid the war. So, yeah, I just started speaking out about it, I guess, using my channels to talk about it. And the more resistance I got, I'd say the more hysterical resistance I got, the more that kind of encouraged me. I guess I'm just kind of stupid that way. And so here we are two years later. Yeah. You in particular, you drive these people crazy in a way that I honestly aspire to. I wish I could be in their heads. I mean, I guess the criticism that I often see is like, this guy is a SaaS venture capitalist. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. But I mean, in my estimation, you've been far more correct on the conflict than they have.

So then where are you getting your information from? I mean, this is a question that we get to hear all the time. Like, where do you guys get this information? We talked previously, I know, about like Advika, others. You know, we're looking at open source channels. Why and where can you look to get the real information? You can help our audience maybe look in the same places. Yeah.

So it's a very interesting question. So what you do when you're an investor or when you're an investor, you have a track record. It's very easy to size up an investor based on their track record. I mean, that's all you really have to do with these information channels is what do they say was going to happen and then what actually happened. Nobody ever does that in the information space. Right. So, you know, I figured out pretty early which channels were sort of telling the truth

and which ones weren't and the mainstream media is in ISW they were always really shading the truth or not telling us what was really happening in the war and independent channels were the ones that were giving the the information that turned out to be accurate and I think the the Battle of Bachmuth was really a turning point where I could clearly see you had the independent channels who I really came to rely on saying that the Russians were actually winning, whereas ISW and the mainstream media were saying that the Russian attack had culminated. That was the big word. The independent channels were saying, actually, the Russians had created a cauldron.

So it was sort of culmination versus cauldron. It turned out the cauldron was exactly correct, that the Ukrainians basically destroyed themselves by pouring all these resources in. And then with the summer counteroffensive, same thing. So in terms of like who do I respect, who do I listen to? I mean the Duran is a geopolitics podcast where they summarize the war virtually daily. They've turned out to be much more accurate than other sources. Stephen Bryan, who's a columnist for, I think, Asia Times, who's a former undersecretary of defense, who has a weekly column, he's been very accurate.

Colonel Daniel Davis has been very good. There's a Twitter account called Aiden, who has a podcast called Calibrated, with Scott, I I think is his actual name. And he's turned out to be pretty accurate. I'm probably forgetting. There's other ones I listen to, but yeah. Because people ask us the same thing. And this is, you know, you're someone that I really look to, you know, for my information, which I'm sure people will call me out on. But I mean, I guess it gets back to the track record question and what you're talking about with the conflict. But at the base, like, passion level, I mean, I can assume, I know I personally, I mean, I've spoken out on BLM. I've spoken on COVID, a lot of things. I have never received any more pushback than on NATO expansion, on Ukraine specifically.

It might be the single most controversial topic. So why do you feel passionate about it? Like, why do you even care? You know, you've got this investment thing going on. I would assume this is probably not the best thing for that, you know, in terms of some of the people, the milieu that you surround yourself with. So why do you care? You know, you've got this investment thing going on. I would assume this is probably not the best thing for that, you know, in terms of some of the people, the milieu that you surround yourself with. So why do you care? Well, I just can't believe what a big blunder the United States is making. I mean, this was a horrible policy decision. This is easily the biggest foreign policy mistake by the U.S. since the Iraq war. It might end up being a bigger mistake than the

Iraq war. It was entirely avoidable. And yet you have the whole mainstream media stampeding us into this policy and the sort of the taboo they're trying to create around it where it's a lot like the Iraq war where anyone who opposed it was considered unpatriotic or sort of treasonous. That's the argument that is made today. In fact, I think it's even worse,

the sort of the consensus that they're trying to manufacture around this. So I think that, I guess I wouldn't speak out as much about it if I thought that the issue was being covered accurately. And it is such an important issue. I mean, this could lead to World War III, or what I call woke War III, if we're not careful. So I think that, you know, just again, the magnitude of the policy mistake and the importance of the issue relative to how inaccurately it's been covered sort of encourages me to kind of keep posting about it. What do you mean by Woke War III? Dig into that a little bit. Yeah. Well, one of the things I noticed early on in this war is that there's been a fusion of the woke left and the neocon right in supporting this war.

