No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Pete Buttigieg on Trump’s dangerous Supreme Court nominee

Episode Date: October 18, 2020

Trump and Biden hold competing town halls, where Trump set himself up for the biggest failure possible, and Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing has concluded, with her espousing a number of dangerous positions. And Brian interviews Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who talks about the implications of a 6-3 conservative Court, Trump’s COVID failures, and his recent Fox News appearances that have catapulted him back into the spotlight.Written by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CAhttps://www.briantylercohen.com/podcast/To use Vote Save America’s Built Your Own Ballot tool, visit votesave.us/btc.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about Trump and Biden's competing town halls and how Trump set himself up for the biggest failure possible and the conclusion of Amy Coney-Varrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, including some of the most dangerous positions she espoused. And we have my interview with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, whose recent Fox News appearances have catapulted him back into the spotlight and for good reason. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So let's talk about the Trump and Biden competing town halls. The rundown is that Trump and Biden were scheduled to appear together for the second debate on October 15th. The debate commission announced it would be virtual. What with one of the candidates being infected with a deadly virus that's already killed 220,000 Americans? Trump threw a fit because how dare we acknowledge the pandemic that he failed to contain, and he threatened to bail.

So Biden called his bluff and set up a town hall on ABC. And then Trump set up his own town hall on NBC because he is physically incapable of not being the Senate. of attention. And I'm going to be honest here, I was not super pleased with NBC for making this decision. And I obviously wasn't the only one because it was basically as if they handed Trump exactly what he wanted, right? He was able to rewrite the rules to benefit himself. He didn't want to debate Biden in a virtual format because that entire format would be an ever-present reminder of his failures with the pandemic. And even debating Biden unto itself already proved the disaster for Trump. His approval ratings after the first debate plummeted because

As a human being, Trump is not able to not be belligerent. It's like he will combust if more than four seconds go by and he's not a petulant lunatic. And so with this town hall, he was able to skirt those things. It would be in person and he wouldn't have to be compared with someone whose level-headedness would only make him seem more insane by comparison. So I wasn't thrilled, but I'll be the first to admit that I overlooked one really, really crucial detail of Donald Trump holding a nationally televised town hall. and that is that Donald Trump would be there.

Trump's own worst enemy himself would be on that stage for 60 minutes straight, showing the American people exactly who he is. And that is not helpful for Trump. Here's just a taste of what we saw. Here's what he said about the online conspiracy group QA-Non. All right, while we're denouncing, let me ask you about QAnon.

It is this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior of that. Now, can you just once and for all state that that is completely not true? And that disavow Q&N in its entirety? I know nothing about Q&N. I just told you. I know very little. You told me, but what you tell me doesn't necessarily make it fact.

I hate to say that. I know nothing about it. I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard. But I know nothing about it. I believe it is a satanic call run by the deep state. I'll tell you what I do know about. I know about Antifa and I know about the radical left and I know how violent they are and how vicious they are.

And I know how they're burning down cities run by Democrats, not run by Republicans. Republican Senator Ben Sass said, quote, QAnon is nuts and real leaders call conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theory. Why not just say it's crazy and not true? He may be right. I just don't know about Q&N. You do know. I don't know. No, I don't know.

Here's what he said about SEAL Team 6. Just this week, you retweeted to your 87 million followers, a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden orchestrated to have SEAL Team 6, the Navy SEAL to 6 killed, to cover up the fake death of Bin Laden. Now, why would you send a lot like that to your followers? You retweet. That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody, and that was a retweet. I'll put it out there. People can decide for themselves. I don't get that. You're the president. like someone's crazy uncle who can just retweet whatever. That was a retweet, and I do a lot of retweets.

And frankly, because the media is so fake and so corrupt, if I didn't have social media, I don't call it Twitter, I call it social media, I wouldn't be able to get the word out. And the word is, and you know what the word is? The word is very simple. We're building our country stronger and better than it's ever been before. And that's what's happening, and everybody knows it. Those were just a couple examples. but the point is that this is a guy who couldn't condemn QA.N,

even when they were presented as a group whose existence is predicated on battling a satanic pedophile cult that purportedly runs the government. He couldn't disavow this idea that Joe Biden plotted to have SEAL Team 6 killed. The thing that I keep forgetting is that what will hurt Donald Trump the most is just letting him speak.

