The idea that war leads to an increase in domestic violence is something that might sound like a good explanation however it is nonsense. None of these mass violent attacks have been perpetrated by veterans or more specifically combat veterans. I can speak from experience when an individual is exposed to violence even a military member they are more likely to embrace a pacifist ideology than more violence. You referenced post Vietnam as an example of military supporting violence domestically however the only mass violent event in the 1970s I can think of that even remotely has a connection to the military would be the Kent St shooting. The perpetrators of that tragedy were national guardsmen who had joined in an attempt to avoid Vietnam. You mentioned that the Oklahoma City bombing was in the aftermath of Desert Storm however you fail to mention that Timothy McVeigh directly credits the federal government’s atrocities at Ruby Ridge and Waco as motivation for his bombing. Nothing about Iraq there. Further you nonchalantly dismiss the idea that video games are responsible. I would recommend you read ‘On Killing’ by Dave Grossman. In it he explains, and I agree, that first-person shooter video games that provide the user essentially a dopamine hit when they have the following happen: reticule, target, fire/trigger pull, target falls. That is how we train in the military and I do not think it is good for adolescents to expose themselves to that combination in excess. Lastly, you cannot point to a single mass violent event in the last 20 years that military members are responsible for but suggest that we are the reason for this. My military service brought me closer to every race of people in the United States and I would venture to say that is the case for many other veterans. I was not exposed to white nationalist ideology in 13 years in the marine corps so I find it very disrespectful and disappointing that breaking points would propagate this nonsense. I have been a premium subscriber since day one and this is the closest I’ve come to consider canceling this because it’s so intellectually dishonest. Very disappointed in the program right now.
How long is the AMA backlog? I've been asking since March, what is your opinion on Molten Salt Reactors (particularly LFTRs - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors)? Every time I hear you mention nuclear energy I cringe because that generic term generally supports building more of the same light water reactors we already have. That technology has not significantly changed since they were invented in the 1950’s, so regardless of redundancy improvements they are still inherently capable of blowing up, melting down, or theft of fuel to make dirty bombs. Also, reactor technology in the US still relies on enriched uranium, which is minimally efficient and has a generally unreliable geopolitical supply chain for sources outside of the US. LFTRs have none of those problems. This is the third or fourth time I have asked (I feel compelled after every episode you make a significant mention about nuclear power). YOU ARE BREAKING POINTS, why won't you cover THORIUM nuclear power? At this rate I half expect the MSM to cover this topic before y'all are even aware of this technology...
Thanks to your show, I've become acutely aware of how rigged the system is and how the incentives are stacked against even "good" politicians that get elected into office. How do you maintain enough optimism to continue to participate in electoral politics without just opting out entirely like so many voters do?
Are you interested in hosting substantive debates on your show or as a spin off that would have individuals from opposing sides of an issue or policy engaging in good faith debate? Perhaps even with an engagement option for your subscribers that would allow them to send in questions or comments to add to the discussion. Your format is so refreshing, especially when you constructively discuss opposing viewpoints, and seems like a great platform to advance conversations and dig deep into policy issues, especially with a goal towards having the opposing sides find areas of consensus that could actually advance policies or solutions.