And they both support the same cancellation tactics. They both try to make it unacceptable to support the idea of a negotiated settlement. Apparently any kind of peaceful resolution of the conflict, other than total Ukrainian victory, is pro-Russian in their view. And you saw this actually, remember when Elon came out pretty early in the war with his peace proposal? I think this was in, I think this must have been around September of 2022. That sounds right. Yeah. It was in the height of the UK craze. Right, exactly. Yeah. And it is a craze. And Zelensky himself came out to denounce Elon's proposal as pro-Russian. And there was this huge pile on. And that's just one example.

But the point is just anyone who has contracted the official narrative basically gets demonized as pro-Putin, as a puppet for the other side, what have you. And the problem with this is it creates a one-way ratchet because there's only one acceptable position, which is to keep escalating the war. And that is, in fact, what we've seen. I mean, the administration has continuously escalated the type of support they're going to provide. In the beginning, Biden said that providing things like F-16s or Abrams tanks or long-range missiles could start World War III. Now they've done all those things. So we've seen this pattern where the thing that initially was considered to be too risky

eventually becomes normalized. And the discussion we're having right now, led by European leaders like Macron, is we need to send in ground troops. And again, this has been dismissed now, but the pattern we've seen is this thing starts to get kind of normalized by talking about it. The furor sort of dies down, and then the deep state kind of does what they want. So I think it's very important that there is actually like a healthy public debate about this question because it could lead somewhere even more disastrous than it's already led. I totally agree. So give us the kind of the forks of the decisions for where we go from here. So as you said, we've got Macron and Germany kind of in a spat here.

And so it's like Macron and the Brits and then Germany kind of weirdly in the middle somewhere. Where do the Europeans do? What do you think that they're going to do? What do you think the U.S. is going to do? Let's say we have two forks here, some aid, no aid. And then finally, the Ukrainians kind of in this question, where are some possible like decision trees we could see the conflict going? Well, it's very interesting, the debate you're seeing in Europe. The pressure is really on Olaf Scholz right now to deliver these Taurus missiles, these long-range missiles. Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, has already said that it's not acceptable for the Ukrainians to hit targets inside of Russia.

And then you've got Macron saying that he's trying to normalize the idea of ground troops. So where all of this is headed is World War III, if we go for it. It's kind of ironic that Macron's the one pushing this because he's the one in the past who's always talked about strategic autonomy for Europe, that Europe should be making its own decisions. Apparently, what he means by that is that Europe should be even more hawkish than the United States, that Europe should adopt the American position but actually push it even further. It's not that Europe should rethink whether the American position on this war is actually good for them. The American position on this war has been disastrous for Europe. It's

basically, especially Germany has plunged the European economy. Destroyed their economy. Exactly. So in any event, that's sort of the debate that's been set up. In terms of where this goes from here, we will either escalate or Ukraine will lose. It's very simple. I mean, there's nothing really we can do anymore to help them. Whether this $60 billion or not passes, it doesn't matter. We're out of ammunition to give them, unless we're going to deplete the stockpiles that are reserved for our own readiness, which would be very dangerous. I wouldn't put it past them, though.

Yeah, it is possible. But the bottom line is we don't have the ammunition, and they don't have the manpower anymore. And they wasted a lot of time. When they should have been building defensive fortifications, they were sort of charging headlong into the minefields during the summer counteroffensive. So it's entirely too late now, I think, for Ukraine to be building the proper kinds of defensive fortifications that they need. So the simple reality is what you're seeing right now is it's not a stalemate. It's never been a stalemate.

