The Young Turks - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez On Smoking Weed And Tricksy D.C. Lobbyists

Episode Date: February 15, 2019

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez discusses her opinions on a sitting president smoking marijuana and exposes the dirty tricks lobbyists pull to influence politicians. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Tilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five-star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, welcome to the Young Turks.

I'm your host, Jake Huger. Wait a minute, we're going old school. We're going back in time here and we're going forward. So back to the future. So I'm doing the show solo at least in the first hour today like we used to do back in the day. We're doing three hours instead of two hours today. In fact, oh no, we're doing three hours going forward for me. From now on, we'll be doing a lot more guests.

In fact, I've got some great, great guests for you guys in this show. And I want to tell you all about it. So the way that the shows are going to go from now on is we'll do the regular first two hours like we always do, 6 to 8 p.m. Then the third hour will have guests for the first half an hour. And the last half an hour will normally be for members only, okay? And we'll cover some of the stories we didn't get to in the show, plus the personal stories as we always do in the post game.

So that's the new structure of the show. And today, we are not having a post game because we have some amazing guests for you guys. So who are they? Adam McKay. If you don't know him, wait until you get a load of this guy. So he has started several different things that you're familiar with, Uprice Citizens Brigade, Funny or Die. He's co-written the Will Ferrell movies, the other guys, Anchorman, Anchorman, too.

The list goes on and on. He just did, wrote, directed, and produced, Vice, that's the movie about Dick Cheney. He won an Academy Award for The Big Short. Anyway, amazing and an amazing progressive, okay? So he's here on the program a little bit later, and then a guy you might be familiar with Bernie Sanders of the Young Turks to launch our three, the relaunch in a sense of our three hours show. And yes, we're doing all this because it is in fact our 17th anniversary.

which is a little stunning. I cannot believe we've been around for 17 years. So we've been online for 14 years, online video for 14 years, but we started in my living room on serious satellite radio. We shoot the show in there, such as it was. It was obviously just a radio show and audio show. And we'd send it over to New York in little CDs back in the day. Okay, that's how old we are.

Longest running show on the internet, that's a hell of a thing. So thank you for being here with us and here for the ride. It's been an amazing one and hopefully we've got another 17 years. I remember when we did the one billion view party at YouTube and I said, you know, I hope we get, you know, we're back for a second billion or maybe, dare I say, 10 billion. Sorry, already passed 10 billion, okay, we barely even noted it. So, and it's all due to you guys. We had no resources, we had nothing but you guys.

So if you hadn't watched, this certainly would not have worked. So the strength of this show isn't about us, it's about you. And that's why we call ourselves Home Progressives and Celebrate that we are exactly that. Okay, one last thing for you guys, since it also happens to be Valentine's Day, here's Our little Valentine's gift to you guys, 20% off at shopty.com. It's saunton, we're having fun, okay? So check out shoptwit.com for 20% off.

Look at that, it's in red. That's very sweet. Okay, now I've got amazing stories for you guys in the first hour today, including Andrew McCabe and so many others that are in the news and should Trump be removed for for being mentally unstable. So we'll have that conversation in a second. And then later in the second hour, business goes bankrupt by betting against Colin Kaepernick. Free market, it's a bitch.

All right, so that's fun for everybody. Okay. So let's get started. Let's start with another old friend, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So Congresswoman Acacio, where am I going here? Really? Fascinating. I should have been told that.

It's been a while, we're a little rusty doing hour one by. by ourselves. Okay, by ourselves. Me and Edwin here in the studio. Okay, Congresswoman Alexandria Casimir Cortez was recently asked about marijuana and whether it was okay for politicians and specifically the president to smoke marijuana. Interesting. Okay, in this case, it was unfortunately TMZ. I'm still not happy with their work given how much they've supported Trump, et cetera, but fair questions here and fair answers. So first, is it okay to smoke weed overall, let's get an answer on that. We just need to accept that there is nothing more inherently damaging about marijuana

than, say, legal substances like alcohol or anything else. Okay, so for a lot of us that's elementary, but for a lot of Washington, this is a lot of This is controversial. So it's like a big deal when Kamala Harris said, oh, it came out and said, oh, yeah, yeah, no, no, no, I used to smoke weed when I was in college. You know, I'm half Jamaican. She's obviously a senator from California running for president. Okay, she's still prosecuted people who smoke marijuana, but that's a whole nother story.

But hey, we're making progress. We're making progress. It's taking all this time for a lot of those politicians to move forward. But for a new generation like Casa Cortez, it's elementary, yeah, okay, wow, wow, are you sure you're all right if you smoked a joint? Well, how many beers did you have? So, but the next question is, should a sitting president be able to smoke wheat? Let's see.

So if someone would it be okay to have a president who say that they do smoke? I don't care. Yeah, I don't care. It's fine with me, you're not hurting anybody, you know? Right. Because there's really no difference between that and alcohol. There are plenty of, exactly, there are plenty of people who drink, they'll go out to happy hour, they'll, you know, he'll go out, have one, two, three. Right.

And I know everybody's been. How is that different from anybody else, you know? I'm amused at this, of course, stirred controversy. A sitting president, what if he or she was high? Well, what if they were drunk? And that's only happened about a couple of thousand times, probably more in the history. Missy's Grant was well known to be a very, very heavy drinker, Lyndon Johnson heavy drinker. Richard Nixon, preposterous drinker.

Okay, so now some of those guys, not great presidents, some of them did some wonderful things, but so the idea that a president might be impaired at some point, no, say it ain't so. Yes, they do need a little bit of leisure time. And apparently for trouble, so executive time on top of that. Anyway, so should they be allowed to smoke a joint and should we care? First of all, you know, right now they can't because of the federal law says marijuana is the most dangerous controlled substance there is a schedule one drug.

So theoretically you'd have to arrest the president if he was, if he or she was smoking marijuana. But that's preposterous, of course it's like beer and like the prohibition on alcohol. It has caused gangs and violence and the prohibition is a bigger problem. that alcohol was in the first place, alcohol, of course, is much more dangerous than marijuana leads to far more drunk driving accidents, let alone alcoholism, let alone the deaths that alcohol causes just from alcoholism, whereas no one has ever died from marijuana. So I think for a new generation, like I said, those answers seem to be obvious, but for

the older folks, go ahead and prepare to get rattled by yet another Alexandria-Cosier-Cortez answer. Okay, one last thing that's just fun. The person next to her the whole time is shortcut Chukhrabartee. You might have seen him on the show before. He's one of the co-founders of the Just Democrats, and then he's now AOC's chief of staff. He's in almost every picture, and no one else will notice, but you young Turks' viewers probably will and should going forward, and he was phenomenal in both her campaign and with

just Democrats overall, and I'm always amused to see him right there. Nobody ever asked him anything, well, from time to time. But he was also instrumental in not only AOC's win, but so many other just Democrats like Rashida Tileven and many, many others. And everybody knows that there's no party like a chakrabarti. So we're keeping it really on the Young Turks. All right, keep going, AOC. All right, now, I think there ain't no party like a chakra party.

But anyways, forward. One more AOC story for you guys, because she's causing a ruckus. So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comes out of a hearing and notices homeless people in the hallways of Congress. And she thinks, oh, well, is there a protest going on? Let me check this thing out. And it turns out, no, no, there's no protest. And she discovered something that has been going on for quite some time, but nobody ever

talks about. And as usual, she had pulled back the curtain and showed us what's actually happening in Congress. So let me show your first tweet here. So she takes a picture of those folks lined up and says, shock does it beginning to cover it. Today I left a hearing on homelessness and saw tons of people camped outside committee. I turned to my staff and asked if it was a demonstration. No, they said lobbyists pay the homeless and others to hold their place so they can get in first. Amazing. Okay, now let me show you

a second tweet and then we'll explain the phenomenon. She said, apparently this is a normal practice and people don't bat an eye. The first few people in line are guaranteed at least a seat in a given hearing. This was the hearing for marijuana banking laws, lobbyists and those who can afford it pay people to hold their spot so they could get in first. So now, she came out of a different committee hearing, let me tell you about that, and you will enjoy this irony. Ocasio Cortez snapped a photo on her way out of a hearing to discuss a draft piece

of legislation called the Ending Homeless Act. of 2019. So she comes out of that committee talking about this piece of legislation to end homelessness, and she's greeted by all these homeless people in Congress. And then she asks about it and gets these answers. So this has apparently been going out for quite some time. And we found an article from 2009 that once talked about this. And they explain why they do this, and there's another layer of irony here.

They say that the seats are valuable to lobbyists because the hearing is often their only FaceTime with legislators. So the legislators are going, the lobbyists are going there to influence the legislators, but they don't want to wait. And sometimes the wait takes a long time. And in fact, a lot of people want to get into these hearings because they also want to make sure that the legislators see them. A lot of them are activists.

And so there's a whole range. And there would be nothing wrong with an activist going in and a lobbyist going in, et cetera, if everybody waited their turn. In fact, Kalin Pruss, a fellow at the Internet Environmental Group of Oz And her group of cheering green t-shirt environmentalists were shut out of a hearing as they explained in that earlier article. And so that happens all the time. So the lobbyists figured out, I don't wanna wait here.

And a lot of these activists wait here for five, six hours, all right, you know what? I'm gonna hire someone and I'm gonna make them wait even longer, sometimes overnight. Now they actually pay okay, $11 to $35 an hour, which I was kind of stunned by. So that's the small piece of good news, but otherwise, what do they do? So here comes the final irony. They use the homeless to wait for them. Then the lobbyists come in to influence the politicians on behalf of the rich to redistribute the wealth to the top.

So how is that for callous and Washington explained in one simple phenomenon? It is in a nutshell, who do I need to use here to make sure that the people giving me money, the people who are already incredibly wealthy and powerful, the corporations that are wealthy and powerful, so I can go lobby the legislators to make sure that they get all of the benefits. And if there was an activist on behalf of the homeless, they might not be able to make it into a committee hearing on the homeless because the homeless would be holding seats for the lobbyists. Gee, I wonder why people are sickened by Washington, D.C. And so when AOC reveals these things, people celebrate her for it because she's a rare politician

who's being honest about what's happening there. And that is the swamp, that is the corruption that she's exposing. She doesn't take any corporate pack money like all the just Democrats. So she doesn't have to worry about those lobbyists. She doesn't have to wait for their donations. She doesn't have to curry favor with those lobbyists. So she is free, free to tell us what's actually happening. By the way, if you like that, there's a lot more where that came from.

Because the just Democrats are at it again, they're accepting nominations. They found Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez through a nomination. It's a really great story actually that some of the founders of just Democrats and the current leaders of that group told on a post came here for our members. members, t-y-t.com slash join to become a member and get that post game and find out who nominated AOC in the first place. But right now they're doing it again. So go to JusticeDemocrats.com slash nominate and nominate someone in your neck of the woods

and they take that incredibly seriously. They want you guys instead of some lobbyists or consultants to help find the best candidates and obviously have a pretty good track record at that. And then since they don't take corporate pack money, just Democrats. dot com slash donate to make sure that candidates like Acosta Cortez can win as she did in this cycle and offer all the new ones. And hopefully we'll have a dozen more and maybe even bigger than that in the next Congress. So imagine the difference that could make.

So go participate. You can make all the difference in the world. Okay, now I got one more story for you guys in this segment. And that has to do with coal. So Donald Trump ran out coal. I remember being at the Republican National Convention and almost every speech mentioned coal. It was a bit bizarre. It's actually now a very small industry.

The solar industry in this country is much larger, but it's almost never talked about by Republicans. And it's this obsession with coal. And the reason for that is it's more of an emotional connection. It's also a little bit of corruption sprinkled in, as you'll see at the end of this story. But the emotional connection is, oh, we're gonna make America like it used to be back in the 1950s, does that mean 91% marginal tax rate for the rich? No, no, no, no, no, no. It means like, oh, like coal, and remember when we had miners and they do blue collar guys

going into the mines and risking their lives so that other people can make incredible amounts of money. So they talked about that. Now, did they have a plan to fix things and to bring coal back? Of course not, it's Donald Trump, he never has a plan for anything, he's never thought one minute ahead. So if he had a brilliant plan for saving the jobs in coal industry, it hadn't worked. And so today, another giant coal plant shutting down.

Federal Utility Board voted Thursday to close a coal fired power plant in Kentucky despite objections from President Donald Trump and US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In a move, the board says we'll save it more than, it's more than 10 million customers, $320 million. So Trump and McConnell apparently say, no, no, don't save them $320 million. We don't want to do that. Why? Well, we built up this thing that we couldn't possibly deliver on, and it's going to be embarrassing.

Plus, again, like I said, there's a little bit of corruption mixed in here. So don't do that, even though it would save the taxpayers' money and it would save customers' money, it would save everybody money, don't do it, doesn't matter. Even though the people on the board here that decided it were mainly Trump or the government. appointees. The majority of them were Trump appointees with the lone vote of voting no. The rest of them voted yes to close down the plan. So the math was overwhelming, the evidence was clear, and they had to go in that direction. By the way, the one guy who voted no was a former coal executive. Of course. So this, one of the plans being shut down is quite famous,

actually, it was in a song. Let me tell you about that. The decision continues, they say, at Talking Points Memo, the TVAs, that's the Tennessee Valley Authority's trend of retiring its aging coal-fired power plants in favor of cheaper and cleaner energy sources, including natural gas. At one time, Mullenberg County was the nation's top coal producer, inspiring folk singer John Prine to pen his 1971 standard paradise. And well, it's apparently paradise lost. That's the second paradise that Donald Trump has lost on his wife.

Watch, Paradise California burnt down. Now Paradise, the coal power plant is being shut down because it never made any sense in the first place, especially in these times. And Donald Trump never had a plan to rescue them. It was just political tricks to try to get votes. He never meant any of it. And as the CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority explains, Bill Johnson, says, it's not about coal.

The decision is about economics. It's about keeping rates as low as feasible. I believe they used to have a term for that called free market capitalism that the conservatives used to celebrate, but now if it's renewable energy that's doing well and costless, I don't want renewable energy, that would save the planet, we don't want that. Terrible fossil fuel energy that melts the planet, God damn it, free market. Okay, how's that for irony? Okay, finally, we get to the corruption.

You're gonna be shocked by this, I hope you're sitting. Suppliers of the plant include a mine owned by one of Trump's campaign donors. Of course. So look, times are changing. There are actually a lot of jobs being created in renewable energy, solar, wind, et cetera. And let's be smart, let's stop lying to people telling them that we're gonna save old industries that we cannot save, that are economically not feasible. And instead, let's work to make sure that they get jobs in new industries, including renewable

energy. That would be the honest way to go about things. And of course, if you're Trump, you don't want to go in that direction. You want to look out for your donors and lie to your voters. Well, reality is a way of catching out with you, and it just did today. All right, we're gonna take a quick break when we come back. We've got a lot of great stories, including some dramatic news from today, so don't miss it, we'll be right. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR.

As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or. purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity,

the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. for as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training

or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right back on a young church. Let me read a couple comments for you guys. Mickey C from the member section writes in, 70 year old woman here, and you'd be surprised how many in my generation still smoke, you young kids didn't invent it.

I love your attitude. Good on you, Mickey, all right, light one for me. Blurple says, I hope that the Republican voters that lost jobs have good memories. Well, we might find out in 2020. Omega Katz writes in on Twitter, I'd take a president who smokes some pot to unwind and is honest about it over one that snorts a handful of Adderall anytime he has to actually do work and yet pretends to be righteously unadulterated any day of the week. Now, I don't know who he might be talking about, okay?

There are some rumors about a certain orange president though. Okay, Jeremy Emery, 1984 writes in, AOC's that little drop of water that turns it into a wave in the sea. She's too strong for DC and she's getting the job done. I can't help but read one more tweet. I'm me, Papito, writes in, what if the president was high, like asking the question and says, yeah, but what if the president was dumb? That's the story we're gonna get to a little bit later too.

Peter Hamby from YouTube super chat says, happy Valentine's Day 17th anniversary to the TYT crew and all the progressives. Hopefully everyone is loved, no doubt more than I am, hashtag still single, hashtag loneliness. Peter, hang in there, brother. Hang in there. We're all doing this together, all right? You're part of the show too. All right.

Now, I have an amazing story for you guys. Let's go over here. Okay. This is some of my favorite stories. It is the science of our brains and how it leads us to our political opinions. Now, is this the only factor? Of course not. There's always a number of factors to be considered in figuring out why people act the way they

do and in this case vote the way they do and choose their particular ideology. But there are some amazing findings in science about how the conservative mind works as opposed to the liberal mind. And so we've told you about some of this before and fear has. has a huge role to play, but now there's a new twist and a number of studies talking about a different emotion that might make all the difference in the world, and that is disgust. Hmm. All right, before I get to that though, I want to remind you of some of the work that we've

highlighted in the past. So for example, John Hibbing and Kevin Smith at the University of Braska at Lincoln and John Alfred at Rice University in Houston had done a study that concluded this. Compared with liberals, they'd previously found conservative as general pay more attention and react more strongly to a broad array of threats. For example, they have more pronounced startle response to loud noises and they gaze longer at photos of people displaying angry expressions. You know, look, that does seem to fit in fairly well with what we see with our own eyes,

as you'll continue to see throughout this amazing story. You know, the conservatives fear easily. Here come the Muslims, oh my God. They pass an anti-Sheria law in Oklahoma. They're afraid the Muslims are going to take over Oklahoma. Do they frighten easily? Yes. Okay, then the Latinos are coming and et cetera.

And then watch out for the gays and the transgender are going into your bathroom. And we'll talk about more of that as we go on as well. But let me give you more details. Using MRA, scientists from the University of College London have found that studies, who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It's possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause

one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. Okay. Now, so that is one part of the physiology of conservatives that are slightly. different. Now, again, it doesn't apply to every conservative. And so I don't want people doing stereotypes overall, but I am sharing the science with you because it is fascinating. So it appears that on average, they have larger amygdalas, which is the fear center. Okay. Now, we turn to the new studies on the issue of disgust. So a political scientist went to read Montague,

who's a neuroscientist at Virginia Tech at the human neuroimaging laboratory, and asked him to do some studies about mapping the brain and the reaction that conservatives and liberals have to the emotion of disgust and how it might influence their political opinions. And the neuroscientist Montereux was deeply skeptical. And then they did the studies and they found out amazing results. So let me share that with you. The brains of liberals and conservatives reacted in wildly different ways to repulsive pictures. groups reacted, but different brain networks were stimulated.

Just by looking at the subject's neural responses, in fact, Montague could predict with more than 95% accuracy whether they were liberal or conservative. That's amazing! So based on how you react to images that are considered disgusting, we can tell with 95% certainty whether you're gonna be a conservative or a liberal. At least according to this one study, but there are a number of studies, which I'm again going to share with you right now, the scientists said, quote, I was completely flabbergasted by the predictability of the results.

Okay, now let's talk about some of the other studies. Numerous studies have found that high levels of sensitivity to discuss tend to go hand in hand with, quote, a conservative ethos. That ethos is defined by characteristics such as traditionalism, religiosity, support for authority and hierarchy, sexual conservatism, and distrust of outsiders. Now, the distrust of outsiders is perhaps one of the most important ones. But I also wanted to point out the other parts of it. See, I used to be a Republican, but I was a liberal Republican back when I was growing up.

So, and I wondered, so is, you know, which side do I fall on here? because now obviously I'm very progressive. And I think that, you know, and we've gone over this a lot in the show and in the post came for the members, et cetera, that I was always a progressive and I was misled into thinking that Republicans actually cared about balanced budgets and they did a wonderful job marketing about how they cared about small businesses, et cetera, et cetera. But when you look to see, you know, how people react, that is where you can see the difference. And in my case, I never understood why you should listen to authority for authority's sake.

And the conservative mind is structured differently. They do believe that. Because to them, order is really important. And then in religion, there are these rules about cleanliness. Now, some of it is very logical. You don't want to get sick, and especially back in the day when those texts were written, that was even more relevant and we didn't have modern science. But a lot of it seemed to be rules for the sake of rules.

Well, hey, look, you gotta make sure that your beard is a certain way, and this applies across many different religions. And to me, that seemed irrational. We live in the modern world where we have medicine, and we don't, the size of our beard is totally irrelevant. Whether we cover our head or whether we eat bacon or drink alcohol is largely irrelevant to whether we actually protect ourselves from illness. These are obviously outdated rules, but for the conservative mind, they enjoy and

need that order and hierarchy to make sure that they are safe. So, and protected from things that they feel they need protection from. So we'll get into that as well. Now, let me quote a couple of other scientists here. This is, and by the way, this is a great story from Kathleen McCalliffe in the Atlantic that I'm quoting from. She explains, as Pizarro Inbar and the other authors of the study write in the Journal of Social, Psychological, and Personality Science, this results suggest that discuss sensitivity

is related to conservatism across a wide variety of cultures, geographic regions, and political systems. So this isn't just about America, and it's certainly not just about Trump, but we will get to him at the end. It's about human nature, and this has been true throughout time and throughout different places. In fact, the study from Denmark, let's go to that. As the scientist there explains, discussed influences our political views as much as or even more then long recognized factors such as education and income bracket.

Now that's how political scientists normally conceive of it and have talked about it for most of my life. But now neuroscientists and others are beginning to realize, know that our emotions make a bigger difference. Okay. And by the way, the scientists do not judge this. So they say, hey, look, maybe you can argue the conservatives if you're then in the ideological realm are being cautious and rightfully cautious.

Or you could argue that they're being unduly afraid in these modern times. That's a decision for you to make. They're just telling you what the reality of our brains and other body parts are, because it turns out the tongue is also really relevant. I know, this is mind-blowing, it's fascinating, that's why I love the story I wanted to share it with you. Okay. So now let's go back to the main study that we were talking about in regards to Montaou.

And McCall of quotes here. As we move about in the world, a sizable volume of research shows our minds are constantly searching our surroundings for contaminants, moldy leftovers, garbage spilling out of trash cans, a leaky sewage pipe. And when their brain detects them, it triggers sudden feelings of revulsion. Confronted, we withdraw from the threat. The mechanism is part of what's known as the behavioral immune system, and it is as vital for survival as the fight or flight response.

So understand that, first of all, that all humans have this. The question is the degree to which you have it. So as I discovered later in life, I don't have it to a large degree. It turns out I was progressive all along as part of why I left a Republican party, also why I left religion. And everybody also has culture that influences them. So if you grow up in a particularly conservative area, you might be taught to be a Republican or conservative, to which to some degree that's what applied to me.

But then you get to your natural self as you evolve if you have an open mind, right? And obviously influenced by all these factors that you might not even be aware of. So let's keep going. They say some scientists, notably the psychologist Corey Fincher at the University of Warwick in England and the biologist Randy Thornhill at the University of New Mexico theorized that foreigners, at least in the past, would have been more likely to expose local populations to pathogens against which they had no acquired defenses. And other scientists think germ fears piggyback on the negative stereotypes about foreigners common

throughout history, the notion that they're dirty, eat bizarre foods, and have looser sexual moors. Now, this is also interesting because back in the day, there was a little bit of truth to that. Not that the foreigners were dirty, everybody was a foreigner. But they might carry pathogens that your local village was not familiar with, and that could spread disease quicker. But that original kernel of truth is, of course, enormously, actually, I'm not.

outdated now, but it has stuck in our DNA and in some of our brains, actually all of our brains, but again, to what degree is the question at hand? And so, and politically, that has gone through all of these different generations, and that fear of the others, the fear of the forder, the fear of disease is used by conservative politicians to trigger conservative voters into voting in a certain direction because of that fear and disgust. is created in their brains. So more on this. More recent investigations by Peterson and Aura suggests that those with high disgust sensitivity

tend to be leery of any stranger, not just foreigners. They view causal social acquaintances with a certain amount of suspicion. A robust finding replicated across three studies with a total of 4,400 participants showed. The implication is clear, disgust and distrust are somehow linked. And you can see that in the politicians throughout your lifetime. Watch out for the immigrants coming in. One of Steve Bannon, a lot of the right-wing's favorite books is one that came out of France. And it's, I believe, the Camp of the Saints.

And it talks about how there's a boat full of South Asian immigrants coming to Europe. And they carry disease with them. And they have loose sexual customs and they're having orgies nonstop. And then they eat their own feces and these disgusting things. I mean, it's word for word designed for the conservative mind. Watch out for feces, disgust. There's the sexual issues that again bring out the disgust of foreigners with disease. I mean, it is meant to trigger people and it did.

It triggers Steve Bannon, Steve Miller and so many others. And unfortunately, they have taken over the body politic here in America. And obviously, mainly in the form of Donald Trump, and again, we'll get to him at the end. So here's one of the studies in particular, and I want you to get a sense of how they did this study and the results from it. And again, every part of this is amazing. Another experiment involved two groups of subjects with similar political ideologies. One group was exposed to a vomit-like scent as the subjects filled out an inventory of their social

values. The other group filled out the inventory in an odorless setting. Those in the first group expressed more opposition to gay rights, pornography, and premarital sex than those in the second group. The future sent even inspired significantly more agreement with biblical truth. Okay, so there's a second part of the story, but think about this. That's not separating conservatives and liberals. That's an average set of people that involves conservatives, liberals, everybody else, right?

But when you subject them to something that we generally think of as disgusting, like a vomit-like smell, they become more conservative. They become more against gay rights, pornography, they become more religious. I need order, I need this disgust to stop. And that is all subconscious, nobody's consciously thinking about it. That's why, part of why this is so amazing. Let's go to the second part of the study. on these studies using, and this is funny but true, farts spray, foul taste, and other creative

disgust elicitors reveal a consistent pattern. When we experience disgust, we tend to make harsher moral judgments. Okay, wow. Now we get to tongues. Okay, get a load of this, just when this, you thought this couldn't get any more amazing. It turns out the taste receptors in our mouths are structured a little differently. And they make a huge difference in our psychology as well. So let me tell you more about that.

Taste receptors, they knew, are concentrated in fungiform papillae. Sorry if I'm saying that wrong. Those spongy little bumps on your tongue, the greater density of papillet, the more acute your taste, okay? So the more of those bumps you have, the more acute your taste is. So what does that lead to? The degree to which subjects' views tilted to the right was they found in direct proportion proportion to the density of papillet on their tongue.

So they would give people substances that tasted a little bitter, and now bitter is somewhat associated with things that might be toxic like leftover milk, et cetera. That's your body saying reject this, right? So people with more sensitive tongues reacted more to the bitter taste, and it turns out they are more conservative. They are more prone to get triggered by disgust, and first of all, to literally sense disgust and then be triggered by. I don't know if you guys are as amazing as I am, but I love science.

And again, do not judge people purely based on this, okay? But it's just for your edification, and it does seem to, you know, at least explain some of the things that we see politically in our world. Now, does this make people a little bit easier to manipulate? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. So David Pizarro, a psychology professor that I quoted earlier, explains, is such a low level almost non-cognitive emotion that you really aren't thinking that much about it. So it's non-cognitive meaning, again, you're not consciously thinking, oh, I taste something

disgusting or I smell something disgusting. That's gonna make me more, so of course you're not consciously thinking that it's non-cognitive in that sense. He explains that emotion is more reflexive than reflective. You know, there's a saying that a conservative uses facts don't care about your emotions. Turns out your emotions don't care about facts, especially if you're a conservative. And then one more from Pizarro, he says, that is the rhetorical strength of disgust. It's a little hack.

You hack into brains pretty quickly and easily by making them feel disgust, bypassing logic and reason to sway judgment. Now let me show you real world examples, that's the science. Now have right wing demagogues used this in the past, and you know they have. But I want to remind you of some specific examples. We'll go to the most extreme, and that's Nazi propaganda. And this is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website. They explained that in that propaganda, Jews were often described as an alien race that fed

off the host nation and poisoned its culture. Now, the Holocaust Memorial Museum has no connection to those scientists. They wrote this stuff before any of these studies were even done, let alone published. And so those two things are not connected, but instinctually, those right-wing demagogues, they knew They knew it. They knew that there is something that if you say that the other is filled with disease as an alien and it's infecting us, it would cause disgust and hatred and enough demagoguery to target those people that they had chosen to victimize.

More from that. The Jews were not the only group excluded from the vision of the quote, national community. Propaganda helped to define who would be excluded from the new society and justified measures against the outsiders, you see familiar themes here. These so-called outsiders included Jews, Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Germans viewed as genetically inferior and harmful to quote, the national health. Hey, it's disease, it's an infection, it's a virus, you must reject it from your body politic. And obviously that led to horrible, horrible results, but let me give you one last one that

is even more clear. These scenes, again, this is the Holocaust Memorial Museum describing this. These scenes compare Jews to rats that carry contagion, flood the continent, and devour precious resources. It's almost as if the Nazis read the scientific literature and decided to use it to manipulate the masses. Of course, they didn't at the time, but they knew it in their bones. So now we come to modern day America.

Just a couple of quick ones. We could do this all day long. But listen to the language that Donald Trump uses when describing immigrants. He says, you wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before.

Back in the day, these people are rats. They're outsiders. They're damaging the national health. These days, these people are animals. They're outsiders and they're damaging us. And we're rejecting them from our national community to protect ourselves. And if that wasn't clear enough, he also sent this tweet. Democrats are the problem, Trump said.

They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be to pour into an infest. our country. So that is not an accident. He knows that that triggers that emotion of disgust. He might not know the science because he can't read past one page. But he's seen it in the reaction in the crowds, he's seen in the way that Republicans give him feedback.

So when he talks about animals, the outsiders, the foreigners, we have to ban all the Muslims. We have to build a wall to protect ourselves from the foreign invaders who will infest us, infest us. He is doing a tradition that unfortunately goes back a long, long time in conservative politics, and that is built to trigger the conservative brain, to get people to reject outsiders, foreigners, and people that they consider the others. I'm hoping now that you know that, and please tell others, spread this video or the articles and we'll have the link to the article below. This is great work because knowledge might, just might, be able to overcome what is going

on in the back of our heads without us being aware of it. So at least now we know the phenomenons that are part of what causes the political ideology that you see in your world. All right, we gotta take a quick break when we come back. We've got more amazing news for you guys. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired Magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for

T-Y-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. I'm right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free set. All right, back on a young Turks, too many good comments. I'm running. out of time, but I want to read a bunch here. Joy writes in in the member section, what would Montague characterize me, given the massive

amounts of disgust I have with conservatives? Well, that is a level of irony. I'm not sure he studied, but a good question. Ryan Zephyr 1 on Twitter says, so this study basically says the conservatives are giant snowflakes. Of course! Good point, Ryan, it does kind of seem to indicate that. Pete McEnroe asked the same question. Of course, I was thinking, and I think a lot of you were thinking, the difference in the brains

of conservatives and liberals have always fascinated me because it begs the question, is political ideology a choice? And of course, like I said, it doesn't apply to everybody. And Democrats win, Republicans win, times change, and people change. And there are people that are in the middle, and they can be convinced. But it is in some ways almost a little discouraging, to be honest, but you gotta know it. Moylan Nick on Twitter says, Jank, when I'm watching TYT Live, my kids often ask if the person of the story is a good guy or a bad guy.

My daughter asked today if AOC is a good guy. I said, you know, she might just be the best guy. She's like a real life superhero. Well, if you remember, before the election, I did a segment called Alexandria the Great, before she ever won. So I'm with you, and I've been with you for a long time. All right. Last one is YouTube super chat saying, just think for a second, wrote in. I've been active duty for 11 years and still going.

I'm proud to become a member after a year. I care about and fight for the rights and liberties of everyone, whether they're immigrants or native. Go TYT. Thank you. We're really, really appreciate it. You guys can get a free trial week at TYT.com slash trial or just sign up at tyt.com slash join. Thank you for being a member. And we've got a lot for you guys.

Adam McKay, the director of Will Ferrell's movies and Big Short and Vice, is on the Young Turks in a little bit today. and Bernie Sanders is also on today. And by the way, on Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren's in the studio. So we're trying to deliver for you guys, and the members make that possible. All right, let's go over here. So Andrew McCabe came out today with more stunning revelations. He was the former acting director of the FBI, fired by Donald Trump a day before his pension would have fully materialized.

He's got a book coming out, and he did an interview with Scott Peli at 60 Minutes. there, there are some bombshells. So Pelly explains what happened in the interview. He says, there were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. Wow. So some of this we had heard about from a New York Times story in September, but of course

everybody denied because they didn't want to be fired. But their denials were not full denials. And it was clear from what had happened back then that something along these lines had happened. And now McCabe tells the whole story that, in fact, it did happen. In fact, people at the Justice Department apparently did a check of the cabinet officials. They didn't go talk to them, but they did an internal count of who they think, who they thought at the time might vote against Trump and with Trump to keep him in office. And the 25th Amendment is if the president is not mentally capable of serving.

Now that's pretty damning that they even considered that, but I think they should have considered that. I'll give you some tweets from Donald Trump to give you a sense of why I think that that would have been a logical move. One of the things they were concerned about was that the president had fired James Comey. And then he came out and said he fired him because of the Russia investigation. So this was in the eight days between Comey being fired and a special prosecutor being appointed, which wound up being Robert Mueller.

So let's give you more on Pelley's description here. He said, in the highest levels of American law enforcement, we're trying to figure out what to do with the president. Now, conservatives will see that and go, aha, the deep state. And other people will look at it and go, my God, the Justice Department, which by the way is filled with Republicans, we're looking around going, including a Republican appointees like Rod Rosestine, who is Trump's appointee and his deputy attorney general, we're going What should we do with the president?

Is he so mentally unstable that we should think about removing him from office? That's an amazing conversation and one that they were right to have and I think we should still have. So Rosenstein later when that was revealed had to say, no, I mean, maybe I talked about the 20th Amendment, but I was, you know, it was not a serious conversation. And in fact, he had a non-denial denial about talking about the 20th Amendment. And he came to the other thing that was revealed earlier, which was that Rosenstein considered wearing a wire when talking to the president to see if he can have Trump say the things

that he normally says that appear to be obstruction of justice and wildly illegal activities be caught on tape. Rosenstein said, I was just joking when he was discovered. Of course, I didn't really mean it. And McCabe says, no, no, he was not joking. McCabe says, no, he came up more than once. And it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it. So apparently it was very, very real.

And McCabe went on to say, I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion. That were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanished in the night without a trace. Because he began to be concerned that Donald Trump was going to fire him as well and fire anyone who would investigate Donald Trump. And Donald Trump was also acting erratically. And so after he fired Comey, Trump apparently called McCabe and said, okay, I want to make sure

that he didn't get on a government plane to come back from L.A., which is where he was and found out the news back to D.C. And McCabe said, no, he's on the plane. First of all, I asked security, and security said it's still a security issue that he should go on to that plane with the rest of the agents and other FBI officials that are on there. Second, well, the plane was taking off anyway, and he had a seat on the plane, and so I made the decision that he should be on the plane. Apparently Trump insisted five to seven times don't have Comey go on the plane. And he came like, he's on the plane.

I already made the decision. I don't know what you want me to do. But Trump, of course, is petulant and unstable, so he kept insisting. And then McCabe came to realize through a series of conversation with Donald Trump, oh my God, this guy might be doing obstruction of justice. I have to make sure I start these cases immediately so he can't cover it up. If, if there's a crime. Investigations are not conclusions, they're investigations, and that's what he started. So this explains what those two were.

McCabe also revealed he had opened two investigations in the Trump and the days after Comey's firing. One sought to determine whether Trump obstructed justice when firing Comey, and the other was a counterintelligence investigation to determine whether Trump won the 2016 election with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage, McCabe said. So now those are two different investigations, and they were both folded into the Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.

So they obviously exist today, and that is what has got Donald Trump so worried. Now, I want to go back to what I think is actually the most important point, because you've heard plenty about the investigations. But how unstable is the president, and should they consider the 25th Amendment? Well, one of the things that he did, I mean, there are thousands and they're all public and you can see them and they're also private ones. But McCabe explained some of the private ones. Apparently he called McCabe in an apparent attempt to intimidate him and started asking

him about his wife. His wife had run for a state Senate seat back in 2015 and she had lost, but Trump was obsessed with the fact that she took money from a pack that also helped Hillary Clinton. Whether that was in any way coordinated with Hillary Clinton, all the way back in 2015 is a different question. And Trump later, and as you'll see in some of his tweets, became obsessed with the idea that McKay worked on the Hillary campaign case at the FBI when they were looking into her private emails, and that she set up a private server for those emails, actually.

They're public emails, in a sense, because she was a government official. But McCabe never worked on that case, but it didn't matter. So Trump in this phone call kept bringing up his wife, and he's like, oh yeah, how's she doing now that she lost? He's like, she's doing fine. She's working in an emergency room and helping kids there. And then Trump at the end of the call said, yeah, that must have been really tough to lose, to be a loser.

What a weirdo, what an incredibly strange, petulant bully, and a guy who is not emotionally or mentally stable. Now, McCabe comes out and makes this case, and Trump, instead of saying, oh, no, no, no, I'm not crazy, you must be crazy. Look at how rationally I'm going to respond to this and I'm in full control of my faculties. Does he do that? No, of course not. He goes on Twitter and rages.

So he writes today in response, disgraced FBI acting director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a poor little angel when in fact he was a big part of the crooked Hillary scandal and the Russia hoax, a puppet for leaking James Comey. Inspector General report on McCabe was devastating, part of, quote, insurance policy in case I won. Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave or left. McCabe's wife received big dollars, those are all in caps, from Clinton people for her campaign.

He gave Hillary a pass. Again, not at all true, totally not, totally false. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our country. Make America great again. Does that sound like a mentally stable person? Does that sound like a 72 year old? Does that sound like an adult? Does that sound like a president?

What president? I mean, I know we've gotten used to it because it's been two years of this nonstop insanity, but that is not a mentally stable person. Crooked Hillary, Lincoln Comey, poor little angel. I mean, Jesus Christ, this guy's out of control, and he has access to nuclear weapons. He's in danger to himself, to the country, and to the world. I believe that they should use the 25th Amendment. I believe it then, I believe it today.

And look, in case you weren't clear, I mean, I'm gonna go back, I can go back to any one of thousands of tweets that prove it, but I'm gonna go back to my favorites here. Remember when he tweeted this, actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets, have been mental stability in being like really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard, and as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from very successful businessman to top TV star to president of the United States on my first try.

I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius, and a very stable genius at that. What kind of lunatic writes that? As I've said before, if somebody walks up to you at a bar and says, you know, there's two things I'm well known for, being mentally stable and like a smart person. You don't walk out of the bar, you run out of the bar. Because that guy's going to do damage to somebody. That guy is the most powerful person on earth right now. He's the president of the United States.

No one who's mentally stable brags about how one of the top qualities in their life is being mentally stable. That's the lowest bar on the planet that's supposed to be a given. But with Trump, even he knows it's not a given. It's something he thinks he has to prove to others because he hasn't even proved it to himself. The guy is dangerously unstable. Do the 25th Amendment, do it now. I know they won't, but they should.

The emperor has no mind. Okay, one last story for you guys in this hour. Back to the old days, so-called first hour, okay. But I gotta do this story because it's Parkland anniversary. Today's the one year anniversary of the massacre in Parkland, Florida at the high school where 17 people lost their lives. So Donald Trump put out a statement and it is filled with emptiness. I'm gonna tell you the reality of what they've done so far.

He said the day after the tragedy in Parkland, I told the nation that school safety would be a top priority for my administration. We took immediate action committing ourselves to a sacred vow to everything in our power to ensure that evil does not stalk our children on the playgrounds or in the hallways of our nation's schools. Within days, I convened a listening session at the White House. Wow, a listening session. Did he actually listen? Of course not.

There are incredibly popular proposals that not only that he has not supported, but he has fought to make sure never get implemented. So far, what have they done in that year? They passed a regulation in the executive branch to ban bomb stocks, good, I'll take it. That is a tiny, tiny part of the problem. Bumstocks were not used in Parkland, Florida. They were used in the massacre in Las Vegas, which was the biggest modern day massacre we've had in America.

But the only of the proposal that seems like they have pushed forward is to bring more guns into the school. They say, no, we're going to arm the teachers and we're going to teach them how to shoot the right students. So if they see it, because a lot of these shooters are students themselves or former students. And that was the case in Parkland as well. Now you gotta spot the right student to murder if you're the teacher in order to save the others. So the answer to nonstop massacres all caused by guns is more guns.

Now you would say that if you're being funded by gun manufacturers, which Donald Trump of course is. The NRA gave $30 million to his campaign, $50 million to Republicans overall, and that was just in the last election cycle, NRA largely funded by weapons manufacturers. So of course, their answer to horrific, unprecedented gun violence was more gun violence. So today, now the Democrats control the House, they propose something very simple. The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday night advanced the bill, HR 8, requiring background checks on all firearm sales over the objections of Republicans.

Now, why do I say simple? I mean, all they want is a background check. Who's buying the gun? It's not that hard. There's far more restrictions when you're buying a car or anything, almost anything else. But with guns, no, no, no, no restrictions, because that might impede some gun sales. Because if you're a gun manufacturer, what do you care if it's a maniac who buys it? He's still buying it, you're still getting paid.

In fact, when he kills people, people get scared and they buy more guns. So they don't want any background checks. How about the American people? Well, let me give you the numbers. Just after the park of the shooting last year, public support for universal background checks soar to 97% and we can't get it passed. The Senate will say no, they will block this legislation. The Republicans in the Senate say, I don't care that 97% of the country in a so-called

democracy wants this to happen and wants to end the massacres. We are purposely not going to do anything. That is corruption defined. That is the donors controlling our government rather than the voters. Why do you think the NRA gave so much money? Because they bought the government. And of course, Donald Trump backs the Republicans in the Senate and says he would veto that kind of legislation.

So they didn't do anything and they're actively trying to stop anyone who would do something about it. Now, interesting enough today, Donald Trump declared a national emergency or that is the reporting out that he is going to. Is it about gun violence? No. It's about the wall. How many people have died at the border?

Not even as many people as it happened in that one Parkland massacre. Nancy Pelosi brought that up today. She said, you want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.

That is an excellent point by Nancy Pelosi. Now, unfortunately, though, it's not just Republicans. I want to tell you about what happened back in 2010 when the Democrats were in charge. When the Democrats last controlled a lower chamber in 2010, some liberal members requested hearings on universal background checks. They were rebuffed by Democratic leaders, that would be the same Nancy Pelosi, wary of dividing the party and suffering a political backlash at the polls. Now, I don't believe they would have suffered that backlash.

In fact, they wound up losing because they have no courage of their convictions. Only a monster like Donald Trump allowed them to regain the house because of his deep-seeded unpopularity in the country. But back then, they had control. They could have done something, and they chose not to. It's the same excuse we hear every time. Oh, no, no, no, no. I don't want to get my conservative Democrats in trouble.

by having votes on things that have overwhelming popularity. Now, it wasn't 97% back then, because Parkland brought it up to 97%. But before Parcline, you know what the number was? 93% of Americans wanted federal background checks, including a majority of the members of the NRA, the actual members, not the leaders, but the guys who actually had the guns and our NRA members. An overwhelming majority of them, over 70% of them, want federal background checks. And even the Democrats when they had charged in 2010, no, no, no, no, no, no.

It might upset the Republicans, it might upset the NRA and they might spend money against this. Disgusting. So now let's, look, I don't want false equivalency, that is a real problem in the Democratic party. But the Republicans are in charge now and the Democrats did put together a bill finally to say let's at least do this bare minimum and the Republicans say no. So look, it's easy to talk about this stuff and it's easy to talk about the statistics.

and there's a massacre every day in America, statistically, that is four people being shot. And our gun violence in this country is an order of magnitude higher than in other countries that I don't have the lax gun laws that we have. But in this anniversary, I want to remind you of the victims, because it is real. And this is more powerful than just a set of numbers. So I'm going to just quickly show you the 17 people who were killed at Parkland a year. year ago. Elisa Al-Haddaf was one.

Martin Duque Anguano was another, he was a hero. Nicholas Duaret de Olar was another. Jamie Gutenberg, I'm going to give you a quote from her dad, two quotes actually that's devastating in a minute. Luke Hoyer, all these young lives taken from us because of gun violence, he couldn't What are they going to strangle them all to death? No, only a gun could have killed this many people. Kara Lohran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Elena Petty, Meadow Pollock, Helena Ramsey, Alex Schachter.

Show me more. Carmen Shentrup, Peter Wang, Chris Hickson, Aaron Fice, and Scott Beagle. all passed away a year ago today because we allow almost anyone in the country to have a gun.

Now let me give you the quote from Eliy Eastman, who was a student who survived the massacre. She said, I miss having orchestra with Carmen. I miss Helena helping with Spanish homework. I miss Nick talking about swimming. We miss all of you. We will continue to honor with action. They had to take action and they did through March for our lives, so many other things

because the adults wouldn't. The corruption in this country is literally killing us. Now I'm going to go to Fred Gutenberg and he's going to talk about his daughter. So he sent out a tweet with pictures of her. And he said exactly one year ago to the minute around 7 a.m., I sent two kids to school, only my son Jesse came home, Jamie was murdered in school. I am forever haunted by my memory of that morning, rushing my kids out the door rather than getting one last minute. Did I say I love you? Let me read one last tweet. He said, it was not supposed to be the last time

I would see Jamie. For those who still want to deny the reality of gun violence, my daughter is Jamie Gutenberg. I will be visiting her today at the cemetery. me i love you forever and miss you every second of the day for god's sake let's do something about this young turks thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcast at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon