The Young Turks - Ballot Battles

Episode Date: March 5, 2024

SHOCK POLL: Trump has the biggest lead since 2015 as nearly HALF of Democrats don't want Biden as nominee. FBI is intensifying a manhunt of an alleged Iranian assassin targeting Trump-era officials. The Supreme Court keeps Trump on the ballot and rejects the Colorado voter challenge. U.S. aircraft carry out airdrops of aid to Gaza with 38,000 meals." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and there was a lot of big news breaking today, including a decision by the United States Supreme Court in regard to whether or not Donald Trump can be kept off of state primary ballots. Now we'll get to that story later on in the show when Jank Uger joins me, and that'll begin in the second segment of the program. But in the beginning of the show, we're going to dive into some of the latest polling in regard to the general election. And unfortunately for Joe Biden, the negative trend that he's been dealing with continues. So we're going to talk about CBS and the New York Times coming out with their own polls, showing what the results are for the Trump v. Biden election that we're likely going to deal with for the general.

Later in the show, we'll also talk about drugs running rampant in the Trump White House. That's according to numerous sources who spoke to the Rolling Stone magazine on this issue. So that's a fun story. And my take on it is probably going to shock you. So we'll get to that later on. Also in this segment, we'll talk a little bit about how the FBI, specifically in Florida, has made an announcement about one of the most wanted individuals in the country, someone who is allegedly working as a spy for Iran and is attempting to assist Iran in retaliating against the United States following the assassination of their top general, Qasem Soleimani, under the Trump administration.

So we'll get to all of that later in the show. But as always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. You can also help to support TYT and keep us afloat during this incredibly challenging media landscape by becoming a member. TYT.com slash join to become one, or you can just smash that join button if you're watching us live on YouTube. Without further ado, let's get to our first story. We've got polling from CBS News, new polling with warning signs for President Biden as the campaign season deepens, former President Donald Trump, leading President Biden among likely voters, 52 to 48%, also 45% of registered voters rate Biden's presidency so far as poor.

And just 38% give Trump's time in office that very same rate. The electoral polling has not been looking good for President Joe Biden, and that is the latest from CBS News and its findings from over the weekend. Now, Joe Biden is obviously a vulnerable candidate, especially up against Donald Trump, who has been increasing his support among some of the individuals who actually ended up voting for Biden in 2020. So I'll get into some of the details on that in just a moment. But multiple outlets have predicted for a while now that Biden is very likely to lose. And polls show that Trump is holding leads outside of the margin of error in these polls, which is really important to pay close attention to in regard to the methodology of the polls, what the margin of error happens to be, and whether or not the results are within or outside the margin of error.

In this case, we're talking about Trump holding a lead outside the margin of error. Now, New York Times is polling looks even worse for Joe Biden, especially when you compare it to CBS, and the CBS poll already looks bad. So let's get into the details on that. So over the weekend on Saturday, the New York Times reported that polls show Biden trailing in states worth well over 270 electoral votes. And he lagged Trump in the newest New York Times-Cyna College national poll by five percentage points among registered voters, 48% to 43%. That's the largest lead Trump has ever had in a Times-Cyna national poll. So remember, we've been repeating that Biden would have to win nationally by five points in order to clench victory. But it is now replicated in many polls that Trump has a lead over Biden

nationally. And then when you get into the nitty-gritty and look specifically at these swing states, the states that are critical for Biden's victory, Biden's not performing well there either. And so this New York Times-Ciana college poll very likely looked at some of the swing states, but for the purposes of their recent reporting, they haven't put the data out yet, but it's likely that they will in coming days. Now, equally concerning for Biden is how unpopular he is among his own base of voters. In fact, he's so disliked that he's now even less popular than Donald Trump, something that honestly, even I couldn't have predicted several months ago. And Trump is still pretty

unpopular, okay, unpopular as he was four years ago. So it's not that Trump has necessarily increased his support, although he has among certain demographics slightly. It's that Biden is so unfavorable among Democratic voters and quite frankly independent voters, who are the kingmakers in elections oftentimes, that he's really struggling in the results of the of these polls. So let's get to some of the other results from the New York Times-Cena College poll. Let's put up this graph which shows you some of those results.

So for instance, in October of 2020, Biden had a 52% favorability rating. Now he's down to 38% while Trump is still hovering at 44%. So again, it's not that Trump has increased his favorability. It's more about Biden decreasing his favorability. Now it also tracks then that nearly Half of Democratic voters said they do not think that Joe Biden should be the nominee. It's not that Joe Biden nor the Democratic machine cares at all about what the voters think.

But nonetheless, according to this poll, 46% said that he should be the candidate. Well, 45% said that he should not. So 1% more believe that he should be the candidate. But the fact that 45% say, no, he should not, is definitely troubling news for the Biden campaign and for Democratic. in the country. Now, the New York Times also found that Biden's support among non-white voters keep sinking, something that we've been covering here at TYT quite often because it's a fascinating phenomenon and I do think that it is a symptom of minority voters feeling either abandoned

or taken for granted by Democratic presidential candidates. He, meaning Biden, held just a 49 to 39 lead among the Democratic presidential candidates. lead among the group, even though non-white respondents who voted in the 2020 election said they backed Biden 69 to 21. Now, swing voters really did show up to help Biden win the election, the general election in 2020. And the New York Times-Cena College poll finds that a huge portion of them do not plan to cast their ballots for him this time around. Only 83% of voters who say they chose Biden in 2020 plan to vote for him this year. Whereas 97% of voters who cast their ballots for Trump plan to do so again this year. So again, just to

emphasize and reiterate the point I'm making, not so much, it's not so much about Trump increasing his support. It's more about Biden losing support. Biden's policies toward Israel clearly have something to do with the worsening of public opinion toward him, as well as some economic factors that voters are blaming on Biden, whether you think it's fair or not. Unfortunately for the Biden administration, he is in fact getting blamed for some of the economic frustrations that Americans are dealing with. You know, some of the sticky inflation that they're experiencing at grocery stores, that is definitely leading to some political consequences for Biden. Only one in four voters thinks the country is moving.

in the right direction. More than twice as many voters believe Biden's policies have personally hurt them as believe his policies have helped them. A majority of voters think the economy is in poor condition. And when it comes to basically assessing the cognitive abilities or capacity of these candidates, especially as they seek to serve as president of the United States, Donald Trump still comes out far ahead. So I know that Donald Trump has had his own gaffes, But the voters are looking at gaffs coming from both sides and they're still punishing Biden, according to the polling, far more than they are Donald Trump. So let's take a look at the CBS News poll because that kind of emphasizes what I'm talking about here.

Only 26% of registered voters say Joe Biden has the mental and cognitive capabilities to be president. Only 26% guys, that is a big deal. Now, Donald Trump's numbers don't look great either. I mean, if you just took them as they are on their own, but Trump still looks better than Biden, which is why he's not making headlines for his cognitive capacity as much as Biden is. So 43% say that Trump does, and 25% of voters are like, neither one of these guys has the mental fitness to be president of the United States. And look, I think that they're the most accurate.

We're talking about two incredibly old candidates, and it doesn't matter which one of them ends up winning the general election. Either one of them is going to break a new record for oldest president, sitting president. And that's pretty depressing. Now, Americans overall are not happy to be enduring another Donald Trump Joe Biden rematch, and I certainly fall in this category, but let's take another look at that CBS news poll, which found that 48% of registered voters described the rematch as negative, and 42% said depressing, I fall in the depressing category. And we've already seen, or we're already

seeing Biden's unpopularity play out at the ballot box. So recently, during the Michigan Democratic primary, more than 100,000 Democrats in that state opted to vote uncommitted rather than cast support for the sitting president. And that's a significant number of voters. considering the fact that Biden eeked out a win in Michigan to the tune of 150,000 votes, a little over. But you get the picture. This is not looking good for Biden, and Biden needs to win Michigan. It's a critical state. Now meanwhile, Trump looks to be smooth sailing in the primaries, although Nikki Haley did finally defeat him in the election in DC, the primary election in DC, receiving 63% of the vote to Trump's 33%. Trump's campaign issued a statement shortly

after Haley's victory sarcastically congratulating her on being named queen of the swamp by the lobbyists and DC insiders that want to protect the failed status quo. But make no mistake about it. If anyone is under the impression that Nikki Haley is gaining momentum, they would be mistaken. Pulling from upcoming primary elections indicates that Donald Trump is still performing really well, even against Nikki Haley. And Super Tuesday, of course, is taking place this week. So we will be covering Super Tuesday here at TYT. Make sure you tune into our election coverage. Trump is poised to win many of those states, if not all of those states. And we will give you some in-depth coverage of that tomorrow during our primary

coverage immediately after the main show. We're going to move on to something entirely different and talk a little bit about a warning from the FBI in Florida. The United States government is apparently intensifying a manhunt for an Iranian intelligence operative whom the FBI believes has been plotting to assassinate former Trump administration. officials, including one-time Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Now, this is according to reporting by semaphore, and in an announcement by the FBI's Miami field office last Friday, they issued a public alert seeking information on a man by the name of Majid Dajjani Farahani, who is the suspected member of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the individual that the Bureau is alleging,

has been recruiting individuals for operations in the United States to include lethal targeting of current and former USG officials. Now, Semaphore says that it is unclear why this announcement was made in Florida. I'm gonna speculate, and let me be clear that I'm speculating, but I think it's a good educated guess that they made this announcement in Florida because that's where Donald Trump is. That's where Mara Lago is. One of the biggest security concerns under the Trump administration was the fact that if you're willing to pay a certain amount of money, you can be a member of Mar-a-Lago and you can be in the same room as the president as he's dining and discussing potentially sensitive information. So that's just my speculation. I'm not

entirely sure, but it is notable that this announcement was made in Florida. So I'm going to go and guess that it is likely that this individual that there is a manhunt for is currently in Florida. Now they also warned that Farahani speak Spanish and frequently moves between Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. Department of Justice convicted an alleged Iranian operative back in 2011 for allegedly working with Mexican drug cartels to attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington while he dined at a Georgetown restaurant. And then in January of this year, the Department of Justice indicted an Iranian gang leader for allegedly working with members of the Hells Angels to kill Iranian dissidents living in Maryland. So these assassination attempts or these bad actors that the FBI has been investigating in, for the most part, are motivated by different reasons, right?

Going after Iranian dissidents, things like that. But the Iranian government is apparently also seeking retaliation or revenge over the assassination of the top general of Iran, Qasem Soleimani. And that's what I really want to focus on here, because I think one of the biggest mistakes people make is thinking that Donald Trump's decision to assassinate a top general in Iran really had no ramifications. There were no consequences to that. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that there absolutely have been consequences. And I want to talk about that a little bit. So let me just note that the DOJ, according to Semaphore, indicted members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 2022 for allegedly plotting to murder Trump's former national

security advisor, John Bolton, who served in the White House, as we all know in the months leading up to Soleimani's death, John Bolton is a war hawk. You can't get much hawkish than Bolton. Bolton wanted to go to war, like at any moment. He just absolutely loved war. And to Trump's credit, he pushed back on Bolton quite a bit when it came to some of the foreign policy desires that Bolton had. But to Trump's discredit, he also assassinated Qasem Soleimani, and that has led to some consequences. So, for instance, We should remember that three members of our military were killed in a drone strike recently, and there were some allegations that Iran intentionally did that in retaliation of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani.

There's also the fact that, you know, there's retaliation against the U.S. military and the United States as it continues its unwavering support for Israel and its war on Gaza. So that probably played a role as well. U.S. officials told semaphore, they believe that Pompeo, and Trump's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, are also on Tehran's hit list. The U.S. government is apparently also currently providing both men with around the clock security due to the severity of the threat, meaning Bolton and Hook. The FBI also said on Friday that Farahani, who's 42 years old, was recruiting individuals as revenge for Soleimani's death and to conduct surveillance activities focused on religious sites, businesses, and other facilities in the United States. And apparently the Treasury Department had already sanctioned

Farahani back in December of last year. So it's scary to know that there are, you know, certain nefarious figures operating in the United States, looking to engage in retaliatory efforts against U.S. officials for their actions abroad. But we also shouldn't be surprised by that. Anyone who thought that there wouldn't be consequences for assassinating Qasem Soleimani was lying to themselves. Just absolute lunacy, totally ridiculous to think that that would happen. The Iranian government has made the avenging of Soleimani's assassination, one of its top national security objectives. Senior members of the IRGC have even said in recent weeks that Hamas's October attack on southern Israel was driven in part, in part by this aim. The Alaksa storm, as they call it, was one of the retaliations of the axis of resistance

against the Zionists for the martyrdom of Qasem Soleimani. The Zionists didn't really have anything to do with taking Soleimani out. It was the Trump administration that unilaterally made that decision, and we've been kind of waiting for consequences of that ever since. And it appears that they've been plotting certain consequences, and in some cases have even succeeded. Iranian state media quoted the IRGC spokesman, Remizan Sharif, as saying that they're plotting the retaliation back in December. So we'll give you more on this as it develops, but really troubling news. And if you happen to come across this individual or if you have any

information about this individual, let's put the graphic up again. Again, his name is Majid Dasjani Farahani. Contact the authorities. They're looking for him and they suspect that he is spying on behalf of the Iranian government. All right, we're going to take a quick break when we come back. We've got more news for you, including, well, that Supreme Court decision in regard to Donald Trump and his ability to be on primary ballots in states like Colorado. Come right back, don't miss it. All right, back on TYT, Jankana with you guys.

I'm not sure if Anna just read this, but Jules is over it. Oh yeah, you did, 1,005 and Ian Champa. You guys are awesome, thank you for joining us. It's the join button below to make that happen. We've got a lot more news. Well, big news story today involving the United States Supreme Court, so let's get into it. Former President Donald Trump is celebrating today following a Supreme Court decision that will in fact allow the former president to appear on state primary ballots. Now, SCOTUS's decision undoes a Colorado ruling that disqualified Trump from the primary ballot by citing January 6th riots as their reasoning behind it.

Now, today's ruling comes one day prior to Super Tuesday when more than a dozen states are set to hold their primary election. elections. Now, what was the reasoning behind their unanimous decision? The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, ruling that such responsibility rests with Congress and not the states. And really, the main argument that they're making here is that basically that states can make or cite the 14th amendment in making decisions about elections pertaining to state and local candidates, but they cannot do so in regard to federal candidates or federal elections. That's really the job of Congress. That's the main argument that

they made here, but they made another argument as well. The court warned of disruption and chaos if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others based on the same conduct. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos, arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration, the court said, in a 13-page unsigned opinion. Now, how did this case come to be? It's important to know about how it came to be. I think that there's this assumption by Trump supporters that it was the Biden White House or the Biden campaign that was egging this on. Biden has made a public statement about this

in the past saying that they should allow Trump on the primary ballots. But nonetheless, the challenge to Trump's candidacy was brought by six Colorado voters, four of whom who happened to be Republicans, two of whom happened to be independents. The Colorado Supreme Court found that Trump had engaged in insurrection when he summoned his supporters to Washington and encouraged them to disrupt Congress's certification of Biden's victory. That was what occurred on January 6th. But that wasn't an argument that persuaded the Supreme Court justices. At oral argument on February 8th, justices from across the ideological spectrum

warned of troubling political ramifications if they permitted Colorado's top court to order the leading Republican presidential candidate off the ballot. Several justices suggested that allowing the state court ruling to bar Trump from federal office would throw the presidential race into turmoil and lead other states to try to disqualify Democratic candidates. Now, I can't wait to share the like hysterical reaction by the likes of Keith Olberman. That's going to be a fun comedic relief moment on the show today, but before we get to that, Jank, jump in. Yeah. So understand what the decision is and isn't. So first, they did not adjudicate the insurrection at all. So they say, and not only that, they say the

states cannot adjudicate it at all and and apparently the courts can't either the criminal courts can't either it has to be an act of Congress meaning that if Donald Trump was convicted of insurrection after this ruling I think he gets still serve which goes way too far and that's why Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices in a dissent on that part so it's unanimous overall that Trump can stay on the ballot but as far as how are reaching this decision is Barrett joined the others and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, no, no, no, what do you mean that only Congress can decide this? What if Congress's

deadlocked on partisan issues having nothing to do with it, whether an insurrection happened or not? So, and it also creates the issue of states then not being able to regulate their own elections at the state level, okay, on this issue particularly. Now, there's one more twist. I want to read you this part of the decision, and then we'll talk about it. They say, states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. Now they say that, right? But it's not clear if that applies to section three of the 14th Amendment. So, but definitely not federal office.

The states cannot touch federal office. In fact, they say, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. So it sounds like the states can adjudicate. if you went down to January 6 and you were convicted of insurrection and you want to run for mayor, right, or governor. But they cannot adjudicated if that same person tries to run for Congress or Senate. But on top of that, what it leaves unclear is, can the states take anyone off a ballot for

any constitutional reasons if it's the federal office that they're running for, especially the presidency? And so they did not directly address that. They left that door open. So the, and there are other parts of the decision that's even broader in terms of saying, the states might not have the power to take people off of federal ballots. So I think that makes sense. So as I was reading about their reasoning and their decision, especially in regard to what states can and can't do,

I couldn't help but think about why it's important to protect federal elections from state interference or interference in deciding whether or not the federal candidates should or should not be considered qualified for the ballots. I mean, think about the civil war and what the civil war was about, right? So would the federal government want to give the states the kind of power to make that type of decision about federal matters or federal elections? Yeah, especially regards to 14th Amendment Section 3. I get the logic of that particular. Because the thing about what Anna is saying, what if South Carolina back then was like, yeah, you say insurrection, I say tomato. Exactly.

And so these same guys who are part of the Confederacy, I'm going to send up there now, it's a state matter, right? And these are the justices going saying it's not a state matter. But one of the things they emphasize, Anna, is that if states make different decisions, and then we've got a hodgepodge situation, and this is a total mess. And so I know of a Democratic primary candidate who's dealing with that. So some states decide to keep this individual off the ballot. Others decide to keep the individual on the ballot. So interesting. Yeah.

So let's take a hypothetical for a future run. Let's say that Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to run next election cycle, right? And he's a naturalized citizen. He could easily take this case and it's not a slam dunk, but it moves the ball forward for sure. And take this case and go, well, you guys just said that the states can't decide who can run and who can. That doesn't mean that he wins. The Supreme Court still has to decide whether he can serve. But that would back up the federal election commission that said naturalized citizens can run and basically shouldn't be taken off the ballot.

So a lot of the state yahoos that make these decisions, they don't know anything about constitutional law. That's super interesting and it's true. Yeah, and they're like, I don't know, I heard in eighth grade that you shouldn't be on the. the ballot. So I'm going to take you off. And this is the Supreme Court beginning to say, no, you don't know constitutional law and that's not your role. Okay, put them on the ballot and leave it up to us. Now with that said, let's go to Blue Maga. The ambassador of Blue Maga, the top ambassador, is a man by the name of Keith

Oberman, who, believe it or not, at one time, was a renowned cable news host and now likes to embarrass himself on a regular basis on Twitter. So he posted, following the Supreme Court's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members, including Jackson, meaning Katanji Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor, have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension and collectively the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved. So there you have Keith Olberman arguing that a major part of our system of checks and balances should absolutely be dissolved because

they had a unanimous decision that he didn't like. Insanity. Yeah, so I think he's lost his mind. Totally. So a couple of things here. Number one, Oh, can't they read? Well, wait a minute now. Constitutional law is very complicated. And I could personally attest to the word equal being very much in dispute, even though it seems like a crystal clear word, it is one that has taken thousands and thousands of pages of Supreme Court decisions to adjudicate what the word equal means.

So for Overman to do sophistry and be like, oh, they can't read, they should be dissolved. That's childish. Okay, so that's number one. Number two, his main cases, we gotta, you gotta vote against Trump because democracy's on the line. And now he's saying, let's dissolve one of the branches of our government. It's a totally indefensible, just moronic. And when you're attacking the liberal justices, look, if there was a money in politics case or other cases where they said something egregious, okay, and I have that conversation. But in this case, they were unanimous for a reason, because no one adjudicated Trump to be an insurrectionist, other than

random Democrats in two or three states. That's not how the process works. That's not how the process should work. But guys like Oberman, who are blue MAGA, have lost their minds. That's why you call them Blue MAGA, right? Red MAGA thinks Trump won the 2020 election, et cetera. So it lost their minds in that way. It detached from objective reality.

And Blue MAGA is just as detached. The other thing that Oberman is always crying about is, don't believe numbers. Numbers are lies. I only believe my emotions, right? And that is not a rational way to think. And he's become a buffoon, really. Right.

And the numbers. Oh, yeah, no polling matters. There's no such thing as science when it comes to polling. The data sucks. Numbers are for losers. Emotions, right? Totally. I mean, it's, look, I totally understand that commentary when you're dealing with one standout poll.

But the results that are pretty damning for Biden in the general. have been replicated in poll after poll after poll, at some point you have to maybe accept reality. And that's part of the problem, Jank. We have a growing group of people on both sides who just do not want to accept reality. And that makes everything so much more difficult. And what drives me insane is that the media has become superpartisan. So you either watch left-wing media or right-wing media. And audiences have become so accustomed to hearing one ideological side that once they get any information that dispels preconceived notions, you know, they don't react well to it. And I think that's part of the problem. And so we,

look, we obviously have our own political views and our own political, you know, preferences. But the facts are the facts. And we're not going to hide that from you, even if it's uncomfortable to know what's really going on in the country. Yeah, it's not that hard. I mean, Oberman was nominally in news before. I mean, so I guess at MSNBC is mainly doing propaganda for Democrats, and now he's just mask off on it. But so I hate Donald Trump. I probably dislike Donald Trump more than Keith Overman does. That doesn't mean I'm going to lie to you and tell you that he's losing when he isn't. Every poll shows him up by four or five, and the Democratic candidate has to win by four or five in order to win the

electoral college. And I'm super curious what these blue mega delusional types are going to do when Biden loses. And at this point, if election were held today, he'd get landslided. He would lose every swing state. So, and right now, if you tell the Oberman is of the world, they'll say, no, Nate Silver is lying, Jake Huber is lying. And Keith, Overn literally did that in a podcast last week. Aser Klein is lying. Bill Maher is lying. And he put me in that group, right? They're all lying. They're all, the numbers are lying, right? You look so deranged and desperate. So what happens when that desperation and emotional instability runs into the fact that Biden lost, right, in 2024?

If that's what happens, I mean, 2-2, I don't want Trump to win. But if that happens, are they going to go full MAGA? Are they going to be like, no, they stole the election? No, no, we don't accept it. Stop the steal. Continue to steal. No, we don't accept it. There's mules.

There's 2,000 mules. I don't know, it's starting to sound like 2000 mule territory. It is interesting that like once you expand your mind and accept that there are people on the Democratic side who behave similarly to, you know, the hardcore maga types who also refuse to accept reality, you kind of see the world for what it really is, right? There is no good side, bad side, people who accept reality and people who don't, meaning Democrats do and Republicans don't. You have a faction in both parties who have just completely lost their minds. And it is concerning. And look, Blue Maga has a longer history than Red Maga, if we're being honest. And it's not as deep, right?

Red Maga wind up in La La Land, right? Just totally detached from facts. A bunch of them thinking Trump was still president or was going to be reinstated. These things are just off this planet, right? But Blue Maga has been assisting that Democrats who take millions of dollars in corporate donations don't get affected by that money at all, that they're angels and that their ideology and how much they care to do the right thing overwhelms the fact that they're getting millions of dollars in political contributions and their voting record is identical to what their donors

want, but they're like, no, that is a wild, wild coincidence. We never really explore that enough in mainstream media for for sure, they never ever talk about that, right? But that is a a lunatic position, like, and it's held by a lot of Democrats. The one thing I'll give the Republicans credit for is that they have let go of that lunatic position. Now if you ask most Republicans, do your Republican politicians who take millions of dollars, are they honest people who are just doing it based on ideology? I think most Republican voters say no, they're crooks and they're taking the donation money. And some of them are on our side, but a lot of them are unit party not on our side. And that is

actually closer to reality. So it's a mixed bag, as you see there. Yeah, all right, well, we gotta take a break. When we come back, we have some updates on the war in Gaza, including some of the acts taken by the United States military over the weekend to provide more humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. But that's actually leading to more criticism toward the US, and I'll explain why when we come back.

All right back on TYT, Jank, Anna, Julio Johnson, Guy Lewis, and Moon Moon. Welcome, guys. It's great to have you. They hit the join button below. You can too. And please, this is a perfect time to do it. We really need more members to, because the ad rates are so far down. And this industry is a mess.

So we need you to carry us. Jason Alea, thank you for gifting five memberships. Makes a big difference. Anna. Let's get to some updates on what is going down in Gaza, including some updates on humanitarian aid. And given the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be an immediate ceasefire.

For at least the next six weeks, which is what is currently on the table. Vice President Kamala Harris called for an immediate and temporary ceasefire in Gaza over the weekend. Let's hear more of what she had to say. This will get the hostages out and get a significant amount of aid in. This would allow us to be. something more enduring to ensure Israel is secure and to respect the right of the Palestinian people to dignity, freedom, and self-determination. Now, of course, talk is cheap, and it's one thing to call for a ceasefire.

It's a completely different thing to use the leverage that the United States have with its military weaponry and say, hey, Israel, if we don't see a ceasefire, we are not going to send any more weapons to you so you can carry out this unbearable, terrible and brutal war in Gaza, which has killed far more civilians than Hamas combatants. Now Harris was in Alabama and spoke in front of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, which of course is where troopers had beaten civil rights marchers about six decades ago on Bloody Sunday. So the statement at that place and time was, you know, symbolic and also important. It's important for the Biden White House to call for a ceasefire.

But it's also important for the Biden White House to actually put some, you know, consequences behind their words if a ceasefire is not reached. Now, the current ceasefire offer would be temporary lasting only six weeks. And I say only six weeks because the idea that you just have a temporary ceasefire, Hamas returns the hostages, which they absolutely must do, and then Israel is free to continue their brutality in Gaza is unacceptable to me and unacceptable to a lot of people, which is why Hamas has not accepted that ceasefire offer. Let's just keep it real. Now, in addition to calling for that temporary ceasefire, Harris also called out Israel's failure in allowing humanitarian aid into the Gaza

strip, saying that people in Gaza are starving, the conditions are inhumane, and our common humanity compels us to act. You should definitely act then instead of just. talk about it. But anyway, she also says that the Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid, no excuses. And she's right about that. Israel does in fact continue rejecting critical aid into Gaza. CNN did a recent report on how and why. Let's take a quick look at their reporting. About a thousand trucks worth of essential medical aid and food supplies meant for Gaza, collecting dust, waiting to be cleared by Israeli officials. I mean, these are baby wipes.

Why are you still waiting for permission on baby wipes? I don't know. You have bandages, we're coming up over here, you've got wheelchairs, crutches, in that kind of war situation. These are really, really important things for people, medicines, vitamin C over here. Yes, and this is what we think, what we believe.

It is a crucial need that need to be sent immediately to Gaza. to Gaza, there's no excuse why it's still in our warehouse. And they don't really get much of an explanation from Israel in regard to why certain aid packages get rejected. It's more of a guessing game, and it's been pretty unbearable for the people on the ground in Gaza. The United States has responded by airdropping aid, which we'll get to in just a moment before we do. Jank, any thoughts? Yeah, I want to start with Kamala Harris first. I'm going to give a couple of members on Twitch opportunity to speak on this first. Goddust Dragon wrote in.

They only seem to bring Kamala out when they need the black vote. Otherwise, they keep her in the basement with Biden. Yeah, there's a lot of truth to that. Biden's numbers have slipped massively by about 21 points with black voters. So they're worried. Notice she's in Selma, Alabama, Edmund Pettus Bridge, the symbolism there. But don't talk to me about civil rights if you're going to do half measures. And then Killa wrote in it on as part of our Twitch members as well.

and Harris said that said that but in true neoliberal fashion actor she said the big announcement and everybody cheered she had to put in a little caveat of six weeks only and that to me is the most important point and that's why I love doing the show with our members hit the join button below to be part of the show so okay this big ceasefire is all for six weeks I'll take it I'll take Kamala Harris speaking out and say do the ceasefire now don't you know don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Great, fantastic. I'm happy that she did it. But I don't want it to delude you into believing that this is a real fix. It's a good, important fix in the short term. I hope Hamas releases the hostages and takes this offer because right now they're saying

that they don't want to give the names of the hostages to Israel, which makes no sense at all. Just give the names, let's go, let's go, let's do the ceasefire. But I'm surprised that Hamas took it or is about to take it, it looks like. Because Netanyahu's government is saying after the six weeks are over and we have all of our hostages back, we're going to go back to killing all of you, including the civilians. So what kind of a peace deal is this? It's not a peace deal. Yeah, it's a ceasefire.

That is true. And ceasefires are not permanent peace deals. And maybe they could work on one in those six weeks. But right now, we're in a situation where Israel says, no, the war will continue. And we will continue to bomb the Palestinians and potentially starve the Palestinians. And as you look at the starving right now, the U.S. has to drop in aid because our own ally won't let the aid in quickly enough. That's right.

Why don't we just tell our ally, hey, get out of the way. Otherwise, I'm going to take your $4 billion back. Why do you never listen to us? Now I've got to do drop in things around you. Wait, are they an ally or are they not an ally? Because an ally listens to you, especially when you're giving them $4 billion. and proxying another 14 billion. Israel says, no, I want America to go through even more expense.

Give me money to bomb the Palestinians and then do the expensive way of doing a tiny amount of humanitarian assistance that you gotta drop in from the sky because I won't let you use the roads. Right. If I was the US, I'd park an aircraft carrier off the coast of Gaza and unload every kind of humanitarian assistance. You know the Americans aren't bringing in weapons for Hamas, right? Bring in all the assistance in the world and go, what are you gonna do, Israel?

Are you going to bomb us? So let's get to the airdrops because the United States is getting criticized for doing the humanitarian aid airdrops. And I want to explain why. So number one, one of the issues outside of Israel restricting humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip is that in the rare times that Israel allows humanitarian aid into Gaza, there's a chaotic scene where starving Palestinians rush the humanitarian aid trucks because they're desperate for food. Now, in previous situations, you would have the, you know, law enforcement in Gaza basically guard the convoys as they come in, but the IDF started shooting at them because they are part of Hamas. And so as a result, the aid trucks didn't have the security necessary to go into the Gaza Strip and distribute

the food without a swarm of people coming in and trying to get their hands. on flour or anything else that could help keep them alive. Now the other thing to keep in mind is the US has decided to get around Israel by doing airdrops. They started this weekend doing the airdrops of humanitarian aid, beginning on Saturday afternoon and in a joint operation with Jordanian planes, the US dropped tens of thousands of meals into Gaza. That sounds like a lot, but it's not, I'll explain why in a moment.

Jordan has already, by the way, airdropped aid into Gaza, as has France. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, Saturday's drop marks the first time the U.S. did the same. Now, U.S. officials said that the U.S. or that U.S. and Jordanian C-130 planes taking off from Jordan dropped 66 pallets of food containing a total of 38,000 meals at mid-afternoon local time in the first of a series of airdrops. In a statement, U.S. Central Command said that the air drops are part of a sustained effort to get more aid into Gaza, including by expanding the flow of aid through land corridors and routes, although that effort seems to have failed by the United States, considering how Israel continues to reject humanitarian aid into the strip.

And there are humanitarian groups who are arguing that these airdrops, that's just not going to cut it. Let's watch. Air droved into Gaza for a desperate population. This is a Jordanian flight with more countries looking to join the aid effort, among them the US. But this isn't a good news story. On the ground, a glimpse of how much more is needed to keep starving Gazans from falling into famine.

Air drops are inefficient and expensive. You just can't drop enough food for a starving population. To stave off famine, you need thousands of trucks filled with food flooding into Gaza. But that's not happening. So the US is spending more than it needed to in providing humanitarian aid because the a air drops are a more expensive and less effective way to get humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Emily Hokayyam, the director for regional security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, called the U.S. AirDrops virtue signaling and an admission of impotence on the part

of the U.S. In a statement, the International Rescue Committee also said that air drops are not the solution to relieve this suffering and distract time and effort from proven solutions to help at scale. All diplomatic focus should be on ensuring Israel lifts its siege of we need a sustained ceasefire. Jank. Yeah, I'm going to quote one more member here. This is from YouTube members. Mama Bear Dragon said, I love how MSNBC and Bernie broke with Biden,

pointing out the contradiction of supplying weapons and dropping aid. So if you didn't see, Roe Kana came out and finally said something that Kamala Harris didn't, which is there needs to be consequences for Israel not listening to us if they're going to be our ally. And we're going to send them this much money. So that is a huge step forward. But Bernie outdid him, and that's why I read that member comment. Bernie Sanders came and said, we should not give one more nickel to Netanyahu's government

if they're going to continue these atrocities in Gaza. There you go, Bernie Sanders, for the win, as always. Look, you could get frustrated that it took him a while to get here, et cetera. But he's the first U.S. politician who's got the courage to say, I think Israel's misunderstanding this situation. We are their benefactors. And if they don't listen to what we're saying and they continue to slaughter the Palestinians, not another nickel.

That's a United States senator saying that. And so I bring that up because this isn't going to get the job done. These food drops, these tiny little food drops. Like I said, you could pull up a couple of aircraft carriers. Now we're having a conversation, right? And that's a much more efficient way of doing it. And if it's not the U.S., there's some chance the Israelis would fire, even on their allies. Well, remember they loaded, they boarded the Turkish ship in a previous conflict that tried to deliver humanitarian assistance.

I do remember that. They killed a bunch of Turks and an American, and Americans didn't do anything about it. That was the flotilla situation. Yeah. I remember that. Yeah. Yeah, but that's what I've been wondering about. I mean, why don't we have aircraft carriers delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza? Because I would imagine, because then Yahoo ordered them not to. And if you say that's an outrageous thing to say, really? Who looks like they're in charge here? Biden is begging Netanyahu, Netanyahu saying, no, you can't use the land. You could do your pittance on the air or whatever. I mean, I don't know if I allow it, but maybe you could do a little something that's not going to help much. Who's in charge here? Who's giving money to who?

This is absurd. So for all the people in Washington that say you can't talk about things that are obviously true, that's your problem, brothers and sisters. We're in the truth business here. So this is outrageous that Israel is ordering us around when we're the ones sending them endless amount of our taxpayer money that comes out of our checks every day. Okay, guys, I cannot emphasize this enough. There's over half a million Palestinians starving to death.

Every morning I wake up and I think, how can I help? What else can I do? Because they're starving every day. Have you seen the pictures of the starving babies? Jesus Christ, man. And what is Netanyahu doing to the image of Israel? I don't know that the image of Israel can ever recover from when Netanyahu is done. You have to turn around immediately.

The whole world thinks you're monsters. And now America, you look pathetic, begging your ally to let you help starving people who are about to die. Exactly. All right, we have a giant story about the New York Times. It's reporting on the war and this incredible reporting by The Intercept that reveals just how bias, their output has been. So we're gonna get into that story and more when we come back. Let's take a break.

We'll see you in a few minutes.