It's always been a war of attrition. The Ukrainians have been attrited. The Russians are getting more powerful. They have more soldiers are enlisting, more coming out of training, and their industrial capacity is really ramping up. They have this huge industrial war machine that they inherited from the Soviet Union east of the Urals. It's now been fully ramped up and is producing more of everything, more of artillery shells, drones, tanks, planes, everything. Yeah. And you know, it's interesting because you go back to 2022, I think it fell for some of those too. We were like, man, these Russians, you can't even beat the Ukrainians, right? And it's like,

well, three years later, you've replaced every single one of these dead people with conscripts. Doesn't seem to be that much consternation domestically. You're producing four and a half million shells. Europe can barely deliver half a million. If we were to get into some prolonged conflict, Russia, China, whatever, do you think America, how long do you think it would take America to actually reach full readiness? Because I fear, I truly fear that this war has only exposed and then further depleted us to the point where it could take years to be able to ramp up production, even if we were to really be in a situation where we had a genuine strategic interest in front of us and we may have to make some

serious concessions. Yeah, I think the war has really exposed the extent to which we've de-industrialized ourselves and how we've hollowed out our defense industrial base. If you look at artillery ammunition, for example, at the beginning of the war, we were producing about 14,000 shells a month. We're now, what, two years into it and they've only, as of a few months ago, what I saw publicly reported was that they had roughly doubled production to 28,000 a month. That's still only, what is that, about 300,000 a year? It's 1 10th what the Russians can do. It's pathetic.

Right. And what the Pentagon has said is that we're gonna double it this year and then double it next year. That still only gets you to generously 100,000 a month, which is a quarter to a third maybe of what the Russians can do now, never mind what they're gonna be able to do in two years So we have figured out or learned I think just how pathetic our Dib or has become and the other thing we've learned is that is how inefficient it is So the New York Times reported that the cost

To the United States of producing one artillery shells in the five to six thousand dollar range it cost the Russians $600 of course so now at the beginning000 range. It cost the Russians $600. Of course. So now at the beginning of the war, you're right. The Russians were accused of being this incredibly inept kleptocracy. The idea is that their military was hollow. It would collapse because, you know, their kleptocracy had stolen everything. Well, as it turns out, we're 10 times more inefficient than they are. So what does that make us if they're a corrupt kleptocracy? Yes, it's like oligarchic kleptocracy of incompetence.

We just have a different kind of kleptocracy. Yeah. Well, I say, and that's the fascinating part is, you know, in many ways, people, part of the case for Ukraine aid is we got to weaken Russia. And I'm like, well, it seems as if every step that we've made and by attracting the conflict, you've blooded the army. That's very key. If we go in the history of military conflict. We've rapidly increased their industrialization for their defense capacity. They have become more sanctioned proof today than ever before. I mean, they seem better capable of mounting even more aggressive action against the West. I'm not saying that they want to necessarily than before the war had happened on top of adding some 800 miles to our NATO border with the expansion, which goes to the root of the conflict

that we began this interview with. So I call this Biden's big backfire. If you look at all of his claims at the beginning of the war, they've all come true in reverse. He said that we would weaken Russia in order to prevent them from waging this type of war again. In fact, we've made the Russian military stronger. It's larger than it was before.

It's produced far more weapons. The industrial base is ramped up. Plus, it's now battle-tested and battle-hardened, especially against Western weapons. So it's a much more formidable military Biden has created on the part of the Russians than when we started. Meanwhile, it's the United States that has seen its stockpiles depleted and hollowed out. Then you look at the economic claims that Biden made. He said that sanctions would crush the Russian economy. In fact, the Russian economy is growing faster than any of the G7 economies.

It's really booming. And it's our European allies' economies that have been crushed by the sanctions. So, you know, all this policy that he's pursued has really boomeranged and, again, come true in reverse. Then you take the humanitarian claims. He said that we would help ease the suffering of the Ukrainians. In fact, we've led to, I think, our support of this proxy war and our willingness to fight to the last Ukrainian. Like Lindsey Graham said, this is the best money we've ever spent using Ukrainians to kill Russians. This has led to an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine, where something like 10 million plus people,

mostly women and children, have left the country. I think at least half a million casualties killed or seriously wounded. And the population of the country is reduced from something like 44 million to 28 million. And if you look at the demographic pyramid, something like 10 to 12 million are pensioners. They can't really work. So what we've done is really leading to the demographic death of this country. So I want to shift gears a little bit. In the early days of the war in Gaza, you and I, as many others, were warning about expanded war in the Middle East. So we're several hundred days now or whatever into the conflict of Gaza.

