I've been with you since Rising and followed you to "Breaking Points" because I appreciate a wide-audience news show that breaks through Establishment narratives. As independent media, how do you decide when to label particular people, ideas, or movements as "fringe" (or, more colloquially dismissive, "out there" or "crazy" or "outside the pale")? How do you determine which individuals can be called trivializing labels such as "dude" and which individuals are "quality candidates" worthy of basically respectful labels? I think this is an important question because you ask your audiences to accept progressive figures, such as Nina Turner, without having to justify why they are not fringe/extreme. Your language choices seem to treat conservative populists, religious people, and their Northern/Midwestern perspectives you don't naturally empathize with quite differently. I respect you both and always consider the perspectives you bring. I hope you will read my perspective that not every rural Midwestern conservative is an inarticulate hayseed who slavishly adheres to Donald Trump and wants "Stop the Steal" instead of real concerns over constitutional issues of ballot integrity and how our governments treated us and our local businesses during COVID. Ultimately, that is what will decide many parts of Pennsylvania and similar states.
Marshall interviewed Michael Shellenberger about nuclear energy back in March. Saagar has been talking about nuclear energy more and more lately Saagar referred to Shellenberger's book San Fransicko in a recent discussion on drug policy Shellenberger is running as an independent against Gavin Newsome for CA governer. This story has Breaking Points written all over it! -Shellenberger is respected by the hosts - nuclear energy - third parties and open primaries - Gavin Newsome is a tool. I hope you can get him on the show before the primary!!