You know what the correct answer for denouncing QA.N is? I denounce QAOANN. You know the correct answer for, uh, why did you retweet a conspiracy theory to your 87 million followers that Biden tried to have Navy SEALs killed? I shouldn't have done that, period. The bar is so low for Trump that if he was able to say, uh, yeah, my bad. Not only would his insanity not be dominating the news cycle yet again, but I guarantee

that people would say, oh, wow, look how presidential. Like, the bar is so low that if Trump can get on stage and not douse the podium and gasoline and set it on fire, the media would fall over itself and award him all the points and crow about his new tone. And yet every single time, even though that bar is on the floor, he still manages to trip over it. Now, with that said, I know the anti-Trump sentiment is there, right? That's clear.

But we need more than something to vote against. We need something to vote for. And dystopian hellscape aside, once you switched over to the Biden Town Hall, what you got was a clinic and good, steady governance. He explained his plan to raise taxes on only those making $400,000 per year. which would free up $1.3 trillion to use. He went on a 10-minute explanation of how he'd convince black voters

to take part in a political process that has largely failed them by extending policies that would help the black community build wealth. He spoke about the real-life implications of a 6-3 conservative court on the ACA and a woman's right to choose. He called the 1994 crime bill a mistake.

There was humility and logic and statistics underscored by empathy, which, for those too young to remember, is when a president is capable of understanding the feelings of another human being. So look, was I pissed off that Trump is changing the rules as he goes and seems to have gotten rewarded for it? Sure.

But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Donald Trump's standing in front of the American people is ever going to help him. It's not. When he's not in this right-wing Fox News bubble, when he actually has to answer for the things that he brought upon himself, like retweeting that Biden plotted to have members of our own military assassinated, he looks like a clown. The thing about an incompetent egomaniac is that they will always make them. themselves the center of attention only to display that incompetence.

So if Trump wants a town hall, sure, put him on air every day, give him a nightly show. Because what hurts Trump the most is Trump. And yet the only solution he can fathom is more Trump. Also, one more point on this and Trump's narcissism, and that is that what Trump cares about are the ratings, right? That's what this presidency is for him. It's an extension of his reality show, and the only measure of success isn't whether his presidency is successful, it's whether he gets high ratings. And so what better test for him

than to go head to head with Joe Biden, who he has branded as boring and confused and too old and bad for TV? So now we have dueling town halls the exact same time. And if there's any advantage, it's probably to Trump who would be airing on the entire family of NBC channels, NBC, MSNBCC, while Biden just has ABC. And yet Biden still managed to bring nearly a million more eyeballs than Donald Trump. Joe Biden, who Trump himself has painted as the ratings death knell. That is who beat him. And look, these ratings wars are one of the dumbest things to ever happen to the American political system. But that aside, the reality is that's all Trump cares about and he lost. And so is this stupid? Yes. But can we take momentary joy in knowing that Trump

propped up ratings as the arbitrary measure of success that he cares most about? And then lost in a head-to-head battle that he himself orchestrated? Absolutely. Let's move over to Amy Coney-Barratt's confirmation hearing. Now, while this confirmation wasn't marred by the nominee screaming about how much he loves beer or literally crying, I want to make sure it's absolutely clear that Amy Coney-Barrant would be arguably the most conservative justice on the bench. Here's what she had to say about climate change.

And do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious? I think, yes, I do accept that. COVID-19 is infectious, that that's something of which I feel like, you know, we could say you take judicial notice of. It's an obvious fact, yes. Do you accept that smoking causes cancer? I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but, you know, the notice that smoking is. The question is what it is. You can answer it if you believe that. Senator Harris, yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer. And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Senator, again, I was wondering where you were going with that. You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial, like whether COVID-19 is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer, and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion on me that is a very contentious matter, opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate. And I will not do that. I will not express a view. on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that's inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained. Thank you, thank you, Judge Barrett, and you've made your point clear that you believe

it's a debatable point. Here's what she had to say about Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided? Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question, but again, I can't pre-commit or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not. Here's what she had to say about a president being able to delay an election. On July 30th, 2020, President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election.

Does the Constitution give the President of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law? Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. So, you know, if I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits.

