Pod Save America - “Mr. President, don’t you mean the opposite?”

Episode Date: January 11, 2018

Trump gets rave reviews for not being senile in a meeting, Bannon goes down in flames, and Oprah makes everyone lose their minds. Dr. Catherine Thorlieffson joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy on stage in Oslo, Norway to talk about the rise of right-wing extremism, and Jan Stromnes of Halden Prison discusses criminal justice reform. 

Hello, Oslo! Hello, Oslo? John, before we start... Yes, John? I just want to say that you're welcome. Made Stockholm's welcome look like shit. And we're not going to pander to Amsterdam like this either.

Yeah, yeah. Pandering is global. You don't know. Hello, Oslo, and welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett.

I'm Tommy Vitor. We are very happy to be here. We apologize in advance for whatever crazy shit our president is about to say to your prime minister during their meeting today. We already spelled your name wrong in a press release.

I believe the White House has already referred to your country as Normway. It's not a joke. So we are, yeah, that's true. John, I'm hearing that in a terrible faux pas, your prime minister did reach for a drumstick from the bucket of KFC first. That's very... That does anger him. He fired off a tweet. And unfortunately, you guys are now out of NATO.

That's a shame. We have some outstanding guests tonight. We'll be talking to Dr. Catherine Torlefson about the rise of right-wing nationalism and xenophobia. We'll also be talking to Jan Strumnes, who helps run

what Time Magazine has called the best prison in the world right here in Norway. Guys, Crooked Media has also launched

a brand new podcast today. What? Called Keep It by Ira Madison III. It talks about culture and politics. It is hilarious. Great. So please go subscribe and check it out.

Subscribe. Subscribe. Check it out. Let's start with President Trump, as we often do here, who we like to call the master dealmaker back in America. He is our master dealmaker. So right now, Democrats are trying to pass a law that would offer a pathway to

citizenship for the 800,000 young immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to America as children and lived in our country their entire lives. If Congress does not reach a deal soon on this, these young Americans will be deported since Trump eliminated the protections that Obama had granted them. So, Democrats want to vote in Congress on a clean bill that will offer citizenship to the Dreamers, which is what Trump and the Republicans originally promised to do back in the fall. Trump and the Republicans are saying they will only help the Dreamers if they get funding for Trump's stupid wall and also steps to reduce legal

immigration in America. Hey, John, what's a clean bill? Is that something that's well-defined in Washington? Right. So a clean bill is basically just, they just want a vote. They want one vote on this one piece of legislation with nothing else attached. And everyone knows this in Washington, of course. When you say a clean bill on an issue, it means we just want the bill on that one issue, and you don't dirty it up with other issues. Right. It's what it always means, 100% of the time. This is all by way of saying, so this brings us to yesterday at the White House,

where Donald Trump held a live, televised, 55-minute meeting with Democrats and Republicans to negotiate a deal. The idea here was to show the world that Trump is a very stable genius and not a dotty old racist who's in decline. Now, before we talk about this, we actually have a bit of a clip. Cool.

About the meeting. Now, for a segment we call OK Stop. Here's how it works. We roll a clip when we want to stop it. We say OK Stop and then we talk about it. This week on OK Stop, we have footage from this meeting. This was a meeting to do two things. One, demonstrate that the president

could speak in coherent sentences. And that he knew people's names. That was undercut by the fact that you'll see there's name tags, but it's okay. That he wasn't gripped by some combination of senility and mental disorder,

which is where we're at. So this is supposed to be the proof point for them. And then the second piece was the debate about how to handle DACA and how Republicans and Democrats would come together on a deal, which brings us to this clip and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who is a Democrat. We have some Feinstein fans here. Feinstein heads. Let's roll the clip.

What about a clean DACA bill now with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure like we did back when I remember when Kennedy was here? I have no problem. I think that's basically what Dick is saying. We're going to come out with DACA. We're going to do DACA. And then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive. Yeah, I would like to do that.

Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that. Okay, stop. What you're seeing is a Republican member of Congress realizing that Senator Dianne Feinstein just said, let's do the Democrat version, and Donald Trump said, yes.

Sure. And you can start hearing those gasps around the table of the Republican lawmakers thinking, he just fucked us. Fucked us again. And all the Democrats are like, shh, everyone be quiet. Yeah, see, look at Steny Hoyer and Dick Durbin right there, two Democrats.

Their faces are just like, shh. Dick Durbin right there, two Democrats. Their faces are just like, shh. Dick Durbin's like, shut the fuck up. This is like, like they just sold Donald Trump a car for three times the price

they thought that it was worth and they just can't believe it. Mr. President, you need to be clear though. I think what Senator Feinstein is asking here. Okay, stop.

When we talk, so, so that's a really perfect moment. I think we need to be clear, though. I think what Senator Feinstein's asking here... Okay, stop. When we talk... So that's a really perfect moment. I think we need to be clear here. And what he's really saying is, I think you need to say the opposite of what you just said. This is Kevin McCarthy. He's a Republican from California. He's leadership in the House.

He's also very stupid himself. He's the one who undercut the entire investigation against Hillary Clinton's emails by being like, look at what it did to her poll numbers. That's the only reason we care. And once that investigation was undercut, it was smooth sailing for her. We don't want to be back here two years later. You have to have security, as the secretary

would tell you. But I think that's what she said. Okay, stop. That is not what she said. That is not what she said. She doesn't think that's what she said. She said, again, the opposite. She said something different.

She said, again, the opposite. She said something different. No, I think a clean DACA bill to me is a DACA bill where we take care of the 800,000 people. They're actually not necessarily young people. Everyone talks about young. You know, they could be 40 years old, 41 years old. Okay, stop. He's lost the thread. He's lost the thread.

That's, by the way, way that is they say they're young it's his way of saying yeah they came here as children but they kept getting older these immigrants and these immigrants

having birthdays there's also no more perfect Washington moment than five 70 year old white guys telling a woman in the room

what she just said. But I think, to me, a clean bill is a bill of DACA. We take care of them, and we also take care of security. Okay, stop. You just made it not a clean bill. Many hailed this, what do you call it, a meeting. As you see, he has a vocabulary of a few hundred words. He vaguely is aware of the issue, though not its subtler points. One media organization said that this meeting showed that Donald Trump was the post-partisan leader bigger than Republican or Democrat who would overwhelm Washington through the

sheer strength of stagecraft and deal-cutting genius. This was that moment. I want you guys to know that... That was Axios, obviously. What you saw in that clip was the promise of the Trump presidency. That's the best he can do. And it was, we pick on, actually, CNN, like, Politico, media organization after media organization, they all looked at that meeting, they're like, well, this Michael Wolff book said

that he's crazy, but he wasn't crazy in that meeting. Yeah, he was just ignorant. He was just ignorant and uninformed. The revelation that everyone around him, including his own children, think he's an idiot doesn't mean he can't sit quietly for most of a 55-minute meeting. Because that's what he did there. I would say, like, thank God for the Washington Post who got it right. And they wrote, in their lead, in this meeting Trump showed stability, not necessarily capability. Shout out to Ashton Parker. Thank you, Washington Post. Was that so hard, everyone?

Oh, you know, there were also a few conservatives on the Twitter machine that said something on the lines of, you can't imagine Barack Obama never had a meeting like this. And then several people pointed out that he actually did a multi-hour health care roundtable with Republicans and Democrats where he not only did this, he actually was aware of every facet of the policy being debated. One hack who is

someone who's tried to become Trump's press secretary on several occasions. David Martosco, I believe. Yes, and never got the job. He actually said, I wasn't offered to it and I didn't agree to it. I said, hold on. Which one was it? But he said something like, yeah, obviously Obama had this meeting, but it was not

to prove he was mentally stable. And he judged that as a win. That was the win for him. To me, doesn't this clip basically confirm the central thesis of Michael Wolff's book, which is that Trump has no fucking idea what he's doing?

Like, we can focus on the mental stability stuff or not, but the insight in that book is that, like, the guy has no grasp of any policy issues, nor has he tried to learn them. There's a classic film in the United States, just a legendary film, called Weekend at Bernie's, where two young men... They got that here. You've seen Bernie's, where two young men... Two young men... They got that here.

You've seen that here. Two handsome young men, there's boats involved, they drag around a corpse, and they make it move. And they achieved that in that video. Weekend at Bernie's is an entire weekend, this was an hour, but you know, great success. So I just wanna make one serious point about this, which is, I think ultimately the debate around whether or not, you know, is he mentally stable? Is he showing the signs of senility? I think that the reality is whether or not that's true. And I may

be very well true and it's frightening. There's actually not that much of a difference between someone who's spent a lifetime rejecting curiosity rejecting learning and following a pattern of thought that says he knows everything it doesn't need to know another thing and someone who doesn't have the mental capacity anymore to retain new information because they're in mental decline i mean donald trump whether or not it's his brain or whether or not it's his own habits, he does not have the capacity to do the job. And he never did. He didn't have it in 2015. He didn't have it in 2010. He's never had it. So end of thought. Well, so one more funny point on this. After the meeting, the White House released the official transcript of the entire meeting, and one phrase was somehow

left out of that transcript, which was Donald Trump's answer to Dianne Feinstein when she asked, would you like to do a clean DACA bill? And he said, yeah, I would like to do it. Somehow that didn't appear in the transcript. It's the transcript they released said, what should we do on immigration? Cross talk, cross talk. So we'll build a wall. So the question now, guys, what do Democrats have to do to get this deal done?

Because it does seem like negotiating with a deal master over here, it doesn't really get you anywhere because Trump's telling people what they want to hear. Sometimes he's telling people, Democrats and Republicans in the same room people what they want to hear. Sometimes he's telling people, Democrats and Republicans, in the same room, what they want to hear in two different sentences. Right. And there's a very real question of how engaged will he really be? What he's told that room essentially is, if you guys can cut a deal and get something done, I won't get in the way. But he still has Rasputin, Santa Monica fascist Stephen Miller, fresh off his Sunday show appearances, embarrassing himself in front of the entire country,

doing his best to undercut the process. So I'm glad you brought that up. Bloomberg, I think, reported that Republicans in Congress who are working on this deal with Democrats, both the Republicans and the Democrats are saying that every time they come close to negotiating a deal on this, Stephen Miller at the White House keeps fucking it up by inserting these poison pills into the deal

that he knows Democrats would never go for. What are his preferred poison pills, he says? It's basically all these measures to drastically cut back on legal immigration. And right before we came on stage, the White House released a statement that said, there will be no deal for the Dreamers unless there is the end of the visa lottery system, the end of chain migration, and full funding for the border wall. Yeah, I mean, so this is...

So it's hard to figure out now what happens next. Right, I mean, even that is a change in position. I mean, those are positions Donald Trump has taken, but he says on the one hand, I'll support whatever deal you guys come to, and then the bad cop, his immigration hardliners, say here's what a deal has to require. And ultimately it seems clear that Trump would sign

whatever came across his desk. So when the White House puts out a statement that said there can't be a, we won't support a deal unless it has X, Y, or Z, the only reason that's true is if Republicans in Congress say it's true. Right. And it's ultimately a bluff,

but the question is, the White House demanding it isn't what matters. What matters is whether or not Republicans in Congress decide they can use that to get it in there and then lay it at the feet of the president. Yeah, again, a normal, truly bipartisan deal here would be, you know, Democrats want a clean vote to offer citizenship to the dreamers and Republicans get some additional border security funding. They don't get the wall. They don't get, you know, all the cuts to legal immigration that they want, but they get a little more security funding.

That's what and Republicans and Democrats both know that that would be the bipartisan deal. And what Miller keeps doing is every time they get close to that, he throws in these extreme measures that he knows are going to screw up the deal. So that's where we are now. So the option for the Democrats is to say, okay, well, we have to fund the government by January 19th, you need our votes, and unless you actually put the DREAM Act on the floor for a vote, then you will not get our votes to fund a government that's going to deport

800,000 young Americans. Right. Yeah. And the compromise could end up being that there is some additional money for border security tucked into that. Trump can claim a win and say, here's my wall. We'll say, no, it's not. You're full of shit. And we'll move on because that's what we do in Washington. And that's where, and I'm sure there's

a lot, I'm sure there's probably some people in the White House and many Republicans who want him to get to that point because they don't want this. No one wants to keep fighting on this issue. Yeah. I mean, look, this is not a new debate. You know, Trump brings his chaos and villains to the table, but ultimately we've been having this same debate about immigration for the better part of two decades. I mean, this is the contours of the debate when George W. Bush was pursuing comprehensive immigration reform. These are the contours of the debate when Barack Obama was pursuing immigration reform. So ultimately, if there is going to be a compromise, it will be some balance between legalization and security,

and Democrats should continue to draw their line on that. They should draw their line on DACA. They should draw their line on children's health insurance and a few other key priorities. And the only thing standing between us and a deal is whether or not Republicans actually want one. Right. So, and what everyone listening at home can do is to make sure you call your senators,

your Democratic senators, and make sure that they do not vote on any long-term deal to fund the government that would also fund the deportation of these Americans and take away health insurance, by the way, from 9 million kids because they don't extend the children's health insurance program, which is also part of negotiations. So make sure, call your Democratic senators, and make sure that they stand with the Dreamers and not with Santa Monica fascist Stephen Miller. Speaking... Speaking of fascists.

Speaking of useless fascists. Yes. Steve Bannon stepped down on Tuesday. of useless fascists. Yes. Steve Bannon stepped down on Tuesday. From his post as executive chairman

of Breitbart. It's just a great failure that we even know his name. Honestly. Yeah, it is. Tough couple months for Steve. Fired from the White House.

Loses the Senate election in Alabama. Disavowed by Donald Trump. And now fired from Breitbart. And ladies, he's single. We hear that one of the reasons he was finally forced out is the Mercers did it.

The Mercers are a family who funds Breitbart. They're a bunch of right-wing lunatics. They fund a lot of the Trump campaign. They fund all kinds of horrible things. And I guess they were sick of Steve's antics. What does this mean for Breitbart now? Is Breitbart good now? No. Breitbart gonna turn

itself around? Breitbart is not good. I mean, like, Steve Bannon made the cardinal sin of thinking he was more important than the office of the presidency, or that he was an indispensable staffer. And Washington goes through cycles. It happened with people in the Obama White House, the Bush White House. No one is indispensable. That place will open its doors the next day, whether you're there or not. And you have to be self-aware about that when you go in. And what Steve Bannon was, was an opportunist who was well-funded by his

little pet billionaires, and he monetized fascism and racism and was in the right place in the right time and used it to manipulate the U.S. political system. And it is fantastic to see him fall on his face, but I wish it was not because he told the truth about Don Jr. being a moron and Jared Kushner being a fucking moron, and that he was excised from Washington because he was a racist nationalist, you know, peddler of grievance politics that has done enormous damage to the country. So, I'm like, the outcome is great,

but, you know, it's not... The victory doesn't feel as good as it probably should. A quick shout out. There's a group of folks who are anonymous who run a Twitter feed called Sleeping Giants. And what they've done is one by one by one let everyone know that if you have programmatic advertising that you're advertising on Breitbart.

So check them out. They're on Twitter. They've got 3,500-some-odd advertisers to drop Breitbart and other sites supporting hate speech, so support them. Yeah. Well, also... I'm glad you brought that up. So Bloomberg reported that the advertising boycott against Breitbart by sleeping giants

has had such an impact that the Mercer family is basically Breitbart's only source of funding now because all these advertisers have pulled out. And so one of the reasons they finally pushed Bannon out is because the Mercers were sick of picking up the bill for Breitbart all by themselves because all of these advertisers pulled out. So the Sleeping Giants campaign that they launched a couple months that started launching earlier last year, it's really worked. These dickheads buy 500-foot yachts,

but yeah, they're upset about picking up the Breitbart tab, but whatever, I'm happy. Tommy's not really letting that win in. Yeah. I had a question here. Tommy, would you like to spike the football? Honestly, he didn't want to. He's a bigger man than that.

Wise tonight, Tommy. Pivoted to rage. Circumspect. I mean, the question is sort of what becomes of Bannonism, you know, Trumpism, Breitbartism, like you know, who carries the flag for this shitty brand of politics right now?

We saw yesterday that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, pardoned by Trump despite torturing inmates, is now running for Senate in Arizona. Do we think that there's going to be more candidates like him? What do you think is going to happen? I think yes. I think that Steve Bannon was an opportunist. He certainly didn't invent the effectiveness of racial grievance in American politics.

He did figure out ways to weaponize it in innovative ways and in ways to monetize through Breitbart, et cetera. But I think Virginia gives you a picture, hopefully, of the future. You look at the racial grievance politics that Ed Gillespie adopted to try to win. It wasn't really a natural fit for him. And it's actually not true to say that it was totally ineffective. It was very, very effective amongst the people it was targeted at. But it cost him more than it helped him.

It turned off a lot of people. It turned off the people that are the growing populations of America. It turned off suburban Republicans. It turned off the people that Democrats need to win and that, you know, I wouldn't even call them moderate Republicans, but Republicans that aren't nationalists need to win. So you will see people like Roy Moore be able to harness that kind of aging population of voters to win primaries. It also makes it harder for them to win the general. You'll see people like Arpaio be threatening to the Republican Party, but I think it's going to become increasingly difficult for them to win outside of those primaries in anything that's not a blood-red state, like even Alabama could

have gone to Roy Moore had he not had those allegations. Beyond that, I'm not really sure, except that it's a potent force for a lot of people, and it has dragged our politics to a really negative place and shifted the Republican Party to the right, and that you guys here, you have multiple parties, and so these things sort themselves out differently. Inside of our Republican Party, we have this nationalist front, we have this more conservative Christian

element, and we have this corporate Republicanism. And what we have seen is just how easily it was for the nationalist wing of the party to co-opt people like Paul Ryan, or vice versa for Paul Ryan to co-opt that front towards his end. So that continues

to be something we have to take very seriously. Yeah, I think these guys are emboldened. They'll continue to run. Breitbart was a potent platform for them. If you look at the sort of web traffic history from the 2016 election, a lot of Breitbart stories moved around a lot. So they will continue to find platforms, the Daily Caller, InfoWars, the Scaramucci Post, you know, the greatest hits. Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson. Taking off like light. You know, Sean Hannity is a terrible hack, right? He's on Fox News every night and he just repeats whatever Donald Trump wants. He gives him the questions in advance. Tucker Carlson is quietly doing something even more insidious. You know, he is doing kind of Breitbart on television

every night and showing that there's an audience for him. Yeah, I do worry about media figures like Tucker and politicians like Tucker who sort of try to sand some of the edges off of this because they're a little bit smarter and yet it's still the same exact insidious politics. And it's still the same message. Look, 100,000 votes go a different way.

We have spent the last year talking about how this kind of racial grievance, nationalist politics flamed out in America. But that's not what happened. What do you think? I mean, look, Donald Trump is going to continue to use this. I mean, are we too sanguine even now about this? I don't think we are.

I mean, I think we're pretty worried about it. I'm worried about it. I think that in Donald Trump, we would have an even more dangerous president if he was smarter. And if he had people like Steve Bannon around him who weren't as showboaty and as Steve Bannon is and and sloppy sloppy Steve as Steve Bannon was and if you have a few smarter minds

around you and you have a leader who is a little bit smarter like I think someone like a Tom Cotton, senator from Arkansas, says a lot of the same things and believes a lot of the same things as you see on Breitbart and that Donald Trump believes. And I think there's a real danger. If you start running politicians

in some of these races who aren't pardoned fucking criminals like Joe Arpaio or child molesters like Roy Moore, but who really believe this stuff, not pretend to believe it like an egg lesbian in Virginia, there's some potency to that. Yeah. Immigration is a potent issue. That's why the Republicans are viewing this DACA conversation with such trepidation.

I think Democrats who look at data and look at opinion polls and have seen that change over time are fearful of what this debate could mean in terms of exacerbating xenophobia and challenges for the party. So I think it's all a piece of one puzzle, and we should be worried and working on it. Yeah, stay vigilant. Okay, I want to move on to a topic that cannot be avoided any longer. Now, all of you know that here at Crooked Media, we will be laser-focused on the 2018 elections for this entire year, and you should be too. But, because you've all been so well-behaved, we will go ahead and spend just a few minutes indulging the global hysteria that is known as Oprah 2020. Don't applaud that. Love it.

When are you leaving to run her campaign? The second somebody over there replies to an email. So just obviously background. All of this started at the Golden Globe Awards when Oprah delivered what I think was one of the more powerful, hopeful speeches that I've heard in years. Certainly one of the most powerful, hopeful speeches about the've heard in years. Certainly one of the most powerful, hopeful speeches about the Me Too movement

and its place in American history. This, of course, raised questions about whether she would run for president because you can't just leave a good speech alone. You have to immediately go there. That's where we're at. If you give a good speech, you're going to be president.

And, you know, in fairness, the reason that the media took off with this is when Oprah and many of her close friends were asked about whether she'd run for the very first time, they did not offer a blanket denial and refusal. For the first time, they said, okay, she is actually thinking about it. So, what do you guys think?

Look, to paraphrase our president, there are stupid takes on both sides. I think the people that watch one speech and are willing to sort of jump on board and say she's our savior that's a little bit silly i think there's another school of thought that's like where is oprah on drone strikes okay we can get there too there's all there's a whole process for this um what i think is cool and compelling about Oprah is her life story and her humanity and her empathy that came through in that speech

and that we're so fucking sorely lacking in our government and our politics right now because of this monster who just thinks about everything in terms of himself. So to see someone that successful, that self-made, that empathetic, and that human despite living on this other plane for the last however many years, is pretty cool. So run if you want to run, Oprah.

Yeah, I think we have a facile debate about experience. You know, political experience is very important, and if she were to run, that would be a question she'd have to answer, right? You haven't been in politics. It's different than running a company. What are your policy platforms? Why haven't you been involved before? Et cetera, et cetera. Those are questions she would have to answer. But she has the business

experience that Donald Trump claimed and never had. She's the self-made person that Donald Trump claimed to be and never was. And she lacks many of the traits that make him so dangerous, obviously. So in a lot of ways, she know, she represents the promise of a person from the corporate world as president that Donald Trump pretended to have all along. I mean, I have no idea if she'll run. I have no idea if she'll be a good candidate, if she'd be a good president. It certainly gives me pause that she has no government experience. But it also really bothers me when people say, oh, this is like the liberal version of Trump. This is a liberal fever game.

You know what? If you ask me to list a dozen reasons why Donald Trump is a bad president, being a celebrity with no experience would be at the fucking bottom, okay? Yes. If Donald Trump had served in the United States Senate for 50 years, he would still be a racist,

he would still be a sexist, he would still be a racist, he would still be a sexist, he would still be a liar, and he still wouldn't know shit about anything that he's talking about. You know, it's just like, and she's not just a celebrity talk show host. It's almost offensive to just like dismiss her as a celebrity talk show host. This is a woman who climbed out of poverty, escaped sexual abuse, became a journalist, a successful journalist, and then became the most successful African-American businesswoman in the world.

That is a big qualification. And it's like, and the other thing is, this is what campaigns are for. It's to test this out. If her lack of experience bothers you, don't support her. You know, if you don't agree with her on all her policy positions when she finally tells us her policy positions, then don't support her. If she's done something in her career that you don't like, don't support her. The secret, Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil.

Anti-vaccination, Suzanne Somers. She's got some shit to answer for, too. This is not an Oprah hagiography. No. Just like every other candidate, she will have to answer all those questions, and she'd better have good fucking answers if she wants to win. But that's what the purpose of the campaign is. And underlying all of this worry is this idea that if for some reason we allow this candidacy

to happen, then we will all be brainwashed by the celebrity of Oprah, and we'll all just follow her anywhere, which doesn't say a lot of, it basically says that the Democrats are going to act just like Republicans did with Donald Trump. Yes, I think that we're all still dealing with the emotional fallout of our worst person becoming president, and it scrambled our brains a little bit, and so I think we get, we're all worried that, you know, we're going to focus on And so I think we're all worried that we're going to focus on 2018. But when we think about 2020, we will know that we will be heading into the most consequential presidential election maybe in American history. And we know that

Democrats will only have one shot to get it right. And there will be reasons to not be for anyone who gets in the ring. And it's a really important decision. Because Donald Trump won, I think there's this fear that we could go down the same dark path. So I think that there's a question to ask, which is pretty easy. Would nominating someone like Oprah be a good idea if Donald Trump had never come along? And my view is, the

answer may be yes, it may be no, but neither one is obvious. It's not obvious whether it's a good idea or a bad idea yet. And so everybody should just calm down. It bothered me not just because of the Oprah thing, but like, are we going to do this? God, man, we have not started off on the right foot

in debating 2020 candidates so far. Because, you know, it's like, we've got, let them all campaign. Go hear them speak. Learn their policy positions, and then decide for yourself whether you like the person or not. The great sin of the 2016 election coverage was when you looked at like the network news broadcasts that policy issues got like three minutes versus 30 hours on electability or polling or whatever, you know. And this little mini fever about Oprah is just sort of the latest turn in that crank. So, you know. Feels like lessons not learned,

you know. Yeah, and just, I think there is legitimate fear that celebrity swamps substance, but And there should be. Celebrity shouldn't swamp substance. I don't want to take that position. But everyone acts like a, it's again this problem that flows from the media which treats us like, not like voters,

but as pundits. Yeah. Doesn't treat us as people making a decision about who we're for, but gives us the information about who other people are thinking about picking. And so before anyone has said to themselves, who do I like? They say to themselves, who are other people liking, and are they right or wrong about that? Who should I like? Who can win? And people, we can take time to say to ourselves,

who's the candidate that I think would be the best president? And I don't know if it's Oprah. We have a ton of great candidates. And Oprah may not even run. It's so far away. But people, I think, are so spooked by how the election unfolded in 2016 that they are ready to pounce.

Yeah. And I'll just say one last thing that we have been saying on Pod Save America since long before the Oprah buzz. The next Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be. In fact, hopefully all the Democrats that run in 2018, they should be able to give a speech like Oprah did. Yeah.

Don't discount inspiration. And people should, Democrats should stop talking in talking points that sound like they're recycled from the DNC daily talking point email in 1995. Like fucking try to inspire people. Try to move people. Try to persuade people. Try to tell stories like that.

And one reason that she's getting all this attention is because she gave a speech like that. And we haven't heard a lot of Democrats give speeches like that for a very long time. I think that's true. And I think the great test for anyone who is not Oprah, and there are many of them, there may be some of you in this crowd who are not Oprah, is to be able to weave together a story that is inspiring,

but that also gets into the kind of policies we need, to the kind of changes we need as a country, because ultimately that if we are worried about being a celebrity culture, we need to have people out there who are going to succeed in that celebrity culture by making a compelling argument, not just about inspiration, but about policy and economic changes and an economic argument that is powerful enough to overwhelm a system that is designed to make us not talk about issues. And that's really, really hard, but that's going to be the person we need, whether it's to defeat Oprah or to defeat Donald Trump. It's weird to say it that way.

All right. That's enough of that, then. Enough of that. You think? I think we're, I think, yeah. I think we got it out of our system. Yeah, I think we're good. Okay.

When we come back, we will be talking to Dr. Katherine Torlifson. We are very lucky to have as our first guest, she is a researcher from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo, Dr. Katherine Torolfson. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Dr. Torlefson, thank you for being here. It's good to be here. Thank you. Thank you.

You've done extensive research on a very light, fun topic, which is far-right, nativist extremism across Europe. What are the general conditions that a nativist extremism across Europe. What are the general conditions that breed this kind of extremism? And are there similarities in the places you've studied that we can sort of see as warning signs? Well, one of the main drivers is obviously resistance towards immigration. And there's a big debate in the research circles about whether it's economic drivers or culture drivers. And I think this is

too simple that caught me because it's actually both. So the places I worked, for instance, in the post-industrial heartlands of Hungary and England, you have people who experienced really long-term existential insecurity and

a lack of jobs over time. And they blame migrants and scapegoat migrants for various societal ills. Would you say that resistance to immigration is greater in places where there is economic dislocation, where people are suffering through economic crises, financial crises? Is that sort of a direct line you can draw? There's no neat correspondence because if you look at Switzerland or even Norway, so context of wealth and abundance, there's even the same processes, renationalization processes.

So there's no neat correspondence. But there definitely, if you look at the French elections, the Brexit vote, they definitely are represented in industrial heartlands and the lower educated people. Have you seen parallels between the rise of the far right in Europe and that of the United States? There are clear parallels more over the perceived threats of demographic change. So we're the white people becoming a minority in our own land and we're feeling like strangers and so forth. So that's a parallel. Whereas I think in the US, the public debate is more concerned with issues of racism, whereas

across the European context, you will see more culturalist accounts, so issues of culture, religion, civilization being invoked. Syria and the associated refugee crisis, is that a driver of the reemergence of some of these parties that is sort of singular at this point in time, or has it exacerbated a challenge that was already there? I would say the latter, because it created a perfect storm for some of these actors who had ownership to the anti-immigration message, so they could move that messaging from the margins

into the mainstream and say, you know, this is what would be constant on, and now it's happening. Look, that's the external displaced Syrian who's threatening our security, our way of life, national identity, sovereignty. How much influence do individual leaders have on the growth of these movements?

Do the leaders emerge from the movements or are the movements fueled by the leaders? Well, both. I've studied UKIP, and then you see an opportunist, charismatic leader like Nigel Farage, who likes to refer to himself as Mr. Brexit. He played a massive role, and his chief advisor was obviously Breitbart editor Rahim Kassam, who also played a role in pushing or translating those local grievances, socioeconomic grievances, into more politics of fear. So you have individual leaders that are very instrumental in the rise, but on the supply side, but on the demand side, I would say that there was also a grievance in search for a leader in many of these places. So when you look at France,

Marine Le Pen has taken the extremism of her father and sort of sanded it down and removed the overt anti-Semitism, and now it's this sort of new form of basically the same, but, you know, sort of different appearance. I think we've also seen that in the United States. Like, the KKK, they're not wearing white hoods anymore when they're in Charlottesville. They're wearing khaki pants and polo shirts

and carrying tiki torches that they all bought at Target because they thought that would look cool. Do you think that that PR campaign and that sort of sanding down of the edges helps them sell the message? Is that going to make them more effective? It's key in processes of mainstreaming and recruitment and belonging because it's providing a more sexy image.

It's more available. Ray-Bans, cocky jeans. And it's potentially appealing to a wider audience. And I've also done research in Hungary where you see similar tendencies. So instead of the old fascist symbols, you would kind of wrap it up in a nicer bureaucratic suit appearance. But the radical message remained the same. Many supporters in the European far-right parties that have grown over the last

few years have been younger. What do you think the specific appeal to young people is to these movements? Well, these movements offer two things. So it's economic protectionism and it's culture protectionism. Actually a third, even the protection of civilization. And I think in a fast changing world, so the key word is acceleration. There's been acceleration the last particular three decades. And I think for some people those those changes are just too much.

And it's a way of scaling back the process of globalization. And of course, it can also just be powerful in terms of identity-creating processes. What's the generational divide here, do you think? I mean, because some people will say, you know, as sort of the older people who are more resistant to immigration move on and the younger generation which embraces diversity more especially in our country we like to think this then these movements will go away but then in other places you do see sort of the rise of these

movements among young people specifically so what how do you well if you look at the brexit vote there was a clear generational divide so so older white men predominantly voting as well. But if you look, for instance, again, Hungary, you see urban, younger people, middle class voting as well. So I think that's also the worrying tendency when you have younger people and their parents might have, for instance, Holocaust in living memory, but they still try to change history, the official historiography,

or try to minimize the role of the state, for instance, in genocide. There's a prominent Nazi's name, I just don't feel like saying, in the United States, who was doing a press conference outside of an event and he got punched in the face. And it started this big debate about whether views as virulent as Nazism need to be met with literal force, or if that's playing into their ideology and that this needs to be a broader debate about political views, even if they're completely abhorrent. I guess I'm in no way advocating violence, but I'm curious philosoph like, philosophically, if there is a way that these extremist parties have been met and their ideas fought against

that has been more effective in some places than in others so that maybe we can follow that path. Well, I think, obviously, education is always key. So you need to recognize conspiratorial thinking, you need to recognize myths about migrants and minorities. And education is also key in creating opportunities so globalized better, so that people that feel despair, that feel left

behind, can actually feel a sense of inclusion. But for the neo-Nazi movements, it's more difficult because some of them are very hardcore believers, so it's very difficult to exit necessarily once you embody it and embrace that kind of ideology.

When you look at the rise of these movements in different places, are there any movements that have been defeated or died out? What gives you hope as you look to the future here? A message of hope? Well I think in many places I'm hopeful in terms of the millennials. For instance, during a few work in Doncaster, a small town I lived in in Yorkshire, there were young people that were actually also embracing LGBT rights diversity.

They were anxious about the lack of jobs, but they didn't go to the nativist rights. So there was definitely a generational gap on the ground. So their parents were afraid that their children might not have a future. So they were voting for exclusionary nationalism, but the younger people were more hopeful. Yeah. Dr. Torlefson, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Guys, we're going to play a game, but before we do, I have an update. Ooh, breaking news. What's that? I have an update on the press conference between President Donald Trump and your Prime Minister. Oh, great. Norway. Normway? Normway. We're calling it Normway now.

She did raise the Paris Climate Accords and Donald Trump said the US could conceivably re-enter the Paris Climate Accords. He feels very strongly about the environment. He also feels very strongly about repeating the last thing he heard. But that's pretty good. about the environment. He also veels very strongly about repeating the last thing he heard. But...

That's pretty good. Was Kevin McCarthy in the corner saying... What you meant was... Sir, we have to be clear. When asked about interviewing with Mueller, Trump said no collusion. But he did say we will see.

On Mueller and on DACA, he reiterated needing a wall as part of the deal. So those are the questions they got. Those are the questions they got. It's ongoing. But that's a real-time update. Look at that. Look at that. Not bad for a podcast.

Not bad. All right. You guys ready to play a game? Yeah. Now for a game we call, we're not in the prediction business anymore. We had some fun talking about Oprah. It's candy to talk about 2020, but we're focusing on 2018

because talking about a presidential election this far out is ultimately a waste of time because things have a tendency to change far more than we expect. And so we're going to play a game tonight to make that clear. Would anyone out there like to play We're Not in the Prediction Business Anymore? I believe Tanya is out there somewhere with a microphone. You're both in merch and he's pointing at you, so that's pretty good.

Hi, what's your name? I'm Caroline. Caroline? Yeah. And where are you from? Here, Oslo. I mean, Halden, here in Norway. I'm off to a good start. You sound like Jared Kushner in front of Congress.

Okay, I'm a good company then. No, sorry, never mind. No, you're doing wonderfully. What is the name of the city from which you're from? Holden. Holden. Yes. Okay. It's like, it's like Holden. You just switched the, or with the A. Holden. Holden. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And what was your name again? Caroline. Caroline. I'm going to do better about that in the future. So here's how the game works. We're going to pull from headlines and books and things that were written about people

that were supposed to become president and did not. And it will be your job to suss out who we're talking about. Alright? Are you ready, Carolyn? Caroline? Caroline. Do you pay close attention to American politics? I hope so. You're wearing the shirt. Yeah. I listen to you guys,

so I'm fairly updated. Okay. It's our fault that she got there wrong. Yeah, no, I got it. I got it. I got it. Caroline with the blame shifting and the shiftiness. Now she's like Don Jr. I'm sorry.

I'm kidding. Oh, it's all fine. Let's play the game. Question number one. Time magazine hailed this candidate as the right-wing answer to Barack Obama and put him on the cover. Which Republican were they talking about

and what did Time magazine call him? Was it A, Jeb Bush, the Bush America will actually love? Was it B, Bobby Jindal, the New Orleans saint that can't be stopped? Was it C, Bobby Jindal, the New Orleans saint that can't be stopped? Was it C, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican savior? Or was it D, Governor Chris Christie, the next big thing? I don't know why they're laughing.

You guys are children. A bunch of Norwegian children. I'm going to need an answer, Caroline. I don't remember this, so I'm going to go with C, Marco Rubio. Good. Nailed it. Very good. There it is.

There it is. There it is. The Republican savior, Marco Rubio. How Marco Rubio became the new voice of the GOP. A voice so quiet, you cannot hear it. If you can't see it at home, we have the time cover up. We will tweet it out and we will tweet it at Marco Rubio, just so he remembers. Man.

That's for you, Marco. Marco Rubio is not having the Senate career he imagined. Just hiding, just hiding from the news. Question number two. In 2006, John Harris and Mark Halpern published the book The Way to Win on who had the best chance to win the 2008 election and why. How many times was Barack Obama mentioned in that book? Was it A?

One time in a chapter on the importance of experience. Was it B? Five times, in a chapter on the importance of change. Was it C? Ten times, in a chapter on rising diversity and youth in the United States. Or was it D? Zero times, in no chapters, because the book did not, in fact, know the way to win. Zero times in no chapters because the book did not, in fact, know the way to win. I think I'm going to go with D. You were right. That one was a comedy question with an easy answer. Let's face it.

All right. So let's not get too cocky as we head into the final question. That question was more for us than for you all. Yeah, absolutely. Question number three. The conservative website Red State ran with this confident headline, quote, this is the week that this candidate won the Republican nomination. Who was that candidate? Was it A? Jeb Bush, after referring to Donald Trump as chaos candidate. A devastating blow. Was it B. Ted Cruz.

After his primary win in Wisconsin. Was it C. Marco Rubio. After he made fun of Donald Trump's hand size. Or was it D. Chris Christie. After yelling at a teacher at a state fair which people thought was good. My first thought was A.

Jeb Bush. That's right. It was, in fact, Ted Cruz. After his primary win in Wisconsin, the article went on to say, victory will go to Cruz, the man who's run the best campaign and is indeed the best candidate, and history will look back at this week

and the Wisconsin victory and other wins as the turning point. Caroline, you are two for three, which is very good, but none of those questions counted. This is the final question for which you will be playing for a hat. What is she playing for? You know what? It doesn't matter. Question number four for Caroline. In the run-up to the 2016 election, many pundits were handicapping the odds of Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump. When one pundit was asked,

Hillary can't lose this thing, can she? He insisted, not a chance. Who was this famously wrong pundit? Was it A? Chris Silliza, a.k.a. The Fix. Was it B? Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Was it C? Tucker Carlson of Fox of the New York Times. Was it C?

Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Or was it D, John? John Favreau. Applause Save America. Which was this person who just got this whole thing so wrong? Who was it that missed all the signals? I'm going to go with, sorry, D. Jon Favreau.

It was. It was D. Oh, boy. Caroline from Halden. Halden. I knew it because you know what I did? It's in Estval. Halden.

Halden. I knew it because you know what I did? I said... It's in Östfold. What I did, how I retained it, I said Holden Caulfield, but with an A at the front. That's how I remembered it. What's the county? Halden. No, that's the city.

Oh, the county. Oh, yeah. Östfold. Svalbard? You guys put some letters together. It's fantastic. It's Eastfold, if you think of Game of Thrones. Oh.

Where the White Walkers are. Give it up for Caroline. Thank you for playing. When we come back, we will be talking to Jan Strumnes, the Deputy Warden of Halden Prison in Halden, Norway. That's cool.

Yeah, very cool. Very cool. Our next guest is the Deputy Warden of Halden Prison in Halden, Norway. Jan Strumnes. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. Jan, you are the Deputy Head of Halden Prison, which is frequently referred to as the world's most humane maximum security prison.

Can you walk us through what life is like as an inmate at Halden, and what does it mean to be a humane prison? Okay. Well, first of all, let me say that, in a way, the only thing that's special about Halden prison is the facilities, the way we work, the philosophy and the values that's common in the whole of Norway and actually in all the Scandinavian countries. But one of the principles that in a way you can see being reflected in the architecture in Halden is the principle of normality, as we call it, meaning that life in prison should resemble life in the outside

community as much as possible. So we will see, for instance, small divided buildings around the area, and that's to, in a way, copy the everyday movement that you and I have. We leave work in the morning, go to work. If I need to go to the dentist or the doctor, I leave work, go to the doctor. So that kind of movement we also copied inside the prison. So that's one example about the principle of normality. So they go to work just as you and me, or go to school, and they're really locked in during the night.

The rest of the day they are in activity. So they're using themselves physically and mentally, and in a way building a better future that way. You guys put a big focus and emphasis on reintegration, rehabilitation. How successful do you think you've been in preparing prisoners

to reenter society and how easy or hard is it to measure that success? It's hard to measure it with regard to recidivism because that's the ultimate goal, in a way, to compare recidivism in different countries. And you can't, in a way, compare directly the figures

for Norway and the United States because they are measured differently. But what we... And in Norway, we have a very low recidivism rate. It's approximately 20%. But what we see is that the inmates leave Halden Prison in a quite different state that they had when they came into the prison.

Because as soon as they come in, we start screening them, looking at their needs and their resources in life. We make up a future plan between the officers and the inmates, and we start working on the issues that we have. If they have a drug problem, we can offer them treatment. If they have some mental health issues, they will have treatment. If they need training in school, I mean, based on the screening,

we try to work on all the issues they have in life so they can leave Halden in a better shape in a way. And we see that they do, definitely. Now, Norway didn't always have prisons that were this humane. When and why did you make the decision, did Norway make the decision to move in this direction? In the late 80s, there was a of a troublesome time in the correctional service in Norway. There were riots in Oslo prison. There were two tragic deaths, murders of correctional officers. So the government found that, well, we had to make some choices here. In what direction would we like to go?

When such tragic things happen, the normal reaction would be to tighten security even more, what we call the static security, you know, guards, security glasses, fences, barbed wire, etc. So that was looked into as one option. And the other option was to, in a way, evolve the correctional service in a more humane direction. And the Norwegian government chose the last one to go in a more humane direction and found that that would probably solve some of the issues that we had and it did actually Americans make up 4.6 percent of the world's population but American prisons hold an estimated 22 percent of all

incarcerated people again it's estimated that 68 percent of prisoners released in 30 states in the US, and this was in 2005, were arrested for a new crime within three years. So it seems obvious that for some reason we are incarcerating way too many people and that our system isn't working when it comes to rehabilitation. You've been to a whole bunch of prisons in the US, you studied them, you met with wardens. What do you think we're doing wrong? I think revenge is an issue in the States. Not necessarily on individual levels when I spoke to wardens and officers,

but on a systemic level, I think revenge is an issue. I think U.S. prisons create an atmosphere of fear. It's my belief and my impression that the officers, during their training, they are in a way taught that their life is at stake or they're risking their life every day at work. And, of course, that creates fear. You don't see the inmates as individuals, but as a group, that you fear. And when you create that kind of distance,

you have in a way taken away some of the humane approach that you really, really need. You need to have a humane, respectful dialogue with the inmates. What we do in Norway is not really rocket science. We just have these values. No, it's basically just treating people humanely. I mean, you can see some disagree, I don't know. You can see an inmate in two different aspects. You can look at him as a criminal,

or you can look at him as a person who has done something criminal. Now, if you look at him as a person who has done something criminal. Now, if you look at him as a person who has done something criminal, you accept that he is more than his criminal actions, and with that kind of attitude, you are on the right track with regard to treating people in a professional and humane manner. Now, if you propose these kind of reforms in the United States... See? I don't even have to think. They know where he's going. One of the nicer things that might be said about you is that you're soft on crime. How did you...

In Norway, how did you guys sort of overcome some of the political challenges of putting some of these reforms in place and moving to a more humane system? I think we have an advantage here because the political landscape isn't that divided in Norway as it is in the States. So I guess we are more lucky on that issue. I mean, let me take North Dakota as an example. North Dakota has been in Holland Prison,

studied the way we do correctional services. And in a way, the director of the correctional department on the state level in North Dakota, which is a Republican state, if I remember it correctly, she could do, in a way, everything as long as she held it, in a way, outside the newspapers and the media. So if you just held it outside the newspapers,

the governor gave her, in a way, carte blanche to do changes in the system. So it is possible also in the United States, and you will see changes now in several states, actually. I've been to Norway the last two, three years studying our approach. Yeah, thanks. In the US, I think we talk about prisoners.

People joke about, don't drop the soap. I mean, people joke about treating people like, in human ways. I did a program where I spent a day at a prison, and by the end, the way it had opened up my eyes to the sort of humanity of the people in this facility, the number of things that set them on this path starting at age 9 or 10 or 11 that got them to where they were,

I finally understood that. How do we change the way our culture views prisons and prisoners and create more of a sense of empathy for people that might have made horrific, evil mistakes in their lives, but how do we get to a point where we're not judging them for that mistake forever? That's a big question in a way. I mean, you have to see beyond the criminal activities.

Don't misunderstand me. I do not defend in any way their actions, but I see them as more than criminals. You have to work on the issues that they deal with in life. I mean, if you look at the average inmate in Norway, approximately 90% have some kind of mental health issue, 60% are substance abusers, low educational level. You have to work on all those issues while they are in prison

in order to have any kind of success. And you have to start... Where should you start, in a way? You have to start changing how you refer to inmates. You have to look at them as individual people, not just a group of people. And you have to create a different environment in prison, really.

If you don't create the right environment, in a way, the interaction won't work. DAN GALPIN- Jan Strumnus, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. JAN STRUMNUS AND RALF STRUMNUS, Thank you. JAN STRUMNUS AND RALF STRUMNUS, Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Any updates?

One update. Does NATO still exist? Forgot. I mean, by the skin of its teeth. One thing that I forgot to mention that Donald Trump did compliment Norway, he said, one of your greatest assets is a thing called water. Shut the fuck up.

Is that real? That's real. He was referring to hydropower. Congratulations on your water. Thank you. Fjords. Okay, we have time for a few questions. I'm wrong, Hale.

What can we as Norwegians, we don't have any senators to call, what can we do to interfere in your elections? How are you with computers how are you with computers if you can send Jared Kushner an email that says hey I'm IT send me your password

it's totally fine don't ask anybody else if this is okay it's a tough you know we're joking because I actually think it's a tough question. Should I do the pivot to serious thing? Please do. Okay. You can't interfere with our elections. Please don't.

But I guess technically you can. Collusion aside, don't give up on us. We are probably more reflective of the majority of the country's views on the world, on America's role in the world, our values and aspirations, than Donald Trump and the people who voted for him

that you see represented on TV. So don't give up on us. We want to engage with you and be a part of the global community. We're not going anywhere. We've fucked up in our elections before. We'll do it again. But we can't quit you.

You're stuck with us. Hey, guys. My name is Svadre. Thank you for a great evening. Thank you for coming. You touched on Ben, and you touched on the importance of 2018. I'm really curious, though. You touched on Bannon and you touched on the importance of 2018.

I'm really curious, though. What do you guys think about democratic chances of retaking the House and the Senate with and without Bannon? I mean, isn't this a loss in the chance of actually taking back the chambers? You're saying Bannon was a false flag operation. Well, I mean, it's certainly better for the world, I would think, on a big scale. But I'm thinking that Ben supporting these primary loose, crazy, nutballs, craziness, whatever. Wouldn't that help? I'm reminded, when we were researching for the game, we were looking for headlines that we could smugly read back to people. There were a whole bunch of them that were like, look the republican party just you know ended their chances

by electing donald trump because he's too right-wing and extreme so i will never again be sanguine about an extremist far-right candidate going forward roy moore was it took him being a literal fucking child molester allegedly uh to fall out of favor with these people. So I'm not cool playing the Machiavellian sort of politics that Bannon might be a net help. I think he's a cancer on the society. But he's still going to stick around. He's doing some right-wing dark money group, he says. He seems to be living in a fantasy world

where everything's going fine. So I think his brand of politics will still be around, unfortunately. Yeah, I mean, Joe Arpaio announced on the day that Bannon stepped down from Breitbart. So these people aren't going away. Bannon's not like this master brain behind the operation where if he goes away, all the candidates just disappear.

They're all there still being as crazy as ever. And if Bannon doesn't give them a voice nationally, they'll do it themselves or some other people will. Wouldn't that be awesome if he was, like, the first White Walker and you just took him out? You know, Tommy, I was thinking of an analogy. That would have been the best. It's just, Bannon caught a ride on a tiger,

and the tiger threw him off, but the tiger's still roaming around looking for someone to eat. Who's the tiger, Trump or the party? Donald Trump is still on the tiger's still roaming around looking for someone to eat. Who's the Tiger Trump? Or the party? Donald Trump is still on the tiger. It's a very big tiger. It's a multi-seat. It's one of those tigers that has three rows of seats.

And the back row folds down and up. It's a lie-flat tiger. Yeah, it's a Tiger XL. Is Bannon the Ice Dragon? Spoiler Where's No Rain Game of Thrones? Do you guys get in real time or are you like two years behind?

Is it real time? That's cool Did we answer your question? Hi, my name is Kelly My question is short I'm American, but now I live here And I Where are you from before? I'm from Indiana

I'm so sorry about Mike Pence I know, he's everyone's problem now You know what though, I'm sorry It's not Indiana's, it's Indiana know. He's everyone's problem now. You know what, though? I'm sorry, but it's not Indiana's... It's Indiana's fault. It's Indiana's fault. But the reason he ended up taking the VP job is because he was going to be rejected by Indiana. Indiana figured it out.

And he's like, I guess I'll catch this ride out of town. I'll lose and then retire to being a very weird person. They figured it out and also didn't in that you had people like my mother who had a repeal Pence sign in her front yard

who still voted for him when he was on like a national ballot which just blew my mind. So it's more complicated. But my question is not. My question is not. And that is that

I was one of the organizers of Women's March in Oslo last year. And so, thank you. Thank you to everyone who came out. It was a huge success, and I can confirm that we here are feeling the same energy and activism that you are all feeling back in the United States.

And you guys are now PodTours the World. And so I'm wondering, with your new perspective, what you think that Americans pod tours the world and so i'm wondering with your new perspective what you think that americans outside of the united states can do to help advance the progressive cause uh we worked uh at the stockholm event we actually had uh democrats abroad there registering yes oh you good okay good i wasn't sure if you guys made it to oslo too excellent are you part of democrats abroad that's great so democrats abroad should definitely register as many voters as they can Okay, good. I wasn't sure if you guys made it to Oslo, too. Excellent. Are you part of Democrats Abroad? I am. That's great. So Democrats Abroad should definitely register as many voters as they can who are expats around the world.

We hope that happens. I also think we are finding out now that the old tactics of persuasion, television ads, mail pieces, all this other kind of stuff, they just don't work anymore in this environment, in this media environment, in this information environment. And what works, what really persuades people is to persuade people in your social circle, your family, your friends, your neighbors. So you have plenty of people back in Indiana, back in the United States that you know, talk to them, have them talk to their friends. Like, we're going to end up winning this back, winning the House back, winning the

Senate back, and ultimately the presidency back by having neighbors talking to neighbors and friends talking to friends and convincing people the old-fashioned way with grassroots politics. And even from over here, you can do that through social media, through email, through a whole bunch of other ways. So talk to all your friends back home and then have them talk to all their friends. And I think we can build the movement that way. and have them talk to all their friends. And I think we can build the movement that way. Oslo, you have been fantastic. Thank you so much. We will see you again soon.

Thank you, guys. This was great. Yes. Thank you.