Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #13: Pharma Dems, Pete vs Kamala, Tulsi's Shift, John Oliver, and More!

Episode Date: November 20, 2021

Krystal, Saagar, and guest host Kyle Kulinski talk about how pharma Dems came through for their donors, Kamala and Pete's battle, Tulsi Gabbard's ideological shift, John Oliver's union coverage, and more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Daily Poster: https://www.dailyposter.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover 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. 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 OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're going to be totally

upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show.

Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show, ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Joining us now for our weekly segment with The Daily Poster is Andrew Perez. Great to see you, Andrew. Good to see you, Andrew. Thanks for having me again. Of course. So you've got an

interesting piece up here, some updated reporting on the Medicare drug pricing. So just so everybody recalls, Democrats have been running on the ability of Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, saving a bunch of money since 2006. It was supposed to be in the Build Back Better plan. It has been stripped down along with a number of other measures that would reduce prescription drug prices. And you have a piece here saying Pharmadems saved the drug industry half a trillion dollars. Talk to us about that background, those provisions and what exactly they did in order to save those half a trillion dollars. Sure. Yeah. So the plan that Democrats were talking about for, you know, much of the past year would have saved, would have basically cost the industry $700 billion in revenue, an estimated $700 billion.

And the latest version would cost about $250 billion. Yeah, so it's a net of about $450 billion over a decade and just almost half a trillion dollars. And it's something that's been sort of lost in the shuffle here. I think a lot of progressives are sort of happy that there's at least some lost in the shuffle here. You know, I think, you know, a lot of progressives are, you know, sort of happy that there's at least some, you know, drug pricing provision in here. And there are some, you know, items in this measure that would help save, you know, help save people money, the public money. But, you know, basically, Big Pharma won a huge victory here. And, you know, they're still, you know still out ranting about how this bill is going to be the death of them, but it's really not going to be.

Not only is it not going to be, but their return on investment here is just huge. We've seen reports about how much they've spent on lobbying so far this year, around $ and, you know, they've been running ads. We, we talked last week about some ads that they've been running. Um, one of their, their front groups, uh, running to boost, uh, Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona. Um, they've, they've put some money into some ads, boosting some of the, their allies in the house too. Um, but you know, overall that money is not going to be even, you know, it's going to be less than 0.1% of the money they just saved. So tell, introduce us some of these pharma dems. Who are they? How much money are they getting for

this? Yeah, well, so Kyrsten Sinema obviously has sort of led the effort in the Senate. Scott Peters has been a longtime recipient of pharma cash in the House, as has Kurt Schrader from Oregon. And yeah, they're all benefiting now from some spending by this group called Center Forward, which we spoke about last week. It's this sort of, you know, group that's supposedly a, you know, outfit for political centrism. But Center Forward has put at least $1.2 million into ads, boosting cinema. They're also running digital ads, promoting Peters and Schrader. And, you know, we've seen even some, you know, smaller advocacy groups that are also pharma funded running like, you know, banner ads and newspapers supporting Peters and Schrader,

as well as Kathleen Rice in New York, who helped negotiate this deal, too. And Josh Gottheimer has also been involved in the effort in New Jersey. And yeah, so, you know, some of these lawmakers are, you know, kind of so-called moderates who are worried about the deficit. But, you know, here you're talking about they could have brought in $450 billion in revenue, helped fund the reconciliation bill, and, you know, they explicitly chose not to. Yeah, suddenly the deficit was not a concern so much as making sure they were delivering for the donor class ultimately, which is incredibly revealing. Could you explain the details of the quote unquote compromise that was ultimately struck here? Because originally it looked like

prescription drug price negotiation was going to be out of the bill altogether. Then they said, OK, well, maybe we can negotiate on just this few handful of drugs. Can you break down sort of what that looks like at this point? Yeah, basically, they'll be able to negotiate like much, much fewer drugs. The last one would have done sort of 25 drugs a year at first and then 50 in subsequent years. I think this one's about 10 each year. The real trick though is that here the government's only going to be able to negotiate prices on drugs that have passed their exclusivity period. And they're not going to be able to basically affect any drug prices at their launch.

So it's not going to really lower those drug prices really overall. You know, one of the positive things here is that there will be a cap on insulin prices at $35 a month, I believe, which, you know, will definitely help people. But, you know, it also goes into effect, the insulin cap after, I believe in 2023, so right after the midterm election. So it's going to be hard to tell people that like, you know, we've lowered drug prices when it is sort of TBD. Yeah. And only affects like a few drugs also. Talk a little bit more about that timeline, because that's something you sketch out here. The implementation of this is going to take a long time. Yeah. Yeah. They won't actually, and this was in the original legislation too, but they won't be negotiating prices on drugs until 2025. So it is a few years

down the road. And in fact, it's after the next presidential election. So, you know, you could see if Republicans, you know, flip the, you know, flip the entire government that that won't happen. It should definitely be a concern here. Gotcha. Wow. Well, thanks for joining us, Andrew. Really appreciate it. Thanks for breaking this down, Andrew. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Absolutely. And thank you guys for watching. Have a fantastic day, great weekend. We got more fantastic content posting for you over the weekend for your enjoyment, and we'll see you back here on Monday.

Well, as Joe Biden crashes and burns in our polls, and there's a lot of angst inside the Democratic Party about what the hell are we going to do in 2024 if he doesn't run, there's a spotlight of Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. So Washington Post is beginning to put this, you know, some of the whispers are beginning to come out of the edge saying Harrison Buttigieg under the spotlight amid uncertainty around Joe Biden's future. And the more and more that this comes out, Crystal, the lower that Biden continues to sink in the polls and the more jockeying that happens behind the scenes in the Washington Post pages, in the New York Times, and more over who's the better successor, the more interesting it's going to get. And I just think it's hilarious because, as you and I both know, neither of these people is going to win national office. There's just no way. I mean, they both crashed and burned in the Democratic primary. Buttigieg, less so than Kamala Harris, but not saying much whenever you get like, what did he get, like seventh or something

in the South Carolina? When we got to South Carolina, he got, I believe, 3% of the black vote. Right, yeah. I hear that, you know, that's an important constituency. That's the makings of a really significant constituency. He's got a great coalition there to build on. Right. I heard that they do vote in the Democratic primary. Seems something important if you were to cover that, honestly, something that we never particularly did during the Democratic primary. But the more that we're seeing this, D.C. is really just freaking out

over the fact that they have Kamala Harris on the one hand, the most unpopular vice president in modern American history. And then you have Pete Buttigieg, who, slightly more popular, but still would easily lose a national election, probably could not even win his own party's primary. And there's jockeying, Crystal, amongst both of their aides for who's going to look best coming out of the Biden administration. Buttigieg giving everybody a run for his money by taking two months off for paternity leave while we have the middle of a supply chain crisis. Kamala by just being odious generally, like in the national spotlight, and also being set up to fail by the Biden team. So nobody's coming out of this thing looking very

good, at least so far. You know, I keep thinking about, we covered last week this Jackman study, where they were evaluating in a really unique way the different types of candidates and who actually has broad appeal among like the broad working class that's remotely gettable by a Democratic Party candidate. And what they found was the absolute worst thing to be was the woke moderate, which is exactly the woke corporatist is exactly what Kamala and Pete fall into. That's the quadrant. And so it just shows you, I don't even know if it's how brain-dead Democratic Party elites are. They had to be pretty brain-dead to put Kamala in this position to start with as vice president. You know, the media tried to make her happen.

No, it didn't work. Nobody wanted her. And then they go ahead and over, well, you guys just didn't, you guys just didn't really give her a chance. So we're going to put her in as vice president, knowing that by doing that, you are setting her up to be the next Democratic nominee, whether it's in four years or eight years, either way, you're clearly saying this is the future of the party. And then predictably, she's utterly crashing and burning, as bad as Biden's poll numbers are. Hers are even worse. Her office is apparently rife with dysfunction, which has been a consistent theme, again, all predictable, consistent theme since

she started in politics and also manifested on her presidential campaign is these dysfunctional staffing issues and the family gets involved in these different fiefdoms and she's way too cautious and all of these things are consistent problems throughout her career. And so now they're thinking like, oh God, can we swap this person out? And instead of reaching for someone who might actually have broad appeal, they like Pete. Yes. And why do they like Pete? Well, because Pete is very comfortable.

Pete is a guarantee that, you know, all of the sort of democratic consultant industrial complex and the existing donor class are still going to be able to maintain their slots. And ultimately, that's why I say I don't know if I want to say that they're brain dead, because ultimately they care a lot more about that than they care about winning political offices. Oh, yeah. So Pete is a guarantee that they keep their spots, and that's what ultimately matters the most. The really crazy part, too, is how openly top Democrats are talking about the possibility of Biden not running. I mean, we're talking about his former campaign chair.

Let's put this on the screen. Yeah. Chris Dodd, who very longtime friend of Biden. Look at what he's saying there, quoted in the New York Times. I'm hoping the president runs for reelection. But for whatever reason that might not be the case, it's hard to believe there wouldn't be a short list without Kamala's name on it. She's the vice president of the United States. I'm hoping. Once again, this guy literally chaired the vice presidential search committee, was one of the closest confidants of the president. You might not remember him, but Chris Dodd was a powerhouse here in D.C. for a long time. I mean, he was a senator from Connecticut. His dad is a famous guy, I believe, is in politics as well. Major political institution in the Democratic Party. Goes back with Biden many, many, many years. And so for him to come out and say, I'm hoping that he runs for reelection. I mean, that stuff is crazy. I can tell you that under the Trump years, it was,

you were absolutely shut out. If you were to raise the possibility that Trump was not going to run for reelection, the people were like, it's, they're like anybody in the Trump orbit who starts to say stuff like that, tell them to shut up. It's not part of it. They would get yelled at all of that because it was considered such an insurance because you instantly become a lame duck. Right. And you're feeding all of this in the meat grinder of like, well, what's going to happen? It's just chaos. The fact that he can't even assure the people closest to him that he's going to run for re-election.

I think that's the most stunning part when I see that Chris Dodd quote in particular. I mean, all you have to do is look at him when he steps into the public eye and see that, you know, for him to run for another four years on top of this, that would be a lot. This is a man who, when he considered running back in 2016, thought about doing it under the pledge of I'm only going to serve one term. Right. So now here we are in 2020, he wins without the pledge. But I mean, I think the writing on the wall is on the wall for a lot of people that, you know, this may not, he may not be up to it for a second term. At the same time, it is interesting. And for the people who are like Kamala stans, which is, you know. They all live here in Washington.

They all live here. They're very on Twitter. But they do exist. I do think that it's fair when they say that she really hasn't been given sort of easy or she just hasn't been set up for success by the Biden White House. And they're contrasting that, on the other hand, with Pete, who not only, you know, he takes his months off immediately, everybody rushes to his defense the minute he's attacked by Tucker and by others. And they're also handing him hundreds of billions of dollars as transportation secretary to effectively do with as he pleases. We have this business insider, or now they're just insider. It still says business insider, though, there. Anyway, insider.

Pete Buttigieg is about to become the most powerful transportation secretary ever. That's terrifying, actually. In what should be a relatively non-controversial realm of transportation secretary, and he's given all this money to play with. Meanwhile, they're either feeding calm under the wolves by like, hey, why don't you just handle that immigration situation down there? No big deal. And giving her no power to actually do anything about it. Or they're literally sticking her at the kids table for that space, whatever thing she was doing that was equal.

With all the child actors. There are no winners in this game. No matter what portfolio they handed Kamala Harris, I don't think it was going to be a real home run here. But it does seem like the White House is putting their thumb on the scale in terms of who they want to sort of promote and elevate and really see as the future of the party at this point. I think that's right.

Very telling. All right, guys, thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. So I, and I think others, have been tracking what appears to be a pretty dramatic ideological evolution on the part of Tulsi Gabbard, which to this point had mostly been in the realm of sort of culture, things like immigration, where you could say, okay, she always had a little bit of a different stance, things like national security. Abortion, too, actually. Yeah. Yeah. Now we're seeing some comments on economics that are just polar opposite of where she was just a couple years ago when she

was launching her presidential campaign. Let's take a listen to those comments and then we'll react on the other side. Here's the reality with the bill that they're continuing to push forward is that our government is too powerful and too big, even as it is. And this bill is only going to make matters worse. The provisions in the bill are so vague that, really, it's going to be unelected bureaucrats who end up deciding how these provisions are implemented and no accountability. And really, it will empower them to be able to stick their noses into every aspect of

our lives, furthering this cradle-to-grave mentality of government dependence that makes us lose even more of our autonomy as we are paying for it. As government gets bigger, our wallets are getting smaller. Cradle-to-grave mentality of government dependence. I mean, first of all, you could take this from any conservative talking point ever. It also sounds exactly like the stuff Joe Manchin has been saying. And just to remind people, like when she was running for president, not only did she voice support for Green New universal pre-K, prescription drug price reform, all of these things.

So listen, I get it. I have my own critiques of Build Back Better. But it's remarkable to see how dramatically her entire ideology seems to have changed. And, you know, again, if you want to critique Build Back Better and the Biden administration, we do it here all the time. One potential line of inquiry you could that would fit with the Tulsi of old is the fact that it looks like most millionaires, we can throw this tweet up on the screen. It looks like most millionaires are actually going to get a tax cut in this end result. So that's not great. And so just as one more reminder of what Tulsi used to sound like on these things, this is not ancient history. This is her launch

for her presidential campaign. Here's the way that she used to talk about economics and about the country writ large. Let's take a listen. We have to fight to make sure that every single American gets the quality health care that they need through Medicare for all. We must stand up against the big Wall Street banks who gamble with our money and our future. Stand up against overreaching intelligence agencies and big tech companies who take away our civil liberties, privacy and freedoms in the name of national security and corporate greed. We must stand up against those who pollute our land, our water, and our air. We must stand up against private prisons who are profiting off the backs of those who are caught up in a broken criminal justice system, a system that puts people in prison for smoking

marijuana, while allowing corporations like Purdue Pharma, who are responsible for the opioid-related deaths of thousands of people, to walk away scot-free with their coffers full. This so-called criminal justice system, which favors the rich and powerful and punishes the poor, cannot stand. We must join hands and stand up against those who perpetuate bigotry, hatred, and violence against our brothers and sisters because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. And she goes on to say, listen, we've got to bring the troops home so we can spend money here.

Very, very different from this cradle-to-grave dependency stuff that we're hearing now. I was shocked whenever she did not more forcefully back Biden on Afghanistan. That was really the time when I was stunned, right? And especially in that, I think it was a Tucker appearance where he brought her on to criticize the military on the drone strike. And I think, she didn't even defend it, but she's like, well, you know, sometimes, I was like, what the hell is going on here? Yeah, he wanted her, he gave her a layup to criticize him from the left over the drone strike. That's right.

And instead, she wanted to talk about Islamism. Yeah, I was really shocked by that. And look, maybe she's evolved. It's very possible, you know, build back better or whatever in terms of what's happening here. But it is, like, I'll have a soft spot for her from the campaign. She stood up to a lot of stuff in the face of a lot of overwhelming pressure. It's just the question of where she wants to go from here on out. You know, by going on, especially on Sean Hannity and talking about it in this particular way,

because it's always going to be like former Democratic congresswoman. That's how this works whenever it comes to Fox and more. And so by going on and pushing that, it is a change obviously from where she was in the past. The only question is whether she genuinely believes it or if she's doing it because she thinks it will help her current brand. Listen, I've known Tulsi for a long time. I met her for the first time when she first ran for Congress. We've defended her a million times from what were utterly disgusting attacks. And people can have genuine evolutions.

I mean, I've gone through my own genuine evolution. You have as well. You know, my views are not the same now as they were, for example, all back when I was at MSNBC. But I think when you have a position of such prominence, if you did go through some sort of genuine evolution, you owe people a little bit of an explanation of what's going on there. Yeah, I agree with that. Because, again, it's not like, oh, I've just tweaked my – I got more information. I tweaked my view on this or whatever. No, this is like just months and, you know, years ago, it was Medicare for all. It was Green New Deal. It was we got to bring the troops home and spend the money here instead.

And now she sounds exactly like, you know, any of Sean Hannity's other guests who would come on and bemoan the big government and the cradle to grave dependency mentality, etc. So it's puzzling. Puzzling indeed. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. Kyle's sitting in for Crystal Ball.

We're doing a little weekend content here. And we found something pretty interesting. Shocking, actually, to see John Oliver for once actually do a segment which wasn't all that bad, not all that cridge, not boomer or resistance in any way, talking about

union busting and some of the illegal tactics that companies use. Let's take a listen to a segment. For an election to happen at all, 30% of workers must sign a union card expressing an initial interest in union representation. But Amazon, for instance, has instructed its managers to be on high alert for the slightest sign that that might happen, as this leaked internal video shows. If you see warning signs of potential organizing, notify your building HRM and GM site leader immediately. The most obvious signs would include

use of words associated with unions or union-led movements like living wage or steward. Wow. I mean, set aside how completely masked off it is to treat the phrase living wage like the first warning sign of a stroke. You would also think a nearly $2 trillion company like Amazon could spring for better animation

than jib jab. But if enough workers do sign cards, the election process is then underway. And in that process, companies have some pretty huge advantages because obviously, when you're on their premises, they have unfettered access to you, while also having the ability to keep union reps out. And many companies take full advantage of that access.

Amazon, for instance, inundated workers with anti-union signs all over their workplace, even putting them inside bathroom stalls. They also used workers' contact info to send multiple anti-union text messages to them per day and held mandatory meetings that seemed designed to spread fear. They had somebody who was like their,

the captain of the union busting, who would come down and teach like... What was the official title of the class? They just called it like Union Training. That's it. Which is funny because it's not Union Training. It's anti... It's Union Busting 101. Right. It's not Union Training if the explicit goal is to kill the union.

It'd be like taking a dog training class from Cruella de Vil. Although, no, not the one that's a misunderstood bohemian or whatever. I'm talking about the real Cruella. Yeah, that one. The original, doggicidal, bad bitch. Now, these mandatory propaganda sessions are called captive audience meetings, and most Amazon workers at Bessemer

were having to attend at least two per week, and that is not uncommon. Nearly 90% of employers facing union campaigns hold captive audience meetings. Wow, you know, it was a good find. I wish we had found that, honestly. The, well, if they're talking about a living wage, it's a dog whistle for a union or anything else. Credit to him, honestly. And our producer, James, made a good point. The reason why this type of stuff is important is you, how many times are people who watch HBO, the resistance wine moms and all those people, they would never get exposed to any of this. They probably don't even know that a lot of this exists. So I would call it, even though I think he's cringe, a net positive that this was going out to that type of audience.

Yeah. I'm with you. I'm generally not a fan of John Oliver, but every now and then he does something that I think is really good, and this is a great example of it here. Yeah, what struck me was the same thing, the living wage line, because in order to be good at propaganda, you have to be subtle. Yeah, that's right. You have to take off the rough edges, smooth it out a little bit, and that's not subtle. That's so heavy handed. I'll give you a good example of what good propaganda is. And I think the right generally is fantastic at this stuff, and they have been for decades. But when you talk about taking a hardcore capitalist position, instead of using the word capitalism, which

pulls so-so, you go with free market. And if you say free market, it's like, well, how can anybody be against this? It's a free market. You know, they did this, obviously, this isn't a point for the right as much as more generally now, but when they named the Patriot Act the Patriot Act, it's like, you oppose this? It's the Patriot Act. And eventually, you know, stuff needs to come out over time for everybody to turn on it. But you need to be more nuanced and clever with how you do it. And the thing that's so great about union busting being front and center now is it really shines a light on the fact that unions are sort of like one of the only ways to fight back against the overreach of the ruling class. And it just sort of balances out power better. When we had the highest rate of unionization in America during the golden age of economic expansion, the working class did the best it ever did. There's a direct correlation between how high the unionization rate is and how good everybody does. And a fact I love to come back to is that, did you know that in some Scandinavian countries, they don't even have a minimum wage?

But the reason they don't is because they have near universal unionization among the workforce. They don't even need a minimum wage. It's just, you know, everybody gets a wage that's higher than what any theoretical minimum wage would be. Yeah, no, I think you're right. And, you know, we've covered it all the time. Actually, one of the things that you should care a lot about, you know, on the right is if you want institutions which are non-governmental, which are going to bargain for wages and make it so that the government doesn't have to say the union is one of the best ways to do that because it actually is a way for people of all races, all stripes, and all of them to come together

to actually use their bargaining power collectively absent any government interference. And that way it's just the union and the firm who gets to make a decision. It makes it so that you don't have to step in to try and make a corrective or any of that. It's a point I've tried to make over and over again. And social cohesion-wise, it's one of the most important institutions that we had in modern American life. And you can see that the more the unionization goes down, the less people are hanging out in union halls or participating in those things, and they're spending a lot more social isolation, becoming more beholden to the corporation. So once again, props to Oliver for actually covering this.

I was actually impressed by the segment. Good job, man. We'll see you guys later. 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 voice 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. The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

DNA test proves he is not the father, now wherever you get your podcasts. 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. This is an iHeart Podcast.