The Young Turks - Biden Pretends He's Not At Fossil Fuel Fundraiser

Episode Date: September 7, 2019

Joe Biden pretends he’s not taking money from fossil fuel companies. John Iadarola, Jayar Jackson, and Adrienne Lawrence, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. 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. Drop it. Okay, everybody, it's Friday, and we've got something a little bit different.

Jank is gone, we threw him out of the studio, and Adrian is back in studio. J.R. is here as well, so it's going to be fun. It's also a really weird rundown, by the way. There's a list of demands from Adrian, she said, if you're going to have me in here, you're going to have to get Jank out of here. Exactly, yeah, their feud continues. You guys are gonna have to patch things up eventually. By the way, that's started rumors that you're gonna get tweets about for years. Oh sweet, can't wait.

So enjoy that, no, they're not actually feuding. But anyway, we got a lot that we're gonna talk about. We're gonna talk about fossil fuel donations to politicians, or at least one of them anyway. Will there be a Republican primary contest? We've got multiple candidates, but will there actually be any races between them? We'll find out about that. We're gonna talk about wall funding. We're gonna talk about Kevin Sorbo, as we often do.

And also the work week. Traditionally, five days long. But should it be? We're going to have a little debate here on the show. And is there anything else big that we need to touch on? I think we're pretty good. Okay, why don't we just launch right into it? Okay. Joe Biden got some hard questions at the climate town hall, including this. How can we trust you to hold these corporations and executives accountable for their crimes against humanity when we know that tomorrow you are holding high dollar funders or hosted by Andrew Goldman, a fossil fuel executive. He is not a fossil fuel objective. He is not a fossil fuel objective. And the fact of the matter is that what we talk about is what are we going to do about those

corporations? What have we done? And everywhere along the way, for example, I've argued and we've, and pushed for us suing those executives who are engaged in pollution. What Andrew is saying is, if you're going to a fundraiser that's given in part by this guy who has a company that is pulling up natural gas, are you the right guy to go after this? Well, I didn't realize he does that. I was told, if you look at the SEC filings, he's not listed as one of those executives. That's what we look at, the SEC filings. Who are those executives? I've kept that pledge, period. So is that, are you going to look at that fundraiser tomorrow night?

I'm going to look at what you just told me and find out that's accurate, yes. Okay. I think it's pretty accurate. Ooh, Mr. Cooper with a little bit of spice there. Yes, it's pretty accurate. And that was, like, if that was Bernie Sanders, it would be described in headlines as Bernie oddly combative after question. That was him, like, dismissively saying, yes, I'm keeping with a pledge. But not if you actually care about the content of the pledge because the individual that they talk about there, Andrew Goldman, yes, he is not technically by the strictest definition a CEO or an executive of a fossil fuel company.

But he co-founded a company that starts facilities that do natural gas production. That's higher level. That creates new executives for that field. Like that is spawning those corporations that we have a problem with. So to say that we shouldn't be worried about him is not just. dishonest, but that's inverting reality in a very real way. Absolutely. It really kind of speaks to almost the things we've already been experiencing with this current

administration in terms of stretching the truth and sometimes even just giving us blatant lies. And so if Biden's platform is going to be something distinguishable and different from Trump, it would be great if he actually kind of, you know, put that forth as opposed to situations like this when he claims that this gentleman who co-founded Western LNG and was also his advisor when he served in the Senate is not at all involved in fossil fuels. Come on. You have to show that you have at least some kind of understanding of the reason why people want you to do this.

So when people say, the question was direct, he goes, how can we expect you to hold these types of companies accountable if you're going to be going to their fundraisers? You understand why people ask that question, you've been doing this for a while. So if you're going to continue to go and say technically, it's not really on the board anymore, so therefore I'm technically holding on to the pledge, that doesn't mean anything. He's talking about technicalities. This isn't, they're not a lawyer trying to get by on some kind of a scheme to get your client off.

You're trying to run for president. So if you need to show constituents that you understand that they're against you continuing to cowtow to these type of companies, you need to say, oh, I didn't know that, I'm going to avoid that. Now people make it mad and say, how are you going to cut out a large section of voting block by oil companies? They'll be okay. Because in the past, what we've done is we've ignored.

that have a problem with what these companies do. You've avoided them this whole time, you've ignored them the whole time. So if you're willing to do that, in those circumstances, you should be able to do it in other way. So I think you said there, correct me if I'm wrong, that he's been around for a while, so he gets why. I wonder though, if Anderson Cooper had a fallout question, why don't they want you to take money from these executives, people who have a vested interest in fossil fuel extraction?

Would he actually be able to answer it? could he or would he actually do it? Because to answer that honestly, a full answer, because we fear that those sorts of people will have an influence over you. The money that they give you now is an investment on affecting your policy directives when you get in office. To admit that is to admit that all of your campaign finance should be put under a magnifying glass. And I don't know if he would actually do that or if he even could do that. If he really gets why we think it's a problem. Because his answer that he's not technically an executive implies that he doesn't get it.

That guy, he co-founded a company that creates facilities that exploit natural gas. If that sort of person is your advisor, if he's raising money for you, and you say you're gonna do something about fracking, no, he's, I don't think he's one of the ones that says he's gonna ban it, but he says more regulations, why would we believe that? Why would these people be pumping money into your campaign if you're gonna shut them down? That would be madness, and I don't think that they're mad. I think that they're savvy with who they donate to. And so for you to continue to accept that money implies to me that you don't take it seriously

whatsoever and the vague promises you make about your potential climate platform should not be taken at face value. Absolutely, it does convey that he is essentially disingenuous. And we are able to see this largely by actions as opposed to his words. And his words in terms of feigning ignorance, we can see right through that to begin with, you know, claiming, oh, I didn't know what this gentleman did, or oh, I don't necessarily know his title. That's, come on, you should know better, especially when this man was your advisor when

you were in the Senate. And so again, actions versus words, and it just makes me realize how much more we are going to get more of Trump. And by the way, I guess I've sort of buried the lead. I mean, we're talking about stuff coming from the climate town hall. And so time has come and gone. He did go to that fundraiser. He ended up doing it.

