The Young Turks - Build Back Smaller

Episode Date: May 6, 2022

Build back smaller: strategists have bad advice for the Dems |Judge rules Marjorie Greene qualified for re-election | Corporate media’s big lie about student loan forgiveness Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola, Jeff Waldorf ***  The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET.  Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://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 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 #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews https://youtu.be/k5TjQ01RsPs https://youtu.be/xpfx0OH5FPA https://youtu.be/IUbR9dO__SY https://youtu.be/Rr2sW6uEHvE https://youtu.be/CnZ8G2vCnc4 https://youtu.be/cTGvBcOT62M https://youtu.be/6r_b8dwcnSg 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. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. to own it shop now at ikea.ca all right welcome the young turks power panel jay huger jodd i don't know jeff walder from waldorf nation okay that entire nation has joined us on the

power panel so you know it's powerful That combined with TYT Nation. So, all right, guys, we got a ton of news for you guys, including, by the way, one of our own has been banned forever from Twitter. We're going to have to take this up with Elon Musk. Please let it be me. Yeah, unfortunately it isn't. So, but no joke that actually happened to a TYT contributor. We'll be talking about it later in the show.

And wait till you see her outrageous tweets. There's like, it's deeply political. Okay, we'll talk about that later. Yeah, and if I could just say, like, she does have some pretty wild tweets. Yeah. But not in this, this isn't the one. Yeah. And no, and by the way, her wild tweets, and now everybody gets, trying to guess who it is.

Okay. Her break none of the rules ever. Like these tweets are, it's insane. It's insane. I think that the new rule is the right wing can't threaten murder and the left wing can't be impolite. Like they've taken on, okay, we'll talk about it more later. It's equal. The new mainstream media, left wing not allowed and you must be civil.

Otherwise, you will be executed from public conversations. Okay, but we've got more of that too in the show, including Chuck Donne and his insanity. But we're going to start with something very similar to that. So let's go to John. Let's, in fact, do that. The Democrats are facing an absolute bloodbath in the midterms, and we need a plan, we need a strategy. And so probably you, like me, like a lot of people, we've been wondering, what does Joe Lieberman think about all this? Now, there's a chance that if you're young and you started following American politics a few years ago, you may not know who Joe Lieberman is.

Just imagine like Joe Mansion in terms of ability to derail what the Democrats want to accomplish, but lower energy and more sad sack. That's Joe Lieberman. He's been around for a long time, and he has always been there to provide terrible advice for the Democratic Party. Well, he's here to do it once again. In an op-ed titled, To Save Their Party, Democrats should return to the center because they're not there right now. But we're going to give you a little bit from the op-ed, with Joe saying Democrats are in trouble because they have strayed from the pledge President Biden made to the American people during the 2020 campaign to establish a stable, moderate, bipartisan government in Washington, one that would stand in sharp contrast with that of his predecessor. And so that's the overall advice, be centrist, be moderate, don't try to accomplish anything. He does point to one example of something they did early on that he thinks demonstrated the strategy that he wants to demonstrate to follow, saying the bipartisan infrastructure bill that was enacted last year is the best proof of the popularity of Democrats and Republicans working across the aisle. So that's what they passed. And he's saying it's popular. Thus, that is good for the Democrats. Now, you might think, well, there were a ton of things that were going to be in the reconciliation bill that are even more popular, wildly popular, things like the child tax credit and all that.

Joe Lieberman does not engage with any of that. He's just moving on. He got the bipartisan bill he wanted. But he says to those on the left who might not like this advice, some of the left will argue that embracing a stronger bipartisan agenda would be a break from the Democratic Party's soul, but implacably demanding passage of an agenda that cannot pass benefits no one, certainly not Americans who most need government to work for them. It may be satisfying to denounce those who refuse to accede to your legislative demands,

but if the result is stalemate, what have you won? I will quickly add, you might have won at least that you have then demonstrated to your voters that you are trying to fight for them. And he even implies that he gets that people have expectations. When he says that there are Americans who most need government to work for them, for them. But he twists it into like very small amounts of bipartisan legislation. That is the best way to give them what they want. Yeah. So guys, there's the most important part of this is that you just take out of the word moderate and you put it in corporate and it

explains everything perfectly. He's saying that because his positions are not at all moderate. So as John pointed out, the provisions that were in build back better that are the progressive positions pull anywhere from 70 to 90%, they're massively popular. And hence, you would imagine if you cared about the English language, you would say they're moderate if 90% of the country likes something that is a moderate position in the middle of the country, right? But they don't mean moderate. It's a trick that corporate media has been using for decades.

Since they're the marketing arm of corporate rule, they say, okay, anything that is, in favor of corporations we will call moderate and we will say moderate is the best thing in the world because I mean you don't want to be extreme do you guys want to be extreme you don't want to be extreme you don't want to be extreme you want to do what most Americans agree with moderate positions and that little illusion that slight a hand their corporate media and corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans did has ruined this country and it has and by the way to be fair to them it has worked brilliantly it is it has created an alternate reality Guys, this is no exaggeration.

