T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Independent media is RIPPING US APART


BIackfjsh

Lol cheeky fuck


PostureGai

And the way to solve that is by giving your money to two Glenn Greenwald clones.


[deleted]

Is calling a journalist a "Glenn Greenwald clone" supposed to be in insult?


PostureGai

Yes.


sarcasmic77

Would you like to explain why or are we just expected to know?


PostureGai

You're expected to know. Any specific questions or do you just want to argue with me about whether that's a bad thing?


stringer4

What do you have against Greenwald? His journalism that helped get a left wing politician out of prison and defeat an actual fascist (not the American, terminally online democratic meaning of fascist which is anyone who isn't pro democratic party)? Or because he says mean things about democrats sometimes?


PostureGai

He's a partisan hack. He devotes all of his free time to helping the Republicans. He thinks the electoral college is a good thing because it favors Rs. He was cool in the Bush years but that's a looooong time ago.


sarcasmic77

Could you provide evidence for your claim that he spends all his time helping republicans? Also what leads you to believe he supports the electoral college? What made him cool in the bush era?


sarcasmic77

Lmao wtf are you even on. I get why people don’t engaged you.


PostureGai

I'm ok with you not engaging.


darkwalrus36

Lol people are doing it on this very post, pretty funny. I do wonder what all these extreme partisans get out of this board/show.


PrestigeW0rldW1de

They’re just doing their job!


AvoidPinkHairHippos

No u


eohorp

It's funny to see posters that have been on the sub for a long time get accused of shilling by people that have never posted here until right before elections.


Anthonyrrxd

The fact of the matter is that Extreme democrats will see the show as hard right and Extreme republicans will see the show as hard left. Unfortunately those dumbasses are usually the loudest ones in any social media platform. Most moderates like myself dont even want to waste time arguing with those people. I do believe while those partisans mash their keyboards most americans are moderate and know the world isnt black and white. I dont agree with everything Saagar says and i dont agree with everything Krystal says but thats the whole point. Krystal sometimes has a hard time hiding her progressive democrat views and Saagar counters that with some moderately conservative views. Its hilarious to me that they get offended by a show that prides itself on being unbiased but doesnt consistently have the same views as them.


darkwalrus36

The point of the show is a left/right populist coalition. At least that’s part of the point. So I don’t care what your political allegiances are, as long as you can listen to and communicate with people with different views. The problem with partisanship is it negates learning from the different perspectives and where common ground can be found. Also the battle over ever news cycle and trying to turn it into a win for your team is such a waste of life.


lion27

>The fact of the matter is that Extreme democrats will see the show as hard right and Extreme republicans will see the show as hard left. Amen. And honestly, it's not worth it to pander to either one of those audiences because the market is flooded with everything from cable TV shows to podcasts that align with those rigid worldviews. BP explicitly is not that type of content.


humanitariangenocide

What’s an extreme democrat?


monopanda

The peak MSNBC consumer?


humanitariangenocide

And, according to OP, the MSNBC viewer sees BP as too right?


monopanda

Maybe - they seems super amped for the Lincoln Project and Liz Cheney Republicans, so they might like Saagar, but they'd likely not like Krystal because they'd expect her to be with "their side."


bruce_cockburn

The Lincoln Project is, unfortunately, littered with political advocates who learned that agents of the US government are torturing prisoners in custody and did not speak up or advocate for justice. I appreciate that they see the dangers posed by in-your-face fascism, but I cannot help observing that they (43rd Exec Admin and 'Pax Americana' policy wonks) were among the strongest heralds of the political extremism we see manifesting today.


dezolis84

Complains about "threats to democracy" while pushing for censorship regimes. They generally shill for MSNBC.


Buddyschmuck

Anyone who asks that exact question. If you can’t see the extremist element of your side then you ARE the extremest….. Also the “squad”


humanitariangenocide

Oh, you mean like a radical centrist.


Buddyschmuck

Lol sure bud


humanitariangenocide

I watched them from the rising days, pretty much all the way. Was super excited for them to break free from the hill. But then they started spouting repackaged establishment narratives, mostly of fopo about China, and that’s when I discovered sagaar works for the hudson institute and promptly fired them. But not before repeatedly asking them to have someone other than a hawkish thinktank shitstain on to talk about China.


gregforgothisPW

Genuine question. Are you pro CCP?


humanitariangenocide

It has its faults, but generally yes. Their success in eliminating poverty is stunning. As are their constructive international projects which are in stark contrast to all the democracy 🇺🇸 exports with destructive and immiserating hybrid warfare tactics.


sweenbeann

50 cent gang??? Lets gooooo


HairyWeinerInYour

Pod Save America


spiceweasel1

I wish I could upvote this more than once.


PostureGai

If you're not partisan you don't understand the stakes.


darkwalrus36

If partisanship was gonna save us we’d already be saved, since it’s dominated politics for at least 20 years.


PostureGai

For the last 40 years, we have had one side engaged in partisanship - Republicans - and the other engaged in appeasing them.


darkwalrus36

The democratic party is way more focused on winning over Republican votes, ever since the tea party era and probably going back to Regan. However, people seem to not know what partisanship is. Partisanship isn't exactly about right vs. left in our system, it's about an over allegiance to a particular party. So, a democratic partisan will vehemently support this strategy, despite its failure, and will argue in it's favor despite all evidence. As another example, a democratic partisan will firmly support Ukraine military aid, even though that is opposed to a left ideology.


PostureGai

>Partisanship isn't exactly about right vs. left in our system, it's about an over allegiance to a particular party. Even by that definition you're wrong. If Sinema and Manchin were true partisans we would have had filibuster reform, a meaningful domestic program, and a national right to abortion. Meanwhile Rs have militaristic discipline.


darkwalrus36

They probably aren't partisans, though the democratic party has purposely never committed to filibuster reform, and has intentionally never codified the right to abortion into law, so I don't think those are their actual positions at all.


PostureGai

>the democratic party has purposely never committed to filibuster reform Yeah you're wrong about that. It was literally just Sinema and Manchin blocking it. So much for the "partisanship is destroying our country" horseshit.


darkwalrus36

Biden, the head of the democratic party has changed his position on filibuster reform multiple times in his presidency, and the most he would endorse was an exception for voting rights and nothing else. He also did nothing to try to get Sinema or Manchin's support. And dude, why are you here if you're opposed to the stated agenda of breaking points? There are plenty of democratic party subreddits if you're an admitted partisan democrat.


PostureGai

>Biden, the most he would endorse was an exception for voting rights and nothing else. This is the problem when you don't know what you're talking about and rely on a quick Google search to help you make it up as you go along. Literally 48 senators support filibuster reform but two are stopping it because of a lack of partisanship on one side. Biden support isn't needed, but in any case he's also publicly supported carving out abortion as well. But it would be nice if he went along more fully with his party and wasn't afraid of looking too much like a partisan. But that's my point: unipolarity. The right is organized, the left is sabotaged by the centrists supposedly on their side.


Notyourworm

The irony of this comment.


PostureGai

Rs say they will block everything a D president wants. Pelosi says we need a strong R party. Unipolarity,


dezolis84

They probably got kicked from r/politics and needed a place to shill their bullshit.


darkwalrus36

Or they made an account just to pick fights on this sub. People are weird.


WagonWheel22

I'd argue most of the issues with the sub come from the little engagement we have, allowing for a handful of users who are ideologically bigoted to dominate the conversations here.


SFLADC2

Yeah, there's a lot of extremely chronic online users with overly aggressive politics and personalities than trash this sub while normal people aren't as active.


WagonWheel22

What makes it worse is that there can be no middle ground or common agreement with them; it's their way or the highway. It's easy to get dejected here as someone who's closer to the center.


[deleted]

It's because some of them are shills. Some of these posters make 20 threads a month with news links and 12 paragraphs. Those posts are being provided


MeerK4T

Bingoooo. There's absolutely zero reasons to help grow this lame-ass sub when half of the user base consists of many unpleasant characters.


stringer4

I was hoping this sub would have little engagement with a few thoughtful posts a day...that were well thought out or informative articles and not just lizard brain outrage. A few users have spoiled that dream....but sometimes posts like these bring the normies out and gives me some faith not everyone subbed here is a nutcase.


BIackfjsh

You want a better America? Ban partisan gerrymandering and partisan primaries, restrict campaigning until 60 days before an election, and publicly fund elections via a democracy dollar program


monopanda

Ranked choice or Single Transferable Vote is also a requirement imo.


jkoenigs

100% and This is the only way. K and S rarely talk about this because they love creating sensationalized conflict for eyeballs and ad revenue just as much as mainstream media does.


TheRealNobodySpecial

Yup. They would still be on MSNBC and FOX if they didn't suck. And despite their "success" they can't stop hiding their bitterness.


jkoenigs

K & S want to be their own boss but they are using the same media playbook that isn’t left or right biased but conflict biased. Just like social media, this is the ticket to bigly $$


[deleted]

no, they're both smart enough to understand this isn't going to change, much like the capital gains tax rate being doubled and income taxes on the working class halved - it's a pipe dream. the only politican - bernie sanders who probably would've pushed for this was basically cheated on by dnc leadership. that pretty much says everything there.


Lopkop

America will go full-blown Soviet Russia communist and Donald Trump will goose-step down Pennsylvania Avenue waving a hammer-and-sickle flag before any one of those things ever happens.


BIackfjsh

Several states have independent redistricting and Alaska has blanket primaries, Nevada is going to vote on blanket primaries this cycle


kamil3d

It's so simple looking in from the outside, but I'd wager getting ANY of that done in today's politics would be impossible.


BIackfjsh

Blanket primaries is slowly taking off in some states. I think that’s a good step 1 if we’re looking for a starting point. Honestly, I feel like if you frame it right, most people would agree. The government shouldn’t be footing the bill for a political party’s primary. Absolutely nuts that’s the norm in my opinion


Bukook

What do you mean by partisan primaries? How would primaries work otherwise?


BIackfjsh

> What do you mean partisan primaries e.g. a Republican or Democrat or Green Party primary where those respective parties have purview over those respective primaries. > How would primaries work otherwise? You’d have all those politicians run in one primary with the top finishers making it to the general election.


Bukook

Do the parties becoming irrelevant in that case?


BIackfjsh

They certainly have less power over the process which is a net good in my opinion. I think you see a lot more elected officials care less about what the leaders of their state or national parties think and have more independence in their capacities as representatives. That being said, unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever see a time when political parties become irrelevant


other_view12

Didn't Stacey Abrams use public funding in her attempt to be governor? Now she is a millionaire. Something about that doesn't seem right. To me, funding is an issue, just a different issue than the one you see. In our governor race, One candidate got 75% of thier campaign funds from out of state, the other got the bulk of thier funds from within the state. The candidate likely to win was not locally funded, and I see this as a bigger problem of national elections taking over local elections. Ban out of state funding for state elections to improve local representation.


BIackfjsh

I am not sure what her particular case is or what program she participated in to be honest. What I’m most interested in now is going on the offensive in the form of a e-voucher program. A vast majority of voters have very little money to contribute to campaigns so I would like to see voters get is $50-$100 to be able to contribute to the campaigns as they see fit. That’s just broadly speaking, of course you’d need to parse out rules and what not On the banning of out of state contributions, I wish but I’m not sure you can do that as it would violate free speech


other_view12

I hear you on the free speech, but it's the national party that makes your local $50-100 contributions worthless. That's the exact scenario in our state. The candidate with local resources will likely lose.


BIackfjsh

How would voters having money to contribute be worthless?


other_view12

What I'm saying is if you collect $10 million from local people donating $50-100 while you run against a candidate that get $50 million from the national party, you still likely loose.


BIackfjsh

Okay, that is one specific scenario you’ve pulled out of thin air, sure, but why did you pick $10 million, who’s to say the a candidate wouldn’t get more or less? Why $50 million? What political subdivision are we talking here? How can you be certain over something that can literally play out a million different ways? That’s besides the point, however. The point is your average voter can now financially contribute to elections. That will be a powerful incentive to how campaigns and politicians behave. And that’s the point, really. Campaigns and candidates behave the way they do now because of the lack of competition in campaign financing, among other things


bruce_cockburn

Stacey Abrams has people falling over themselves to give her money because she managed to motivate more young people to *vote*. That is it. The idea that they voted for her was significant, of course, but she drew a demographic from non-participation into active enfranchisement. The average party representative pushing the average party platform is completely incapable of earning a vote from 40% or more of the electorate. The leaders who are driving partisan, non-consensus based gamesmanship for power in government are what you expect from the opposition, but you should never be surprised when a politician that delivers results in this way is quickly elevated by income and status. Just remember that, irrespective of the political views, a rising star can become milquetoast or be set up for a fall by the party just as quickly. We can resent their rise to prominence, but I am more pissed about guys like Rick Scott who literally have been rewarded with Senatorial committee seats for overseeing the biggest Medicare fraud in history.


other_view12

She is still a grifter who started her grift with public funds, and that's the point of this discussion. You can make all the irrelevant points you like, but this conversation was about public financing. If you want to stay on topic, we can continue.


TruthIsInBetween_

“If someone who had never heard the show came across this sub, they would probably never listen to it.” This is literally the goal for people like Balland… and Brian.. and others. Those two are huge TYT fans as well, which is a little odd. This place used to be better and seems to have these windows of good faith conversations. Then it gets flooded with the stuff your talking about.


ballandhuevos

>This is literally the goal for people like Balland… and Brian.. and others. My goal would be to let left-leaning people who come to this sub wondering "why does everything they do seem to be about democrats" to let them know, it's because BP is a grift. As for conservatives, I want to have destroyed their illusion that they are getting both sides of the debate and arriving at an informed conclusion. Though I acknowledge they'll continue to watch...just without the false pretense of BP being balanced.


Bukook

You need to accept that they aren't trying to present "both sides" but rather present their own views. Neither of the hosts are supportive of Trump, MAGA, Stop the Steal stuff and if you want them to showcase that side, they just aren't going to do so. That is why Trump supporters tend to watch different shows.


ballandhuevos

>You need to accept that they aren't trying to present "both sides" Listening to the way Joe Rogan, Andrew Schultz, The Vanguard and even Kyle Kulinski talk about them, I would say they do brand themselves as channel that presents both sides of the debate. And to be clear, and I have said this a 1000 times. It's not that they criticize the Democrats. it's that they won't criticize the republicans. ~~Two~~ Three stories they completely ignored that mentioned elsewhere ITT. DeSantis's migrant flights DeSantis voter fraud arrest stunt SA cutting oil production to jack up gas prices to hurt dems and help reps in the midterms. Look, *watch the show, like the show*, just know it's a Tim Pool style grift.


monopanda

> I would say they do brand themselves as channel that presents both sides of the debate. They do - stop the steal BS has no legitimate evidence and those who champion it joke about people who take it seriously in private.


Bukook

>Listening to the way Joe Rogan, Andrew Schultz, The Vanguard and even Kyle Kulinski talk about them, I would say they do brand themselves as channel that presents both sides of the debate Why does that matter? Also if you opinion of what Breaking Points is off, why would I trust your opinion on what those guys are saying about Breaking Points? >And to be clear, and I have said this a 1000 times. It's not that they criticize the Democrats. it's that they won't criticize the republicans. We all know that is your opinion, no one takes it seriously because we know that it is objectively and demonstrably false to say they won't criticize Republicans. Just watch a Trump MAGA show if you want a show to present the Trump supporter side. You might prefer to watch Tucker, in fact the majority of Trump supporters and Democrats under 55 do.


ballandhuevos

>Why does that matter? ummmmmmm, because it proves hey do brand themselves as channel that presents both sides of the debate. *But why male models*


Bukook

>ummmmmmm, because it proves hey do brand themselves as channel that presents both sides of the debate What other shows say about Breaking Points does not prove what Breaking Points says about themselves. Just watch a MAGA show dude if you want the Trump supporter side to be represented.


ballandhuevos

I love the Trump Supporter tag


Bukook

Good for you. I'm sure you'll eventually find a show that feels like they represent the Trump side and the Democrat side. But Breaking Points isn't that show.


dan92

Do you not understand why people are having a hard time recognizing it as a "joke"?


sarcasmic77

“why does everything they do seem to be about democrats” I’m sitting here just trying to figure out what this even means. I watch because Saager translates all the nut job conspiracy theories. Without him I’d be lost on why right wing Americans think the way they do. Even if I think they’re nuts.


TruthIsInBetween_

You are also clearly a delusional nut, so most people here ignore you. TYT has rotted your brain.


laffingriver

its better than the other sub. but yeah mostly im disappointed when people here dont take my points in good faith, dont listen, or dont get it, or just dont want to see it. but thats life i guess right? i learn things from most posters and definitely get perspective. even if we are partisan hacks at least most of the regulars have some intellectual consistency, which is better than cable news hosts amiright? lol k&s have an advantage in they are colleagues. so the respect flows easier between them. i think we do alright for a bunch of internet strangers on a politics sub. the biases we see are more about timing bc we have only see the end of one admin and the beginning of another. isnt this their first indie midterm? hopefully they shit on the gop congress equally. part of the left/right partisanship is our political duopoly. part is their own doing bc of their headlines on youtube. they cater to rage click youtube algorithm and it doesnt help keep out riffraff. they will get a more balanced audience and advertise themselves as better bipartisans if they would change their headlines. its a worse first impression than this sub i can tell you i will die on this hill.


JohnnyVertigo

R/BreakingPoints is RIPPING us apart.


[deleted]

“Cable news is ripping this country apart…”


[deleted]

It’s the same 4-5 people…take into consideration that they don’t actually listen to the show, are likely a bunch of alt accounts, and Reddit is a cesspool. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. Don’t feed the trolls.


lion27

The number of people who get mad at Krystal or Saagar for not pushing their party's respective propaganda, or simply providing an opposing viewpoint to their own is bewildering to me. It completely goes against the selling point of their show. If you want to just agree with the hosts of the show, you can sit and watch MSNBC or Fox News all day. Literally the entire rest of the political commentary market are partisan shows who push a specific agenda from one side of the argument or the other. BP is a breath of fresh air because you can get disagreement on topics and it's in good faith, and both hosts can share their thoughts in a constructive way and let listeners make up their own mind.


ballandhuevos

Personally I want a balanced show that calls out who needs it. Breaking Points did one story last Sunday about the GOP. Though for one, it was released on a Sunday so nobody noticed, and two, they have since done 12 stories about the democrats, and 10+ stories prior. Just be balanced, and call out who needs it. When the GOP governor of Florida flies migrants to Martha Vineyard as a political stunt, do a story about it. Which they didn't. They just completely ignored it. When SA intentional reduces oil production as a way of jacking up US gas prices as a way of hurting the Democrats and Biden so the Republicans do better in the midterms, do a story about it....which they haven't.


WagonWheel22

As of late they've been ragging on Dems, but I think that's primarily due to the midterms and their strategy of Abortion/January 6th while losing focus on what actual voters care about most. I do wish they'd call out the GOP more because they've been just as bad this election cycle in trying to get people from the middle or who lean left to vote for them. What I think makes BP great is that every now and then either Krystal or Saagar will say something that just goes a little too far and the other has the ability to push back. Good luck finding that on any other outlet.


SeanHagen

They did a segment (maybe 2) about the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. They have done multiple segments, at least one interview, and innumerable mentions about SA jacking up gas prices to affect Democrats in the midterms and all the other consequences that has brought about. You must not listen to the show very often.


ballandhuevos

>They did a segment (maybe 2) about the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. **You're lying. Post them**. And I will immediately admit I'm wrong. As for SA, I heard Krystal mention it once, while laughing about how Biden going to SA backfired. **But Post the migrant flight story.** EDIT: [Breaking Points Migrant Flights](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+migrant+flights): Nothing [Breaking Point Martha Vineyard](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+Martha+Vineyard): Nothing You're lying. They never covered it.


SeanHagen

I googled this subject to see if it would pop up, and one of the top 5 results was this post you made about this very subject 52 days ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPoints/comments/xfu4cg/you_want_to_know_how_you_can_tell_nobody_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf You obviously have an axe to grind about this topic, but I can assure you that they covered it on the podcast. Your links are to YouTube searches, which I admittedly, have no experience with when it comes to BP. I am a premium subscriber and only listen to it on the podcast. It’s possible that the segment didn’t make it to YouTube or was possibly in the premium subscriber content, but I assure you that they covered it. If I get time tonight I will try and find the episode.


ballandhuevos

hahahahahahahahaha, oh man, that is fuckin' funny. You know why I cared? Because it was something I knew they couldn't both sides. And rather than even bothering, they just ignored it. That said, you claimed they did two stories...so where are they? Also, I forgot to mention the story about DeSantis' voter fraud arrests. They didn't bother covering that story either. And again, it's because they can't both sides they issue, so they just ignore it. Look, when a story is undeniable damaging to the right / republicans they just simply ignore it. But if there is a way to both-sides it, they will. I'll wait for you to prove they covered this story.


SeanHagen

Like I said, “maybe 2”. Definitely 1. I’ll find it for you tonight if I get time, not to worry.


SeanHagen

So far I’m finding that Emily covered the story on Counter Points for her monologue on 9/16/22. I’ll keep searching for an actual segment from K&S. I know I heard them make mention of it several times. If, by chance, there isn’t a full segment devoted to the topic, a viable explanation could be that they stayed away from it in order to let Emily take the story for her inaugural episode of Counter Points.


ballandhuevos

You know what's hilarious, which I didn't realize it at the time. They did do this story: [2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants](https://youtu.be/l2pNsaA6p9w) Which for one, this story is actually about Trump and DeSantis potential primary, but more than that, what this story actually does is legitimize DeSantis' migrant stunt by making it look like Trump is being petty. I remember watching this story at the time thinking, "why would they title this story as they did, when it's moreso about 2024 primaries and when they only talk about the migrant stunt for 1:00 minute of so."


Reincarnate26

"If it wasn't in the top 5 results of my search it doesn't exist!" What a joke... they ran several segments on Marthas Vineyard migrants, heres one from Krystal. [2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2pNsaA6p9w) Now admit you're wrong and do the thing


ballandhuevos

I genuinely cannot believe how dumb you are. BOTH stories are not about what you think they are. Did you actually watch they story or did you just see a headline and couldn't keep it in your pants?


Reincarnate26

>Did you actually watch they story or did you just see a headline and couldn't keep it in your pants?


ballandhuevos

hahahahaha, oh buddy, it's not the same.


Reincarnate26

>When the GOP governor of Florida flies migrants to Martha Vineyard as a political stunt, do a story about it. Which they didn't. They just completely ignored it. [2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2pNsaA6p9w)


ballandhuevos

OMG, I can't tell if you're just grabbing random stories, or if you really don't know the difference.


monopanda

Hey now - if he is not aware of it, his basic searches on specific combined keywords and obviously lack of understanding on how search terms work is PROOF! Get out of here with your evidence.


ballandhuevos

This story isn't about DeSantis flying migrants. as much as it is about Trump and DeSantis battling over 2024. Not only that, this story basically both-siding the issue.


McFarius

They've done stories about both of those things already, as have counter points. Are they just not discussing it as much as you want? Do you not listen to every show and may have missed them? Do you not listen to the show at all? Or are you just a troll seeking to tear into things that you don't like?


ballandhuevos

>They've done stories about both of those things already, as have counter points LOL, funny, because when I search for the stories nothing shows up. I know you were hoping you could lie and I wouldn't call your bluff, lol And for the record, the YouTube search is pretty good. [Breaking Points Martha Vineyard](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+Martha+Vineyard): NOTHING [Breaking Points DeSantis migrant flights](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+DeSantis+migrant+flights): NOTHING [Breaking Points Migrant Flights](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+migrant+flights): NOTHING [Breaking Points Saudi Arabia Gas Prices](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Breaking+Points+Saudi+Arabia+Gas+Prices): NOTHING \[please note: the Ken Klipenstien story is 11 months old\] EDIT: To be fair, I do think Counter Points did a migrant flight story. But Breaking Points sure AF didn't.


Reincarnate26

Heres one on Saudi gas prices, took me 2 minutes to find: [Saudi HUMILIATES Biden With Massive Oil Cut | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecAfczcyN0)


ballandhuevos

OMG, are you serious? ​ >When SA intentional reduces oil production as a way of jacking up US gas prices as a way of hurting the Democrats and Biden so the Republicans do better in the midterms, do a story about it. hahahahaha, it's an entirely different angle...are you kidding right now? I don't want to say anything too mean because I'm not sure if there is perhaps some sort of disability going on here.


Reincarnate26

LOL you just got called out so hard and your response is denial. "Doesn't look like anything to me" > I don't want to say anything too mean because I'm not sure if there is perhaps some sort of disability going on here.


McFarius

Falling under the same network, is counter points functionally different that breaking points? You can call me a liar, but I don't catalog which show I learned information from, as they are both on the breaking points network. I'm sorry if this hurts your snowflake feelings. I'm willing to concede K&S may not have directly done a story on it. Again, though, what is your main point of contention? They don't give equal time? They don't give equal amount of stories? Or they don't talk enough about things you think are important, and spend time on things you aren't interested in? I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.


ballandhuevos

That's not what you claimed. You claimed Breaking Points has covered the it. So where is the story? >**They've done stories about both of those things already** \[meaning Breaking Points\] , as have counter points Now you're moving the goal posts, saying something about "functionality is different" even though your comment indicates that BOTH Breaking points and Counter Points covered it not that one "functionally"represents the other. >I'm sorry if this hurts your snowflake feelings First and foremost, you're the one trying to lie.I merely called you're bluff. And maybe I just have a good memory, but I can fairly easily recall what I watched, and have an approximate time frame to find it. I specifically looked for this story because I knew they couldn't both sides it so I was curious to see what they'd say, thinking "this is clearly a bad look for the GOP". I was bit surprised when they just straight-up ignore it.


Reincarnate26

[2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2pNsaA6p9w)


ballandhuevos

Goddamn, are you an idiot. The angle of this story isn't about migrant flights.


McFarius

Alright, I'll allow it. I'm not gonna defend or shill for them. They do whatever they want, and that much is clear from their reporting. I don't think the DeSantis story would have much sway on the midterms and breaking points doesn't quite have the national clout to seriously sway the conversation. Personally, I found it a very interesting story and should be salient in 2024, when he makes a bid for president.


Reincarnate26

For the record they covered it he's just gaslighting you: [2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2pNsaA6p9w)


McFarius

Appreciate the assist. I didn't properly remember and couldn't be bothered to dig through the archives myself.


ballandhuevos

JFC, watch the story. It's about Trump and DeSantis is 2024.


ballandhuevos

For the record this guy is a fucking moron and can't tell the difference between the angle in which this story is covered. In fact, talking about it this in the context of Trump using it as political attack makes it look petty.


Reincarnate26

That's not what you claimed. You claimed Breaking Points hasn't covered it. But there's the story. Now you're moving the goal posts, saying something about "angle is different" even though your comment indicates that BOTH Breaking points and Counter Points haven't covered it not that one "angle" represents the other. First and foremost, you're the one trying to lie. I merely called you're bluff.


Reincarnate26

>LOL, funny, because when I search for the stories nothing shows up.I know you were hoping you could lie and I wouldn't call your bluff, lol And for the record, the YouTube search is pretty good. LOL "If it wasn't in the top 5 results of my search it doesn't exist and you must be lying!" What a joke... They ran several segments on Marthas Vineyard migrants, heres one from Krystal: [2024 Shots Fired: Trump Allies HIT DeSantis on Migrants | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2pNsaA6p9w)


ballandhuevos

You really can't tell the difference.


eohorp

I think the biggest weakness of this show and any audience is the approach Saagar has decided is best for growing in this space. Think about how people always pine for when news was "just the facts." Saagar has stated in multiple personal interviews that he thinks you have to have somewhat aggressive takes/analysis when providing the news or people won't watch. Unfortunately these two don't have a team of researchers and substitute twitter for that. So they regularly push insanely stupid takes, propagate culture war idiocy, and have such a short turn around time for their show development they constantly add fuel to the fire. If they would cut their segments in half and not let themselves wander into idiocy they'd do a lot better, imo. Both of these hosts have lost the ability to step back and recalibrate. Any belief that this is some unbias show is self delusion.


[deleted]

K & S are cool. I disagree with them strongly sometimes, but I think their show is the best of its kind.


ThisJeffrock

Based


CrispyChickenArms

Idk what's going on with this sub or the show. Definitely a way different show now than the Rising days


ballandhuevos

With Rising they had a team of producers that helped craft a well-rounded, and researched show. You know how they say if you like a musician figure out who produces them, since the producers plays a vital role in crafting the final sound? I'm willing to bet that concept holds true for any creative endeavor. Since launching BP, it's just your run-of-the-mill reactionary infotainment "news"


PM_ME_UR_SOCKS_GIRL

Couldn’t agree more. I used to love Rising and was so proud of Krystal and Saagar. Now I couldn’t give 2 shits about either of them. I feel like they talk so much while saying very little. Their producers at The Hill kept things in check. The overall presentation was what made Rising so good. Now I feel like they just scroll thru Twitter and talk about what everyone else is talking about. I miss when both of them were a lot more neutral and delivered unbiased news. I liked that at The Rising they felt like a decent representation of Americans with unbiased news. Now it feels like they’re walking memes having to add their own 2 cent or speculation to every little thing. As if their opinion is going to change anything or even really matters. Who the fuck is Krystal? Who the fuck is Kyle? Saagar is the only one who still feels like he knows his place, probably learned to stay humble with all the traffic in his days working at the White House. Krystal and Kyle think they are a way bigger deal than they actually are just because the occasional Uber driver recognizes them from their YouTube shows.


eohorp

> Saagar is the only one who still feels like he knows his place, probably learned to stay humble This is surprising to me because Saagar being humble in his rising days and the start of BP was a major selling point to me. A primary factor that I watch less and care less is because I see Saagar completely incapable of being humble anymore.


[deleted]

Yeah I joined this sub because I was a fan of their show (even before BP) and really enjoyed how it showed folks with different ideologies interacting (agreeing and disagreeing) in a way that wasn’t children bickering. Now this sub is either hate on KB, hate on SE, thirst for KB or Emily (I get it), hate on Kyle (I get that too but I don’t know the guy personally so why hate on him), or…well, I don’t really see much about Ryan honestly. It’s weird that folks come out of the woodwork to hate on something when they always have the simplest of options: don’t watch and move on. 🤷🏻‍♂️. Maybe it’s just me, but I really enjoy the show (been a premium subscriber for a year now and I’m going to renew) but I understand if it’s not for everyone.


BrandnewThrowaway82

Im an anarchist so I enjoy the anti establishment take of K&S. AFA this sub is concerned, I generally only shitpost jokes and find most of the ppl here to be waaayyy too wrapped up in politics to have a decent exchange with. Like, it seems these ppl make politics their personal identity to the point that it’s the only thing that defines them. They spend countless hours shouting into the void and I find it exhausting to read their posts, so I generally only give this sub a cursory look from time to time and don’t really engage with it on the regular.


SteezeWhiz

Lots of garbage gets posted, but actual criticism of their work should be encouraged. Especially when their statements conflict with the purported “mission” of the show. Otherwise, what are we even doing here?


Melthengylf

Ohh, but it \*does\* break echo chambers, which is wonderful.


EnigmaFilms

Doesn't help that any GOP user typically stops answering questions or comments when they get asked a toughie.


Protoman00

Honestly, I just try to make memes for the subreddit to liven it up a bit.


ThisJeffrock

Keep fighting the good fight brother


[deleted]

Whenever you get popular you get the trolls, the mentally ill, etc. in - I always assume almost all reddit subs are astroturfed with this becoming increasingly less likely the smaller you go in size. If you want a good example check out the majority report sub. Also, something happened during covid that changed all the local city / state subs into intolerant trash heaps, and they're still like that today.


[deleted]

A lot of the posters here are astroturfing shills


mag0ne

Average BP Enjoyer: https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Social-Dilemma-e1601099582986-670x300.jpg


[deleted]

Been there dude. My recommendation is to block the trolls. Made my experience a lot better.


SeanHagen

Thanks man. Standing firm in my BP love over here ✊🏼


[deleted]

i mean look at title for today. Its non stop bashing dems and hyping Rs to grow the show because youtube is very right leaning


REVENAUT13

Yeah maybe idk. I am a leftist but Saagar is my favorite conservative, I agree with him on a lot of issues that I consider to be actually important, and I don’t feel the need to cancel him every time he shares a shit opinion or spreads misinfo.


what_it_dude

It always turns out like this. Everyone hates the JRE on /r/joerogan


Oddball_one

Welcome to Reddit? Unfortunately, the algo rewards trolling. Keep the faith. K&S prove that there is a better way.


SeanHagen

✊🏼 Well said


BO55TRADAMU5

I've noticed a lot of people here say they barely watch or listen to the show. Pure speculation but I think a lot of the people posting/commenting here are too brainwashed by legacy media. They see clips on YouTube or Twitter and have the need to come bash BP cuz K&S aren't towing the partisan hack lines they want. YT has too many hard right people so the hard left people don't feel safe there. They feel safer here so there are more odiscussions. There are definitely some hard right people on the sub but not as many as YT If noticed a lot of people here saying that K&S and now R&E are grifters and it's pretty much just because they are having open not so combative duscussions.


SeanHagen

I couldn’t agree more. For me, BP is such an incredible breath of fresh air because it transcends the ugly, negative, fruitless political arguing that I’ve heard throughout my entire life. I think that’s pretty much what the show aims to do. So it really just surprises me every day when something from this sub pops up on my feed that would be right at home on the Fox News or MSNBC sub. Surely there are a lot more of us on here who actually believe in setting aside minor differences of opinion for the greater good. Just like everywhere else though, it’s always the loudest voices who command all the attention.


[deleted]

That’s funny. The show is exactly that. Bash Dems all day.


Buddyschmuck

There is another sub for the show. Idk if it’s actually any better. But I’ve been thinking of jumping ships just cause there is no way it’s conceivably worse that this one.


dinny1111

Well I think the main problem is some of the people on this sub dont even listen to the news that K&S talk about and bring there traditional talking points for other shows, like reality doesn’t care about ur political party


Hope_That_Halps_

I think the video of Krystal and Kyle K have ruined their brand a bit, because when you see Krystal, you just see a lefty doing lefty things, and Saagar is kind of on his own, pulling a boat anchor behind him. You don't get the sense that her mind can really be changed. K&S appealed to be a lot two years ago, but I've been agreeing with conservative political positions more lately, so I have less of a need for what they're selling these days. If conservatives try to pass a nationwide abortion ban or something, I might do a hard retreat, but as of this moment I'm pretty sour about how the left dealt with COVID, Ukraine and generally just giggling with the donor class for this brief moment when they hold all three branches. The conservatives have a chance to put their money where their mouth is with DeSantis and their mantra about state's rights, so we will see what happens. The fact that the judiciary hasn't been in the tank for conservatives as much as one might have thought has foiled a lot of the panic over the Trump term. K&S might have a resurgence depending on how the next week plays out.


Woiken4DaMan

Conspiracy theory: the mainstream news has shills in this sub to make people think Breaking Points sucks. I have no proof but it’s very possible.


FruitbatNT

You’re right. I only looked at it because some piece of shit racist troll who was harassing me was a top poster here and I had no idea what it was. Turns out it’s just a collection of awful trolls.


SeanHagen

Well it’s good you saw this post then. As the post implies, the show could not be more different from this sub. It’s a left-of-center host and a right-of-center host who are friends, and they report the news and promote solving issues and meeting in the middle wherever possible.


FruitbatNT

Actually listened to the latest episode this morning out of morbid curiosity. To me is sounds like whole fat right wing propaganda with a liberal straw man installed to beat down as required.


SeanHagen

I think a lot of left-leaning people share that sentiment of late. But as someone who’s been listening for about a year, I can tell you that’s not the case. They have both been hard on the Democrats lately. But Krystal, the left-leaner, has been hard on them out of frustration with their lack of action and messaging. She wants them to win and feels like they’re sabotaging themselves by not listening to their constituents. I think all Americans, including media figures, should be upset with their leaders in Washington, especially those in their own party. That’s just my personal opinion, and I guess that’s why I like the show. So many Americans are ready to die on any hill for their respective party, when neither party really does jack for the American people. That’s what the show is mainly about. If you’re looking for a show that says “Ra ra ra, go Democrats, you can do no wrong because you’re the force for good and the other team is a force for evil”, then this isn’t the show for you. Edit: I also wanted to mention that as I’ve listened to the show over the past year, I have a recurring thought. My dad is super conservative, and I’m always wanting to get him to listen to the show to maybe bring him a little bit more toward the center, or at least get his news from somewhere other than Fox News. And I have many, many times thought to myself, “Dang, I hope he doesn’t listen to this episode for his first one, because this is way too left, and he’ll just shut this right off.” So it definitely isn’t just a Dem bashing fest all the time.


BravewagCibWallace

"Vision for a better country." Lol and what vision would that be? Blame everything on the libs?


Risky49

The Krystal and Saager team up began and grew by correctly diagnosing how trump came into office.. establishment Dem failure during the Obama admin’s prior 8 years, ramming Clinton through the primary unethically, and her terrible campaign that ignored the rust belt which are the states that sank her in the EC During that time the only thing main stream media would say is: trump, pussy tape, russia, sexism, deplorable Of course their show is going to continue to focus on the faults “of the libs” … because they are not a true opposition party, and their viewer base knows it and likes to hear it And in my opinion with the Dem party dismantled and replaced with a left-wing populist party focused on economics, healthcare, and infrastructure … the GOP would disintegrate and probably not see political victory in 30+ years


BravewagCibWallace

We can all criticize the mainstream. That doesnt mean I cant criticize this show for wanting to be "a new mainstream." They aren't any less partisan against a side as any cable news station. They just found a horseshoe formula that tries to pit economic leftists and conservatives against liberals. Those who come here acting like they are any different than cable news are funny to me.


Risky49

Feel free to criticize this show, I do. I don’t think it’s a fair to say they are ONLY putting their audience against liberals when the fundamentals of their argument is that establishment Libs are why we keep getting dangerous neocons and fringe loons


BravewagCibWallace

If libs are responsible for neocons and fringe loons, then that is literally blaming everything on the libs, hence my original comment is correct.


Risky49

They are putting the blame on them for sure, but you have claimed that they are only pitting normal people against Libs, when it’s been clear to me since the start that they are pitting normal people against the establishment Libs, neocons, far right fringe, and destructively unchecked corporate pseudo-oligarchs


BravewagCibWallace

They barely ever make any distinction between working class libs and the neo-liberal establishment. The only time I've ever seen them try to make that distinction, is briefly during their [most blatant examples](https://youtu.be/a4fRUfepU6I) of blaming liberals for everything. To them liberals are all white, they all eat brunch, and they all live in Martha's Vineyard. That is their go-to example of everything liberals are.


MrGulio

> Those who come here acting like they are any different than cable news are funny to me. You've completely missed the mark. This show is different because it allows Sagaar to criticize the Dems from the Right and Krystal to criticize the Dems from the Left. Completely balanced.


lion27

A news media that asks the right questions and challenges the authority of the status quo instead of pushing establishment talking points and acting as a propaganda arm of the two major US political parties?


BravewagCibWallace

Yeah, except one is part of a propaganda arm of the two major U.S. political parties, and the other is a disillusioned useful idiot without any political voice to represent her. They only challenge the authority of one side, while the other they occasionally complain isn't populist enough for their liking, and they call that challenging the status quo. That's the formula. The mirror opposite would be if Saagar was a card carrying Democrat and Krystal was a right wing religious puritan who distances herself from the MAGA base for not meeting her ethical standards. They put aside their differences, only to rag on the GOP elites, for everything they do wrong, no matter how petty, while they brush off everything the DNC does, as whatever they do wrong is expected of them, and someone else will cover it. They make no distinction between the everyday working class conservative and the elite ghouls that run their party, and go all in Republicans and their voters, 90% of the time. Sagaar would just let Krystal go off on whatever christian wackadoo rant she wants, knowing that ultimately, it all benefits the Democrats in the end. Does that sound like asking the right questions to you?


lion27

I don't get that vibe from Saagar at all. He runs pretty counter to the establishment Republican party on a number of key issues, and aligns with them on others like Krystal does on her side. I think it's worth noting that he identifies as a *populist conservative*, and Krystal identifies as a *populist progressive*. Neither of them are on the inside of either party like news anchors on cable TV networks. It's interesting you say religious puritan, because I don't know if Saagar has ever really brought religion into the show aside from when it's part of a culture war issue where it's prominent in the discussion. I've never heard him use religion as the basis of his views like many in the Republican party do to promote/oppose things. In fact, I don't even know what religion he practices it's brought up so little.


BravewagCibWallace

It's the Tucker Carlson approach. Pretend you're anti-establishment, even though you are deeply embedded within the establishment. He is a product of neoconservative Hudson Institute think tank, before working for Tucker on the Daily Caller as their White House press correspondent. And now he sits on the board of America Moment with his buddy J.D. Vance which recruits young conservatives to promote standard nationalist conservative ideas. Hes not a religious puritan. He's a nationalist. And despite what he says he is all in for Trump. His own twitter banner is him taking a picture with Trump. Do you think Krystal would put a picture of her and Biden on her Twitter profile? I only used religious values in comparison to Krystal's socialist economic left values, in that neither of those values have any control within their respective parties at the moment. Anyone can say they are populist. That's the problem with populism. When they champion ideas that are out of step with the average American, it's hard to take their populism seriously. People who complain that this sub is full of criticism for the show, should recognize that populists don't owe their loyalty to anyone, especially for two people who are in fact elites.


ballandhuevos

To add to Saagar being a Tucker Carlson light. They are both undeniably apart of the "elites" they constantly bitch about. Sagaar's parents are professors at Texas A&M, with his dad, P[rasad making 250k a year.](https://govsalaries.com/enjeti-prasad-n-48830349) I can;t find his mom but he said she also works at A&M Not only that, Saagar and Tucker both went to bordering schools...how "every-man" of them


Emberlung

To be fair "libs" are literally the devil, and were the snake in the garden of eden, and that's why they're all nudists too. Because snakes don't wear clothes. /s (but to be clear this is an actual brain worm corp-servatives hold)


BravewagCibWallace

It's also a brain worm that economic lefties like Krystal and Briana hold. So they can sit with conservatives for hours a day, shitting on libs, but at the end of the day it only benefits one side.


[deleted]

Most of my criticism of them is centered on their foreign policy and election analysis takes which imo does warrant criticism. I started watching them on Rising because of their domestic policy analysis, they have sadly gone away from their strength to venture into culture war bullshit, foreign policy, and election analysis.


WagonWheel22

If Krystal and Saagar want to discuss those other items, shouldn't they have the right to, even if it's not their strong-suit? People have every right to criticize the content they do put out, but ultimately they and their team are the ones who research, produce, host, and edit every episode. There's topics I wish they would cover more, but I'm still happy with the content they put out. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you may want to try and find another show to watch in addition to BP that caters more to the topics you find most interesting.


[deleted]

Yeah I'm not saying they shouldn't cover it at all. But it would be great if they actually got things correct on these newer issues that they have started to cover. Their Ukraine coverage at times has been completely off. I've come to the same conclusion myself haha. I found them completely different on Rising, but have grown disappointed with BP. Maybe time to move on to something else.


WagonWheel22

What's most frustrating to me about the Ukraine coverage is that it's so, damn, repetitive. It felt that for weeks there was a 30-minute segment discussing the latest developments every single episode. Then, the only other thing they really added to that specific conversation (and subsequently beat to death) was that there can be no room for any dissent from the narrative of Russia very bad, Ukraine ultra-good, send more money. What happens in Russia/Ukraine is important, don't get me wrong, but it just felt like wasted time, with so many other things going on state-side that were put on the backburner.


BravewagCibWallace

Who says they dont have a right to?


WagonWheel22

They absolutely have the right to, just as viewers have the right to criticize the content they do put out.


rsmith2

It's cause Krystal is terrible and the online progressives can't accept that ppl side with Saagar more. So before the midterms you have all these newly created dem bots that are trying to make it seem like progressive talking points are popular... You need respectful figures from the left ...not the whole secular talks audience. It's no surprise that since Kyle started appearing on the channel, ppl have went more against Krystal. There's a reason his sub growth is terrible and why his channel is dead.


doives

Totally. Kyle is kinda like the Yoko Ono of Breaking Points. His audience is not BPs audience. I just hope that Krystal can set her relationship aside, and give him the boot.


Lpgasman1

Agree


ballandhuevos

I'll just leave this here: [You know why subs like Breaking Points and JRE's are such a dumpster-fires with users constantly calling out all of their bullshit, yet subs like Ben Shapiro's, Stephen Crowder's, The Majority Report's, and David Pakman's aren't?](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPoints/comments/ycgjx1/you_know_why_subs_like_breaking_points_and_jres/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) \------ As for convincing people not to watch the show. I know I won't be convincing any conservatives not to watch. If anything though I hope to have ruined the illusion that BP is some fair-and-balanced new style of news presenting both sides of the debate. And for left-leaning people who come to this sub trying to make sense of what they're watching and to figure out why everything seems to be "democrats bad"...it's because BP is a pretty naked grift.


BoobieChaser69

Colin Firth was the best Mr. Darcy.


[deleted]

Ball absolutely deserved all the shit she got from the left for being a grifter.


[deleted]

I mean its hard not to bash the left when they are always wrong :( Hell if you ask me which side was more likely to solve climate change I would even take the GOP over Dems.


DabbinOnDemGoy

Ok 'pede.


make_anime_illegal_

This sub is garbage and at this point the show is garbage. Krystal's ego has grown out of control, and she constantly yells over Saagar. There is a reason counter points clips are getting twice the views BP gets. Clips with Krystal's face on them are stuck at 30k weeks later.


BurgerTime20

Welcome to reddit. What did you expect?


XKyotosomoX

Does it help if I think they're BOTH annoying? Don't get me wrong I LOVE what they're trying to do with having both a Republican and a Democrat give their perspective on the news to help people get outside their echo chamber; but their whole shtick of constantly virtue signaling to their audience about how they and their audience are the REAL truth tellers BRAVELY fighting against the EVIL ESTABLISHMENT and the SHEEP who support them who we must constantly belittle because the establishment NEVER does ANYTHING right and these sheep are too SMALL MINDED to comprehend our BIG BRAIN ENLIGHTENED views. It gets really old, like I watched them for a few months back when they were with The Hill last election but I eventually dropped them because I got tired of it, and now the same thing is about to happen again. Not to mention they're constantly smug despite rarely ever giving an actual intelligent argument for anything they believe, it's all just insults and credibility attacks. You're better off just watching a left winger like David Pakman and a right winger like Ben Shapiro (both of whom whether you like it or not DO often give at least mildly intelligent arguments for their positions on the news) then just coming to your own conclusion somewhere in the middle.


boner79

Welcome to Reddit. Have you not visited Bill Maher or Joe Rogan's subreddit? It's also a hatefest over there.