He did the fact checking, he said he would, Anderson Cooper, and you know what, he's okay, stamp of approval, Biden is going to go there. But he said this, and this is just a great quote. So he said at the fundraiser, I just want to be very quick. clear to everyone here that I'm committed to not raising money from fossil fuel executives, and I'm not doing that here. And all the people who are just taking every bit of energy out of the ground and burn it up and ruin our climate, they're like, that's a great point, Joe. Here are the best. Here's some more money.

Well, you missed the second half of that quote. He said, because I'm taking all the money that was raised at this fund raiser. And I'm giving it to clean up operations and certain There's cities and states all over the country that have to deal with contaminated pipes and not just flint. So pipes that are destroying people's lives and pumping through different kinds of contaminants into their system. He's giving that money to them. That's what he's raising money from fossil fuels company for, am I right?

Did I miss that part of the quote? I don't think that's what it is. Because he said he's not doing it as he's doing it, so he must not really be doing it. So look, I obviously was not for, I'm not involved in the creation of this pledge. I've talked about it on my shows, but so why don't we turn to the people who actually put together this pledge to see whether or not they accept his explanation? Well, we have a comment from David Turnbull, spokesman for Oil Change U.S. This is one of the organizations that helped to organize that pledge that he is, he swears he's

still abiding by. That spokesman said, while it may not technically violate the pledge, it clearly goes against its spirit. We define the pledge's rule to make it simple for candidates to commit to and follow, not to provide loopholes to continue raising funds from fossil fuels. fuel adjacent sources. And so look, we might all disagree on exactly where you should draw the line. Should they be going through every donation, no matter how small to find out what industry

that person worked for? So if somebody makes $50,000 a year working at an oil field, should you accept money from them? We can sort of disagree about that. But this isn't a donation, this isn't a single thing. This is a wealthy, influential person that you have a past with that you definitely know about. Don't pretend you have no clue what business they're in.

who is organizing a fundraiser for you. And maybe it's crazy, but I have this sneaking suspicion that when he's choosing who to bring to this fundraiser for Biden, some of them might be in the oil game, maybe. Perhaps. Anyway, look, he got through this first town hall, I guess. There's been some criticism. So far it hasn't really stuck in part because it was a climate town hall. And so nobody watches because the potential death of our civilization isn't a big ratings booster.

But there are going to be other town halls, and there are going to be debates where these questions are going to be brought up. And I hope that his continued noncompliance with this, if he keeps doing fundraisers like this, becomes a problem for him. Because it's on issue, we can afford to just let him skate by on. Absolutely. Okay, we're going to take our first break. When we come back, we're going to get into the Republican primary, if there is one after this. 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-B-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. Welcome back to the Young Turks, everybody.

We've got some both hashtag TYT lives and also member comments. But before we jump into that, I just wanted to let you know one or two things coming up. The first is, I have a question for you. Are you happy with your financial institution? If you're not, you might want to consider aspiration. And if you are, you might want to think about it again. Because for many of you using the big, well-known financial institutions, your money is parked there and they're making money off of it, but they're also giving it to politicians, many of whom probably are

completely opposed to every political value that you have. And so giving them your money is giving your political opponents power against you. But switching over to Aspiration.com doesn't just disarm your enemies. It also provides a lot of benefits to you, including up to a 2% annual percentage yield, very important, especially in a time where most financial institutions have a far lower number. Unlimited cashback rewards on every purchase, free access to every ATM in literally the entire world. Deposits are all FDIC insured. No monthly service. service fees, lots of great benefits. You've heard about many of them here before.

If you're interested in taking a closer look, you can go to Aspiration.com slash TYT to get all of the perks that I already mentioned. You can also then go to TYT.com slash free 30 to get a free 30 day TYT membership if you've signed on to Aspirations. So just something to consider. One more thing to consider if you're in the New York area next Monday at 5.30 p.m. Eastern Time at Bryant Park. Jank Yugar and Justice Democrat, Jamal Bowman, are going to be there for a TYT meetup.

You can learn how to build power in your community. If you want more information about that meet up, how to meet both Jamal and Jank, you can go to t.com slash rally to sign up and receive our email and text updates. There's also a Facebook group that you can join to coordinate ride sharing for that event. So just let me to consider if you're in the New York area. A couple comments before we jump back into it. Let's see, KT Nicole says, how many more of these gaffes are we gonna get from Biden before he drops out? I actually, I don't consider that one a gaff at all.

No, that was just a lie. Dishonest or maybe he has, maybe he has no clue? That's best case scenario. He has a clue. The guy who might be president has no clue. He has a clue. There's campaign handlers that do this stuff and they're like, you can't back out of this, you have to this, you have to that, you have to this, you have that, they'll

get over, be fine, you're a frontrunner, you'll be fine, and he has to go with it. They've listened to their campaign advisors. They don't have much of a thought for themselves. So if he went against it, he probably had staff quit or something. Yikes. Yeah, like we- This is big for them. Admit when you're wrong. We have to have this money or so we can't continue to run this campaign.

Yeah, that's true. So look, his little like dancing around the issue, actually, there was a member comment from Tommy Too Strong, as it works very well. Can't wait for the Bezos-owned Washington Post fact checkers to come down hard on Biden like they tried to do with Bernie over medical debt, or any of those recent posts where it's like, They do this long thing and they're like, well, technically he's 100% right, but that Bernie. We'll see how they like the Biden. He's not an executive thing.

We'll see how that flies. Okay, with that, why don't we jump back into the news and jump over to the Republican side. Donald Trump actually does have potential challengers in this Republican primary season. You've probably heard of Joe Walsh and Bill Well. There are others potentially too, but it's an open question at this point as to whether or not there are actually going to be any contested primaries or caucuses. And the reason for that is that they're starting to be canceled. In three different states already, primaries and caucuses, they're in the final steps of shutting

them down. If you're a Republican in that area, you will not have another choice other than Donald Trump. That's who you've got. And the cancellations stem in part for months of behind the scenes maneuvering by the Trump campaign. Aides have worked to ensure total control of the party machinery, installing loyalists at state parties while eliminating potential detractors. Apparently, they want to make sure that there's no repeat of the 1992 George H.W. Bush re-election campaign.

They want it to be smooth sailing through the primaries. What do you guys think about this? I actually kind of think it's a little bit comical in that they are using the tricks that they use to stay in power by essentially keeping marginalized groups and other party members from competing with them, they're using it against members of their own party. And so I find it entertaining, but unfortunately, of course, it means that the people, even in general, regardless of party, are going to have fewer options and truly be able to speak on those options.

They were pointing out, the groups, the Republican groups in these states point out how this isn't anything new. I don't know if you're going to get to that, but they point out how this has happened throughout the past, through Reagan, through, well, H.W. had a problem. Through W, through Clinton, through Obama. Like, certain states, like, we have our nominee, why are we going to waste the time? They also point out how much the cost would be to those states to run those primaries when we already know who the candidate's going to be.

And we can all agree, we already know who the candidate's going to be. I think they're right on that. Oh, you think Trump would win? You think so? Well, he's going to be the nominee, right? That's just the way it's going to be. I mean, with what, Mark Sanford, Joe Wash, I get there running, but nobody's going to take out Trump from the Republican hierarchy right now.

So there's that, except for the fact, you can have that argument and say this is not nothing new until you get to the part where the aides are working to ensure total control of the machinery, installing staunch loyalists at state parties while eliminating the detractors. So again, it's one of those things where this administration does things above and beyond normalcy, so then when they say we're doing just like everyone else, you're not doing it just like everyone else. Yes, there's been executive orders from other administrations, and they say, every administration does executive orders, yes, there was policies that would, that was sending out migrants from

other administrations, sure, yes, there was policies about what you're doing with families when they come to the border, except they do it at extreme levels and claim that they're doing at normal levels. Yeah. So when you do this normal thing and you give a normal reason like we don't want to waste money because we know who our nominees is going to be, because we knew no one was going to run against Obama in 2012 and then take over the nomination. We knew that, so they skipped it in some states.

This is a different situation because you have a vulnerable president who a large majority Republicans don't like but are too afraid to say so. So when you try to make sure you get all of them out, you're doing it a different level. of normalcy and claiming it normal and we just have to buy it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As you point, like, so South Carolina, like going back a bunch of times hasn't had a primary. They did it under Obama, I think they did it, I think in 96 under Clinton. They're just not fans of doing it for whatever reason, I get that.

But when sources inside of your administration are like, yeah, we just, we're worried about there being conflict or something, that's not quite the same thing. I agree with JR that it's effectively a foregone conclusion. I don't think that any of these people are necessarily gonna be able to break through. I think there are some potential challengers who in one state maybe could. Like maybe if Mitt Romney ran, he could win a state or, you know, McMahon or something like that. Maybe.

Other potential candidates. I thought you meant just between Mark Sanford and Joel Walsh and. No, I don't see that happening. Maybe they catch on. But the thing I think that we all kind of miss out on and I think that they're trying to prevent is essentially watching Trump lose it and go crazy. Because if he's going to have to actually compete with Joe Walsh, this other gentleman, then he is going to be tweeting like, you know, Joe Walsh is Deborah Messing.

He is going to be going under attack, acting a fool. And I think that the party would prefer he not act up to the extent because they would continue to lose more Republicans. He'll get hyper-focused on, I don't want to call them insignificant, but a potentially insignificant race. Yes. And that's what you don't want, as he got caught up with a hurricane drawing. Oh, Jesus. So he can't help himself. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised, I mean, it might not be that this is Trump's idea.

It could just be his campaign's ideas, aides or whatever. Why wouldn't he want to go around and crush these people? Like he wants to win easy fights, that's Donald Trump. He doesn't want an actual challenge, he wants to be down on people of no chance of beating him. And effectively, I think that most of these individuals are that sort of thing. He's gonna win, he's gonna beat them, he likes doing rallies, why not travel around, you know, and fire up some of your base? It should bother his base that they're doing this, especially when I feel like most Trump

supporters, they don't like how the GOP tried very weakly to keep Trump out early on. They thought that like, how dare you try to stop an outsider? Yes, Trump stop those outsiders, like there's a bit of hypocrisy there, but they feel no shame and they don't care whether they're intellectually consistent. So they'll be fine with that. I'm just surprised that he wants to shut down this race. I feel like he'd love to run against Joe Walsh. I just think he'd get caught in the nonsense arena and just, you know, embarrass himself

in the party even more, and that's not something that the party necessarily wants. And that can become problematic. They don't want anything. There was a point. They said they want to face internal opposition at Hamper W, right? They don't want potentially harmful things to be said, because Joe Wash is a bit of a wild, loose cannon, as we already know. So then they don't want him to potentially say something or do something or get engaged

in a fight where Trump will say or do something, as you're pointing out, which will shoot himself in the foot because he's too busy yelling. So they're trying to avoid that as well. And also just in case someone goes, hmm, you mean we can do this? Yes. They don't want that opportunity even come to anyone's mind. Well, let me give them just an opportunity to make their case. First of all, former Republican Representative Mark Sanford has said that he's nearing a decision.

And you have Joe Walsh, you have former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld. So Joe Walsh has said in response to this, Trump and his allies and the RNC are doing whatever they can to eliminate primaries in certain states and make it very difficult for primary challengers to get on the ballot in a number of states, it's wrong, the RNC should be ashamed of itself, and I think it does show that Trump is afraid of a serious primary challenge because he knows his support is very soft. Look, nobody dislikes Donald Trump more than me. I think, look, almost everything about Trump is incredibly soft, but his support in the Republican,

like the Republican base, they love him. Like, he does have like an 88% approval rating. So I don't think that that's the reason why necessarily. But what if you're able to get a candidate out there who can continue to uphold the status quo and do a bunch of racist and sexist things, but put that cover back on so that we can deny that they're racist and sexes, you know, the true values that America's founded on. And if Walsh can do that and he can still, you know, have that etiquette and look good and present well and have other foreign leaders respect him, that's a threat to Trump.

Yeah, I think that there are candidates who could potentially do that. I don't know if Joe Walsh is the one. I mean, he's like said the N-word on his radio show before. I think that a lot of elected Republicans would probably like that. But I think that the base, they don't want the cover. They want the racism and sexism. You know who good cover is is Mike Pence, but he's already there as the vice president. Theoretically.

Yeah. And then finally, Bill Wilde says, we don't elect presidents by acclamation in America. Donald Trump is doing his best to make the Republican Party his own personal club. Republicans deserve better. And I'm just thinking like if we had had, if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 and we felt that she was doing a horrible job, we probably want some contested primaries. Not even necessarily because we thought that they had a chance of winning necessarily, but we want to put pressure on her.

Why shouldn't the Republicans have the ability to at least do that? Even if it's only 5% or 10% of the vote going against him and he's fairly immune to pressure, it would be at least something. It would look like a democracy at the very least. Sadly, the vast Democratic Party wouldn't go for that either. No, they'd be canceling them too. Yeah, if she'd won't 16, and then she had some things, she had some questionable things she did and said or whatever, and then if people wanted to launch it, they call these crazy

millennial progressives that want to subvert their Democratic Party. And it'd be a significant portion of the country who would agree with that thought process. So it's just what we do. It's unfair and it's bad, and maybe we need to rethink our approach, but it's the way we do. Yeah, okay, why don't we turn to something different? Talk about the wall for a bit. Yeah. Donald Trump wants his wall and for it, he needs money.

And so they've got a plan, at least for part of it, that is $3.6 billion being stripped from 127 different projects from across the country affecting a number of different states and the politicians responsible for those states. And apparently some Republicans not necessarily happy about it. There are 10 Republican senators who are up for reelection next year voted in support of Trump's emergency declaration, which was sort of the impetus for this, but we'll have funding diverted from their state, and you're seeing there, Cassidy, Cornyn, Gardner, Graham, Hyde Smith, Inhoff, McConnell McSally, Dan Sullivan, Tom Tillis. Some of them devoted fans of the president, some

not necessarily quite so much. And so some are frustrated, but even in their frustration, it's kind of weak. Mitt Romney, his state is set to lose $54 million for two military projects. He said he was, quote, disappointed by the decision. But he noted that funding the border wall is an important priority. So sure, if you have to mug me and my state, it's really important here, I have a little bit more money. Let's see, we have Mike Lee who said Congress has been ceding far too much powers to the executive branch for decades, and it's far past time for Congress to restore the proper balance of power between the three branches. That sounds great, now do something, buddy. I don't see much action behind that necessarily.

Do you see this as a potential like the straw that broke the Republican Campbell's back? I sure hope so. Like the amount of money that they're taking away, it's wild what? Martha McSally, Arizona, originally saying it'd be 30,000 and it's really gonna be about 30 million? Like, come on, these resources could be dedicated elsewhere, especially since we know that there's not a threat along the border. And just having just some kind of factual common sense here, it's just, we really need

constituents to step up and to hold these members of Congress, hold them accountable. Yeah. There's this, the article talks about how they have to make sure they keep things balanced. So when you're in a state, when you're supporting a madman who's doing whatever he wants, no matter what the policies are, it's not like it's a conservative, he's ever done things so conservatively for the Republican Party. So they have to support everything he does. So there's a three prong system.

They have to support Trump, make sure they don't look bad to him, or else he's going to cut your head off. You have to give back to your state or make sure your state is getting what they were already promised. And then also get it done. So you have to still work with the Department of Defense and work with Democrats to actually get something done because the money is going to get taken from you. You have to backfill it. So they have to go through all of these hurdles to make sure they get their job done and then still not make the president look bad who's a hypersensitive baby. So he can't hear you once say, yeah, I don't like this.

Oh, who said I don't like this? You can't even speak your mind. You can't be an adult. You can't be a representative of your state anymore. So, you know what? I like seeing this. I like seeing the stress and the confusion come through folks who support a guy who they knew is unfit to do what he's doing.

Once it finally, it's okay when it's hitting other people. Now that it's hitting me in my state, wow, this is crazy, but I can't say it out loud. I love it. And I mean, we saw that in the last primary contest, like the people who spoke out against Trump, they're not politicians anymore. I wonder how many in the House, in the Senate, how many Republican politicians are looking at his approval rating and just hoping it'll go down. Because look, they want their president to be popular, I guess, they want him to be reelected.

You know, they want Republicans to be in power. But as long as he has a chokehold on Republican voters across the country, they mean nothing. They have no autonomy. If they turn against him, they will be thrown overboard. Like imagine being in that position, you've worked your whole life, decades, rising, position position to become a senator or a congressman and nobody cares about you. If you turn against the former reality star, the Sharpie guy, you're done, they'll replace you in the next election.

How sad is that for that party? You know what, this is an opportunity for Democratic opponents, though, or anybody, honestly. Somebody wants to get primary than Republicans. I don't know which one of them are up for reelection, but this is an opportunity to point out to your state locally, hey, this guy is supporting a president that is taking money that It's already been allocated for the state to come up with these types of things. You guys should put me in office because I'm tired of this. It provides an avenue for someone who will speak for the people, since we're talking about

populace. And everybody likes members of the armed forces. And so the fact that you're taking this away from U.S. bases, that's enough to give me pause. And if you end up having these bases in need or these service members in need, there's going to be a significant outcry and there should be some problems there. Yeah, you would think historically, that's generally one of the things you want to avoid happening. I'm personally in favor drastically slash the military budget, but you have to make the case

for why that needs to be done. They're not making that case. They're taking the money while pretending that they support the soldiers. So let's see if we do have someone who will speak for the people. We have Senator Susan Collins, hopefully not long for the Senate. But she's still there now. So she said each of these projects was recommended by the administration, passed by both the Senate in the House, signed into law by the president.

And while there is some discretion that he has to move money around, I think that his executive order exceeds his discretion. Again, the weak, like, I think, stop in me. I think that you're not allowed to do that, I think, and then you just don't do it. You have to say he has the right. You have to preface everything you say. Couch your criticism with, he's right, though, but I understand why. And it's okay if, but so that he won't read it directly because he won't read past the first phrase of your sentence. And she'd be like, okay, I think my criticism was very deep enough that the dumb ass didn't read it.

Yeah. And okay, so we do have someone who's fired up. They've all been really milked toast. Mitch McConnell is angry. And he should be, Kentucky is gonna be hit nearly $63 million. And so he's fired up saying, we wouldn't be in the situation of Democrats who are serious about protecting our homeland and worked with us to provide the funding needed to secure our borders during our appropriations process.

Who's Trump? I don't know, it's the Democrats' fault. The Democrats did it. I mean, sure, it's Trump that's taking the money from it. And sure, I'm losing $63 million from my state. Just be direct. But it's probably the Democrats. Just be direct.

Attack this guy and be like, you're losing $63 million for projects. And he's claiming that the Republican president is the Democratic problem. It's such an easy equation. Just say it. Yeah, but he carries Trump's water so hard. And you know what? All you want is for his constituents to see through it. But unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening so far.

even though it will clearly be to their detriment. Yeah, come on. So why don't we talk about what is going to be paying for this? Just an example. So Asher, our producer, put together just a few. Remember, it's 127 different projects. And remember, this comes not that long after they gave him billions of dollars already for this. Earlier this year, the Democrats did.

So he needs more. They're taking $400 million in Puerto Rico projects, including funding for the recovery effort after Hurricane Maria. Trump is going to be livid when he finds out about that. That's the one thing they can skip over. They can be like, oh, it's fine. They don't care about that. Arkansas just don't care. See, $17 million in Florida for a fire crash rescue station.

That sounds important. That's $63 million in Kentucky, Fort Campbell Middle School. Mitch McConnell is so mad about the Democrats for that. $770 million in funding for military initiatives in Europe intended to help deter Russian aggression. And the list goes on and on because we're talking about billions and billions. Oh, you're seeing there, military construction projects, cyber operations facility, Navy maintenance, hazardous materials warehouses. I am going to guess that if you have requested and been granted $41 million for the housing

of hazardous materials, you need that money, okay? You don't just like, well, I guess I'll keep it at my house for a while until we get the funding we need. It sounds significant, all of these sounds significant. And the weird thing is that while this is where the money is going to come from, I'm old enough to remember back during the campaign when he implied that someone else would be paying for it, as you'll see. Mexico will pay for the wall

Mexico is going to pay for it and they'll be happy to pay for it The wall is going to be paid for by Mexico They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for the wall We're going to make them pay for that wall But they're going to pay for the wall Trust me, Mexico will pay for it And I will have Mexico pay for that wall

Mark my words Mexico's going to pay for the wall 100%. A hundred percent A hundred percent Who is going to pay for the wall? Who? Who's going to pay for the wall?

Who? Who? Jokes on them. So 100%. He said, mark my words, and J.R. Jackson did. So that's why we've played this clip so many times. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. I mean, how is that not a, you know, like, you know, read my lips, no new taxes?

Yes. Let's say you're a deranged person on the right. This is a you can keep your doctor. That was that was 50% of the words he said during that campaign were Mexico is going to pay for the wall. You're paying for the wall. You and everyone around you is paying for the wall. And it doesn't matter. No, and it's weird because you just think people would understand how business and different nations work in terms of funding things.

that benefit other nations. It's just like, even just if we took it on a smaller scale, you know, as an analogy, it's kind of like, I don't expect JR to buy me the new Mac lipstick, which is not, you know, it's not gonna happen. He's gonna pay for it and he's gonna enjoy paying for it. Yeah, it's like- Is that available at my local Walgreens? So I can get it. Not quite, it's cool.

So look, that's what he said. Now a lot of time has passed, he has a slightly different explanation. Let's listen. Just a couple of things, because I know the fake things. news likes to say it. When during the campaign, I would say Mexico is going to pay for it. Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they're going to write out a check. I said they're going to pay for it. They are. They are paying for it with the incredible deal we made. Okay, so let's ignore the fact that they don't have the deal. And even if they got the deal,

it's effectively NAFTA. Let's pretend that neither of those things is true. I wish that I had the time to go around the country and interview literally every Trump supporter and ask him, when you were chanting Mexico's going to pay for the wall, did you mean through complex long-term debt, like, or import, export differentials over a new free trade deal? Is that what you were chanting about, that he was going to someday have a deal in an effect, and we would benefit in some way? Or did you think they were going to write a check? Please be honest. I know you can't be honest. I know that you're pretending right now that the Sharpie thing's not weird. I know I know that you can't be honest about this, but please, you chanted over and over.

Well, I thought it, I thought Mexico was gonna pay for it intellectually, you know, maybe something emotionally or psychologically, and that's how I see this being compensated and paid for. I think we're paying for it emotionally and psychologically. I think that we're all paying for it. Well, to be fair, to him on that last one also, Trump has never paid for anything that he said he's gonna pay for it. So it all makes sense to him, he goes, I didn't really say I was gonna pay for that

campaign stop in wherever Ohio or wherever he stopped, you guys thought I was going to pay for that? Of course not. Look at my taxes. I don't pay for anything. He pays for anything. I know like, I know that like some Trump supporters would be like, oh, you guys, you're getting triggered by this. Like, oh, you're paying for it. But like you are too. You are all being dragged down. I know that you can't see it. That's how normalization works. But none of these people would have thought that, and I hate to mention it again, and we're not doing a clip on it or whatever, but none of these people like two years ago thought that someday their president lying to them by sharping a map is not the weirdest craziest thing ever.

