Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #4: Andrew Yang, War Profiteering, COPS Show, and More!

Episode Date: September 18, 2021

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/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/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. I've seen a lot of stuff over 30 years, you know, some very despicable crime and things that are kind of tough to wrap your head around. And this ranks right up there in the pantheon of Rhode Island fraudsters. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops.

They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We met them at the recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar.

We're going to be totally up front 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 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. Former presidential candidate and also former New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Yang

making some big news. Apparently, according to Politico, and we can throw this tear sheet up on the screen, he is planning to launch a third party. So we knew that he had a book coming out. It's called Forward Notes on the Future of Our Democracy. Full disclosure, I blurbed the book. It includes a lot of sort of prescriptions, things like rank choice voting and his view of the types of reforms that our democracy needs, many of which I am certainly supportive of. But this is an indication he's going to go one step further and actually launch a third party effort. So it'll be interesting to see. And also, I mean, I guess what I'm curious about, is he going to have more of the energy of his presidential campaign, or is it going to be more of the energy of his New York City mayoral campaign, which to me was very

disappointing. I mean, he basically got these like Bloomberg consultants around him. His platform was kind of confused. It was a harder place to really tout his universal basic income, which was kind of the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. So we'll see. I think it's going to be interesting, which is that it's not just about UBI. It was, we covered this so much. His crossover amongst Trump people was the highest of any Democratic candidate, except for Tulsi Gabbard.

Almost 40% or something crossover support. Now, here's what he says, and this does sound like my kind of book. Indictment of America's era of institutional failure introduces to the various priests of decline, including politicians whose incentives have become divorced from the people they supposedly serve. And as you point out, the problem that they had was that his New York City candidacy was just a little bit too typical. He seemed like a normal politician. That's the problem, right? Is that if you're going to run as a normal politician, then they're going to vote for the actual normal politician, who's Eric Adams.

Ergo, why he won. And so in this one, if he returns to like the real roots of the Yang Gang and that energy that he found back in 2019, I 100% think that not even about the success of the third party. In sparking a discussion, it would be interesting. It would actually be important. So that is where the energy has to be. Yeah. I mean, look, even going, just in terms of talking about issues and whether this will be a platform that I would be interested in, even his presidential campaign, you know, I'm a Medicare for All supporter. He ran away from that. Federal jobs guarantee supporter in addition to UBI supporter, that's not something that he supports. So for me, again, I'm going to be interested to see what the platform actually looks like.

But even putting the policy details aside, I think third parties can be important in pressuring the mainstream parties to do better. And I support them from that perspective. In terms of a practical reality of what I think is going to actually succeed electorally and have the greatest chance to impact American politics, I just think that the evidence is crystal clear, no pun intended, that hijacking one of the existing institutional parties is the way to go. And we saw that, I mean, we actually saw it from the other terrible direction with Bill Clinton in the 90s and the DLC who came in, total takeover. That was easier to do because they were corporate backed and shilling for

corporate interests. Trump, Tea Party and then Trump, did a similar thing with the Republican Party. And while, yes, ultimately Trump turns out to be just another handmaiden for the elites, the elites didn't necessarily know that. They still hated him. They didn't know that going in. So, you know, they were very much opposed to him and he still managed to do it

and totally take over the party and craft it in his own image. Now that image turned out to be just about fealty to him rather than anything actually like good or different. But that's another example. And then we can't ignore the fact that Bernie almost did it twice. You know, he came a whole lot closer to actually taking over the Democratic Party and effecting change there than, say, third party evergreen party or another third party effort has been having success from a third party standpoint. So again, I'll wait to see what the platform is in terms of whether I think,

you know, that's something I'm interested in or not. I'll wait to see whether it's more of the presidential campaign energy or the mayoral campaign energy and whether he's going, I mean, his mayoral campaign was almost this sort of like weird, like no labels-y third way type of thing, which I- Which is why it also got fourth into. Yeah, which I'm not into at all. But just from a strategic perspective, I don't think this is the most effective way for Yang to impact politics. I'll give the one scenario where I saw from Nate Silver and I was like,