The right wing media you know, a lot of you know, has created an alternate reality where Donald Trump won the 2020 election, COVID didn't actually kill hundreds of thousands of people, and all doctors and scientists are wrong, this is just an entire different world. Oh, and now most Republicans believe that the Democrats are satanic, child molesters. They actually believe it, that's 32%. That's a completely different reality than the one we all live in, right? When you look at mainstream media and establishment Democrats or Republicans, they have created a completely different alternate reality as well, where positions that are not at all popular

are moderate and positions that are intensely popular are extremist. I can give you dozens of examples, and over the last 10 years we're probably giving you hundreds of examples, but I'll give you another quick and easy one so you can see that I'm not exaggerating and I'm not making it up, and there are verifiable. facts. So cutting social security in Medicare is a disastrous idea, according to the American people. Every poll shows they're the two most popular programs polling. I think Medicare is at 77 percent, so it's not quite an 80, right? But I might be thinking of Medicaid. Medicare, this is now recollecting the last poll that I saw, is certainly 77 percent or higher. I think it might be

in the 80s. Social security is around 90 percent. And if you try to cut it, well, that is the one thing that even right wingers are like, wait a minute. No, I love social security, but you better get your government hands off my social security check, right? They don't quite make sense because they've got the brainwashing from right wing media, but they know that you don't, they don't want their social security of Medicare touch. They love that, right? Corporate media has said for the last 10, 20 years, cutting social security of Medicare is the moderate position, because that is what bipartisan Republicans and Democrats say,

In order to save Social Security and Medicare, we have to cut the hell out of it, raise the retirement age, make sure that you get less. And the mainstream, that's intensely extreme. At most 10% of the country would want you to cut Social Security and Medicare. But they call it moderate. So Lieberman does that slight of hand. So if you don't know anything about what's actually happening in the country, you would read that in tour and go, I mean, that's a cessation. go, I mean, that's a sensible thing to say they should probably do what most Americans want, the moderate position. And he goes, okay, and the hill prints in and everybody says it.

By the way, John's going to give you more examples. It's all over the news. But I want to read one more thing from Lieberman's article here. He says, some leaders on the left of the Democratic Party have curiously taken this moment of peril for Democrats to argue for more of the same to double down on the progressive agenda pushed by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Double down. When did we do it? No, no, no. These people, it's an alternate reality.

They live in a completely fictional world. Moderate, moderate Democrats have lost their mind and they don't realize it. They've been brainwashed for so long. You've got to wake up. We didn't do Bernie Sanders proposals. We remember what Bernie Sanders proposals were. And you know them, even if you've been brainwashed, by MSNBCN, New York Times, et cetera.

You know them, right, $15 million wage. Did we do it or did we not do it? We didn't do it, lowering drug prices. Did we do it or didn't do it? We didn't do it. Child tax credit, we wanted to pass that again, make it permanent, did we do it? No, paid family leave, no.

Voting rights, no, we didn't do any of those proposals. Why do you think progressives are so angry? Because we didn't do a single one of our policy proposals. Student debt relief, no, criminal justice reform, no, right? And Lieberman says, the problem is we did too many progressive policies, and we can't double down. You're right, you can't double down on zero. And the hill prints it, and I guarantee you the rest of the media will quote it, because they're systematically lying to you and trying to influence you in a pro-corporate direction.

And by Lieberman now at this point is I'm sure he's a lobbyist up to Gazoo. And I, once I started, he started mentioning specific industries. I was like, dollars to donuts, he lobbies for those industries. Okay. And is that mentioned in the Hill? No, esteemed senator from Connecticut, former senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman. So this is how mainstream media lies to you. Jeff.

You know, Jake, everything that you're saying is a great example of how this has been the longest, biggest con in the American people, talking about how, oh, no, doing nothing or more like what you were saying, doing pro-corporate positions. Well, that's the moderate position. No, there's nothing moderate about that. But when you contrast it with our political system where conservatives are off the rails insane, talking about Jewish space lasers and all sorts of, you know, Satan worshiping child blood drinking beatophiles running the world or running the United States. You tend to think that, oh, when you contrast it there and you look at the Overton window and how far shifted to the right, maybe the conservative economic position is more of the moderate. And so again, great example of the long con and how they've been lying to the American people over and over again. And you're right to point out how corporate media perpetuates that lie every single day, every single broadcast, every single news actor on CNN, MSNBC,

Fox News, of course being the extremists in the group that are ever pushing the conversation to the right, being chased by the Stephanie Rules. Yeah, being chased by the Chuck Todd's, being chased by everyone else. Even at the end of the day, even the Rachel Maddhouse, where are they? They've gone to the to the right in ignoring progressive policies that are incredibly popular and are necessary and beloved by the American people. We want these things. We We want $15 minimum wage. We actually should be having a $25 minimum wage, okay? In some of these places like California and New York where the costs of living have increased exponentially compared to the rest of the country.

We need these policies and the American people want these policies. And yet here you have, once again, corporate media, Joe Lieberman, the lobbyist coming in and telling you, you don't actually want that. No, no, you want me and my corporate buddies who get paid. This is what you want. Yeah, I'm just going to say one quick thing in to hand it back to John. Look, I'm worried that the establishment realized, oh, we're getting exposed. If you put up anyone that has, it just argues for one popular bill. It could be lowering drug prices.

It could be higher minimum wage. We're going to lose. It's obvious we're losing. It doesn't matter if it's on the right or the left. So the only way to continue corporate rule is to give the American people an untenable alternative. Let's put fascists on the other side so that they'll have to vote for us. And by the way, that is pretty literal. Remember, it was the Clintons that talked Donald Trump into running because they thought

that he would destroy the Republican Party and they would love to run against them because it would be an easy win. Oops. So that is almost literally what's happening here. They're pushing the country to the brink of madness just to make an extra buck. But John's got more. I do, in fact, and just briefly, again, I don't know for sure where Joe Lieberman is getting paid these days, but I do know he wrote another op-ed titled The Case for a No Fly Zone in Ukraine back on March 9th. So that's a great idea. That worked out really well for us and Ukraine and the world and all that. So that's what he's spending his time doing. Now, I also want to jump, though, to Douglas McKinnon who wrote some op-eds as well. One titled, Should Democrats Concede the White House in 20, to win in 2028, which I still don't understand after all this, what the strategy is there.

Why wouldn't you try? What does that have to what does the one have to do with the other? Anyway, he proposes three options for Democrats. Do nothing and ride the status quo donkey into the 2024 election. In other words, have Biden or Harris run, mount a primary challenge to the Biden Harris team or retain Harris as a sacrificial lamb and quietly work to identify candidates for a 2028 ticket. And look, I don't even, I don't even doubt that that's the way that a lot of establishment Democrats think about their options in these races. That is hardly the full breadth of the possibility space for that. But in any event, he goes on to say, at least for some, the party's major dilemma seems to be its remaining hostage to the far left fringe whose progressive ideas don't match

those of most moderate Americans. Notice he doesn't even say of those of most Americans. He adds in the category of moderate, self-selectively saying these people that I imagine don't like the far left. Thus, the far left shouldn't have any influence over the Democratic Party. It makes absolutely no sense. But should the party decide to stand up to its fringe and make working class Americans its true priority, then its leadership might want to reacquaint itself with the Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC, and how then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton used that model to win the White House after three Republican landslide victories in a row.

So I'm sure Jake is going to love the throwback to the DLC and implying that they're the future for the Democratic Party. mentions that the progressive fringe is minuscule. It shouldn't have anything to do with the future of the Democratic Party. Again, none of this makes any sense. If you believe that the sort of people who write these op-eds, like immerse themselves in literature and study, academia, what would work? They're reading polls, they're talking to people, and just trying to figure out a course for the party. If you believe that, then this is sheer madness. But if you believe that these people get paid when that is the focus of the Democratic Party, when it's paying for those sorts of consultants

and all that, when it's working with lobbyists from these industries, then at the end of the day doesn't necessarily matter if they win or lose. These people will do quite well under that formulation of the Democratic Party. Okay, so Lieberman, going back to him for one second, I just looked it up. Since he's left the Senate has worked as a lobbyist, a foreign agent, now helping the Chinese government in their companies, in the defense industry. I mean, just every kind of horrible thing you could imagine. And then he'll be like, oh, am I connected to the defense industry? I think we should do a no fly zone in Ukraine and create World War III. That would be the moderate position. And I swear to you that MSNBCU,

viewers believe it. New York Times readers go, oh, well, I guess that's the moderate position. That's what New York Times has been telling me for all this time. And it's the paper of record. It says it right in the front. Okay, it is, I know brainwashing sounds harsh, but it is definitely brainwashing you into thinking that corporate interest, lobbyist interests are the middle of the country when nothing could be further from the truth. There are verifiable facts. Now that second opinion piece that John referred to. So they say, now look, The Democrats should give up. I mean, that's, but it's, they're literally arguing for that.

And in Washington, that is not crazy. That's a normal thought. Like, well, look, we tried to progress something, but obviously it's not going to work. When did you try it? So, you know what, he's got a better idea than Lieberman. Instead of writing and running any tensely corporate Democrat, he's like, just surrender. Just surrender. And be done with it.

And not really fast, not even just surrender for the midterms, surrender for the midterms, surrender for the election in two years from now. Yeah, that is an epic surrender. Okay, and then one more quote here from McKinnon in the Hill, at least for some of the party's major dilemma, graphic seven. The party's major dilemma seems to be its remaining hostage to the far left fringe whose progressive ideas don't match of those of most moderate Americans. Here we go again, moderate.

But wait, child tax credit, it's over 85% or 91% lowering drug price. is at 93%. How is that a far left fringe? And by the way, if 93% of the country is far left, I'll take it. Okay, I'll take it right now. Okay, but he says it with a straight face as if we did the progressive positions just like Joe Lieberman did. And we have to return to the moderate positions and not the far left positions that 90% of the country wants. And mainstream media has been printing this non-stop 24-7 for the last 40 years and created a completely different reality that does not match verifiable facts. It's insanity.

And the last piece of the puzzle is Carville. So I want to go to that. And the reason is he's on air 24-7 on cable news. People like him. He's old school friends with the Clintons, McColliffe, all the people who look. And so McCallel, for example, is the main money man for the bag man for the Clintons. A huge friend of James Carville, Carville, after McCallough lost the Virginia governor's day, went on cable news and said, you see the progressives did it?