I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind. So if it sounds like Amy Coney-Barritt is a far-refer. right-wing activist? It's because she is. Her not being able to acknowledge that climate change is real is the position of a far-right activist. Her refusing to accept that Roe v. Wade is established precedent is the position of a far-right activist. Her not being able to say that a president can't delay an election when federal law dating back to 1845 clearly states that only Congress has the power to change the date of the election is the position of a far-right activist. And that's the craziest part here. Like, for years, we've had to listen to Republicans

condemn judges nominated by Democrats as activist judges when they'd allow legislation to stand that ran countered Republicans' backwards agenda. It's always a liberal activist judges litigating from the bench when, in reality, the party that's installing activist judges are Republicans. I mean, this is a clinic in projection. If you have a judge who is so blinded by her right-wing ideology that she can't even bring herself to concede that it's not legal for a president

to delay a federal election because Donald Trump has made that a tenant of his re-election campaign, then guess what? That is not someone who calls balls and strikes. The fact is, at some point, we have to recognize that this court no longer legitimately reflects the will of the vast majority of Americans. This is a court shaped overwhelmingly by a Republican Party that's won the popular vote in one of the last seven presidential elections and confirmed by a Senate where Republicans, who are in the majority, represent 15 million fewer Americans than Democratic senators. And their singular focus is to overturn precedent like Roe that enjoyed the approval of three quarters of this country.

They're looking to dismantle the ACA, which Republicans have tried more than 70 times to overturning Congress before realizing it was futile. They're looking to strike down voting rights laws so that they can continue to entrench Republicans' minority rule, who will then turn around and continue nominating more Republican judges in a vicious cycle that is just the complete antithesis of democracy. I've said this a thousand times before, and I'll say it again, the court needs to be rebalanced so that we can live in a country where the will of its constituents is actually reflected in our government, as opposed to the will of a minority of hard-right conservative

ideologues. Rebalancing the court is not a scary concept. What's scary is the effects of not rebalancing the court. Next up is my interview with Pete Buttigieg. And if you've been hearing his name more and more, it's because he's been offering a clinic to Fox News viewers about Trump's failure of leaderships with moments like this one. Well, there's a classic parliament. game of trying to find a little bit of daylight between running mates. And if people want to play that game, we could look into why an evangelical Christian like Mike Pence wants to be on a ticket with the president caught with a porn star or how he feels about the immigration policy that he called unconstitutional before he decided to team up with Donald Trump. If folks want to play that game,

we could do it all night. But I think what most Americans want to hear about is, are our family is going to be better protected than they have been by this president who's failed to secure America in the face of one of the most dangerous things ever to happen to our country. I don't think my views on Fox News are any secret. But if we have Democrats like Pete who can do this on Fox News, then we need to be on that network every single day making our pitch to the American people. Okay, so today we have a former presidential candidate and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. Thanks so much for coming on.

Thanks for having me. Right off the bat, you have been killing it on Fox News. And now I understand why you go on Fox in that we have. have to be willing to meet people where they are, right? And I agree, by the way, a good number of my 900 videos are based on things that are set on Fox. Have you had any trouble, though, reconciling the fact that it's basically, you know, a toxic propaganda network? And it does confer a degree of legitimacy when you go on? So the way I think about it is that, you know, some of the people on that network and definitely the people behind that network are not good faith actors.

but I know that a lot of people are tuning in in good faith and a lot of people get most or all of their information there. I can't blame somebody for not understanding our perspective if they've literally never heard it. And I know a lot of people who are kind of people who believe in decency and empathy and they believe in treating others well. And, you know, sometimes you scratch your head thinking, how could you be on board with this president? But if they're literally getting different facts, then you begin to understand how that's possible. And we may not win everybody over. But I think we have a responsibility to reach people where they are. And that's why I go on. I'll draw the line with certain opinion hosts that I just don't think you can have a good

faith conversation with. But if there's a way to reach people who just might think a little bit differently, and frankly to fire up our people too, which is also worth it, then I'm going to take every opportunity. It's kind of an amazing experiment because you generally don't see Democrats going on Fox or if they do, it's a hit job. Bob, kind of like you alluded to. But you've been successful in basically bulldozing through whatever they throw at you. So I'm curious to know whether it's been successful. Have you gotten feedback from Republicans? You know, often I hear from Republicans who say, you know, I've been a Republican for a long time, but I like what you're saying or I'm going to vote differently this