hmm, that actually makes sense. He was like, I don't think it'll be Andrew Yang. But one thing I could foresee is an unpopular Kamala Harris running against a Donald Trump in 2024. That would be the most rife area where a third party might, and I was like, well, you know, that's not a bad point. I'd be 100% Yang Gang in that scenario. And it's like, if you think about it, you're like, wow,

like Harris v. Trump, you're about two politicians with maybe 30%, I mean, Harris even less, but like 20, 30% of the population. That actually would leave, you know, some sort of area open. Look, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it's easy for a third-party person to come close. But what did Ross Perot win? 20-something percent of the vote? Could be enough. I mean, it's a crazy system we have. Well, and before Perot did his whole, like, drop down, then I'm sort of back in thing. I mean, it's a crazy system we have. Well, and before Perot did his whole, like,

drop down, then I'm sort of back in thing. I mean, he was a real contender there for a minute. So, look, it can be done. It has to be an extraordinary set of circumstances. Yeah. Is Yang the man to do it? We'll see. All right, guys, we'll have more for you later.

Hey, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was? Well, here we are again to remind you that becoming a premium member means you don't have to listen to our constant pleas for you to subscribe. So what are you waiting for? Become a premium member today

by going to breakingpoints.com, which you can click on in the show notes. Fascinating new study. We've talked a lot about how people profit a lot off of war, but sometimes we don't have the exact numbers. A brand new study, we've talked a lot about how people profit a lot off of war, but sometimes we don't have the exact numbers. A brand new study from Brown University actually puts a number on that figure. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen, which is that Pentagon reliance on contractors hurt U.S. in 9-11 wars. Oh yeah, file that one under no curse word. So up to half of the $14 trillion spent by the Pentagon since 9-11 went to for-profit

defense contractors, a study released found. It's the latest work to show that the reliance on private corporations for war zone duties used to be done by troops contributed to mission failure in Afghanistan. So there's two important things that are going on there. Number one is obviously there was a profit incentive. This is from the important things that are going on there. Number one is obviously there was a profit incentive. This is from the Brown University's Cost of War Project. But number two is that we used to have native capacity within the armed forces to do all sorts of things. The mess hall, feeding the troops, cleaning, whatever, all kinds of stuff. But then they introduced competitive bidding.

Well, once you start having all that stuff happening, or sometimes even no-bid contracts that are being awarded for all sorts of basic services, that all starts to add up real quick. Corruption gets involved in terms of trying to game the system and more. And next thing you know, you've created a multi-trillion, not billion, multi-trillion dollar industry where all the dollars just flow right back here to Northern Virginia. And this was the game plan from the jump. As so many evil things are, this is traced directly back to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The article says it started with then Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton received more than $30 billion to help set up and run bases,

feed troops, and carry out other work in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2008. The defense contractors argued that relying on private contractors for work that service members had always done in previous wars would allow for a trimmer U.S. military and be more efficient and cost effective. There are a couple impacts that this has. Number one, people get fabulously wealthy. Fabulously wealthy. Seven trillion dollars. In fact, there's some number in here, one of these defense industrial contractors has received more contracts than the entire State Department budget. I mean, that's the type of money that we're talking about here. So number one, people get fabulously wealthy.

Number two, you can portray to the public that there's a lot less cost in terms of lives. Light footprint. So those politically problematic having actual troops on the ground risking their lives, those numbers become less. So the American people are sort of fleeced about what's really going on and how heavy of a footprint and presence you really have in the countries. But in terms of how this actually hurt our effectiveness on the ground here, they provide a couple of very specific examples. One with regards to, we insisted that the Afghan army use our U.S.-made Black Hawk helicopters when it was the