Do you still worry about that and President Biden's handling? How would you rate the handling of the conflict so far? Well, what I said about in the wake of October 7th, the first thing I said was that it's a little bit reminiscent of 9-11, that the purpose of an outrageous terrorist attack is usually to provoke an overreaction. Yes. And I hope that the Israelis would react wisely and not in the 9-11 manner like the United States did. It's safe to say now

that the Israeli reaction is exactly, it has to be exactly what Hamas wanted. Yeah. Because they've created this humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it's basically turned the whole Middle East and most of the world against Israel. I mean, I'm actually shocked by some of the arguments that I'm seeing now that this sort of decolonization narrative that used to really just be in academic circles has now kind of gone mainstream. And you're seeing lots of people on social media take the position that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, which I strongly disagree with. But I think that reaction has been caused by the way that Israel has reacted to this. Yeah, obviously, every action has an equal opposite reaction. So how do you look at Biden's handling that?

Well, I think Biden made a huge mistake of basically going to the Middle East initially and hugging Netanyahu and giving him carte blanche. I mean, if you look at the history of the relationship between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers in war, it's usually the American role to pull the Israelis back from going too far. Yes. So Eisenhower stopped the Israelis from going too far with Suez. Let's see, it was Kissinger and Nixon who stopped them from going too far in 1973. That's right. Reagan called up Menachem Begin in 1982 and said that stop bombing Lebanon, you're creating a holocaust, actually used that word. So it's historically been the American role not to encourage the Israelis to basically go to the limit, but to kind of pull them back before they do something that, frankly, is not in their own interest, never mind ours. And Biden kind of missed the opportunity to do that, to kind of set some

boundaries on what America is willing to support. And I think it's been disastrous for the Israelis. I don't think that what they're doing is in their own interest. When they started bombing Gaza, I basically tweeted that I also got ratioed for this, that yeah, Israel has a right to defend itself. What happened on October 7th was an outrage and an atrocity. And yet it's pretty obvious that indiscriminately bombing a civilian population in Gaza is going to backfire horribly on them. Right. And that's what I see happening. So I said that the most controversial thing I've spoken out on is Ukraine. I think the discussion you and I just had, why is this so difficult? So you and I swim in right-wing circles, I think it's fair to say, or at least you have much longer than I have.

What you and I are saying right here is anathema for a lot of people, but it's self-evidently obvious, especially if you're going to embrace a restraint philosophy whenever it comes to Ukraine. It equally applies to the enmeshment that we've had over some 20-some years in the Middle East with respect to Israel. And you can say that we should, as you said, take a leading role and we should try to at least concur some restraint for our own sake, if not for the survival of the Israeli state. But I don't see a lot of this discussion, David, amongst the right-wing politicians that I am. What explains that? What do you think? Well, I think a lot of people think that the way to be, quote, pro-Israel is just to support Israel no matter what they do. And I guess I don't think that's

intellectually honest. I mean, look, I want Israel to survive and thrive. I just don't see how the current strategy that they're pursuing is in their long-term interest. I mean, at the end of the day here, there's going to be, what, 2 million plus Palestinians in Gaza. There's another 3 million plus in the West Bank. That's right. Where are they going to go? What are you going to do with them? I mean, it seems to me that you're radicalizing that population even more. I mean, by, again, by indiscriminately killing civilians, which I don't think you can argue that they're not at this point. That, you know, again, you're turning this whole population, you're radicalizing them against you. And then again, you're losing the

support of the world, which, you know, may not matter in the next month or two, but eventually it seems like it's going to matter. And you look at polling of young people in America, like 18 to 24-year-olds, really crazy poll result that of 18 to 24-year-olds, the majority believe that Israel should just be handed over to Hamas. Now, I think that's an insane view. I mean, I don't support anything like that, but Israel's actions are, because they're going so far, are going to foment that type of backlash. Yeah. I mean, look, we saw so much of it after the Iraq war as well in terms of backlash against the United States. It seems, again, so self-evidently obvious.

And yet, you know, we come back to this restraintist philosophy. That's actually something I wanted to talk to you a little bit about. I've noticed you're one of the few people I view as actually principled within this discussion. I think a lot of people are very, you know, selectively restraintist whenever they want to be and then not. So who are the people, what helped formed your views? So I've seen you've been attacked previously. I think you were on C-SPAN in 2002 advocating for the Iraq war. So give us some political philosophy background of yourself. I know you were involved with the Teal folks and all of that. So what did you read for you to arrive at the place that you are today, which I think is very unique for a lot of people in your position. Yeah. So I think the two intellectual giants for me

are John Mearsheimer and Pat Buchanan. Yes, absolutely. So, you know, Pat sort of represents this isolationist school of thought and then Mearsheimer represents this realist school of thought. When the two of them agree, I think you can take that to the bank, like 100% accurate. And then when they disagree, you have to think a little bit harder about, yeah. So yeah, I mean, well, so what were some of the big breaking points for you? Post-Iraq, like what happened? Just take us back to that time as somebody who was kind of involved in the discourse. Well, I wasn't really involved in the discourse around Iraq. I mean, some people doing oppo on me discovered some clips where I was really promoting a book about political correctness at Stanford at the time,

and then I got a question about Iraq. And really, I just repeated the conventional wisdom at the time. And I think that when I saw the result of the Iraq war and that we had been lied into it, I mean, so egregiously, and I don't think there's any other word for the untruths that we were told about it. That started to really change my point of view on this neocon foreign policy. I mean, our going into Iraq and then the, I mean, it wasn't just Iraq. It was also staying in Afghanistan for 20 years. It was the, you know, the covert war we waged against Syria, what we did in Libya. I mean, these things were, it was a total fiasco. We unleashed incredible amounts of death and destruction, created this huge refugee problem. In any event, I don't need to recite all of that. But yeah,

I think anybody who lived through that and didn't reconsider Americans' foreign policy, and to really start asking questions about the foreign policy establishment that gave us those wars hasn't been paying attention. I couldn't agree more. Libya was a big one for me, I will say, just personally. I want to just shift gears a little bit. You talk a lot about free speech. You've helped Elon with the takeover of Twitter. So we've been more than a year or so in that now. What's your assessment? Do you think free speech is better on Twitter? Is it worse? What do you think? Oh, it's much better. I mean, thank goodness Elon did that. The fact that Elon decided to acquire Twitter, I think it's the only

reason we have meaningful free speech online anymore. You have to remember, it's not just about the fact that he rolled back what Twitter was doing. It's also the fact that that censorship movement had a momentum to it, and they kept adding new categories of thought and opinion that you couldn't say. I mean imagine if we had this Ukraine war under the old Twitter management. I can't. Remember like during COVID, there were all sorts of positions that we now know are true that you couldn't say without getting censored. Lab leak. Exactly.

Look, the censorship, it's protean and it morphs in order to protect official narratives. At least that's what it was doing and still does at other major tech companies. And so I think that the problem would have gotten worse and worse if Elon hadn't essentially pulled an intervention by buying Twitter. So the other thing is, I know you've been more recently involved in electoral politics. You did the launch with Governor DeSantis. And I know you supported him, or at least I think you attended a fundraiser or something for him.

So what's your assessment of what went wrong for that campaign? I know you're talking a little bit about it, but I mean, a lot of people pointed to the X space that you guys launched on. Do you think it was, I mean, not your fault. It was good for you. But on his part, was it a mistake for him to do that? Do you think he was too online? What went wrong for him? What do you think? You know, I don't think that Twitter space was that big a deal. We got started 15 minutes late and then the people, people are always

looking for something to, some fault to find. Look, I just think that DeSantis' main problem is that the party wasn't willing or ready to move on from Trump. And, you know, Trump would have to like absolutely botch his campaign and then DeSantis would have to be absolutely perfect in order to have a chance and, or maybe, it may not even work. And the reality is, is that Trump is still pretty much, you know, at or near the top of his game. I mean, I think that when Trump did that CNN town hall and he kind of walked into the lion's den and he kind of pulled out of his pocket the tweets that he said, look, I'm January 6th,

I tweeted this, this, this. I mean, he was ready for them. That's a master. Yeah, he was. Yeah. And Caitlin Collins had the whole CNN studio inner earpiece trying to get Trump and they couldn't get him. Yeah. And I think everyone's like, okay, this guy's still on the top of his game. I think that was it. And you know, look, DeSantis didn't run a perfect campaign, but I don't think it mattered. I mean, the reality is the Republican Party still likes Trump. So then politically, what do you think is going to happen in this election? What's your assessment? Well, I mean, if you believe the polling right now, Trump's going to win. Okay. So it's going to be Trump versus Biden. It's kind of a—

Yeah, you and I are talking on Day After Super Tuesdays. It's definitely going to be Trump versus Biden. Right. It's not even a controversy at this point. Yeah, I mean, it's funny how we've been talking for months and months and months about whether it's going to be Trump versus— It was obvious. It was always inevitable. It was sort of unthinkable and yet inevitable at the same time.

So, you know, I think we really need a change in administration in Washington. I get really worried about this administration, about how objective they can be on what our next steps in Ukraine are, because it's just sunk cost fallacy that they may feel the need to protect their previous policy choices, avoid having egg on their face by continually escalating the situation in Ukraine. And Biden, by no means, has been the craziest on the Ukraine war. I mean, there are people in Washington, like Lindsey Graham, even like Mitch McConnell, who wanted more escalation sooner, or like Macron in Europe.

So there are forces pulling him in a direction of even more escalation. And then, you know, since he got us into this war, this proxy war, he may, his administration may have the incentive to really keep doubling down. So I think it's really important to have a change in administration. My worry with the Trump administration is, I covered it extensively at the time, interviewed him four times at that time, is You could always see that he didn't particularly care about what was going on. He outsourced. I mean, he cared about a few things, but he would outsource things to John Bolton or whoever was running it, H.R. McMaster.

These people were nutcases. Pompeo, yeah. Yeah, Pompeo. I mean, these people are more psychotic than many of the people in the Biden administration. Do you think that Trump has learned his lesson? Do you think that things will be different in the Trump 2 kind of policy? Because that's the biggest question to me. I want to change the administration too, 100%.

But with him, it genuinely is like I never know which way he's going to go. Well, I think the biggest knock on the first Trump term was personnel. And that Trump ended up choosing a lot of people who didn't support either his policy or at least his policy instincts. Right. And my suspicion is he's learned his lesson, if for no other reason, than all those people betrayed him. Good point. So I think that hopefully he's done with all those people. Yeah.

All right. Well, I hope so. David, thank you so much for joining me, my friend. Really appreciate it. All in podcast. You can go and subscribe. Highly recommended. And we'll have a link down to his Twitter as well where you can go and check him out.

So thank you, David. Thanks for taking the time. Hey, guys, if you like that video, go to BreakingPoints.com. Become a premium subscriber and help us build the best independent media organization on the planet. That's right. We're subscriber funded. We're building something new.

We want to replace these failing mainstream media organizations. So again, to subscribe, it's BreakingPoints.com. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today.

DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the okay. Storytime podcast on the I heart radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover?

I'm hope Woodard, a comedian creator and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room you are

actually at the party right now let me hear it listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts this is an iHeart podcast