Lovett or Leave It - Delay on? On delay.

Episode Date: July 1, 2017

Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado joins Jon to talk about the health care fight and a positive vision for Democrats, and to quiz the audience on a special mile-high topic. Plus comedian and writer Travon Free and Atlantic reporter Julia Ioffe help break down the week's news. Recorded live at the Belly Up comedy club in Aspen, Colorado.

Thank you guys for coming out. We have an awesome panel for you today. She is a staff writer at The Atlantic where she covers politics and world affairs. Julia Yaffe, friend of the pod. Thank you for coming. He is an Emmy and Peabody winning writer for The Daily Show and a writer for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, my friend Trayvon Freak. Thank you for coming. Let's

get into it, guys. What a week. This week saw an incredible display on the healthcare front. I think we went into this week believing that there was a solid chance that the Republicans would pass through the Senate a healthcare bill that was largely written in secret, that wasn't fully appreciated by the American people, that never went through any committee process, and that it would sail over to the House and immediately be passed. And there was this open question as to what would happen. Well, what happened was there was an incredible outpouring of activism. The bill was panned by experts, by the critics. Definitely didn't get a terrible Rotten Tomatoes score, the Senate health care bill.

And then on Monday, the CBO released a score that said 22 million would lose insurance by 2026. By Tuesday, too many Republicans had walked away. Not just conservatives who said the bill didn't go far enough to repeal Obamacare, but several of the more moderate members of the caucus who said they couldn't support it. And now a super PAC called America First launched an ad campaign against Dean Heller in Nevada for saying he was against it. And then all the Republicans in the Senate got super pissed and those ads got pulled. So it's really a tight ship they're running over there. So it's really a tight ship they're running over there.

Now, Mitch McConnell pulled the bill, and he basically said, I am going to, over the second half of this week, the week we're in right now, frantically rewrite the bill, submit it to the CBO again so that one week from now they can vote on it all over again. Mitch McConnell, widely credited, recognized, I think rightly as a strategist, as someone who understands how to make the Senate work. We always have this sense that he's one step ahead. He's made some incredibly shrewd and I would say despicable moves that have been effective, which included getting Neil Gorsuch a place on the Supreme Court. Do we think he's got a handle on this or has the horse run out of the barn? What do you think? or has the horse run out of the barn? What do you think? I don't think we know yet.

I don't know. It's always too early to discount McConnell, I think. Also, I think one thing you didn't mention that I think is notable, right, is that the Republicans are also hammering their hand-picked head of the CBO, the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and saying, like, you sure you got that score right? Can we just redo that?

You forgot to carry a wand. Well, they also they've been undermining him like crazy, attacking his integrity, suggesting that he's a shill. And so today they just released a revised score saying actually the bill would save a lot of money. They did? Yeah.

Well, I saw that they released a score that said that even more people would lose insurance in the out years. But it also says that the bill would save more money than they originally thought. Weirdly, the two go together. That's weird. That's weird how we all pay for the health care and either you get it or you don't. Trayvon, you've been sort of paying attention to this.

And one thing we talked about before we came out is the effect that this would have on the opioid crisis and sort of a quiet and rising threat that that trump country is facing on a daily basis i mean it's amazing that there are people who 91 people a day are dying from opioid overdose 91 people and heavily in states that voted for Trump. And he's radio silent for the most part on this thing happening. And what I find most amazing is these people continue to support the people who are killing them. The people who are like, yeah, like, whatever, die of your overdose.

The saddest part to me is that there are people who don't realize who's hurting them. The saddest part to me is that there are people who don't realize who's hurting them. And you continue to give power to the people who don't give a shit about you. That's the story of the modern Republican Party. Thank you. That's it. That's the point. That's the story of the modern Republican Party is encouraging people to vote against their economic interest, dressing up what is essentially just tax cuts. Like they're only really, it seems to me, to me, that the only

ideology driving this party is tax cuts, come what may. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. That is definitely true at the federal level. But then, of course, governors like Kasich and Sandoval, Republican leaders at the local level, they see the impact of this. I mean, one of the things that was most surprising to me about the way this bill evolved, and it's actually one of the interesting things that may come next, is how wedded they were to eliminating the tax increases

that were part of Obamacare. Those weren't there by accident. They were there because in order for this thing to pay for itself, you needed to raise rent of it. It was a carefully calibrated bill. And if you're somebody that believes in making the federal government smaller and shifting responsibilities to the states,

why on earth would you craft a bill where the harm of benefit cuts are incredibly diffuse? There are Medicaid cuts that will be felt by tens of millions of Americans, but the benefits of benefit cuts are incredibly diffuse right there medicaid cuts that will be felt by tens of millions of americans but the benefits the benefits of the bill at the savings at the federal level go to like you know 400 families is enough to pay for 750 000 people as as uh as people have been noting then you send this bill to the states to make up the gap and they're like well you my people didn't get a tax cut for this they didn't get a benefit for this shifting to state you just stuck us with a bill,

which is no wonder why so many governors of both parties came out against it. So all that's a way of saying that for the first time this week, they look like they may start to peel back on some of the taxes in Obamacare and not cut them to use money to kind of create a pot of money

to sort of buy off some more moderate members. And I guess the question is, do you think that some of these people can be bought off? Capito in West Virginia, the state that's been most hard hit, that's a state that both relies on Medicaid for roughly 30% of West Virginians have Medicaid, but at the same time has a massive opioid epidemic. And there's a question as to whether or not she'll cave

because she'll be bought off with some fund that provides opioid help in her state. That's just, it's just such a weird approach, right? If you're saying this, you know, as the president often says, that Obamacare is so messed up and it's a disaster and it's collapsing and imploding and exploding at the same time, but then you're going to just plug the dike in certain places and give this senator that, like, it just, then it goes to the question of motive. What's the point? What are you trying to do with this law?

Just to do something, right? They feel as though they need to do something. There's a sort of do something, anything will do caucus, led by like the Hugh Hewitts of the world, who have said that if you don't pass something, that you'll have failed and we'll vilify you forever. It really feels like for eight years, seven years, they were railing against

Obamacare. Obamacare is the worst thing that ever happened to America. And then, I don't think they really thought they were going to win the presidency and then they did, and they were like, holy shit, we got to come up with a plan. And you scrambled and do your paper at the last minute, and you're like, this is our bill. And they were like, holy shit, we got to come up with a plan. And you scramble and do your paper at the last minute and you're like, this is our bill. And they're like, oh, 23 million people

are going to lose health care. And they're like, oh, we'll figure it out. Yeah, it does feel like they crammed because it also feels like they cribbed off of Obamacare. Yeah. One of the most surprising things of this entire process is why does this, it's a terrible bill. It's a terrible bill.