year. That's not only because of my work or one TV appearance. But I think it's really about creating a space that lets people know it's okay to change your mind. People may have voted the way they have in the past for any number of combination of reasons. But if we paint people into a corner and make them feel like they're not going to be welcome in our coalition, then of course, almost by definition, they can't cross over and vote for us. It's all about creating room to do that. And by the way, never watering down our values, as you've seen, I'll say the same kinds of things on Fox that I would say on any other network. But it's about making sure that we say it loud and clear and say it in way that respects where people are coming from, knowing that not everybody was starting out agreeing

with us. And to build on that, I mean, the fact is with regard to our agenda, our agenda is more popular with the American people. I mean, Democrats stance on health care is more popular. Our stance on women's reproductive rights is more popular on climate change, on labor and union protection. The fact is that if we have effective communicators, our lift is lighter because the ideas that we espouse are already more popular than the agenda on the right, which is less healthcare, fewer women's rights, cowtowing to fossil fuels. It's a great point. I think Democrats for some reason got to be kind of afraid of our own shadow. The American people already agree with us on issue after issue after issue. It's the current Republican Party that's gotten itself into a minority

position disagreeing with the American people on so many things. It's one of the reasons why they're now turning to the courts as a kind of rearguard action. So a lot of what we've got to do is just go out there with confidence and cut through some of the noise and the nonsense. And we can always rest our footing on the fact that we are better aligned with the American people than the opposition. That's a great point. And I do want to talk about the Supreme Court. But I have one more question about Fox.

And that is, has Fox been less likely to bring you on now that you've been effective? You know, I did notice I haven't been called back in the last few days. But, you know, I imagine they also are just interested in having interest in conversation. conversations, and I can always promise that that'll happen. Yeah. So moving on to the Supreme Court, obviously we're in the middle of a contentious confirmation battle. Now, Republicans are desperate to reframe the conversation onto Biden stance on court packing and away from the actual dangers that nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court holds. So what's your response when the right tries to make this confirmation battle about

the sacrosanctity of the number nine on the Supreme Court? So we're not going to get thrown off by by those arguments. The reason that we are on good footing now, even though it's probably not going to be reflected by the behavior of the Senate, is that most Americans also agree with us that the winner of this presidential election now underway ought to be the one to pick the next justice. And Americans agree with us on things like preserving health care and the right to choose and marriage equality. And we want to make sure we keep the focus on that. Now, if Republicans want to argue about packing, we can go there because they've actually changed the size of at least two state Supreme Courts just in the last decade in order to get their

way. They don't have a one leg to stand on in this debate. But I also think that their desire to have that debate is motivated by wanting to talk about anything but what's on Americans' minds, which is the threat to our health care in the middle of a pandemic. You know, two points on that. The first is that they also changed the number of Supreme Court justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. I mean, by virtue of holding that seat out in 2017. 16, that number was changed to eight. So, you know, they're, on one hand, they're crowing about the sacrosanctity of the number nine, but they had it, you know, just four short years ago, they held it at a different number because it suited them politically. Yeah, for a seven Republicans

to suddenly get interested in upholding norms is pretty rich at a time like this. Right. And to build on that, I mean, that's the thing. Like, I think Biden is smart to avoid this question because it's clearly in bad faith. Republicans don't care about defending the institution of the Supreme Court any more than they care about enforcing the Hatch Act. But they're happy to wield it, you know, because they're just looking for a new Hillary's emails to screech about on an endless loop. So, you know, I do think that it's smart that Biden isn't handing them that gift. Totally. So these federalist society judges that are being put forward by Republicans are as activist judges as you can get. So why has the right been able to convince

people that they're the originalists while Democrats are, you know, hyper-partisan shills. When it's conservative judges who are undoing legitimate legislation like the ACA and threatening legitimate precedent like Roe and Obergefell. You know, the way they talk about the Constitution reminds me of the way some people talk about scripture. It can only mean one thing and it happens to be the exact interpretation that I have and no other interpretation is valid. That's the basic attitude.