case that basically the only people who knew how to fly and maintain these helicopters were us and our contractors. So the Afghans preferred the Russian-made helicopters, which were apparently better fitted for the rugged terrain and that they knew how to operate. They knew how to maintain. They're a little less fancy, more durable, and they knew what to do with them. We said, no, no, no, you've got to have our equipment. And so that hindered their ability to be effective once we were out the door. That's just one example here of how our insistence of funneling trillions of dollars to our own defense industry, domestic defense industry, hampered our ability to be effective on the ground there. So it really is quite incredible

when you think about, you know, we heard all this, oh, we invested so much money in Afghanistan. It's true. But most of that money actually stayed right here at home. And when you talk about who won and who lost this war, the people who were profiting off of it, they won all day long. They're still going on cable news to make the case for why we should stay forever. And you cannot possibly wrap your mind around the amount of money that was at stake for these folks. Yeah. And let's go ahead and put this up there in terms of our personal congressmen and women, which is that, and you found this, this was pretty good. At least 47 members of Congress and their spouses hold between 2 million and 6.7 million worth of stock in companies that are among the top 100 defense contractors.

And once again, look, are they personally making decisions in order to benefit themselves? There's actually no way of knowing that. There's literally zero. So what do you think we should do? Well, maybe, you know, have a law that says they can't do this whatsoever. Every time Nancy Pelosi does some crazy stock trade, it's not just her, you know, Richard Burr, all kinds of Republicans,

Democrats, everybody's involved. Pelosi does seem particularly bad, though. Her husband, you know, the guy, it's just like, dude, you're like 80 years old. You're worth $100 million. You have enough.

Chill. You guys have a whole fridge. The freezer is full of ice cream, guys. You can lay off. You've got the freezer that's just for ice cream. You're good. I don't understand it. Maybe that's why I'm not worth $100 million.

That's the problem that we have is that it undermines confidence within the system, and you just see the sheer amount of money that's being made. And I'm finally, you know, real props to Brown. They've always been at the spearhead of this. They've actually quantified some of the top costs. I used to use it all the time when I was a Pentagon correspondent. And now they've got the final numbers for us. $7 trillion. Sludge. Phenomenal work on corruption. No matter whether it's Democrat or Republican, they're always on top of it. But yeah, I mean, it's disgraceful. It's disgusting. It's insane that this is legal. And you just know that it's going to continue

because the people who would have to say, you know, we shouldn't do this anymore are the ones who are directly profiting off of it. I do have a confession, which is that I tried that ice cream. Oh, Jenny's? There's one in my neighborhood. Yeah.

It's actually really good. It's actually good? Yeah. There's always a lot. I don't get it. There are these people out there. There's one near where I live and there's always people lined up out't get it there are these people out there there's one near where I live and there's always people

lined up out the door for this ice cream it's like a Georgetown cupcake situation I'm like is it that good I don't understand it is it's pretty incredible

alright I'll take your word for it yeah anyway it's not really an ice cream of the people though it is a pretty hefty person okay anyway alright

we'll have more for you guys later wow you guys must really like listening to our voices. Well, I know this is annoying. Instead of making you listen to a Viagra commercial, when you're done, check out the other podcast I do with Marshall Kosloff called The Realignment. We talk a lot about the deeper issues that are changing, realigning in American society.

You always need more Crystal and Saga in your daily lives. Take care, guys. So, little news item here that it's not the biggest deal in the world, but it did kind of bug me. So, let's throw this LA's not the biggest deal in the world, but it did kind of bug me. So let's throw this L.A. Times tear sheet back up on the screen. Cops, the long running reality show, is going to return on Fox News's streaming service, basically failing streaming service called Fox Nation. So it's going to be, you know, for subscription, you can get episodes of Cops on Fox Nation. LA Times talked to the executive over there at Fox about the sort of criticism of the show,

which had been pulled along with Live PD in the wake of the George Floyd protests. And he said, look, I can't speak to a larger cultural movement that was happening at the time of its cancellation. I think the content stands on its own. It's a very compelling show for people who are interested in following the lives of police officers. So let me tell you why this bothers me. There's a podcast out there called Running From Cops, which is actually- Yeah, you told me about this at the time. I had no idea. Yeah. So it's actually really excellent. And what it exposes is you think when you're watching Cops, and I growing up used to watch this show too, you think you're really getting an unvarnished look at what really happens.