And now they have to imply that. Like some won't say it, they avoid the topic, but they have to pretend that that's not sad and juvenile, pathetic, pathetic, like for the party of the alpha male to have this pathetic of a man leading you, like you can't even see at how far you've been dragged down. Maybe in hindsight, maybe in a few years, you can look back and you'll have a politician who's worthy of at least a little bit of respect, someone who's not this pathetic grub-like creature. But he has dragged you down.

Like I know that you think we're being triggered or he's trolling us, but he's really trolling you. We're the distraction, you're the victim. You have to speak to them in terms they'll understand. Trump walked into your house, he slapped your child, he robbed you, and then tied you and your wife up and made you look like a-holes and then left with all of your money. You didn't have a gun ready. Your Second Amendment rights were subverted.

Just give him this visual of him robbing you for money that you didn't want to give to him because he lied to you and came in and violated your space. And you didn't get to shoot him like you really wanted to. The way he has lowered the conversation to who? Mexico. Who? That's where at. It's like a football game.

I said it a hundred times. I love that you say that, you're absolutely right, that's how sports goes. It's the us, them set up, and that's what he's playing off of, everyone's ignorance in terms of us and them. And people are so busy thinking, hey, this is a game in some way that they're not saying that they're getting rocked. Last night the Bears and Packers played, there was a pass interference call. You know who didn't think there was a pass interference call on the Bears?

Every Bears fan. They said that wasn't pass interference. I just saw it, but it wasn't. And the bizarre thing is everyone that engaged in those chance of the Trump rallies, like, Rectico's going to pay for it. I hate identity politics. Okay, so we're going to take another break. We come back, we'll have a little debate about the future of the work week.

Have the American working class that they earned another day off. And then upcoming movie targeted at right-wing Christians. We're going to take a look at it and give you our thought. 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 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. And it's 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 T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. 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 you. independent media become a member at t yt dot com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free segment welcome back to the friday power panel with jaron adrian and myself there are debates coming up in houston and we're going to be there not any of us but people are jank and t yt army director alison hartson are going to be there you can meet other t yt supporters talk about how you can build power in your community by going to our meet up and rally uh...

at Houston. This is all happening next Thursday, September 12th at 2 p.m. Central Time. You can meet outside of the Hotel Alessandra in downtown Houston. For more info, go to 2.t.com slash rally. Great place to go for information about all these different events. At the same time, or at least the same night, here in L.A., Anna's gonna be leading our post-debate coverage. I'm gonna be here.

Emma Viglin's gonna be in town. She's actually in town to do a bunch of different 2.T. shows. She's gonna do two episodes of the damage reports, I'll look forward to that. And Nandovila is gonna be here as well. And I think Jank is also going to be Skyping in. So we're gonna be breaking down the results from this most recent debate. Also, totally separate. This Saturday, Congresswoman Pramilla Jaya Paul is hosting an impeachment teach-in along with Congressman Jamie Raskin.

If you're in Seattle, you can show up in person at Benaroya Hall at 2 p.m. Pacific time, and you can see a little bit more details there. I don't know exactly what the contact is going to be, but that sounds awesome. And I really like Pramela Jai Paul, so that should be a lot of fun. Okay, so a couple more comments. Herkel says, this is in reference to the, Hercules is a funny name, in reference to the primary changes, this is ironically like what communist countries do. In China, there are elections, even other parties, but they have to be approved by the

leadership of the CCP. That's a good point. Pac-Man says on hashtag 2IT live, I always tune into the TYT live show early. The pre-show is all about our progressive mascot, Mariguana. Watching him get pampered today brings a smile to my face and makes it a little easier to hear the B.S. coming from Orange Hitler's administration. Hey, it's in the tweet, I didn't say it. So, yes, we all love mariguana. By the way, there was one more. Doja Toke 420 says, yesterday was my mom's birthday. We were able to watch, we were able to watch you guys live.

Can you give her a B-Day shout-out still? You guys are our favorite show to watch. Happy birthday. Mom of Doja Toke 420? I wonder what they were doing while they were watching the show. Anyway, okay, I'm a little bit right now. But anyway, we do have to present. I'll press on with the news because there is a lot more to talk about. If you're lucky, you as a member of the American working class, assuming that's what you are, you work a five day work week two days off. That is not true for a lot of people, but that's the way it's been for the most part for something like 80 or 90 years, depending on what part of the country you were in.

That five day work week wasn't really standardized nationwide until I think 1938 in a piece of legislation that was oddly contested, even though it seems very very very much. reasonable now. So my question is, and I tweeted this earlier, is it time for a four day work week? Has the American worker toiled long and hard enough with ever increasing productivity? Where now, after almost an additional century after the weekend was developed, that we finally have earned that extra day off? Full disclosure, this is John's number one political stance.

He's gonna run for Congress one day on this stance alone. You think Andrew Yang just has his universal income proposals. This is John Adirola's. This extra day off, it is the workers' dividend, okay? That's my platform. Vote for me for whatever. What do you guys think? I've got some stats and stuff.

I'm going to go to that, and I've got a really interesting bit of history. Someone endorsing the four-day work week, and it is not who you think. But anyway, I don't think there are any politicians pushing for this. Even the most leftist politicians are not bringing this up. And I've noticed that when I bring it up, I get attacked and not just from conservatives. Oh, absolutely. Well, the thing is our society is based on this whole capitalistic mentality that essentially rides the worker and they've created this kind of faux representation of an individual of

an American as a hard worker. And so a lot of us have built our identities around how hard we can work. And we have 13 million US Americans who are working more than one job. And they're more likely to be women than men trying to fill up that pay gap and trying to make ends meet. And so if they were going to have an extra day off, it might translate to lower wages. It might translate to more time for you and to realize that your identity isn't based on, you know, your profession. And people might be happier, but also the reality is that's not what corporate America that runs our society wants. Absolutely.

It's the corporate America angle. We talked about in the first block about Joe Biden and having to go through these fossil fuel companies to make sure he feels like he can run and have some kind of viability. Again, the corporate Americans are ones who are like, get me, because I'm sure plenty of people who work in those spaces once they get there can't take it off when they want. So it doesn't affect them. It affects the people who are the wage slaves in a way. Also the questions, which day would it be? Would it be Monday?

Would it be Friday? Or Wednesday? Oh man. That's right in the middle. And then we're gonna change things like t-shirts that say, you know, thank out it's Friday. All these meetings would change. That's too much.

It's just too hard to make new shirts. If it's on Wednesday, Hump Day is no longer a thing. No, it still is JR. It's just a dip in the middle of the new week. Think about it. Anyway. But I'll ask you, I had a couple of small serious points. Americans, we're not good at changing things.

We just had Labor Day. And I like the post that people talk about the things that the labor movement did for what you deal with today. Which, there's plenty of people who still work seven days a week, by the way. I want to give a shout out to those folks. There's plenty that still work seven days a week because they have to. So the Labor Movement brought you those things. Things like Labor Day, but also the weekend and things like that people love talking about.

I was at the store this morning and there was a couple guys that were stocking and from other companies and he said, hey, have a good weekend. I was like, man, that's a thing now, not now, but it's because of the labor movement. We're not good at things that changed. If we had worked seven day week, seven work days now, seven day of work week now, and we proposed things like weekends and 12 year olds can't work in your factories, people now would lose their minds because we're not good at things that are different. We're like, we've never done that before.

And that is how those ideas were received. It was a radical notion, the idea that workers should get two days off and that, you know, 14-year-olds should not be working in mines and those sorts of things. And I would say, no offense to anyone individually, but when I say, I think that we've earned it and a lot of people in the working class, some of them are like, that's lazy. Why are you lazy? they're responding with corporate talking points. We don't even realize how the control is thick around us, that we see it from their point

of view, very much so. Not that this is an opportunity for us to have more time with our families, so all the family values workers, they should like that. Or that after earning all that money, how about actually having some time to spend it? This could be a boost to the economy by having three days off to actually do things and spend money in all of that. I just think that we've earned it, and I'm gonna show you some stats, but one thing I I've noticed, it's very interesting.

In all the different articles talking about the growth of the four day work week, because it is a little bit more common than it used to be, almost all of them are, here are reasons why corporations shouldn't be afraid of this. And I get that. That's a pragmatic way to try to get them over to our side, but it's not really where I'm coming from. I'm not interested in convincing corporations that it's in their best interest, I'm interested in taking it.

It's ours, we've earned it. We are far more productive than we were, back when we finally earned the two. two days off, I think that we have earned it. We haven't gotten higher wages, I think we're owed, and I think that we should get it in both money and time. Absolutely, and I think that people don't recognize their power, because they've been brainwashed for so long, thinking that, oh, my identity is built around my job and what I do, and oh, I live to work, and this is part of the American dream, no, this is life.

You get one shot at this. You get to do it and do it well. There are employers everywhere, you will be fine. If you need to get up, quit, do what you need to do, but you have to take care of you, because they are not going to take care of you, they're going to take care of them. And like I said, nobody's pushing for it. No politicians that I know of anyway. I apologize if I'm missing one, but if they did, like let's say Bernie Sanders came out and

said, I'm for a four-day work week, he would be mocked on Fox News. Sean Hannity would be talking about how lazy he is. And millions of Americans watching Sean Hannity, many of them poor, almost universally white Americans will be like, yeah, he's lazy, I should be worked to the bone, I should We work till I drop because they don't get that just swimming in their veins is the idea that corporations are better than us and they know what we should do. Now I just want to quickly mention this. I just thought this is so weird.

Back in 1956 of the New York Times, William Blair reported, Nixon foresees four-day work week. That's an actual, this is way before President Nixon. So Richard Nixon was quoted as saying, these are not dreams or boasts. They are simply projections of the gains we have made in the last four years. Our hope is to double everyone's standard of living in 10 years. That was 1956. I checked and it's been longer than 10 years.

I think that we've earned it because those gains have continued. The issue is who is getting the gains and it's not us, it hasn't been for a very long time. Nope. So yeah, so 4-day work free, let's do it. Yeah, I'm down. Okay, good, we voted. I'll be your response too. You know, we should have brought back the Supreme Court.

No. The TYT Supreme Court, we haven't done that in forever. Anyway, we have time? Why don't we mix it up with something a little bit different? We'll close out the show with something light, I guess. Okay. New movie coming out, The Reliance, starring Kevin Sorbo. It's being pitched and advertised to Christian and right-wing Americans.

It's being sort of advertised as a fight against Antifa, which isn't necessarily true. But take a look at this trail, and you've got an idea. National Guard and local responders are overwhelmed in the bigger metropower in areas. Maybe we're overreacting just... That wasn't our neighborhood. Get everyone in the car. Catch my office now. The whole town's on fire. The police are retreating.

We have prepared for this. We will survive. The world is falling apart. Believe me. You don't know what it's like out there. Every little family dream, three meals a day, it's over. Okay, so you probably get an idea, but... Is that a finger for, or not a figure for a leglock, that was about arm bar. It's a arm bar, yeah, yeah, it's, people are chanting.

Yeah, someone got on the top rope or something like this. Yeah, there's a Hurricane Rana that Kevin Sorbo did. So, economic collapse, things start to fall apart in one family, just trying to get food for their family, has to fight off these vigilantes, who in the movie, it looks like, are actually armed. It seems like they want to pitch it's just the good guys have guns, but the bad guys have guns, And so Kevin Sorbo and his family have to survive in this world. It is only going to be available one night.

This is October 24th in Select Theaters. I'm actually, look, I'm interested in possibly seeing it because I want to understand where this side is coming from. My issue, though, is one, the ad is trying to make it seem like it's like, you fight back against Antifa. The movie was made three years ago. It's just been in post-production. It's not about Antifa.

They weren't thinking about Antifa. And so it bothers me that it's being advertised as a sort of wish-fulfillment. thing where you get to shoot Antifa. I don't like that because Antifa are real people, fighting against the rise of fascism in America. But there's a little bit more in the video. I think we all want to talk about, so let's roll a little bit more. What's it like out there? It's chaos. Sophie, go.

Go, get out of here. God is forsaken us. Leave me alone, Sophie. Leave me alone. He deserves to die. Who is responsible for you? Who's responsible? You know who?

God is. God is responsible. I just saw the lower bird. Okay, so look, to the extent that the movie is like the book, it's about, you know, why would God allow these terrible things to happen? That's a fine theme, it's something that all religious people deal with. I got no problem with that. The main issue that I have is, why is every atheist portrayed as being angry at God?

perhaps to the point where they tried to gun God down. I'm an atheist. I'm not mad at God because I'm not mad at anything that doesn't exist. I have no feelings whatsoever towards it. But every TV show, every movie, and not just ones made by right wingers, like Hollywood presents it as atheists or broken people who hate God. That's just not the way it is. I don't think I've ever met an atheist who hates God.

And the thing that really kind of caught my attention in that whole charade, it's just like an episode of friends, not a person of color in sight. And I'm just like, really, guys, if this is gonna be kind of this end of the world thing, let's not erase sure, there's a whole different community out there that may exist and be present. So I'm good. I can't say for sure, but if they had included diverse characters, I'm not sure that it would have gone well.

I don't know how they would have been used in this context, but I, I don't know. I wonder where the roller coaster of this movie goes, because all I've seen is gun scenes. Like, it's all this from beginning to end, maybe. But, you know, so the one night release, I'm not sure if there's a normal thing. How does that work? Why? They put it out in theaters for one night. Why?

It's expensive. Because it's expensive, yeah. And so, look, it was a crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo. And look, so when you're watching the trailer, it looks like they, you know, didn't have a ton of I'm not begrudging, like if somebody raises money to make it their own movie, that's very difficult. I got no problem with that or whatever, but yeah, getting it and a lot of theories is super expensive. Super, super expensive.

Now I want to bring up one other issue that I have with this, and really it's the issue I have with a lot of really explicit right-wing propaganda in book or movie form. And they never seem to understand why it doesn't break through. It's not to say that no right-wing messages get into movies, lots of movies have really conservative messages. A lot of the Marvel movies are pretty fundamentally conservative, actually, in their message and pro patriotism and all that. It's that, it's sort of, it's a little bit deranged sometimes. So the author of the book that's based on said this on the second Indiegogo campaign for the movie. We are one terrorist attack away from giving up our right to keep and bear arms,

with our government corporately, I think that's completely supposed to be willing to spur in the constitution in so many ways. The Second Amendment is practically meaningless to our leaders. We need to reach the culture with this important message of the moral foundation for our natural right to defend ourselves. And it's like, dude, were you not paying attention? Who was it that was taking advantage of terror attacks on a nearly weekly base, a monthly basis? Who was it that took your rights when the terrorists were striking? It wasn't some anti-gun lib. That's not how it went.

And they didn't come for your guns. That's true. George W. Bush, I should say, he wasn't taking your guns. he was taking all of the other rights that you say the guns are meant to protect. But you didn't protect him. You just clutched the gun tighter and made sure that they didn't take that. And so that's why it's like what could just be like, you know, something that's obviously not made for me.

It's not designed for me religiously or politically or whatever. It just seems like I don't know who you're targeting at. People who really don't get what's going on in this country, I feel like. Which terrorist attack is he saying is next is going to happen? It's going to take guns away? Is it the domestic ones? Because every time it happens, there's a larger eye. I hope, a larger percentage of Americans to go, why do we keep recycling these guns through

our society, these types of guns through our society? Is it that kind of terrorist attack you're afraid of triggering enough people to finally be over this? Or are we talking about the kind you're afraid of what the Muslim terrorists? Because if everyone in 9-11 was sitting in their office buildings with AK-47s, they might have shot the plane out of the sky from their window. Which kind of terrorist attack are we talking about? And if you have your guns to stop those terrorist attacks, how are you gonna pull that off?

It's a cartoonish approach to life. You're sitting bugs bunny, you're not Elmer Fudd. When you tie the end of the gun, the bad guy's gun is not gonna blow up in his face. Who's gonna, the natural follow-up question has to be asked. I don't remember this guy's name who wrote the book. How? How? How does that work?

Yeah, they don't get to know how it works. All they want to do is continue to promote the us, them narrative. And the fact of, I really, it gets annoying as a lawyer seeing the Second Amendment thrown into this, since that was really something that kind of came up around the time the NRA became super big and really wanted to find a divisive way to separate everybody. And, you know, they were able to stack Supreme Court and get the decisions that they wanted. But in reality, it's just, it's like this isn't what the Second Amendment is for. And also, as we see with this domestic terrorism, it's killing us.

Yeah, and just pragmatically, like I get frustration with, you feel like your movies and your books, like the popular culture doesn't accept them or whatever. That's fine. You need to understand why, though. If I wrote a version of that manifesto that I just read for you, but from my point of view, about how the Second Amendment is terrible and the whole movie was just hammering into your head that guns are the worst thing ever, would you want to see it? Like, would you approve of that nakedly partisan of a cause for a movie?

And yet you feel like it should be fine coming from the right. Maybe that's why it's not being picked up by Hollywood. Okay, I wish that we had more time. Unfortunately, we don't. We didn't even get into the fact that Kevin Sorbo had some credible allegations of sexual harassment against it. seems to be doing just fine in his career. That was actress Hayley Webb. She's tweeted about it previously.

It was a god-honored movie, though. God-honored movie. Maybe not in his career, but in the movie itself. Thank you so much. Adrian, J.R. I was going to have you here. Thank you for watching. We do have a second hour coming up right after this.

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. t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon