Ask Me Anything

with Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar (Premium)

Ask a question

Alex Jones

I would love to hear you two weigh in on the 45+ million dollar verdict that was found in the Sandy Hook defamation suit against Alex Jones. How that verdict may influence partisan politics and the overall way in which "truth" and "facts" are treated by different facets of the media. I'd also love to hear any of your predictions on how the trove of documents accidentally released by Jones' lawyer may percolate into the January 6 committee.

JD Vance Opinions

Please comment on what appears to be a total scam by JD Vance in Ohio to start an opioid addiction non-profit. His "Our Ohio Renewal" seems to have taken the money, paid administrators, and done little else. Krystal commented that she thinks Vance may still win, but I don't see this happening, speaking as a Cleveland, Ohio resident. Trump won Ohio by carrying the Mahoning Valley, the district in which Tim Ryan represents and remains popular. Vance will not win this area. Also, given Vance's stances on abortion and weird comments on masturbation, contraception, and women staying in abusive relationships, I don't expect him to pull many independents. I would love to hear your opinions. Sorry, Saagar, I know he is your friend.

How did you meet?

First, thank you both for your nuanced and honest thoughts on difficult issues. You both make me think and rethink topics almost every day. Second, and you may have addressed this before, but I’m curious: how did you two meet?

News Reporting vs Subjective Commentary

I've been an avid listener/viewer since Rising; however, Breaking Points now seems to be mostly commentary on aggregated independent content rather than objective reporting of the news. I don't know what your long-term vision for the show is, but do you plan to address any of the following? 1. Segregating the news from the commentary (more of 'what happened' rather than 'how I feel about it'). 2. Too much time is spent on polls conducted by other sources. 3. Too much time spent on the minutiae of U.S. political races and subjectively extrapolating their impact. What about fomenting a better understanding of the domestic politics of other influential countries? 4. Provide sources so the audience can fact-check you or investigate further. 5. Breaking Points needs its own novel reporting to distinguish it from the multitude of other news aggregation/commentary shows. 6. Too much time spent on reveling in the demise of legacy news outlets (CNN, Fox, etc.). Focus on realizing YOUR vision; as a subscriber, that's why I'm here. 7. Your description of events is often hyperbolic, which obfuscates the actual facts of the stories. For instance, it should be possible to convey details of events related to Trump without making your seemingly personal disdain for him known. That restraint should apply for any controversial person (left, right or other) you report on. 8. Three live shows a week does not seem adequate for a news program called, "Breaking Points." With less personal commentary, would five days (M-F) be feasible?

From a "Boomer Brain"

With almost thirty years of perspective ... The Internet, its impact on society ... net positive, or net negative? Given our age difference, I suspect we will not agree. M. Read, Portland, OR