But it turns out, like all of these reality shows, so much of what you're seeing is fake and is fabricated. And it creates these horrific incentives. Number one, for the cops who are on camera to sort of perform for the camera. And number two, it's just completely dedicated to like exploiting poor people who are at their, you know, experiencing the worst moments in their lives. Then, and I always wondered this too, like how do you get people to agree

to be on this show and sign the release, et cetera? Running From Cops digs into the really unscrupulous tactics that they use to basically forge people's signatures and coerce them into using the threat of legal action, coerce them into signing these releases so that they're horrifically, you know, embarrassing them at their worst moments are forever memorialized and they're shamed in their entire community. Again, totally classist, preying on, exploiting poor and vulnerable people, disproportionately Black, of course. And there have even been instances, and this again is from Running From Cops, but documented

in this news article as well that we can throw up on the screen, where in order to play to the camera, cop allegedly, looks very likely based on what happens on camera, plants drugs on a woman who was completely innocent so that they can have their moment of glory on the small screen here. What happened is they pulled this woman over. They said that they suspected drug use because she had a marijuana tattoo and like a grateful dead bear tattoo, something stupid like that. They open up her trunk. They find some sort of like, you know, dust, something of that nature. They test it to see whether it's cocaine. It comes back negative. The police goes back then to the trunk and test it again. And lo and behold, now it's positive. So it looks very much like they effectively planted the drugs on her so that they could have their moment of glory. So anyway, it's a gross show.

It's not good for society. It just makes us like look down on how more contempt for poor people. It does not actually show like the best of law enforcement doing what they can to keep communities safe. Totally exploitative. And it sucks that it's coming back. But there we go. Look, I believe in redemption, and I have no sympathy for criminals. And at the end of the day, though, like embarrassing people,

like look, that's the worst day of their lives, right? And once again, I think they should be punished. But that doesn't mean that you should be broadcasting it for people's enjoyment. And I think that's the problem, which is that you introduce the money and you introduce the entertainment aspect. And I didn't know, you know, it shows that the, it actually makes perfect sense. People are going to perform for the camera. Yeah. Obviously. It's human nature.

Maybe even both sides. Yeah, it's a human nature thing. They want attention, you know. Boring, a boring night is actually good for the rest of the populace, not good for the camera crew. Not good for ratings. So you think about that, you put it all together, let's keep the cameras off, and let's make sure that, I mean, let's keep the entertainment cameras off, and let's make sure that we don't, like, make this into some culture war thing

where it's like, actually, this show, Cops, is great. It's like, as you think about it, I mean, I was riveted by it, too. You know, you're in a hotel room or a motel or whatever, you turn it on, and it's kind of entertaining, but that's kind of the problem, and we should think about that. Yeah. It's like the ultimate cancel culture. I mean, once you've been like publicly shamed like that, people had to move out of their communities,

et cetera, because they were so embarrassed. Sometimes they're getting arrested. And I'm not excusing this. Sometimes they're getting arrested for like drunk driving and look, drunk driving is bad. I think drunk drivers should be punished. I think, you know, we're taking your license away. All of that. Does that mean you think that you should be punished forever? And you should be ultimately shaming yourself? No. And there's a reason the law isn't written that way. So that's what I think gets to the problem. Yeah, indeed. Anyway, just wanted to update you on that little story. And we'll have more for you guys later. Thanks for listening to the show, guys. We really appreciate it. To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a

five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.. To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people find the show. As always, a special thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to crystalandsager.com. I've seen a lot of stuff over 30 years, you know, some very despicable crime

and things that are kind of tough to wrap your head around. And this ranks right up there in the pantheon of Rhode Island fraudsters. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott.

And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios.

Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.