But it does have like it looks like somebody started with obamacare and started going through with the black line it's what uh this is what republicans were worried about quite vocally uh back in 2009 2010 when obamacare was being hammered out and passed right that this is passed, once Obamacare goes into effect, once it starts getting into the system and people start getting used to having a certain amount of, a certain minimum of health care at a certain price, it's going to be very hard to take it away.

And that's what they're realizing now. And this is why people like Rand Paul and the super conservatives in the Republican Party are bucking McConnell's leadership on this. They're saying, no, no, no, no, no. We wanted to repeal this whole thing. Not like adjust it here, adjust it there. This whole thing doesn't jive with our ideas of what a government does and doesn't do.

And at least that's – That's at least intellectually honest. It's coherent, right? They do not believe the federal government should play this role and they don't understand why after so many years of railing against this government takeover what they do is reduce the subsidies make some medicaid cuts get rid of a couple of regulations and then pass a tax cut like they don't understand why you do this because it's purely it is purely negative consequences while leaving the government

role in health care intact but do you You know how you know that they knew Obamacare wasn't as shitty as they said it was? Remember that one day when they were writing the House bill where people found out that they were keeping all the cool parts of Obamacare for themselves and then shitting on it and cutting everybody else's

shit and they completely scrapped it when everybody found out. That's how you knew that they knew there's some really good stuff in here but we've been shitting on this thing for so long we have to do something that's right no that's right and the um it's not as though look also can i just say uh we're shitting all over republicans for coming after this democrats have not done a stellar job in selling this bill. I mean, even to their own fellow Democrats, right after the fact that it took the 2016 election for the popularity of Obamacare to flip,

that people only started being for it when it was being tugged out of their hands is crazy. And a poll that came out right after the election that more Democrats didn't know the Affordable Care Act equals Obamacare than Republicans and that the Obama administration didn't do a good enough job selling this, didn't

do a good enough job selling it to moderates and conservatives for things like, for example I was on Obamacare for many years it was fucking awesome and the reason it was awesome is because it allowed me to be a freelancer and therefore maximize my earnings while doing only the projects that I was most passionate about. I did not have to be stapled to a job to make sure that I could get, you know, antibiotics if I got bronchitis or something.

And the fact that this was not the idea of labor mobility, that the idea that why the hell in 20, you know, in the 21st century, healthcare only comes with a job when most people don't stay in one job for very long at all. And how disruptive that is, even if you only have healthcare from a job, how disruptive it is when people switch jobs, especially in our generation, every two, three, four, five years. How come that wasn't sold by the Obama administration? Honestly, I'm taking that as a personal insult. I just hope that Donald Trump doesn't find out

that Obamacare helps freelance journalists. I think it'll only make it more committed. But no, to your point, I do think that Democrats struggle to make a case for the Affordable Care Act. I think one thing that's been hard to suss out, though, is for a long time Obamacare unpopularity has been seen as a purely partisan issue, but I think there was always a sizable chunk of the people that didn't approve Obamacare because they believed it didn't go far enough. And it left too many people out, that it

wasn't either a public option, a Medicare for all, a single payer, something that went further. And then at the same time, there was both the vilification of Obamacare from the right, as well as legitimate problems caused by the fact that a lot of states didn't expand Medicaid, also that premiums went up, that

there were markets where there were only one insurer. And also that it started with coverage and then maybe addressed cost as opposed to dealing... That's the problem with the Republican health care bill too. It doesn't do anything to address health care costs. And this is what I find. So my mother is a physician in a hospital in West Baltimore.

My sister just started her residency in that same hospital. They deal with a very patient population often in dire need. My mother's department before Obamacare on a good year collected 30% of what they billed. You know, it's disingenuous of Republicans to have been saying that Obamacare comes between you and your doctor when in fact they're the ones coming in between you and your doctor. There's not a single health care organization. You know, like when the March of Dimes is against you, you should go back to the drawing board.

Let's move on to another topic of this week, which is the ongoing conflict between the White House Correspondents Association and the White House. The White House Correspondents Association and the White House. The White House Correspondents Association president expressed displeasure for off-camera and sporadic press briefings. His name is Jeff Mason. He met with Sean Spicer. He wrote a letter. And basically, it doesn't seem like it's had too much of an effect. The White House continues to have the briefings off-camera to not do them for as long or as often. And there was this incredible fight,

which I think we're going to get to in a minute as part of OK Stop, between a reporter and Sarah Huckabee Sanders about the way in which the administration vilifies the press. Do we believe that the briefing, the White House briefing, has lost its value? Is it a silly exercise now when you have a briefer who doesn't have any answers

and who's there kind of to get into this battle what do you think julia uh i remember when i was very briefly named the white house correspondent of the new republic and i went to maybe three briefings and i went back to my editor-in-chief and i said never fucking again i'm never fucking wait what what when was this this was um pre-Josh Ernest. Oh, this was Obama era. This was Obama era. And you were like, never again. Wait, why did you hate it? Why did you hate it? That's so interesting. It was like an hour and a half of my life.

And I was just like, I will remember these hours on my deathbed as hours of my youth spent in this fucking room getting verbiage that means nothing in response to verbiage questions that meant nothing and it was just like this weird fucking ritual

I'm sorry, can you tell how I feel about this with all the F-bombs? It's just such a fucking waste of time I think, and thank God and Good Riddance said it's, the problem is that it's symbolic and the symbolic value of it being done away with by this president

and this administration is a very unfortunate precedent. The problem is that if you had, once it started, it's also, it would be very hard for any administration to get rid of it because it looks like you're going back to, you're taking a massive step back from transparency, which is crazy because you are not getting any information from this. If anything, you're getting more information from Sean Spicer than from somebody. But it made for some really good West Wing moments. And for some great SNL sketches. Yeah, absolutely.

And Glenn Thrush became an American hero. And got fatter every week. As it is Gautier. I want to push back on this because I, look, I see that the White House briefing can be a bit of a theater, but at the same time, isn't there value to having these people on the record either

refusing to answer or refusing to say they'll get an answer from the president? But these people aren't decision makers. And what is the value? I don't know. It's like, as any White House reporter or political reporter in Washington can tell you, you're never going to, or any kind of reporter,

your main source of quotes and information is not going to be the PR person in any organization. Their job is to just feed you vanilla bullshit. Okay. That's interesting.

I feel like I learned something. When we come back, okay, stop. Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back. OK, this week on OK Stop, we are going to break down Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Sentinel newspaper reporter Brian Karam, who got into a heated exchange about fake news and the role of the press. So I don't know if

you guys know how OK Stop goes. It's very simple. When something bothers you, you want to comment, you just say, OK, stop. OK. It's like a safe word. Yeah, sure. Uncle. It's our uncle. Let's call it uncle. But we call it OK Stop. And you can say it whenever you want. And we'll comment. We'll watch the clip. We'll have a good time. yeah i i don't think it's that it's expected that you're not to report on um again actual news if there's something there but again i i think that there are a lot of things happening in this world that frankly a lot of people would like to hear about whether it's job growth whether it's deregulation whether it's tax reform health care i think a lot of those things deserve a lot more coverage than they get. And all we're saying is, you know, I think that we should take a really good look at what we are focused on, what we are covering, and making sure that it's actually accurate and

it's honest. If we make the slightest mistake, the slightest word is off, It is just an absolute tirade from a lot of people. I take back everything I said. The level of cognitive dissonance that this woman displays is astounding. Incredible. It's fucking astounding that you could stand there

in front of a camera, not in one of her gaggles, in front of a camera and say the very thing that you could stand there in front of a camera, not in, like, one of her gaggles or just, like, in front of a camera and say the very thing that you accused the press of doing every fucking day. Like, I want to kick the TV and hope she feels it in her face. Like, that's how upsetting that is.

Also, I love the idea that, like, yeah, the press, they're just going after these picky-oon little funny things. You know, so what? The Trumps hit, then Mika Brzezinski had a bleeding facelift at Mar-a-Lago. Why are you focused on these little weird little, we slip up one time and you guys go crazy. We put a Muslim ban into effect that nobody spell-checked and everybody goes bananas. in this room but news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources use uh stories without sources have uh you know you mentioned the scaramucci story where they had to have reporters resign come on okay so we're gonna get to his comment because he's somebody

in the briefing room is about to flip out. Oh, my God. What is amazing is that this woman can stand here and rail against anonymous sources. Is there any doubt that she is one of the many, many anonymous sources? This administration is a pasta strainer of leaks. It's just a hula hoop. It's just information falls through. Just pick a big thing of ziti up and you're like, you just dump it through the hole. But also the idea that you're accusing newspapers of reporting and not naming. When have newspapers ever named every source for information that they were reporting on?

That's just not how journalism works. Also, what was the name that Donald Trump used when he was an anonymous source? Barron. Barron. He's Barron. John Barron. Barron Miller.

He's had a bunch. Barron Trump. Barron Trump. John Barron, John Miller. There was a few different aliases. But they weren't anonymous. It was John Barron. They weren't.

They were just invented human beings. But it never ceases to amaze me the way that these people rail against anonymous sources when there has never been so much leaking. These people are knifing each other in the newspaper every single day. But also, but look at those doe eyes. She's so upset. What is going on? She's so hurt.

This is a podcast. So I will encourage the people listening at home to watch a part of this clip. There's a moment that if you pause the video... Right before Kerm stops. Just Google Sarah Huckabee Sanders doe eyes. But doesn't she kind of look like one of those Westworld robots right here

where it's like she knows it's about... She's just like, I have to go to another place and do my computer speech and say these words for me to get through this press briefing. What if we are all doing this over and over and over again? What if we're in Trump world and we're going to wake up tomorrow and he's just won again? And we're going to be like, this feels weird, but I guess I'll go. It's day one again.

It's day one again. It's day one again. You get 161 days, and then the cycle starts over again. This is a vacation for the super rich. Why do you think we're in Aspen? Right here, right now with those words. This administration has done that as well. Why in the name of heavens? Any one of us. Okay, stop. In the name of heavens, any one of us...

Okay, stop. In the name of heaven? Oh, you know what he wanted to say. Also, how come... How besides you take in these arguments? I think he's being a bit self-righteous. I'm with Sarah Huckabee Sanders on this one. And any one of us, if we don't get it right,

the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. There's no option other than that. We're here to ask you questions. We're here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, see, once again, the president is right and everybody else out

here is fake media. And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job. Okay, stop. How did everyone in this room not burst into applause in that room when he got to that point? And it's like, they are so fucking soulless

when it comes to standing up for themselves. And I know people who know people in that room and they talk about the fact that they don't like to take sides because they'd like to keep that position in that room.

You know what, though? I remember Jake Tapper early in the Obama administration when the Obama administration said some, by the standards of this administration, completely anodyne but negative things about Fox News. And Jake Tapper came to their defense in the briefing room. I think he was still at ABC at the time.

And we have just not seen that kind of defense. Certainly Fox News. Fox News has just turned on CNN like Trump has. I disagree completely. First of all, I think if anything has been inflamed, it's the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media. And I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question. Kevin. Kevin., this is something this White House does, and we've got to move on to the next segment, but one thing this White House does is when there is a mistake,

they go after it so hard, and they actually connect it to the more accurate stories and talk about one fake journal. They talk about it all as one big soup of fake news. And Jack Schaefer, who's a columnist, wrote a piece about that this week, and basically it says journalists make mistakes, and if journalists aren't allowed to ever make a mistake,

that means they won't, if they can't be forgiven for occasional acts of bad journalism, you won't get good journalism. What do you think about that? Yes. Okay, good. When we come back, I will be sitting down with Governor John Hickenlooper. Don't go anywhere.

This is Love It or Leave It, and there's more on the way. How are you guys doing? So give it up for the governor of the great state of Colorado, John Hickenlooper. First of all, I want to thank the governor for doing this because I know he's got an early morning tomorrow because he's governor. This just sort of comes along with the territory. But how often does somebody get a chance to love it or leave it? Not as often as most would like, but more often than some would want. I don't know what that means. So let's get into it because you've taken up, I think,

a pretty public position in this healthcare fight. You teamed up with the governor of Ohio, John Kasich, to talk about what was wrong with this Senate bill. Can you talk a little bit about what that partnership was all about and why you wanted to team up with him? Well, that bill was written by a small number of Republican senators in secret, and we both felt that it was going the wrong directions and that having a Republican and a Democrat, two governors, come out and voice what they thought was the distillation, right? I mean, the whole point to me is here you've got a supposed improvement that there's no way you can look at that as improving, I don't think, the healthcare system in the country. It really is you're cutting coverage

for 22 or 23 million people and just for the purpose of a tax cut for the richest people in America, most of whom don't want it. They don't want the tax cut. for the richest people in America, most of whom don't want it. They don't want the tax cut. I think you're right. So one of the things that's been happening this week is Mitch McConnell is facing this incredible deadline that he set for himself,

which is he wants to get a new bill into the CBO by this weekend so that they have a week to score it so they would come back one week from now and then once again have this rushed process. There's been a lot of talk about the behind-the-scenes negotiations. Obviously, none of the negotiations are public.

But one of the things that's been talked about is getting rid of some of the tax cuts, some of the undoing of the tax cuts for the wealthy, to create a pot of money to buy off some moderate senators. And this is one way to do that is you leave a lot of these Medicaid cuts, but you create some kind of opioid addiction fund. And I was wondering if you could just comment a little bit on what you think about that and whether you think that there's any value to that, whether you think that's going to be effective, what that would mean for Colorado. I think that's a cruel, cynical joke. And I think that to take,

and they're talking like $50 million or $100 million. We're talking billions of dollars, right? The tax cuts, the number I saw for the 400 wealthiest families would get tax cuts totaling $33 billion over 10 years, right? So to give tax cuts to people, again, many of whom don't want the tax cuts, and then say we're going to roll back Medicaid. And the nice thing is that there are a bunch of not just Democratic but Republican governors as well who say, hey, maybe we have to control the increases in health care costs. Maybe we have to modulate how coverage works, but we shouldn't roll back who's covered.

modulate how coverage works, but we shouldn't roll back who's covered. And if there was a compromise measure that you could get behind, what are some of the policies that you think Democrats and Republicans could work together on, on health care specifically? Well, I think that there are a lot of improvements that could be made to the Affordable Care Act. People, whether we like it or not, many people, since there's no penalty for leaving or coming back into the insurance pool, and anyone with pre-existing conditions is guaranteed coverage, people, when they got sick, would get insurance, and then they had the operation, the procedure, and then they stopped paying their insurance. And that makes the pool, the only people that are in there at any given moment

are people that are genuinely very sick and very expensive, and that's why all these insurance companies had to raise rates, they had to leave the exchanges. There's a way to fix that. There's several different ways to fix it, but the process should be having some Republicans and some Democrats, and they can be senators. I'm a supporter of the congressional,

I mean this, I was being cynical there, but it slipped out as my outside voice. I have to tell you, when you're cynical, it's like most people's bright optimism. It doesn't really come across as that dark.

But it was, I was going in that direction. But the bottom line is that there's an opportunity there to fix these problems and get people so they can't go in and out and really begin to make it work. But that's getting both parties together. That's getting both parties together. And I do, I believe that the Senate should be the conscience of the American government. And I was deeply worried that this was going to get pushed through. And really, again, in the most cynical way. It's a political deal, right?

I mean, there's no, in terms of public policy, there's nothing good about this. I think you should applaud for that. Sometimes I ask them. Sometimes I just ask for it. That's the beauty of having your own show. You can't be too proud to ask for applause. No, no. And I won't be. And I never have been. So let's step back. I want to talk about America's favorite topic, which is what went wrong in 2016. I don't want to do that. But I am curious because I think a lot of Democrats, this has been a time of soul-searching, and obviously we've lost at the federal level, we've lost in Congress, and lost legislatures.

We've faced a lot of setbacks, and we don't have that many governors left. It's true, you're a dying breed, a democratic governor. Tiny but mighty. But joke. Do not laugh at that. That was not funny. So I guess I'd say, well, what did you take away from, from 2016? What is the lesson? I think it's, I don't want to have us always be looking backwards, but I think if you didn't walk away from 2016, reevaluating some assumptions, I don't want to have us always be looking backwards, but I think if you didn't walk away from 2016 re-evaluating some assumptions, I don't think you were paying attention. What are some of the assumptions that you found yourself re-evaluating after this election? Well, context, and after 2016, there are now 32 states where the Republican Party controls both the House and the Senate in those states.

So forget about Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. What we're selling, I mean, the policies, I think I believe in the policies, but we're not expressing them correctly, and I don't think we're getting the right people to run for office. At least certainly the voters across America seem to feel that.

So that's the context. We're at 32 states. At 34 states, if the Republicans control both houses in 34 states, they can call a constitutional convention and dictate what's on the agenda. That's not a pretty picture. So it's really not. And then more specifically to the presidential election, when Bill Clinton kind of worked with a bunch of more proactive,

I won't say progressive, but legislators and Democrats who were willing to look at a global economy. And so Democrats and Republicans together began to build these treaties and do much more exporting, create a global economy, which I, you know, again, these treaties aren't right, but I think long term we do well in global trade. One thing that happened is there are winners and losers, and the losers, and they're, it's not just coal miners, it's furniture makers in North Carolina, I mean, you go all across

the country, and this was supported by both Republicans and Democrats, and both parties turned their backs on those people who lost not just their jobs, but their careers, their professions. And I think that is a sacrilege of what this country stands for. And Democrats got punished only because Donald Trump picked up on it. Both parties were at fault for this. And if you look at Germany, they spend, rough justice, 15 times more money training someone who's lost their job or their profession than

we do. They keep, if you're willing to keep working, they'll keep training you in whatever profession you want because they believe in you and that you deserve a chance. Training is relatively inexpensive. I think that's the next step that we as Democrats have to really ramp up how we're going to address workforce preparation for these new jobs coming out and how do we retrain, retrain, retrain and make it possible for people to, you know, navigate their way into a new life. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the challenges is we're talking about diffuse benefits and then acute harms, which is really difficult to navigate. But to a lot of people who have seen factory jobs leave, who've seen their towns

decimated because a plant has gone away, whether it's caused by globalization or automation, they feel as though they've been hearing about training and the jobs of the future for a long time, but they don't see it benefiting them. And Donald Trump exploited that sense of mistrust. And do you think that right now the Democratic Party, the Democratic leaderships, Democratic ideas, that we have answers for those people? Not just how they feel about it, but how they actually experience these problems. I think there are, so there's two different questions, right? So policy, there are several states, Colorado is one of them, that are working on apprenticeship systems that vary similar,

modeled on Switzerland or Germany or even Sweden, where kids in high school can go to work. Instead of going to junior year in high school, they go to work three days. They get paid $1,000 a month. And then they go two days of education. But what they study is designed by the industry in which they're working. So if they're in an insurance company or working for a bank, what they're studying will make them more successful in their job

so that they are, I mean, 70% of our kids never go to college, right? And those kids, they're bored. They're junior, senior year in high school. They're not learning stuff that they feel is going to be any use to them. Why not let them earn some money? They're still living at home, they can get college credits, they can end up with 60 or 70, you know, college, you know, credit hours, and they'll also, you know, they'll have money, they'll have credit hours, and they won't have any debt, so that's a policy that I think we're pushing as hard as we can, we've got a pilot this year, we're going to have several thousand people next year. We're going to try and scale it so we'll have, you know,

20,000 people in the next five, eight, ten years. Now, the next question you asked was whether, how do we deal with people that feel they're left behind? Even if you've got programs and policies, that doesn't change how people feel. And certainly we have a number of years where people have been kind of, they feel they've been kicked to the side. And that's going to take real effort, you know, from top to bottom, and not just in the parties, but in America. We've got to reach out to people. They're not just in rural America, right?

They're in suburban America. They're in urban areas. It's a pretty broad cross-section of American society really feels that no one gave a rat's tail about whether they were doing well or not. That was close, wasn't it? So close. You're not really familiar with the crooked media ethos yet, but we'll get you there.

We'll get you there. So it's interesting. I feel as though the leaders of the Democratic Party, of which you are now one, I feel as though I'm kind of hearing two stories. And I hear one story is like what you were talking about, which is people have felt left behind, people have been left behind, but we need to find a way to bring people in and include them in a positive and growing economy, that there are solutions to the globalization problem, and there are solutions to automation automation that we can innovate and create programs that help people,

and there's a democratic vision, and that's what we should be talking about. That's sort of the central to the story we should be telling. And then on the other hand, I think there's an equally compelling story that I hear from people like Elizabeth Warren and others, which is rooted more in actually a lot of our problems start from a government that's stacked against them. That is money in politics, the influence of lobbyists, the influence of corporate money, the rise of a class of super wealthy people. And I don't want to ask you to choose between these two stories. I don't think that's very productive.

But I guess I'm struggling just as someone who views the Democratic Party at a crossroads, at a moment in the wilderness. How do you begin to put those two things together? Where do you see the kind of money and politics, special interest storyline fitting with the more optimistic story I think you're telling about the future of the economy? So, and that's the question of the hour, the money and politics and self-interest and how that rolls out, the health care issue. So those 400 richest families are going to save roughly $82 million per family over 10 years, and that's going to cost coverage for about 750,000 people, right? That's a cruel

equation. But if you look at money in politics, so these people are saving $8.2 million rough justice. That's the tax break they're getting every year. Let's say they decide that they're going to, again, there are 400 of them, once every other year they're going to take that, just their tax savings. This means that their unearned income has to be somewhere around $210 million a year. But they're just going to take the tax savings that they've gotten from their friends in the Republican Party, and they're going to give it to the Koch brothers or whoever.

It's going to be called something like Americans United for a Better Tomorrow. Americans United for a Better... And that just lays waste to the countryside. Well, just think about it. So $8.2 million times 400 people, that's $3.2 billion every other year. I mean, think about it. President Obama in his reelection spent, what, a billion, a little bit over a billion dollars? I mean, these are enormous sums of money in these tax breaks that we're talking about. And I think that we've got to turn some of our political... I do believe that most Americans have a conscience

and most Americans don't support this bill. Most of the wealthy people I've talked to don't want that tax break. And so we've got to begin looking at what did drive people away from the Democrats. And not all Democrats believe this, but I think a significant majority of Americans think government is too big, right?

And that it's too much red tape and bureaucracy. They buy into that. And I don't see any reason, again, we've got to have regulation. We've got to regulate oil companies. We've got to regulate how we manufacture automobiles. I believe in regulation. But red tape is different. Red tape and excessive bureaucracy gums things up. It frustrates people. Why can't Democrats be the party that also believes in getting rid of red tape? Why can't we step up and say, we want to help entrepreneurs and make it easier for them to start a business and go into business and help them expand and find access to capital? I mean, we should own entrepreneurs. We as Democrats should be the party behind opportunity. Yeah, I think that's right.

Now you guys are getting it. Now you're learning how to play. It's my hometown crowd. When it comes, though, to tax rates and the effect of this shifting wealth upward, I think we spend a lot of time talking about these sort of downriver solutions, which is we have this widening income inequality, which means wealth is accruing to a select few in this country. The 400 richest families will accrue this incredible benefit. But in a lot of ways,

we're kind of downriver of the problem, which is not just about redistribution, but why the money is amassing in so few hands to begin with. I mean, do you think that there is beyond just tax policy, do you think that there's ideas out there, policies out there to create a more level playing field before we've ever gotten to the tax code, that middle class incomes can start rising again? Yeah, I think we can get there. I think more widely available training, I think we have to change some of our paradigms upon which we look at compensation. But there is, I mean, technology is concentrating wealth at a rate that we've never dreamed of. And we can put in government provisions and that concentration is going to happen. We had a similar thing in the 1920s and the late 19-teens where we electrified factories.

And Zoe Baird, the Markle Foundation, there's a whole book that they wrote. It had about 20 people writing it. Usually that's a terrible book. Or a terrible movie. Or a terrible movie, worse. But this book goes into a lot of how the electrification of factories, bringing factories. They used to have to be on streams. They were spread out.

Suddenly you could have them everywhere. And then Henry Ford did this, you know, the assembly line. And suddenly a very small number of people could make more dresses than a whole city could need. They'd make farm implements. They could do all this stuff. They could make the machinery to process agricultural products all made through these factories. And people were losing jobs like crazy. And we were concentrating wealth at a level that no one had ever seen between that and the robber barons the the you know the john d rockefeller and

that concentration of wealth and in the end the only way we really redistributed that wealth was through world war ii which if you squint your eyes and look at it from a macroeconomics point of view we borrowed as much money as we possibly could to build things that we blew up. We're fighting for our freedom. It was a good thing to do, but it did nothing to build a platform for the economy. We just blew everything up, but everyone believed. So we paid incredibly higher taxes because we believed in the future that that meant. And historically, we either need disasters or wars to get to that level of belief where you can invest your tax dollars for a better future that really is, in some ways, I don't think we should give money to people for nothing.

It's against some level of our traditions. But we should pay people to get training, right? If people are willing to go train themselves, let's pay them enough so that they, again, they're not going to go get a Maserati, but they can continue to train, continue to educate themselves, and have an opportunity. Let's figure out ways to spend that money that encourages people to reinvent themselves. One other thing I think people get stuck in. You're so close as a group to getting that right. And by the time he's gone, by the time the governor has left, I think you'll have the hat.

You know what it is? Should I retell my wife's joke from last night? Nope. You should not. I don't know if you know this, but I used to work in politics, and I'm telling you now, that's a favor I just did for you. I owe you one. One other facet of the health care debate that I think gets lost in the shuffle,

because we've been in this crazy, rushed kind of conversation that's so political, is other ways in which the health care system has these deleterious effects on the economy. And one of them is people being locked into their jobs, that people are afraid to start a business or afraid to leave a safe job to follow their dreams or follow their passion because they need health insurance, they need health insurance for their kids. What is your vision for a health care system that frees people up to not have to worry about that, to know that their health care will always be there? Well, I think that we made large steps under the Affordable Care Act, and we are in range

of feeling that. It's got to be portable, right? Whatever health care you've got, you've got to be able to have some facility, some ability to take that health care with you. And you talk to the insurance companies, they're not against that. They're willing to understand there's going to be an ebb and flow and a flux and that some of the people,

when they leave a job, they're going to take that policy with them even though they're not working for that company anymore. Most insurance companies are willing to take a chance on that. They want some guardrails. But that portability, I think, would be a huge, huge incentive to, I can't keep using the word huge. I'm just, I've, I've, honestly, I didn't even make the

connection because you're so not like that. I've got to cleanse, I've got to cleanse the palate. But we have, we have to make significant, you know, changes in that to, to get, get us to that point where, because portability would be a big part. Same thing with, you know, how we fund a lot of our education, right? And, and kids, when they're going to one school or another, if they're in public school, if they want to, if they're in this program or that program, and they want to go to a different school, the money that's used to pay their education should go from one school to the next. And that's, so just as a frame of reference, most school districts in America, you count the kids at the beginning of the year, and you have a formula from your state, or it's local and state usually, but the state, and that's how much money you get.

Well, if that kid leaves four months into the year, the school still gets paid for the whole year. Where's the incentive to keep kids in school, right? If once that kid drops out or goes somewhere else, the school stops getting that money. Let's say they get paid in five or six installments over the year. I guarantee you they work a lot harder to make sure kids didn't drop out. That's interesting. All right. One last question before we get to a very brief and very fun game. You're not an attack person, right? Famously so. You don't go after people negatively. You're very polite. You say things like, I believe you said horse's tail, which is not a vulgarity where I come from. I never even, I didn't, I'm fascinating. But I think I said a rat's tail. Oh, rat's tail. And that's a lot

closer. Okay. And I want to point out, my dad tried to teach me how to box when I was like five and six. I had really thick kind of Coke bottle glasses and I was awful. And after about two months of this, he kind of gave me, he said, you know, why don't you think of it this way? If you can't talk your way out of a fight, you probably deserve to get whipped. You have made it a point to, uh, to not go negative, to be someone who stays positive. And we are not in a climate that is very favorable to that. I don't know if you know this, but Donald Trump was elected president recently and uh he said some pretty nasty things today that i can't repeat in front of you because i'd be bashful about it uh you saw it that's saying something yes and that's saying something so uh do you think there's a lesson there do you think

that's unique to you do you think that staying positive has value? I mean, what is your reason for that? What do you get out of that? Why has that been something you adhere to? So I think in addition to all the money that's flowed into politics in the last decade, I also think that we have built on layer after layer of this incivility, right? Attack ads, how we attack people in these political campaigns. And I think, you know, I ran a restaurant for 15 years. And I think everyone running for governor, mayor, president should have to spend at least one year running a high-volume restaurant because the first thing you learn among many is that there's no margin. There's no profit in having enemies. No matter how unreasonable that customer is, you're going to do everything you can that they leave with a decent relationship so they don't go out and trash your reputation all over town.

You can't defend yourself. You look at what the attack ads do. And when there's an attack ad, it's not just attacking that candidate. It really attacks everyone who believes in that person. And so those attack ads, I mean, look at business. We never see, this is my favorite metaphor, attack ads work. I mean, almost without fail, a well-done attack ad always works, but we never see them in business, right? Because if Coke did an attack ad against Pepsi, and let me guarantee you Coke hates Pepsi and Pepsi hates Coke, Coke doesn't.

But I think that if they got together, they'd like be friends. Isn't that so weird? They have so much in common. They hate each other. They hate each other. But if they didn't attack... If Coke didn't attack yet against Pepsi, it would work. Pepsi's sales would go down. Pepsi would have no choice. They'd do an attack yet against Coke. Coke sales would go down. Coke would counterattack Pepsi. Pepsi would attack Coke. You would depress sales in the entire product category of soft drinks. What we're doing is we're depressing the entire product category of democracy. And I think that after the election, you know, everyone's so turned off, especially young people, they just tune out. They stop

paying attention to the details of policy. And that is the Achilles heel of democracy, right? People have to invest the time to learn the issues and and take a stand all right so before we let you go uh we wanted to play one short game uh-oh i don't like his tone of voice this is where my political career the game is perhaps ends the game is called tonic or chronic let me explain governor beneath your, you will find two cards. I have some cards as well. We also have a mic in the house. You can look at them.

You're free to look at them. But please keep them to yourself for now. Is there somebody who'd like to? Someone in a Pod Save America shirt up here might want to play the game. You know what? You guys are both going to play the game because I see a straight shooter respected on both sides. And I see a Pod Save America shirt. Rich, can we get a mic to the front?

You guys are going to play together. You don't know each other, and that's fine. You don't have to know each other after this. This is going to be two strangers playing a game together. What are your names? My name is Jordan. And what's your name? Marcella.

Okay, you know what? This is now a competition. Now, I specifically did not ask Governor Hickenlooper about the legalization of marijuana in Colorado because I am very aware of the fact that everyone asks Governor Hickenlooper about the legalization of marijuana in Colorado You almost were free

Now I want to point out because we're going to have fun here that $105 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales in this year will go towards a cash fund that will help create housing programs, mental health programs in jails, and contribute to health programs at local middle schools. So there's been some good of this. I want to make sure I pointed that out because we're going to have some fun, but it's a serious issue. Now, but at the same time, Governor, you also famously founded a brewery, the Wynkoop Brewery, right? The second craft brewery in the state of Colorado.

Exciting. Exciting. Now, Jordan, Marcella, here's the game. The governor and I have cards in front of us. They have names on them. Some of those names are names of craft brews from the governor's old brewery, which I believe you no longer are part of, because we come from a time in which people divested of things

when they went into public service. Boy, was I born at the wrong time. You really blew it. I think they made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm. Oh, well. Nice while it lasted, those rules. But anyway, some of them are real beers from that brewery, but the other names are Colorado strains of marijuana.

So, Jordan, Marcella, you are going to play tonic or chronic. Alt names were Hash or Hops or Bush or Kush. So we had a lot of great options. You're going to both guess, and I'm going to tell you who was right. And don't be influenced by each other. Be free to disagree, okay? That's part of the fun. But also agree. The first beer or strain

is something called Biostar. I'm going to say Chronic. You're going to say Chronic. I think also Chronic. You both think it's a kind of weed. You're both right. It is a strain of weed. It's not only exceptionally potent,

it's also extremely flavorful. Governor, you are up. Alright. I gave him the funny names. This first one is nug life. Tonic or chronic? Nug Life. Tonic or chronic? Nug Life.

Chronic. Chronic. You're both wrong. It's a beer. Do you know the beers that they're still putting out or you're out of the loop? I have not had the pleasure of Nug Life yet, but I want to see what they're using for hops.

Well, let me tell you about it. Let me tell you about Nug Life. This American IPA is a year-round treat. End of me reading that. Alright, guys. Next. Is it beer? Is it weed? It's B3K. B3K. I'll go tonic. I'm going to go chronic again It's a beer guys B3K

And B3K Stan that one I do remember Because that was from my time That was batch 3000 Now we're learning about beer It's an acclaimed German style Schwarz beer Schwarz beer I don't know if you know this,

but I'm more of a Bud Light martini guy, okay? Sorry. Stereotype. Governor, you're up. So the next one I've got is called Grimace. I'm going to imagine that's chronic. I'm going to go tonic. Marcella.

Oh, no. You know what it is? You doubted yourself. It's a strain of weed. Damn it. It is called... I'm not even going to... These people.

You know what? I think they may have been high when they wrote this. It's similar to the rush you get after chugging a can of soda. I don't know what that means. Your final one for the night. This one is kind of tough, guys. Because this is

called Mile High. Mile High. Is it beer? Or is it weed? Is it tonic or chronic? Hops or hash? Yeah, I was thinking maybe it might be both. Is that possible? I was thinking maybe it might be both. Is that possible? I was also thinking

it might be both. It may be both. You know what? I'm giving it to you. Here's the thing. The governor knows. It's both. Mile high is a beer.

Well, I know it's a beer and it's got a... I can't imagine somebody has a beer. That's the thing. Now, I realize this. It is a beer from the Wynne Coop Brewery, but I do realize it is quite unlikely

that somewhere in Colorado there is not a person who has had this wonderful flash of ideas, given the fact that, I would say, a solid 75% of newspaper headlines during this process managed to work the Mile High analogy. I imagine Mile High governor,

this has been said in your presence... Once or twice. Once or twice. Guys, this has been said in your presence once or twice. Guys, I'm going to say that you both won. Tonic or chronic, I want to thank Jordan and Marcella for playing. You guys are going to get gift cards. Don't even worry about it. From Parachute.

You guys know it. Look at the cheering. So thank you for playing. I especially want to thank Governor Hickenlooper for joining us tonight now I'm going to let him go but all I'll say is we did not talk about 2020

because we got to focus on 2018 but as you all know I have a secret bracket alright and there is a Governor Conference and that's all I'm going

to say about it okay that's all I'm going to say about it thank you Governor when we come back the rant wheel hey don't go anywhere there's more of love it or leave it coming up and we're back it's time for the rant wheel you know how it works we spin the

wheel we rant on the topic at hand uh this week we we have the White House Correspondents Association. I don't know that we beat that topic to death yet. We have the Trump fake time cover. We have the New York City subways, which is something that has been bugging me. We have tipping in general and the way it's the way it works in these apps. We have Justin Trudeau, who I've had

enough of. It's enough wearing rainbow socks and we'll get to it. Gym selfies. That was spurred by Al Sharpton, I should tell you. And two audience choice.

Let's spin the wheel. Jim selfies. I don't know when people started holding a camera really high up and shooting both their front and their back in the mirror at the same time and sharing it on the internet, but it's the same shit

that caused Trump and it has to stop. What a broken, weird thing to do. Like, look, you know, you're feeling pretty good. You like the way you look. You do a quick mirror selfie. Okay. It's not great. It's not great.

But now you're taking a picture of both your front and your back and getting them in the same, just like, look at all of this. Look at everything that I did in the gym today. And by the way, Alice Sharpton has lost a lot of weight and it's super impressive. And I heard from people at MSNBC what that diet was and it's crazy. And he sticks to it. It's like the kind of, I don't know of it exactly, but basically the gist of it, it's like one piece of toast in the morning, one potato in the afternoon. And once a week you get of it, it's like one piece of toast in the morning, one potato in the afternoon, and once a week you get some fish. It's bananas. Yeah, it's crazy.

And he's stuck to it, and he is real skinny. But there are no actual bananas in the diet. No, there's no bananas. Bananas are against... You know what? I think he may get one banana a day. I'm not actually sure, but I do vaguely remember there's like a... Maybe it's like odd days you get a banana, and even days you get a sweet potato.

I don't know, but it's fucking nuts. But it still doesn't excuse holding the camera up, taking a picture of both your front and your back and putting it on the internet. And he's dressed like a 14-year-old in the picture, which is so weird. And it really is, he has a very, it's a big head. A huge head. On a very skinny body. He's like a 70-year-old bobblehead. That's exactly what it looks like. But more power to him. It's a big head. A huge head. On a very skinny body. He's like a 70-year-old bobblehead. That's exactly what it looks like.

But more power to him. It's working. Let's spin it again. It has landed on audience choice. Now, we have learned something, which is when everyone shouts something at once, I hear nothing. So, I guess shout something at once. Wait, just this area.

Morning Joe. Okay, let's talk about Morning Joe. That's a good one. So, I actually was going to cover it. So, I don't know if you guys saw this morning. Did you see these tweets by Donald Trump? We talked about it earlier. Something about how it's low rated yes yes here i will read to you because i happen to have them i i skipped them earlier because i couldn't bring myself to talk about

them but it came up in the ram wheel and that's the fun uh the president of the united states an office once held by people like dwight eisenhower abraham lincoln john adams george washington barack obama ronald Reagan, and Millard Fillmore tweeted the following this morning. I heard poorly rated Morning Joe speaks badly of me. Don't watch anymore. Then how come, how come he is the president? I didn't even catch.

This thing is so fucking nuts. I didn't catch that the president writes, how come? By the way, if you want to know the difference between why and how come go to google and type why and a noun and then type how come in that noun and you will see that you will see the difference between the kind of person who writes how come it's like it's the kind of thing where it's like, why do magnets operate by this polarization? How come magnets be grabbing stuff? It's nuts.

How come people don't have a grasp on things? How come there are rainbows? Unbelievable. How come? I didn't even notice that i didn't want to get to the rest of it the president is typing how come anyway how come low iq crazy mika along with psycho joe came to mar-a-lago three nights in a row around new year's and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a facelift.

I said no. Did you all have, had you all saw that today? Was that the first time for some of you? Some of you it was the first time, huh? I'm glad that I got to do that. So all I'll say about this is Dave Weigel tweeted something that was really smart about this. He said, wow, these Republicans sure are going to say how unacceptable this is before they donateel tweeted something that was really smart about this. He said, wow, these Republicans sure are going to say how unacceptable this is before they donate to President Trump's reelection and then vote for him. And we're sort of through the looking

glass here. That's what this guy's going to do. You know, the more destructive thing that President Trump did today is Chris Kobach, who runs his fake election integrity commission, sent a letter to all 50 states requesting voter registration data, including addresses and things like last four digits of their social, to start building a massive national either gerrymandering effort or voter suppression effort. So wait, voter registry, good. Gun registry, bad. Yes. Imagine if Barack Obama started collecting voter registry.

A national voter registry is coming for you. It would have been a total crisis. It's like a Muslim crisis. He's coming for your votes. Some dumb shit. You know, Donald Trump ruining the country, ruining our culture on Twitter while his minions go about

destabilizing our democracy. Today was a dark day, guys. But I don't know. Those Joe and Mika tweets are pretty gross. And by the way, Joe Scarborough, he's a listener of Pod Save America, and I'm not going to say that it's causal, but I will say that he has become much better on the issues

and on Trump ever since he started listening to Pod Save America. Yes, get in. Julia. On the issue of Mika bleeding from her wherever, and Megynika bleeding from her wherever and Megyn Kelly bleeding from her wherever,

just want to make a plug for theatlantic.com, which had a story today about Trump's insane relationship to female bodily effluvia. It's so weird. So I did a profile of Melania Trump about a year and a half ago. And it was fantastic. And you caught some ire from that side for it. It was a great piece.

Was it just Michelle Obama's profile? Was it just Michelle Obama's profile? No. So Melania Trump had said at one of her interviews that she's done on YouTube to various obscure fashion bloggers, she said that the secret to the success of her marriage to Donald is two separate bathrooms. And also shortly after he married Melania, Donald Trump went on Howard Stern's show and Howard Stern, knowing how to goad

his guests, was like, so, here's what I like about Melania. Seems like she doesn't fart or make duties. And Trump was like, nope, never. I've known this woman for eight years. I've been dating her for eight years. Never once.

Hasn't farted. Hasn't made a duty. What a turn. Late in the show. So Mika kind of got like a light, you know. Yes, women, yeah. It's funny, it's like. Can I just say effluvia again?

I loved hearing it the first time, and I didn't mind hearing it the second time. It is fascinating. You know, I was talking about this set of tweets today, and somebody said, if my kid said something like that at the dinner table, I would be so angry and disappointed. And I said, actually, I don't think that's right.

I think you'd be deeply weirded out. And concerned that something even worse was going on. This isn't just vulgarity and crassness. This is an inherent strange and disturbing brokenness. Darren, let me see those small animals we gave you. Yeah, exactly. Are they still alive? Yeah, where's the rabbit, Darren?

Where's the hamster, Daryl? Where's the hamster, Daryl? Title of the episode. Let's spin it one more time. You know what? Guys, it's my damn show. We covered it. Let's do one more.

We're not doing it. We covered the White House car sponsorship. That's my bad for even suggesting it for the wheel. Let's do audience choice one more time. Call someone out. The NRA ad. This is an ad that the NRA just started putting out. It is about why their organization is so important.

Let's watch it. They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance,

all to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding, until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they'll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our

freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I'm the National Rifle Association of America, and I'm freedom's safest place. Wait. She's been the NRA the whole time?

So I want to remind everybody that this is a hunting organization. It's very much about making sure that hunters have the right to, you know... Like Daryl. Yeah, Daryls love this ad. I don't know what there is to say about this deeply disturbing, frightening bit

of Civil War inspiring nonsense. The violence of their lies, which is, by the way, if a liberal talks about violent words, they talk about snowflakes. But no. The violence of their lies at Hollywood award shows must be met with the clenched

fist of truth. That was the snowflakiest of snowflakiest things I've ever seen in my life. Everything about that was like, everything you do offends us. We will shoot you. It is. And you know, it's so careful, right? They clearly went through it and made sure that they never specifically said, get

guns to be ready to shoot some libs. But it's like, always right there. It's like, they come after us, so what do we do? We support the police. I think we got the point, Dana Loesch. Bananas. I don't have anything else to add. It's a horrible, frightening thing that these people are one of the most powerful interest groups in this country.

What else is there to say? I'll say something. I'm in. It really, I was watching it and expecting it to be in Russian because I've seen the, honestly, because the Kremlin puts out these kinds of ads whenever the opposition kind of rears its head a little bit gets a little bit stronger it's suddenly like they're fascists

they're going to cause chaos and civil war and we have to crush them and like it's a completely like us versus them we have to hunt them in the streets we can't give an inch you can't forget talking to these people it's like it really looked to me like there's many, many Kremlin YouTube videos that you can pull up that look disturbingly similar to that. She sounded like a batshit crazy DJ Khaled.

She's like, they don't want you. They keep doing this. Another one. Another liberal. They don't want us to survive in America liberal they don't want us to survive in America they don't want it's like

what the fuck is this I think that is a perfect place to leave it but I want to thank my panel Trayvon Free Julia Yaffe you were so great

I want to thank the governor of the great state of Colorado who was an awesome guest and a great sport to play a game with us and to come out late when he had an early morning. Thank you both for being here.

This was great. Thank you so much. Bye.