And then they say it as though that were self-evident. were self-evident, we wouldn't have judges. The whole point of courts is that we need human beings to wisely interpret the meaning of the letter of the law. That's literally the job description of a judge or a justice. And, you know, this claim of fidelity to somehow mind-read the 18th century mentality as if that's going to give us better case law and better outcomes is, I think, just an excuse to get conservative policy outcomes that they can't achieve politically because they disagree with the American people and try instead to get them in the courts. It is judicial activism cloaked in the language of judicial restraint. That's a great point. You know,

the irony of a Republican woman like Amy Coney Barrett calling herself an originalist is that if she was actually an originalist, she wouldn't even have the right to vote, much less be a judge on the Supreme Court. African Americans would have three-fifths personhood. You know, it's ironic that Republicans can enjoy all the benefits of progress, but fall back on this idea of originalism when it suits them. It just shows you that at the end for them, this is about power. And unfortunately, that might be the only language they understand, which is why a major electoral victory. And I think an electoral punishment for those members of the GOP who deep down know better than to be on board with Donald Trump, who said as much back when they were competing with him, and who have now made some pretty

awkward 180s. I think it's time for there to be a political consequence to that. Maybe that's what it takes to reunite them with their conscience. Yeah, yeah. We'll see how effective we are at appealing to their sense of shame. But in the meantime, hopefully the election will do a lot of the heavy lifting. So let's move on to coronavirus. With coronavirus, it's almost like, what can you say? On one hand, you have one guy who is so reckless that he himself caught the virus and became a symbol of his own failures at containing it. And then you have Joe Biden who has been preaching a consistent message of safety and responsibility since day one. But I do want to get your opinion on this latest talking point. And that's that Trump is the only one in the race who's had it. And so

he's got that life experience, Pete. And that's invaluable. That's something that Biden doesn't have. So how much of an advantage is that for Trump? I can't think it's much of an advantage since again, in his case, his contracting this came in the context of reckless disregard for even basic safety measures. Look, he doesn't seem to have any more insight on how to deal with this now than he did three weeks ago. And he also didn't understand how to deal with this six months ago when it would have made the greatest difference. But lives, it's never too late to save a life. And lives depend on getting more competent leadership as quickly as we possibly can. Yeah. Can we can we can we can we can we see your dog? Sorry about the intervention there. He's on patrol. There must be something that's got his attention. Yeah. I could try to. Chasten can get him to you want you to have a buddy appearance buddy. You want to be on TV? There you go. All right. This is it. This is his debut.

Buddy is excited to be joining us. Yeah. Some very strong views on constitutional dead hand originalism. but mostly he's just open for dinner. Sorry about the interruption. No problem. I think the benefits of dog people have been put on full display after having a president who doesn't have a dog. So I do want to talk about, you know, building on what you said about Trump's inability to really learn from having contracted this virus, and that was evident within minutes. I mean, even when he was an actively hospitalized COVID patient, he decided to go into a car, into a her medically sealed vehicle with his own secret service agents to wave at some friends. Right after he got out of the hospital, he went up on the Truman balcony and took his mask off.

I mean, he is a walking monument to the fact that he hasn't learned a single thing about how to deal with coronavirus, even after having had it himself. Yeah, you'd think this might be a humbling experience, but it seems to have had the opposite effect in his case. And it's unfortunate because he's in a position to lead by example. And, you know, in addition to the policies that presidents establish, the example that they represent often means just as much. You know, it's something that every mayor, every governor, you would hope every president thinks about the example that you said. But this president's

continued a bad example may well have more consequences in terms of more people getting infected. Right. And moving over to Joe Biden, I mean, he is uniquely prepared for this moment. not only did his administration successfully oversee other pandemics like H1N1 and Ebola, but he'd be taking over a country in mourning. I mean, there are 215,000 dead Americans. We're losing 1,000 Americans a day. And so much of Joe Biden's identity is predicated on the humbling experience of loss. So we really couldn't have a president better suited for this moment than Joe. That's right. He's got the attributes that I think our country is going to need to be called together, to be called to our highest values, to be guided through a period of loss, but also to be rallied

into a spirit of overcoming. And I think on everything from the attitude he takes toward climate change, which is let's confront this in a way that creates jobs and opportunity, to the spirit that he's going to take toward conquering the pandemic, which is let's come together, look after each other, learn from science and medicine, and get the job done. That's the kind of leadership that we need right now. And he is uniquely suited to the moment, even more than I imagine anybody could have guessed when he first stepped into the race last year. So I want to move over to the topic of religion. And that is because Democrats have largely ceded the religious arena to Republicans. Now, you're one of the few people who hasn't, and you've actually been really effective here.