No, that is the most corporate Democrat in the country. He just lost, and you're blaming the exact opposite faction. Did the reporter challenge him on that? No, the reporter, of course, doubled down. Oh, yeah, the news actor was like, oh, yeah, the problem with progressives like, Darren McCollum. I mean, come on, you're flat out lying now. But the important part, as you watch Carville is, understand that no one's ever allowed

on air to counter him. No one ever comes and says, James, this is insane what you're saying. So let's watch. To date, they have no fear of Democrats. That's why they do this. Democrat, you've got to understand just what a huge event this is in American politics. Democrats have won a popular vote in seven out of ass eight presidential elections.

Roe is over two to one in approval. And Alito and them said, we don't care. We're not fair and we don't care. And all the Democrats are going to do is sit around and talk about veganism pronouns. I tell you who's not helping is these progressive advocacy groups. They don't, no one cares what they say. No one fears them. And they need to start dispatching people to Georgia, North Carolina,

and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Nevada and Arizona and in Arizona and places like that. And get out of Washington and get out of talking points and get out there in the field and start registering people and motivating people. That's what I think. Okay, now let me tell you the reality. Progressives are saying we need to actually codify a row as law. In order to do that, it is a verifiable fact that we must take away the filibuster.

So please, everybody focus on the thing that can actually get you the change that we all want, protect women's rights and fight for it and have every seven out of ten Americans are pro choice. They'll see us fighting for it and they'll appreciate it, right? Instead, he made it seem like, oh, the progressives don't want. to codify Roe. They want to talk about pronouns and this and that. And it's the moderate Democrats, moderate Democrats that are trying to protect Roe. No, it's the moderate slash corporate Democrats that just said no, the filibuster we needed for our donors. Our donors have said no.

Mansion's donors, Sinema's donors have. This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant. You're building something big. And Square's there for all of it, giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in person with Square kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to. Visit square.ca to get started. Said no, they will, you're not allowed to take away the filibuster. So we're going to do some theater, but we're not actually going to fight for women at all. These are very very,

verifiable facts. Chuck Schumer said, we're not even going to vote on the filibuster. Look, it's not surprising that James Carville is lying. It's amazing that Aaron Burnett, the news actor that you saw next to him. Of course, of course, of course, it's never, by the way, married to a giant Wall Street banker, incredibly rich, they're both incredibly rich. Oh, yeah, of course, of course, the moderate positions to do nothing. That's why we have to appear to be fighting. Yes, we're fighting the moderates, the corporations are fighting.

for you, the progressives, they just want pronouns, they don't care about Ro. They are lying and it is provable that they are lying. And unfortunately, the people who watch CNN, like 78 year old Democratic primary voters that vote in every election are like, well, I mean, I really want to protect Roe. And I guess since progressives don't want to, I'll vote for the one who's going to protect Roe, Chuck Schumer, who made the decision not to protect Roe. There are facts of the world. Can I weigh in? Go ahead, Jeff. Yeah, let me just say first that it's good to see the cryptkeepers found some new employment after the show it ended.

But seriously, though, I love how they sit there and they talk about, oh, you know, we're the ones that are actually fighting for Roe. We're fighting for Roe. No, you're fundraising off Roe when you're actually out there defending anti-choice Democrats like Henry Quayhar, who are incredibly corrupt against pro-choice progressives. You're not at all pro choice. You're not at all protecting Roe v. Wade. You're out there fundraising off an issue. This is Kenti Kloss 2.0. Performative gestures with no substance behind it,

because at the end of the day, they're only going to back the people who bring in the most money to their donors and the ones who will serve the donors at the end of the day. Yeah, and another great point. These are all verifiable facts. verifiable facts, the laws of physics and math and science are real. Nancy Pelosi, pretending to be pro-choice and fight for Roe right now, is backing Henry

Quayar, who is anti-choice, he's anti-abortion. He has voted with the Republicans in Trump numerous times. He's voted defund plant parenthood. There's no question, he admits it proudly. He would vote with the Republicans to make sure women cannot have the right to choose. Nancy Pelosi is backing him with all of her might. She's lying to you about being pro-choice, and she's trying to make sure the progressive Jessica Cisneros,

who is actually pro-choice and would fight on this issue, loses. So the conservatives have another pro-Supreme court vote to make sure they could end abortion across the country. Now, the Carvils of the world was, oh, yeah, but that's a moderate position. No, it's not. No, it's not. Stop lying. Stop lying. Okay, they're not going to just turn them off. Turn them off. What's the point of watching CNNBC if their job is to brainwash you? Why would you on purpose go, oh, hey, I'd love to do watch corporate propaganda where everything is framed in a way that is the opposite of true.

Okay, you could look up these facts. They are proven liars. And by our law, representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government. And it's a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason and we want her out of our government. That is an amazing video of Marjorie Green back from the early days of the big lie. And it's amazing because it includes a couple of important things. One, it's her leading a crowd and getting all fired up at the prospect of Nancy Pelosi being executed for her crimes. And two, it's her speaking incredibly favorably about the idea that those who are treasonous against the United States can and should be.

removed from office. They should not be allowed to hold elected office. Now, not that long after she gave that speech, she decided to change on that particular position. Once people were pointing out that she might well be barred from office because she supported the insurrection, suddenly that is cancel culture. You can't possibly do that. And as of this week, now, a judge seems to agree with her position that she was not sufficiently supportive of the insurrection to bar her from office. The judge ruled earlier today that she is qualified for re-election, the first thing she's ever been qualified for in her life, in fact, despite this lawsuit that free speech for people and others have supported. Now, the legal challenge against her says that she

violated the 14th Amendment, which says that no one, quote, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. And interestingly, that legal challenge, which a group of activists and lawyers got behind, was also launched in part with the help of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who said that she has not qualified to seek and hold public office. Remember Raffensberger? Because we're going to return to him near the end of this story. But first, we know that she testified a lot of evidence was put forward. I don't know if that video in particular was, but her talking favorably about political violence and saying you can't allow a peaceful transfer power and all that. Unfortunately, it did not

convinced the judge. And the judge said that there's insufficient evidence to suggest that she engaged in insurrection or rebellion or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. It goes on to say, challengers made a valiant effort to support inferences that Green was an insurrectionist, but the evidence is lacking and the court is not persuaded. While Green's public statements and heated rhetoric may well have contributed to the environment that ultimately led to the invasion, expressing constitutionally protected political views no matter how aberrant they may be prior to being sworn in as a representative is not engaging in insurrection under the 14th amendment. And so as of right now, and this process is not done, we'll get to the next step soon. She might well be allowed to run for office again.

What do you both think of that? Well, so that's kind of interesting on a couple of fronts. John, is you a read of that that administrative judges saying if she'd done it, why? After being sworn in, that this might have worked? I'm not 100% sure because there's a lot of weasliness in the decision, which I did actually look over. It's available. I think it's like 12 to 14 pages.

You can look over the whole thing if you want. It avoids the question entirely of whether this was an insurrection. And it specifically says because we've already decided that she wasn't an active participant in it, we don't even need to consider whether it was a real insurrection. So the entire thing felt to me as being very careful and trying not to say too much, just implying there certainly is that that she had not yet been sworn in at that point. But then also that they don't have any, they don't have any proven evidence that she directly gave tours. She said at one point, I would have to talk to people in my campaign, but I don't think we did.

And you saw her, she denied knowing any of this stuff, even when it was presented to her. entire thing felt sort of careful and weasley. It's hard to say. Yeah. So now getting to the substance of it, Corey Bush introduced a bill on January 6th, which Nancy Pelosi had originally fought, didn't want her to introduce. That says something to the effect of, all the Republicans who say this election is not legitimate should not be seated because they are declaring their own elections illegitimate. So we'll take their word for it because, I mean, if you win an election, then you say, oh, this election had fraud. I cheated. Or not I cheated, but somebody cheated. Well, okay, then I guess we shouldn't count it. And we'll have

re-election for just those people. Everybody else verifies the vote. No problem. They actually counted it, et cetera. They should have actually passed that bill. The Democrats could have passed that bill, but of course they didn't because they never do anything, right? That was a progressive trying to do the right thing. That was an opportunity to say to the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world, well, if you think the election is fraudulent, okay, then go home. And we'll make sure we do it right next time. Okay. So, but they didn't do that. As usual, Democrats took no action at all. And here we are. And now she gets to say, well, I wasn't sworn in. Okay. And that, to be fair, that provision is very

specific about people who were members of Congress, okay? So she could win on those grounds. Now, it's not over, we'll get back to Rapsenberger. But one more thing. I think the most important part of this story is, it's driving me crazy. We've created another alternate reality. The people who did the ride and broke into the Capitol were never going to hold the building. They were never going to be like, oh, okay, now we have defeated the American military, and we are in charge.

And the new president is that QAnon shaman guy, okay? The real insurrection was Trump, John Eastman, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Marjorie Taylor Green, Ginny Thomas, who all talked about using martial law, ending democracy, putting in fake electors in the states where Trump didn't win. That's an actual coup that could have worked. So when they keep, why were they chanting hang Mike Pence, not any Democrat, but a Republican, the Republican vice president, they were chaining hang Mike Pence as they walked, went into the building.

Because if Mike Pence had gone along with the fraud and said, I am, even though the role is ceremonial, it doesn't matter, that's how a coup works. You don't care what the law is, you take charge both with force and military, but also with propaganda. So if Mike Pence had said, the real electors, I'm not counting them. I will take the fake electors that Bannon and Navarro put together, and I'm putting them in. And Trump is declaring martial law, as Marjorie Taylor Green wanted him to do, or considered doing, okay, then it would have worked. That would have been a coup. And it would have been executed. And there was nothing we could have done about it. And then we would have to try to fight the

government and then et cetera, et cetera, right? And, and so. So, but the entirety of the media keeps focusing on the guys on the ground level and never the elites. Why? Same reason as always. The people who broke into the building were poor and middle class, and yes, a couple of rich people, but mainly middle class, okay? The people who actually orchestrated the coup are a core part of the elite in Washington. And they will never, ever have consequences for the elite and they don't have consequences today either. You know, it's interesting about the whole discussion around insurrection is how the Republicans are now calling leaks from the SCOTUS ruling. That's the real insurrection,

guys don't you know forget forget the green base especially forget the green bay sweep maybe we'll focus a little bit on the guys in the ground even though you know we still say that they're just tourists and they're just people or secret antifa or secret FBI or whatever conspiracy theory you want to come up this week right we're gonna focus on that and we're just going to completely ignore the people that were at the top that we're planning the whole thing you're right it is an insurrection it is a soft it wasn't attempted to soft coup try to a way to try to try to reinstall Donald Trump as president illegally. And I'm really concerned at how close they got.

They had the fake electors. They caught them using fake documentation. That they even had the official state seals on some of that paperwork. I believe it was in either in Arizona or Michigan that had actual official seals. And they're like, hey, you can't do that. No, no, Jeff is right again. I'm sorry, I got to jump in. Those guys who did the signatures on the fake documents, they should all be going to jail for at least 20 years.

That was an actual, honest to goodness, insurrection. Like, we're going to take the real electors, burn them, throw them in the garbage. That's a fascist takeover. We're going to take, we know they're fake. We know that. But hey, that implicates the elites. So the system is never, ever going to punish anyone who's rich. Well, a lot of people seeing this news break today probably came away with it thinking.

well, that's it, it's done, and it might well be done, but it's not quite done yet, because although the administrative law judge, Charles Boudreau did say that she's qualified, his findings will now be submitted to Brad Raffensberger. In the end, it will be Brad Raffensberger who will make this decision. And then there will be a period of about 10 days in which there can be appeals filed. And that is going to be the interesting part, because the fact that he had been involved early on saying that she wasn't qualified makes it seem as if well, if it is going to be up to him, then he could still just unilaterally say that she's not allowed to run. But he also has been working ever since the beginning of last

year to get back in the good graces of the Republicans after, you know, in the wake of November of the 2020 election, the Republicans trying to pillory him, almost literally. There were death threats against him and against his wife. And that shook him to his core. And then a couple months later, he decided he still wanted to be a Republican, so he's going to start sucking up to Trump. And if he bans her from running, that's it. They'll never accept him again. So I don't know, do you think there's any chance? It's up to him. He could do it. Well, look, Rastonberger is very, very right wing. So having said that, he did stand up to Trump. I mean, of all the sniveling little betas like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and all those guys, at least Rapsenberger was a man.

and said, no, I'm not going to cheat on your behalf. No, you didn't win the election. Yes, we all recounted three times, you knucklehead. And no, we're not going to cheat for you. So if anybody has apparently the inner strength to say, no, Marjorie Taylor Green, you clearly committed insurrection. It's right there. You're considering martial law to overturn the American government.

You're banned. He could, but yes, in Republican circles, there would be hell to pay. Jeff, what do you think? I mean, that's a really good question. I don't really know the answer on this one. He could be a coward, you're right, he has stood up to Trump. He has stood up to some of the election disinformation. But at the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not Brad Raffensberger wants to remain in power.

And who will keep him in power, right? And so I think that's the big calculation that we need to look at is what are Republicans in his district that are going to vote for him? how are they going to react to this? Yeah. And I'm guessing that it's, it's probably not going to be a good thing if he, for him and his power, if he bans Marjorie Taylor Green. So again, I think we need to watch that pretty closely. Yeah, I think it's pretty unlikely to very unlikely, especially given this ruling.

But, but it's not impossible. And remember, there's one last factor here. Trump is trying to get rid of the governor of Georgia that also halfway stood up to him, Kemp. And he's backing David Purdue, the former senator, in a primary against him. And Kemp is winning by 35 points. So Rastonberger might look at that and go, oh, big bad Trump, you backed, you wanted to make sure Kemp lost, and he's crushing in his election.

Maybe I don't have to worry about you too much. That's how it's going down in Georgia. So it'll be interesting to see. Look, if Rassenberger says no, she can proceed, that's nothing changes. This is the status quo. He could rock the world by saying, no, I don't, I disagree with the administrative judge. I don't care what the parliamentarian says. That was insurrection.

And then we would have an interesting moment in American politics. Yeah. Why don't we take our last break? Yes, we'll do that. And when we come back, here comes Chuck Dodd. Because mainstream media isn't done with us yet, you cannot have a single progressive message pass, a policy pass. No, here comes a wave of propaganda. We'll be back. And I know there's a lot of people who think we should relieve student debt.

You relieve student debt. And in a very, again, perverse way, it might actually create more inflation. So all of this becomes so super complicated. Austin, I was going to ask you about student debt. Andrew brought it up. I mean, as fiscal policy, this seems like the wrong time to do it. Now that, of course, is Andrew Ross Orkin and Chuck Todd. Chuck Todd, who, he's supposed to be basically like a straight news person.

He doesn't opine on stuff. And there, he's making clear, no, he doesn't want student loan debt to be canceled. But it's the least surprising thing in the world. None of the people who's ever going to appear on that show is going to think that it's ever time for the government to do something that helps regular people. How could it be? It's time. It's any time. That's how it's always never the time when the government would actually help you out.

If, you know, if it's tough times, if we're in a recession caused by a public health crisis, well, and it's certainly not time. If we finally get past it, well, now we're trying to, you know, redevelop our economy and everything. Is it really time to put the brakes on then? It's never time. But I know we obviously think that there is a time right now where maybe pressure can work with Joe Biden.

He's indicated that he is considering in the next few weeks announcing some sort of student loan debt cancellation. Now, of course, that was before the SCOTUS decision. People's eyes might have been taken off the prize. Maybe they will use that to weasel out of the promises that he's made. But I want to talk about what this might look like. I know, Jank, you were asking how much would it cost to cancel certain levels of student loan debt? So it depends on you ask, but generally, I've looked up multiple different sources saying that to cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt for each borrower would cost somewhere between $320 and $380 billion.

And that, by the way, would eliminate the entire student loan debt for about one out of three people who have debt. Now, if you were to raise that up to $50,000 for every single person, that that would cost about $900 billion, and it would take away about 80% of everyone's student loan debt. So you got about $320 billion on the low end, $900 billion on the high end. That's sort of the figures that we're talking about here. Mainstream media always quotes the number, not of 3.20 and 380, they always quote 1.75 trillion. But wait, is that the proposal? That's to get rid of all student debt in the country, period, right? the proposal that Biden is considering is getting rid of $10,000, only $10,000 of student debt and only for some people, which would be less than $320 million because it would eliminate

a bunch of people, okay? But mainstream media doesn't want you to do it because, well, that might hurt bankers or other rich friends of theirs. So instead of saying $300 billion, they say $1.75 trillion. But wait, nobody's considering that. proposal. Biden very clearly said, I am definitely not considering that proposal. Forget all. He said, I'm not even considering the 50,000 number. No way. So why are you giving the much higher number? It is factually incorrect. Why? Because they want to trick you into not doing student debt. Now, on the other hand, we just passed tons and tons of aid to Ukraine. I think they should get that aid. I'm happy that they're getting it. But billions, tens of billions of

Nobody blinked an eye. Andrew Ross Sorkin didn't go on TV going, well, I mean, with inflation, should we really be sending all this money to Ukraine? Chuck Todd, the neutral objective reporter on MSNBC didn't come out and say, I mean, is this the time for aid to Ukraine? I mean, is this the time? No, because that's all going to defense contractors. So they high five behind the scenes.

They're like, honestly, the group think is so thick that before they brainwash you, they They brainwashed themselves. To them, it never occurs to them to question how we're gonna pay for defense contractors. Yeah, do they have defense contractor lobbyists on their air all the time? Yes, do they identify them as such? No, they identify them as former general, former colonel, blah, blah, blah, right? And do they have advertisers often that are defense contractors? Yes, would they want to insult them and lose millions of dollars?

No, okay. But no, if you listen to them, oh, that's outrageous, no way. No, you have to do the defense. Okay, well, how about just giveaways to corporations? Just yesterday on the show, we talked about how they're considered giving $50 billion to tech companies that are the richest companies in the world, including Amazon, $50 billion. Never asked the mainstream media, how are you going to pay for that? Nobody came on and said, well, is this the right time with inflation to needlessly take $50 billion in cash

and handed to corporations who don't need it at all with no checks on it. Why are you doing it? How well for research and development? Is it specifically for research and development? No. Can they just use it to buy back their own stock and literally build mansions with it? Yes. Because Bernie actually tried to put a provision saying they can't do stock buybacks.

They have to actually use it for the purpose we're claiming. And they said, no, Bernie, they can use it for whatever. No, we're just lying about that. Bernie, stop annoying us. This is just an unbelievable gargantuan giveaway to the rich. By the way, that's not all. They're considering a $125 million giveaway in general to corporations. And Chuck Todd has never said, this doesn't look like the time to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations.

Student debt relief, that's the actual human beings. No way, get out of here. That's not the moderate position. That would help Americans. No, we don't want that the moderate position to help corporations and only corporations. Jeff. They did that same trick with Medicare for all too. We went through an entire pandemic. We're still dealing with COVID-19 and millions of Americans still don't have health care. And they did the same trick during 2016 with the Bernie Sanders campaign talking about how Medicare for all was going to cost some crazy number like $40 trillion.

dollars. They don't talk about how it's actually over 10 years. And I forget the exact number of that now. But they use those gigantic numbers to scare people. And at the same time, when you look at the defense budget, those are even bigger numbers. And it's constantly approved with a rubber stamp with no thought outside. Well, of course we have to give weapons to other countries. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't give weapons to Ukraine. They obviously do need them. But we never seem to think about, you know, actually doing stuff for average people too. And there's never any consideration of doing that. Nobody thinks about it.

And it's just automatically we're just going to shovel money at defense contractors at big corporations. And but whenever it comes to people, oh, is it really time? Is it time for health care? Is it time for student loan debt relief? Which by the way, 10,000 drop in the bucket. It goes down to Biden saying nothing will fundamentally change. Because when you look at the banks, you said that earlier today or early in the segment, well, the banks make a lot of money off student loan asset back securities.

And if he does something about student loan debt, if he actually cancels the entire thing, that's going to really affect the markets. And he doesn't like that. Okay, I got to say more about that. Isn't this funny, guys? Again, you can double check everything we're talking about. We're not right wing media telling you, oh, you got to tan your testicles in order to cure COVID or whatever the hell backer Carlson says.

And so mainstream media loves to say, right wingers, left wingers, they're all the same. Remember everybody, corporations are the only correct answer, okay? But no, I want you to double check us. I want you to double check the facts. So when it came to build back better that had paid family leave, lower drug prices, et cetera, they call it. They say, so $1.7 trillion. What a giant price tag, 1.7 trillion. Okay.

When it comes to the defense budget, well, that's about $800 billion, but that's just for one year. The 1.7 trillion is for 10 years. So if you did the same unit of time for the defense budget, it wouldn't be 1.7 trillion like build back better. It would be 8 trillion, 8 trillion. And never, ever questioned in mainstream media. Everybody just assumes, well, you have to do that. Do you have to do the entire 8 trillion?

Is it possible to defend America with a little under 8 trillion? and maybe take, for example, 1.7 trillion of that and give us health care and give us child care and give us paid family leave. And by the way, there was a million provisions that the American people loved in that bill. That is, and when was Biden the most popular? He was the most popular after he passed COVID relief bill, okay? Because that actually had progressive positions in it. They were small and they were temporary, but it at least had progressive positions in it. He was sky high. He has done nothing since then.

He's lost 25 points. The bottom has fallen out. And they're like, that's why you shouldn't do progressive positions. And they all say it in unison. So guys, isn't it amazing? Isn't it interesting? I'm asking you if you're a moderate, moderate, Democrat, moderate Republican, et cetera, what they call a moderate.

Isn't it interesting? Then when it's student debt relief, and you can see it not only in the stories that we already covered, you'll be able to see it in the future. When you turn on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, what's the conventional wisdom? They never agree, right? I mean, Fox is over here, MSNBC is over here. That's the, they're MSNBC's way left. Fox is right.

It said, no, they all agree on this. You shouldn't have student debt relief. We've already done two or three segments of Fox News going, ah, student debts, you know, that's terrible. They'll go to war over it. Jeanine Piro saying, oh, you should pay your debts, you bums. She owes $600,000 for a former campaign. Okay.

And now, huh, MSNBC agrees with Fox News. Oh, they're all multi-billion dollar corporations, and they believe in giveaways for corporations, but nothing for the actual Americans. What do they disagree on? Should you tan your testicles or not? Who cares? Should 13 people in the country that are on girls' tracks teams be on boys' tracks teams? We have a country with 330 million people.

We're talking about that. Oh, big disagreement, big disagreement. Everybody get distracted. Hey, have you taken all the money out yet, Chuck? Go, keep it going, keep it going. I'm distracting all of them with squirrels. Dr. Seuss books, that's so important. Defest give him all the money, give all the money to the contractors.

Give all the money to the drug companies, okay? Oh, look at this, the critical race theory. Well, we disagree so much. Student debt relief, it's a wall of conservative corporate propaganda. No, no to the American people. is this the time? This is not the time. Hey, we all agree, right? You say this is not the time. And I say this is not the time. Well, when are you gonna have a progressive on saying it is the time? When are you gonna have a progressive on that actually says the facts? Isn't it interesting that

the right wing is all over television? Corporate Democrats and Republicans are all over television. The one people not allowed on are the one people who have the truth, the set of people who would tell you. Wait, but Chuck and Andrew and all of you, every goon on here, you're not telling the truth. truth. Look at the two different programs. Yeah. Uh, conveniently, they're not allowed on television. So nobody ever finds out. There was a brief window where one show was letting some progressives on. Unfortunately, it's Chris Cuomo. So that's right. And by the way, Rick Sanchez, CNN did a segment on money in politics. And we did it, covered it. We're like, whoa, okay, give CNN credit. That was a real segment where he pointed out the donors. He was fired within two or three weeks.

They say ostensibly for a different reason, okay? Cuomo's, and you know, to be fair to MSNBC, they also had some firebreeders talking about how Wall Street is extracting money from the system and not actually doing anything. And you should watch out for that. Dylan Radigan, he's Ed Schultz, me. Wait, none of us are on anymore.

That's weird. To be fair, I only mentioned Chris Cuomo. I don't think there's a conspiracy that took him down. I think he did that stuff. Yeah, yeah. Cuomo is a different situation, right? It's not, there's guys, we live in the real world. Okay, Cuomo clearly had issues, right?

But Ed Schultz didn't have those issues. Phil Donnie, who didn't have those issues. That's an old school MSNBC host that was taking over. Actually, Vanfield didn't have those issues. Radigan didn't have them. Yet anyone who mentions an honest assessment of how corporations are bilking you, all of a sudden they're not on air anymore. There's a progressive blockade because in reality, all of mainstream media

is working for corporations. They are corporations. They're all gigantic corporations that hire mouthpieces, but instead of putting them in their PR department, they put them on air as reporters and anchors. It's not an accident that they're tricking you. They're trying to trick you. Okay, we're out of doing.

That's why the biggest enemy is the media. Yeah, sorry, Jeff. Sorry, John. We had so many great stories, but we're out of time, unfortunately. We got to go to the second hour. Don't worry, there's great stories there as well. So more battling when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.