But can you explain this phenomenon for people, myself included, who are unable to understand how you can have a demographic predicated on their adherence to religion like evangelicals who so overwhelmingly support someone like Donald Trump who has cheated on his wife and cut funding to hungry seniors and locked up children escaping crime and poverty. He is the antithesis of everything that Christianity purportedly represents. It's astonishing. And again, I think it speaks to the power of habit. Look, I know a lot of people who grew up in an environment or a setting where being Republican was just the same thing as being respectable or being family-oriented or being Christian. But I think that's breaking down, largely because of Donald Trump and his behavior, which

demonstrates as never before that God doesn't belong to a single political party in the U.S. And this is a chance to call out to voters of faith. And, you know, Joe Biden would be, I think, only the second practicing Catholic ever to take the office the president. Somebody who lets his faith guide him morally, but also doesn't let him, himself, feel any need to impose his interpretation of his religion on anybody else. And you know, what's so strange is in this White House and this administration, you got Donald Trump whose behavior is really a slap in the face to both progressive and conservative interpretations of religion. And then you got Mike Pence, who claims fidelity to an evangelical

evangelical faith, but then teams up with this president. And all I can keep thinking of is, you know, at the pearly gates, if any of us were to hear, you know, I was, I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was a child and you locked me up. I was a senior and you cut my access to medicine. What are we going to say? Yeah. See, this is why they're not letting you back on Fox. So I do want to, I want to go over to move over to you for a sec. You won't answer this question, but I'd beat myself up if I didn't ask. If you could have any job in a potential Biden administration, what would it be? I mean, the honest answer is wherever I could do the most good. And, you know, it's for hopefully the president-elect to decide if and when that makes sense for me.

What I can tell you is that I'm doing everything in my power to make sure there is a Biden-Harris administration. And then when there is, I'll do everything in my power to support it, whether that means returning to government or cheering and cheering it on and supporting them from the outside. So at this point in the campaign, it's about reaching that tiny sliver of Americans who are still undecided, right, or who might not think it's worth it to go to the polls. What's your elevator pitch to the stragglers out there who are still on the fence between Trump and Biden? So for those still deciding how to vote, I think the main message is so much is on the line for us. And if you don't see your own future, your own income,

your own livelihood and maybe your own life on the line, consider that of the rest of us. You know, all of us have our reasons. For me, it's family members whose lives depend on the Affordable Care Act not being eliminated as Donald Trump wants to do. It's the fact that my own marriage exists by the grace of a single vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what it means to me, and I would ask people who maybe feel a little bit indifferent

to at least consider how in different ways so many Americans are going to be impacted. personally and directly by what's going on. Now, there's another set of folks, as you mentioned, deciding whether to vote. And to them, I would say, look, we know that this system has its flaws. The only way to fix that is to make your voice heard in your moment of maximum power as a citizen. Power over all the things that make you mad or make you glad about this country, the things you tweet about, the things you protest about. The one time that those in power literally have to listen to you is the,

moment that you go in and vote. Don't waste that moment. Well said. So if you want to hear more from Mayor Pete, you can check out his new book, Trust and his podcast, The Deciding Decade and hopefully on Fox News making Rupert Murdoch's Day just a little bit worse. So Mayor Pete, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today. Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure. Thanks again to Mayor Pete. Okay, a couple of notes. I'm doing daily live chats on Instagram. So if you want me to answer some of your questions, follow me on Instagram at Brian Tyler Cohen. Also, with registration deadlines behind us, our job is not done. You need to have a plan to actually fill out your ballot and get it where it needs to go.

You all know that I've partnered with Vote Save America. They have a tool that I myself used to fill out my ballot called the Build Your Own Ballot tool. Go to Votesaveamerica.com slash ballot. I'll put the link in the episode notes. Type in your address and your exact ballot will come up. Every race and every ballot measure, along with endorsements and explanations. It is the best tool that I've seen so far. From there, the site will give you exact directions on where you can go to vote in person,

whether there is early voting, when it begins and ends. If you got a mail-in ballot, it'll tell you where you can drop it off safely. Please use this site. I gain nothing by pushing it. I just think it's the best resource that we have. It's what I use. It's what I suggest for my friends and family. You can't go wrong.

One last thing. We have a couple of weeks to go. So if you are angry or shocked, if you've lost someone to a virus that wasn't contained, if you've lost your job to an economy that was mismanaged, If your health care is at risk or your voting rights are under attack, if you want agency over your own body, if you don't recognize the country that you live in anymore and want to do something about it, this is how you make them listen.

You do it with your vote. So take yourself and your family and your friends and do your part to save this country. We're in the home stretch, so please make every day count. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next time. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, interviews captured and edited. for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera

and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe in your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels.