The Young Turks - Cenk's BIG Announcement And Nate Silver Swings At TYT

Episode Date: May 17, 2019

What is Cenk up to? Nate Silver and Cenk have a bone to pick with each other. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, 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. All right, welcome to the Young Turks. Starting out solo today, I've got a lot of fun topics for you guys.

And overall, we've got an amazing show for you guys. Space Force is back, we'll talk about that a little bit. Is the Attorney General going to be arrested by Nancy Pelosi? That's also in the program. Lots and lots of fun topics, and of course disastrous topics. It is the news after all, especially in the Trump era. But before we do any of that, I've got two things for you guys. One is an important announcement that I'm going to do in a sec.

And another is I'm going to address Nate Silver and his critique, if you will, of the Young Turks. I will be critiquing right back. So that'll be fun for everybody involved. And I've got receipts. Unlike Nate, as usual, I am right. Shots fired already, already, okay. So here comes the big announcement. I will be holding a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on June.

Eighth, raised eyebrows. Okay, is it about the presidential race? Yes. Am I gonna tell you what else it's about? Not yet. And here's what you need to know. A couple of things. One is, it's about you and how you can make a big impact on this race.

A lot of people say that, it's like a cliched thing to say, you know, oh my God, we're gonna involve you guys. Actually, I don't even know if a lot of people say that. So I don't know that a lot of people bother to say that. But we say it and we mean it. So this plan is centered around you and yes, it will definitely affect the presidential race. And it is bold and it is audacious. So I need you to come to Des Moines on June 8th wherever you are.

So if you're in Iowa, yes, we'd love to have you there. If you're anywhere near there. And I looked on a map, there are a lot of things near there. So drive on in, if you can fly in, I'm not playing, this is a giant announcement. So t-y-t.com slash rally, that is where you can enter your information so we can send you emails about the exact venue, the time, et cetera, and we will announce those between now and June 8th. But I've got to see you there.

If you're not there, none of this is going to work. If you are there, we can change the world. And I don't think it's hyperbole at all. I remember a scene from Knockdown the House movie about AOC and the other just Democrats. And a long time civil rights activists is in the room when they're first starting out. And their young candidates, a lot of them have never run for office before. And he looks around the room and he says, someone in this room is going to change the world. And he was right.

So someone in that room on June 8th is also going to change the world. So, tyt.com slash rally, I need our army there. That is an army of democracy, an army of truth, the TYT army. So come join me, and we together will embark on an adventure that just might change America. All right, that's fun for everybody. All right, now let's go on to Nate Silver. So Nate Silver attacked us the other day. boy, that's fun, okay, and he actually was a little over the top, to say the least.

I'm not at all offended by it, other people might be. In fact, I'm fairly amused by it. It was like he was trying to thump us or something, like I'll show the bully or something. We'll find out who the bully is, we'll find out who's right, but he was full of vigor, let's put it that way. Okay, here, I'm gonna let you judge for yourself. So he talked about it on his podcast, and not only that, he later, he later, he later, tweeted it, like the quote you're about to hear. So he wasn't playing. He wanted to get our

attention. Here's what he said. Let's start with the basics. Nate, what does it mean when you see N slash A among a particular demographic group and a polls cross tabs? Well, to start with the basics, I mean, the young Turks are full of shit about this. And I hope that people see that. And then they're curious about why. Ooh, Nate, are you in my grill? Okay, Ben Mangowitz, who I started the show with once said to Anna, actually, who was trying to beat me in a race and she started out fast and she said, I was trying to intimidate him in the beginning. And Ben said, you're trying to intimidate the intimidator?

Good luck, Nate. Okay, so now let's get the substance of this. So we covered a CNN poll on the show just last week. And John gave the background, I'm going to show you exactly what he said. to show you that we are right and Nate is wrong. And there was different categories, age groups, which is very normal in a poll, and there was a representative sample in the older demographics, and the older demographics generally like Joe Biden.

The younger demographics, they did not have a representative sample, but they do actually use a multiplier on that, and so Nate explained that in his podcast. I'll come back in a second, but it said NA is it not applicable. We explain that to our audience. That apparently is what set Nate and his colleagues off. because they thought we did not do a good job of explaining that. Again, in a second, I'm going to show you the video, so you'll have absolute proof that they are wrong.

But first, more chest thumping from Nate Silver. If you're implying to your audience that you're expert in these areas and you're just wrong about stuff, then people's willingness to be wrong in cases where it's really relatively easy to determine kind of objectively, quote, unquote, what's right and wrong versus like this next segment that we'll have where I'm sure half the audience will disagree with my view on impeachment and whatever else, that's a lot more complicated.

But like polls are relatively simple facts. And like the fact that people get those wrong ought to worry you about kind of how much people are concerned about kind of actually getting the story, right? I love that. Thank you for that setup. So if you get things that are simple facts about polling, well, it does show you and maybe give you concern about what their real biases, what their real concerns are. And especially if you're an expert on a topic, like Nate is an expert on polling.

That's why we have this conversation. And so by the way, as you'll see in a minute, do I dislike Nate Silverton? No, not at all. I actually think he's significantly better than the rest. But we'll give you that context in a second. But he wasn't done yet, and I've got to show you this, because this is where he explains why we got it wrong. So I want you to pay real close attention to what he says we got wrong, because then I'm going

to show you what we actually said. Let's watch. If I were CNN, I'd probably say, you know what, because people make even more idiotic statements if you list NA and don't understand the pull at all. And some people literally think that CNN just didn't even bother to pull anyone under the age of 50. I probably list the estimates for young voters with all the noise attached. So, you know, you've got the over-the-top statements. Again, idiotic earlier. He said full of crap. He said we're just wrong, but if you notice the substance of the attack was there, he said when people say that they did not, the poll did not count people under the age of 50 at all. Now, let's go to the tape that he is referring to, the segment he's referring to, and Nate is so

biased, they actually played this clip on their own podcast. And then he's like, he didn't hear what he didn't want to hear. So listen to what John Iderola says in the setup. up and listen to whether he says they did actually count people under the age of 50. Watch. Well, you will notice immediately is that as you go down, that's a whole bunch of different candidates, there's a lot of NAs, and the NAs are in the categories of people between 18 to 34 and 35 to 49.

Now, a lot of people notice that relatively quickly. Now that does not mean that they did not have any respondents in those age ranges, they did. It just means that there weren't enough for them to consider it to be a sort of representative sample for opinions held by those people. There's just not enough of them. And overall, it means that the results overall are going to be a good bit biased. Because what you are really polling in actuality are not people. It's the oldest aged groups in America. And is it a shock that they might prefer Joe Biden over some of the other candidates? And again, it doesn't mean by itself that he did not experience some sort of bump or that that bump might not be

sustainable. They might not find in other places. But the headline It's never said Joe Biden gets big bump from pole of septuagenarians. It says Joe Biden up big, back this thing in, it's done. So John gave several important caveats there, but the most important one is the one that Nate was addressing. He said, it's not like they didn't count young people, they did. You saw it with your own eyes, John just said that in the clip. Nate listens to that, says, I don't like the young Turks, generally don't like progress

as much. So I'm going to ignore that he said that, and I'm going to not only pretend that he didn't say it, I'm going to go on a whole 15-minute rant on my podcast, and then I'm going to tweet that the young turks are full of crap, because I don't like them. So that's the reality of Nate's bias. So here, then on Twitter I said last night, we'll be addressing Nate's smear of us on tomorrow's show, great irony in claiming we didn't explain a poll correctly, not true as you just saw with your own eyes.

And then not correctly explaining what we said. Nate, when are you going to admit your establishment bias? I'm going to get back to that in a second. Then, of course, Kyle jumps, and Kyle Kalinsky's host of Secular Talks, a giant show on YouTube and other platforms. You should check it out. And it is part of the TYT network. And he's a little brashier than I am, believe it or not.

And he says, hi, Databoy, and then referring to Nate. And then you can't see the full tweet there, but the headlines are all about how Nate Silver got Trump wrong during the Republican nomination. And so Nate was, of course, upset about that. Now, he's acknowledged that in the past, but it still gets under his skin. And he tweeted this in response. He said, predictions are one thing. We've been doing this for a long time, and the track record shows we got things right

more often than not, by the way, which is true, which is not to say always, but facts are another, and you all ought to stop misinforming readers about basic facts about polls. Nate, given what we just showed you, right back at you, brother. And then finally, on this note, I wanted to say, look, and I listened to the rest of Nays podcast, if they had come back with a critique that was justified and factual, I would have said, oh, that's interesting and that's an interesting point. Like if they had said, no, the young person didn't say anything wrong, but I wish they would have added that, yes, they do count young people in that poll, just like John said,

but there's also a waiting system which makes sure that even though they're not a representative sample, that they at least try to get it to catch up to the other demographic groups, which are properly represented. That would have been an interesting critique of not what we said, but what we didn't say. Okay, that would have been fair, but that's not what he said, because, again, he doesn't like being wrong and he has been wrong. And so, in fact, did we even say, like, you heard John say there's other polls? I went on to emphasize that more later in the clip.

I don't know if you watch the whole clip, but if you're going to go out and tell the whole world that somebody's full of crap, I think you do have an obligation not to watch. I'm not pulling a Sam Harris. You have to watch every video we've ever done in our lives, otherwise you're taking us out of context, but at least finish that video and see if we gave further context. So, in reality, here's what I said later in that same segment, watch. There are other polls. Like the poll that we pointed out, the CNN one, it's got a massive issue, as you can tell.

But Biden is picking up steam. That makes sense. He just announced, and he actually did a good political strategy with pointing out Charlottesville. Trump attacked him. That's going to lift up his numbers. You can talk about that and be doing it in a fair way. I thought Warren's policy proposals would do well. I've been telling you for about a week on the show, if not more, that her numbers

would start to go up. And they have. And that's also shown in the same polls. And she's gone up about three points. And now she's solidly in third place. So that's real. And they do mention that as well. And look, so I like Elizabeth Warren a lot. I like Bernie Sanders. I told you if I like someone. I tell you, there it is. Right. And Bernie Sanders, for a while, looked like he was going to overtake Biden. And I thought that made sense politically, let alone what I like to think about his policy. Now he's not in as commanding as second place as I would have thought.

And I point that out. And it's two different hats. One is who do you think is right on the policy? And the other is what's actually happening? What's the reality on the ground? We thought Trump might win. We couldn't stand Trump. But we gave you the actual numbers and talked about likely versus not.

So it is, I have to confess, it is frustrating where we We say we're home of progressives, we clearly label who we are, we talk honestly about our point of view, and then we actually analyze the numbers, because it's our job to give you facts, and they call us biased, then they turn around and have an actual bias where they put the numbers in a skewed perspective to favor their own candidates, and then when you pointed out, they get all hurt and emotional over it. Now remember, I said that before Nate Silver got all hurt and emotional over it, and And then he went on to fulfill that prophecy nearly perfectly.

So thank you, Nate. I appreciate it. So the reason sometimes progressives get agitated is because the establishment is constantly demeaning towards progressives, dismissive of people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and their supporters. And when we point out facts, they get really agitated. And we're not doing it based on who we like and don't like. So for example, when we show you Bernie Sanders did better with independence than Hillary Clinton

in 2016, we didn't say that because we made up the numbers. Those were real polls, but every punted on television, all of them are worse than Nate, but would go on and say, no, my God says independence would like a really corporate candidate like Hillary Clinton, based on what, right? No, the polling indicates independence like Bernie Sanders. But even Nate on issues, especially when it came to Trump, but oftentimes when it comes and Bernie Sanders, ignores numbers that he doesn't like. Or more accurately, that bother him, that don't fit his narrative.

And I don't think that Nate even realizes he has a narrative. He thinks, no, I'm just for, as Jay Rosen, a great media critic from NYU says, the view from nowhere. I'm the objective guy, that, you know what that does, that privileges his point of view as the correct perspective. And that's just not true. You have a perspective and it is not necessarily the correct one. And it is so easy and lazy to say, well, the conservatives are obviously biased and the progressives

are obviously biased and they're both obviously wrong. Whereas hey, lucky me, my perspective, the establishment one, the one that is in favor of the status quo and believes the status quo is the correct one. No, it is not. And facts have shown it otherwise, especially. the case of Trump. So he says that we do it based on our bias and that when we just do prognostication, I'm going to show you a clip here from 2016 when I criticize Nate for the first time.

And you'll notice, again, it's tempered and it's about the facts, and it's about Donald Trump, who I am not biased in favor of it. The exact opposite, I loathe him. I think he is deeply incompetent, one of the dumbest guys alive, enormously malicious. I don't know that there is a critic of that. Trump in the country more than I am or harsher against Donald Trump than I am. But nonetheless, I saw the numbers because while we're honest about our perspective, we have to give you reality in terms of the facts.

So now watch this clip from 2016, keep in mind these things. Nate Silver all the way in November of 2015 had Donald Trump's chance of winning at six, the Republican nomination at 6% when all the polling indicated he had a significant lead. Now in October of that same year, a month before Nate had it at 6%, I said Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination. Well, let me show you the clip from later on in the process. Now this is during the general election, but many months before election day. And I explained the whole context of it back then, here watch.

Nate Silver, until this election cycle, had been known as a fairly excellent prognosticator. One of the guys who would say that is me. And I defended him throughout the 2012 election. Idiots like Joe Scarborough would go on the air and go, Nate Silver's polling is incorrect. My gut says the American people will pick Mitt Romney. Your gut isn't worth squat. It isn't worth the squat in it.

Nate Silver had numbers. Unfortunately, in this election cycle, Nate's lost track of the numbers. and he can't see past his own bias. So he gave Trump a 2% chance the nomination was spectacularly wrong. Here they say, but Silver pointed out that Trump's general election numbers have still remained consistent, whereas primary voting numbers have not. Now, he says, oh, in the primary, it was hard to predict because he's going up and down. Actually, he was fairly consistently number one.

That's why back in June of 2015, I said he was definitely going to be in the top. And then by October of 2015, before, months before any of the voting, I bet that he would win the nomination. Now, I, what did I base that on? My gut? No, I'm not an idiot like a TV pundit. I, funny enough, I based it on the polls. And I also based it on how he was campaigning in the mood of the country.

Now you say in the general election, though, totally consistent numbers. Really? Let me show you the polling. Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, that's real clear politics average of polls. Does that look consistent to you? Now forget the left side of that. That's in the primaries, that they're not head to head, et cetera. But look starting around April, right?

What the hell is consistent about those numbers? Hillary Clinton's got a big lead. Donald Trump dips, then he rises, and then he rises more, and then he passes her, and then he dips again. What part of that is consistent enough for Nate Silver to say that up? That's it. Well, let's wrap this election up. Hillary Clinton has an 80% chance to win.

Wrong again, Nate. did prove to be wrong. But again, I want to give context here, Nate was better off than the New York Times having the post and almost every other outlet. On election day, the only people who were saying that Trump had a better chance of winning than Nate Silver, as far as I could tell, on the national scene was us. And that is why, and there's plenty of famous videos about that floating around on the internet with lots of views where Ben and I say brace for impact.

And because Trump can really win this thing. But I remember Huffington Post had Hillary Clinton's chance of winning at 98.4%. And Nate said, no, that's not true. His chances are higher, but not that high. And so he's a little off there or significantly off, but better than the rest. And that's really important. I've got a cough here. But I want to again clarify the difference between right wing critics, MSM critics

of Nate Silver and us. The right wing doesn't care about facts at all. So they look at numbers and science go, science, no, my God, other words, Donald Trump doesn't believe in numbers, okay. I mean, how do you have a conversation with people who don't speak the same language? So, by the way, don't just learn English, learn math. So then you got the mainstream media who says, oh, Nate's a nerd, and you know, he's just focusing on numbers, and no, my gut, my gut says, I went to a cocktail party, and all my

Millionaire friends said tax cuts for the rich is really unpopular. The country's really center right and they don't like that. Or you could look at a poll and it says 76% of the country wants tax increases for the rich. But everybody on TV is rich so they don't look at that poll. Instead they tell you the exact opposite of what's true, alternative facts. So their critique of Nate is easy to dismiss. Our critique I think is less easy to dismiss and that is maybe part of the reason why he's agitated. And do I know Nate Silver's politics?

Do I know who he's going to vote for? No. I have some clues in the podcast, every one of them referred to progressives as they, and with a little dismissive tone in their voice, like, I mean, that's what they believe. Those people on the left, and they would do false equivocation and say things like they're like the people on the right. Really? We have lunatics on the right wing who don't even believe in climate change.

They believe 99% of the world scientists got together and created a conspiracy. You should be locked up in an insane asylum if you believe that. Whereas we say, hey, perhaps you have a bias, maybe you're not even aware of. And he's like, oh my God, you're full of crap, you're just like Trump. Oh, come on. You see, you are betraying your own bias there. So what is his bias? Well, partly it's things that are somewhat understandable if he would ever open up and listen.

He looks at the history of polling, but times are different. And so he has a thesis that the party usually picks the winner. Well, that is true if you look at the past, but that was before a populist wave came in, not just in America, but all across the world. So I thought Corbyn would do way better, even in fact I said I thought he would win. That was an audacious comment when he was down 24 points in the UK with six weeks left to go. As it turns out, he didn't win, and we acknowledge when we don't get it right, but he didn't

close the lead by about 20 points in six weeks, which was stunning. And why? If you just looked at the polling ahead of Corbyn's election, you would have said, hey, the UK He just voted for Brexit, which is right wing. So they'll, of course, they'll never go for Corbyn. That misunderstands the current political dynamic all across the world. It isn't left versus right, it's populace versus establishment. But Nate has not caught up to that, and almost no one in the mainstream media has caught

up to that. So they look at it and go, well, obviously the guys who won before, the guys with the polished suits and the nice haircut and all the consultants and the ones that the party favors and the establishment favors are the ones more likely to win. And that is why he got Trump wrong too. And he admits it so, and to his credit, he wrote an article later after all this. He said, how I acted like a pundit and screwed up on Donald Trump. And he gave details.

He said, unlike virtually every other forecast we published at 538, including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned, our early estimates of Trump's chances weren't based on a statistical model and said they were what we subjective odds, which is to say, educated guesses. But Nate, that's exactly what we were telling you. But you were so hurt by that that you lash out against us. I believe, and obviously I could be biased too, but the only one's giving you a legitimate critique that you might actually, you know, learn from.

And I don't want to sound arrogant because he's still making the same mistakes. I'll give you one last quote, part of his Mayor Culpa, and you have to give him credit for the Mayor Culpa. People on TV never bother apologizing when they get it wrong. they get it wrong, nine out of ten times. So he said, in other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates, and we succumb to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence.

See, Nate, that's what we're asking to do now. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all other punded barbarians randomly setting fire to things. So that's right. But Nate, you're still not past it. And in fact, even in that same analysis, he talked about Trump is a one-off. Why does he think that? Because everybody in Washington thinks that.

Everybody in New York thinks that, oh, no, no, no, we're gonna get back to normal. Oh, Biden's gonna come in or Kamala Harris or someone, this is just an aberration. We don't see it in any of the rest of the historical numbers for the last 20 years, et cetera. Yeah, that's why if you were right about then, then Martin O'Malley would have given Hillary Clinton a run for her money instead of Bernie Sanders. Open your eyes, the country is in a populist mood, both on the right and the left, and progressives are deeply, deeply popular. And look at your own polling, when you go policy by policy.

Medicare for all, 70%, Social Security protecting it is at 84%, raising tax on the riches, 76%. I can give you literally dozens of polls where the country is not center left, it's massively left. But even Nate Silver, who should know better in that. That's why I criticize him in this context, because we need you to get the numbers right. You're not like, you're not supposed to be like the other guys. Looks at the numbers and says, I don't believe my lying eyes. So these people on the left are fringe, radical extreme, etc. I don't want to describe those exact words from him to Bernie Sanders, but you could feel that

disdain in his writing, but more importantly in his analysis, and that, and if he doesn't get it straightened out, you'll get this election wrong too. And then he'll have to write another Mia Kulp and go, well, I mean, nobody could have seen Bernie Sanders coming. I mean, that's impossible. Who would know? I did a video in 2013 saying Bernie Sanders could beat Hillary Clinton. Why?

Because I really love Bernie Sanders? No. Because I can, I'm telling you now, based on both the polling, which I can see with a clear eye, and yes, other factors such as the feedback we're getting from the audience. And I know that that's skewed, of course, of course, right? But you get a sense that people are angry, they're angry about wages. And so we predicted those things many years ago, because it's not that we're any smarter than anyone else, it's just that we actually care to listen to people who are telling

us those things, whether they're on the right, left, or middle. And so again, populism will rise, and if you counter with an establishment candidate, you'll be making the same exact mistake you made in 2016. And so, repeating that mistake is exactly what the mainstream media is doing, saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, no. You see, that's Hillary Clinton lost. Why? Because she was an establishment.

No, no, no, no, no, because of Bernie Sanders. What? Bernie Sanders had a 12-point lead on election day in 2016. Now, could that have been whittled down because they would have run hands against them? Of course, of course. They always treat progressives as children. Now, we're arguably more sophisticated than you. But what I do know is, they would have had to whittle down a 12 point lead.

It would have been incredibly difficult. We know Hillary couldn't have lost. Bernie Sanders would have had a significantly better chance of winning. And the same is true today. If you run Biden, that's the same as running Hillary, and you're gonna make that same mistake. Now, I'm not describing those views to Nate Silver, but when he looks at it from the perspective that he does, unfortunately, I think that it encourages and buttresses the main tree media to go, Oh, yeah, that's right. Of course, America doesn't want a progressive America's the center-right country.

That's why Biden reaching out to Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney's a great idea. No, it is not a great idea. And as you will see in this primary season, it will prove to be a very, very bad idea. And Joe Biden will fade because that is not where the Democratic Party is. It's also not where the country is. Last thing is, I've asked Nate Silver to come on the show. I hope that he comes on and we have a good conversation about it. That's up to him if he wants to have an honest conversation about it.

it, but this is the reality, and this was a real critique, and we weren't the ones who made up facts. Unfortunately, on his podcast, he was the one that made up facts about us. So who's the bias one, Nate? Okay, we're gonna take a quick break here. When we come back, Anna's back, and we get back into domestic and international politics. Does Trump really want to go to war with Iran? Twist in that story, a good twist, we'll tell you when we'll come back.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fibing the Rep, The Rep, Rep, The Rep, Public, 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 and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it. You must have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training

or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on the Eric Turks, Jank and Anna with you guys, lots of fun comments. Members, comments first, as always, t-y-t.com slash join to become a member. Nell says, LOL is Nate Silver the one who everyone acts like he's right, yet he's almost always

wrong when TYT is right. Okay, well, that's a member of ours, but thank you, NL, I appreciate it. Ms. Kelly says that NAs and not applicables are statistically insignificant. John is clear and so cute. Oh, okay. Yeah. If you get YouTube membership on the Young Turks channel, you can get a John Idaola emoji. So think about it.

How are you sweating right now? How? It's so cold in the studio. Way too hot. He's really sweating. I can't believe it. It's too hot. Okay.

So first of all, let's acknowledge on Middle Eastern. That's also a fact, and we're moving on. From the same part of the world. That's true. We are neighbors in a lot of ways. Progressive Ninja Me says, you should invite Nate Silver on to correct the record if he has the guts. We actually did, let's see what he does. So I don't want to prejudge it.

Let's go to Twitter. Tim Joyce says, is it just me or did anyone else just get the feeling the Democratic field maybe about to have 24? Hashtag jank for press, hashtag jank 2020. All right, let's keep going. Tyt.com slash rally, by the way, to find out. what I'm going to say in Iowa on June 8th. Trent Sanamuarto writes in, the only reason I know who Ney Silver is because TYT often remarks

about how good he is. Every time I've seen your critique is reading of polls, you've been absolutely correct. Not no mores. Yeah. That's all I have to have to have. All right, last one, last one, and then we've got a lot of stories. Abigail's theme says, I've been watching the show but haven't been in Twitter in a while. I gotta have fun it is to watch the hashtag TYT live tag while I watch.

And that is fun, and those are the tweets I'm reading now. If you wanna tweet during the show and have us read it, a hashtag TYT live. Of course, we can't read all of them, but we do get some and put them on air for you guys. And thank you for being part of the show. All right, what's next, Anna? Following the most restrictive anti-abortion law signed into Alabama's state, it appears that now other states, including Missouri, are following suit. Missouri has just passed a restrictive anti-abortion piece of legislation in the state senate.

It's now going to go to the state house, and then it appears that the governor in Missouri is likely to sign it. Now, it doesn't outright ban abortion the same way that Alabama's law does, but it includes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Doctors would face five to 15 years in prison for violating the eight-week cutoff. Women who receive abortions wouldn't be prosecuted. So in this case, abortion is banned after eight weeks, and then the penalties for the doctors who perform abortions after that time are lower than what we've seen in Alabama, where

doctors could face 99 years in prison if they perform abortions in the state. So there's two different issues here. One is, is it a life? And then the second is, is it right to force a woman to do something with her body? Okay. First, the anti-choice, or you want to give them their own moniker that they prefer pro-life people, although of course it's comical because we're all pro-life, that isn't the issue. Anyway, say that they have that position because at the moment of conception is when life

begins. Now there's some logic to that and so, but then they stop. Their logic, if the right way ever uses it, usually doesn't go further down the road on any topic, let alone this one. But what they don't talk about is whether, first of all, I don't think they even believe that and you could see it in this Missouri law. If you really thought it was a life form, well then you would put the woman in jail. For example, if a woman randomly killed someone and their neighbor, would you say, well,

and it's a woman or it's a mom, so I don't want to put away the mom. No, you would give her the full force of the law. If a mom killed their one year old baby, would you put her in prison? Yes, of course you would. But you're not putting the women here in prison, thank God, but it's because you don't really believe it's a life form and you don't really believe it's murder. Okay, now, and your followers don't either. All those women who say like, oh yeah, I'm pro-life.

and they should end abortion, okay, you want to put the woman in prison? No, no. Why do you go no? It's because you know it's not an independent life form. And so that gets to my second point. Look, even if you think it's a life form at the moment of conception, it is definitely, by definition, not an independent life form. So, okay, if you think it's independent, take it.

The women in those cases don't want it in their body. They don't want to carry it for nine months, so you take it. Now if it was at the point of viability, then you could take it. And we could say as a society, no, that's an independent life form. The mom and dad don't have to take care of it, other people can take care of it. We got it from here. And that's the state protecting an independent life form, and that makes sense. But if it's not viable outside of the mom, then we go to point number two.

And you're saying to a woman, I'm going to take away your liberty. And I'm going to compel you to use your body in a way that you do not agree to. And look, there's a different word for that, forcing a woman to do something against her will with her body. It's called rape. So that sounds super harsh, and one of the legislators fighting back use similar language. But that is literally what you're doing. And if you say, well, no, but in rape, it's sexual and there's penetration.

In these bills, there's usually transvaginal ultrasounds, which is also penetration. And that's the government doing it. That's the government saying, we are going to do that to you. And in some cases, including this one, even if you've been raped, we're going to do it again. Then we're going to compel you not just in one time period, but for nine months against your will to carry this life form that you do not agree to, okay? And so I think women are within every right to say, you take it. And if you can carry it somewhere else, you do it.

But I don't want to, you're taking away my liberty. And that should be the end of the conversation. But no, the right wing persists anyway. And they always twist the debate and do sophistry. And they don't acknowledge that it's not an independent life form, even if you thought it was a life form. So throughout the week, we have debunked this notion that science is. indicates that it's life at the moment of conception, we've talked about, you know, the real

reasons behind why our lawmakers do this type of stuff and push for this type of stuff. And we've also talked about how disingenuous they are, how hypocritical they are when they talk about the importance of life. Because as we know, there are countless living, breathing human beings here in the United States right now whose lives are not valued. We see it every time there is excessive force used by police and someone who's unarmed gets shot and killed. We see the type of discourse that takes place and the type of rhetoric that's used by the right wing. That rhetoric would indicate that they don't care too much about human lives.

We've seen it in the way that they fight to cut certain funding that would help improve the lives of children in America. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. And so I hate the fact that they get to frame the debate. They get to come out there with all of these nonsense arguments, and then everyone who has common sense is left, you know, trying to fill in the blanks and have a reasonable discussion about what's really happening. The fact of the matter is what we have in the United States is exactly what the founders of this country and the, you know, the founders of this country did not want, which is this combination of church and state. We have religious groups in this country, specifically Christians in America, dictating the way women get to live their lives.

And we're not supposed to have that. That is supposed to be against our constitution. But it doesn't matter. I mean, and in the same breath, you'll have the Republican Party pointing their fingers at other countries and talking about how terribly those countries, mostly Muslim majority countries, how terribly they treat their women there. How the men control the women there. How the women don't have freedom there.

They don't have liberty there. Well, you're now advocating for the government to play a role in these discussions between a woman and a doctor. You are dictating what a woman can and can't do with her own body. So they don't think it's harsh again, but think it through. So they- I would argue that, you know, forcing doctors to ram a transvaginal ultrasounds up a woman's uterus is a little more harsh than their pathetic little feelings. I don't care about how harsh they find it.

Yes, no, no, I'm about to get harsher. So look, when you say ISIS and al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia control their women and they tell them what to do, they don't let them drive, they don't let them go outside without males. It's so terrible how they're trying to control their women. Missouri just said, if someone rapes you, I don't care what you think. The United States government, in the case of that, in the government of Missouri, is going to make you carry your rapist child inside of you. I don't know that Saudi Arabia does anything as bad to women.

So that is your Sharia law. We never agreed to it. We're not in a country where we're ruled by your interpretation of your religion. So it's an un-American position. If you want to live in a theocracy, there are other countries like Saturday Arabia that practice it. guys in the people who agree with the Muslim fundamentalist point of view, the ISIS point of view, are Republicans in Alabama, Missouri, and those places.

They are. If you don't like that, okay, then change it. But the reality is you want to control women even more than those fundamentalist Muslims do. And don't tell me that you are for small government or for freedom ever again. Because small government doesn't get inside your uterus. And a small government doesn't tell someone, this is what you're gonna do with your doctor, this is what you're gonna do with your life, I'm now in control of your life, not you. That is not small government, and that is inarguable.

So if you ever hear a Republican talking about a small government, understand they are full of crap, they don't mean it at all, and they would control your life in a second with their religion if they could. And in this case they are. And don't talk to me about freedom, because even if you think it's justified, you are definitively taking away women's freedom to make their own choices and to control their body. So don't ever talk to me about freedom if you're a Republican, because you don't believe in it.

What you believe in is freedom for me, but not for you. I get to tell you how to live your life. And so often they'll say, oh, liberals want to control how you live. Comical, hilarious, ridiculous, the exact opposite. We want you to get out of our lives. Whereas the Republicans say, I'm going to tell my religion is going to tell you what to do about this. Who can you sleep with?

Who can you not sleep with? What are you going to do with you and your doctor and with your body? And can you use contraception? Get out of our lives. You don't believe in freedom at all. And by the way, in the state of Missouri, even before this past, they had already in effect decimated. Decimated the right to make your own choices.

They only have one clinic left, abortion clinic left in Missouri because of the other so-called regulations that passed. What happened? I thought you were against government regulations. But when it comes to the issue of abortion, endless regulations, ridiculous regulations, to limit and end abortion. And there's a 72 hour waiting period. So they've in effect banned abortion in Missouri if you're poor or middle class.

Because who can drive to the other side of the state, stay for three days, pay for all of that, including not only the transportation but the lodging there, and then you get an abortion. Rich people can. And that is another Republican rule saying, hey, I can do it. If I'm rich, I can go to that abortion clinic. No problem, I can go to abortion clinic outside the state, outside the country. The rich have different rules and the Republicans love it. And finally, Republican Senator Bob Onder said that this bill was not harsh enough.

Yeah, can I read you his quote? He says, quote, this should be entitled, not the Missouri stands for the Unborn Act, but the Missouri stands for the Unborn Act, sort of, but the Missouri stands for the Unborn Act, sort of, kind of, only after the minority party and the strongest Planned Parenthood lawyers in the country were done with the bill. He said that it's a shadow of what it once was. What else did you want to do, Senator Onder? Just ban it all outright, 100%. No, no, I know he wants to ban it, but what other indignities did you want the women of Missouri

to suffer? This bill already says if you're raped or you're the victim of incest, that Senator Onder gets to decide your fate, gets to decide your entire life and liberty. You don't get to decide it. But the senator says, not enough, not enough. I want to control every part of your body and every part of your life. At least have the decency to admit that you love big government and you hate freedom. Before we go to break, I want to let you all know about how important it is to protect

yourself from bad stuff going on in the internet. You can do that with a VPN. NordVPN is excellent, it is a high grade VPN that will protect you and your online activity and you get a discount, just go to NordvPN.com and you get a 75% off deal, plus you get your first month for free. So check that out, NordvPN.com slash TYT. Yes, also protect yourself and your life and liberty from Republicans by never voting for them.

All right, we'll be right back. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. 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 TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXPRE S-SVPN.com.

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 independent media become a member at t yt.com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free section all right back on the young turks jank and anna with you guys let's go to the member comments daniel sacks says all the pitchforks are on the hands of the uh of those in the n a columns Going back to that CNN story. And then on Twitter, Kirsten Trey Swin with an excellent tweet that I love, took a trip to the capital of Madison, Wisconsin today with Wolfpack, was my first time talking face-to-face

with legislators or even staffers, was super nervous but totally worth the stomachache, hashtag TYT live, hashtag Wolfpack. I love that. So Kristen, thank you. And I know that it's not easy. I remember the first time I made a call to a state legislator for Wolfpack. I was a little nervous. Really?

Yeah, I swear to God, because we were taping it and I was like, wait, do I have it right? I'm gonna say these things, am I, do I have the right order, et cetera? It's totally normal, but push past it and it is so gratifying. So everybody, wolf dash pack.com slash join, okay? Get involved, please, it makes all the difference, and don't forget to come to the rally in Iowa, t.t.com slash rally. Okay, Blakely says, I'm so glad Jank is back today. I love Jank, thank you, really appreciate it.

He's such an important and needed voice in a climate full of now liberals who assist on gaslighting progressives daily. And guys, that's what we do. We fight back for you because almost no one else covers it from a progressive perspective. And the rest of the folks, they're not honest about their perspective. They have a giant establishment perspective and they never admit it and they pretend like we're the biased ones when we're in fact honest. So that's why we call ourselves home of progressives.

And if you wanna help make that happen, there's a reason why we have membership. TYT.com slash join. If you're already a member and you want to upgrade, it makes a giant difference, tytt.com slash upgrade, because there's several different layers of membership. And finally, if you just like what we're saying on any given day, t.t.com slash yes. If you're in the member section, it's just a blue button there if you're on the website. But just, you know, because we got to make this sustainable and we got to do it together. There's no other way of doing it, okay?

There's also huge upsides to being a member that is fun, right? Like for instance, you get access to our Game of Thrones reviews. We got one coming up on Sunday. Yes, we have a Game of Thrones review coming up on Sunday and it's the finale. It's done, it's over, which is why I have agreed to do it. So I will be there with Brett, John, Cenk, Ida, Ben, it's gonna be a lot of fun. If you're interested in being able to access the archives of all of this great content, Please become a member, tyt.com slash join.

All right, one last thing about that. So guys, I saw on Twitter that I was doing too many spoilers. And my bad, I thought everybody had watched it by Sunday, but that's an old mistake. So I'm gonna try not to talk about it at all other than in the context of the reviews, okay? So for all the folks, I feel terrible about that. And so I'm sorry that I mentioned it on a couple of Mondays and Tuesdays, some of the things that had happened there. And then finally, check out, if you remember, check out TMI.

too much information with TYT. Meta's most embarrassing story is bananas. Okay, and Matt Walsh, also hilarious. So we asked them like best moments, worst moments, most embarrassing moments, and that's just for the members. So check that out. All right, Anna, what's next? You know, you know that anti-abortion legislation goes too far when someone like Pat Robertson

has negative things to say about it. Here he is commenting on Alabama's ban on abortions. I think Alabama has gone too far. They've passed the law that would give a 99-year prison sentence to people who could commit abortion. There's no exception for rape or incest. It's an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe versus Wade. But my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because

I think this one will lose. So every once in a while Pat Robertson shocks me. He certainly shocked me when he had done a segment supporting the transgender community, right? Oh yeah. Do you remember that? I think so. He has a little love in his heart for the trans community and I think that's great. And this surprised me.

Not for the rest of the gay community, by the way, and everybody in LGBT community is different. But he has said awful, hideous things about just about every kind of liberal, but specifically about the LGBT community, saying that they're the ones that cause hurricanes and disasters because they make God angry. Just yesterday, he said that the world will, the earth will vomit us out if we pass equal protections for gay people in America. Yeah, it's probably not the climate change. It's probably God vomiting.

Right. Okay. It could be either one, but you know, that's, so look, sometimes I'll give Tucker Carlson credit like he does want to go to war with Iran, and people's heads are close. explode and they say, you can't do that because Tucker's a racist, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, but we covered that, right? And Pat Robertson is a maniac in a thousand different ways. The reason we're telling you that in this context is not to say like Pat Robertson's great.

It's saying that maniac Pat Robertson, even he thinks the Alabama abortion law went too far. Man, and by the way, Michael Schurra on old school last night, another one of our shows, T.y.t.com to become a member and get all of our shows, pointed out that is a perfect clip for an ad that a Democratic Senate candidate can run in Alabama, saying when even Pat Robertson thinks you went too far, you might be a bit extreme. But last thing about it, I don't want to, I want to give you a full context, as you saw there at the end of the video, he said, because he doesn't think that this is a good case to bring to the Supreme Court.

It's not like he had a revelation, if you will, and an epiphany like, hey, wait a minute, maybe we shouldn't take away women's rights, maybe this is a theocracy, like, no, he love with the accuracy, he's just saying it is so extreme that even the really right-wing Supreme Court might rule against it. So let's just go a little shade of extreme, under extreme, so the Supreme Court can take away women's rights effectively. I feel like that is maybe the reason why Missouri didn't go as far as Alabama did with their abortion legislation.

Because in Missouri, it's an abortion ban after eight weeks. So maybe there, look, all of these different states that are passing restrictive anti-abortion laws are eyeing the Supreme Court. They all have the same idea. And all these laws are a little different. So maybe this is a strategy by conservatives in America to try to see what will stick with the Supreme Court. I have no idea.

And one of the other things that they're doing is they're moving to Overton window. That's a political reference to shifting the debate, the ideological debate on that issue. So in reality, 70% of Americans are pro-choice. They say that Roe versus Wade should not be overturned. Only a quarter of Americans believe Roe versus Wade should be overturned. That's a really small minority, but we're having a conversation on that end of the spectrum. Should we go with Alabama that puts doctors in jail for 99 years, or should we go with Missouri that puts doctors in jail for 15 years?

Oh, Missouri's more moderate. No, they're both insane and not at all representative of the country. Or even their states, if you look at the state polling, it does not match the votes in their legislatures at all, even in states like Alabama and Missouri. And for the 70% of the country that is pro-choice, you need to understand the Republicans are not kidding. They are taking away your rights as we speak. They're taking away so much that even legendarily crazy Pat Robertson, who is a crazy religious

Theocrat says they've gone too far. You might want to fight back. Let's talk about Iran, because there is a shocking update to this story that I'm delighted by, if it's true. According to reporting from the Washington Post, Donald Trump has been clashing with members of his administration in regard to foreign policy geared toward Iran. Now, we've been hearing all week that there has been an escalation. toward war with Iran, and we've heard John Bolton and other administration officials claiming

that Iran is a danger to U.S. forces and also our coalition forces, even though they have not provided any evidence of that. According to the Washington Post, though, Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisors, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his longstanding pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars. And this is according to several U.S. officials who spoke to the Washington Post, of course, on condition of anonymity. I want to give you context here, as Anna tells you the rest of the story. So these are the different warring factions, if you will, within the White House. So first, the pro-war side leaked, and they went to the papers and said, oh, my God, the Iranians are gathering and they're a real threat.

And our intelligence officials say we should be really concerned. And we're thinking of sending 120,000 troops to Iran, and they're testing the water, see how that goes. And they're trying to also goad and push us into war and make it appear that it's the Trump White House official policy. So the rest of the Republicans fall in line. Now the people who are opposed to them in the White House and in the US government are pushing back through this leak, saying no, they don't represent Trump, and what they're saying is not necessarily true. And so this is a battle of leaks. That's your context, let's hear these guys out, and then we'll tell you who we think is really in charge.

Now, according to the Washington Post, the US officials who spoke to the reporters said that Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran's leaders. And I think that that is believable, because Trump has said over and over again that he wants to withdraw troops from the wars that we've already engaged in, but more importantly, He doesn't want to engage in more wars. Now, as we know, he seemed to be pushing for regime change war in Venezuela, and then he backed away from that a little bit.

So who knows what's really going on in his mind? But it would break a campaign promise if he engaged in war with Iran, and it doesn't appear to be something that's popular with his base. So let me give you more. Trump wants to talk to the Iranians. He wants a deal and is open to negotiation with the Iranian government. That's according to a senior administration official. Also, Trump allegedly grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as

warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking. And I want to quote an administration officials who said, they're getting way out ahead of themselves and Trump is annoyed. There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page. So we know who the warhawks are. I mean, John Bolton loves war. John Bolton is one of the individuals who successfully pushed for war in Iraq during the Bush administration. And remember, Trump is the one who used that war to his advantage when he was running for president.

It's actually mind-boggling that John Bolton is in his administration, and it would be dumb for him to let John Bolton suck this administration and this entire country into yet another regime-change war in Iran. Well, that's why Bolton isn't Trump's administration, because Trump is not very bright. If he knew what Bolton was stood for, it makes no sense to have him in the administration. So let's talk about two different things here. One is, who are these leakers? Who are the ones warning don't go to war with Iran? It appears to be the military. So let me give you some quotes from the Washington Post article that leads me to believe that.

This one's fairly obvious. It says, some defense officials have described Bolton's more aggressive approach as troubling. Okay? So that's people in the Pentagon going, this is dumb. But it's not really hidden at all. Here's another quote, multiple officials and uniformed officers from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by its chairman Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford Jr., have been among the leading voices articulating the costs of war with Iran.

So that's the head of the Joint Chiefs saying, you don't know what? what you're getting yourself into, okay? So which side is Trump on? Well, based on his publicly available quotes where he says things along the lines of he wants to talk to the Iranians and he wants a deal, well, that's not a direct quote from Trump, but he has said things along similar lines that these advisors are backing up. It does appear that he's more in the camp of being a little bit more cautious about this. But he's got to act that out, because Bolton is significantly smarter than him.

So Bolton goes, oh, no, no, I understand, Mr. President, you know, you want to show the Iranians your boss, but you still like to negotiate with them and you don't necessarily want to get entangled in a war. Let me just put 120,000 troops right on their board and see what happens. Right. So it would be super easy to trick Trump into a war. That's what I'm afraid of, because I think, and I'm giving him credit here, and maybe it's not deserved.

But I do think that internally, he doesn't want to engage in war. I mean, we've seen over and over again that he does find these wars costly. He does find them nonsensical. He wants to bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. So all of that, like, does make sense when you take this article into account, this reporting from the Washington Post into account. But at the same time, he's so impressionable. He's a bit of a wild card.

Who was the last person he spoke to? What did they tell him? Did they influence him? And it seems like he goes back and forth on any given day, depending on who he last spoke to. And so is John Bolton and his mustache persuasive enough to drag Donald Trump into war with Iran? And on any given day.

So I don't want to give Trump too much credit here, because I've always said he does not have a governing philosophy, nor is it about peace. At most he has slight inclinations, he has an inclination to do trade wars, right? He is an inclination against immigration, and he has a slight inclination against interventionism. But it could easily be overcome. He bombs the living crap out of the middle. He says we speak right now. He kills a lot more civilians than even Obama did, and Obama killed plenty of civilians.

So he's not a peace neck, so that's crazy talk. But it does appear that he is certainly less inclined than not just. Just Bolton, but also Secretary of State Pompeo, Pompeo goes over to Europe, and he says to the Europeans, oh, you don't understand, Iran is coming, and they're really dangerous, and they mounted some rockets on some small ships. The Europeans said, quote, Pompeo didn't show us any evidence. Right. And then secondly, they mounted some rockets on small ships.

We sent an aircraft carrier. Right, right. I mean, we keep being the aggressors and goading them and goading them, and that is the most significant danger here. Let me add to that, because this is important. Hugh Hewitt was on MSNBC today, speaking to Ali Valshi, and that interview was striking, and I want to give Velshi credit because he asked some tough questions and he fought back against what I believe are just outright lies by Hewitt.

There is now this propaganda campaign about how Iran allegedly blew up some oil tankers. There has been no evidence of that, okay? I'll believe it when I see the evidence that Iran was actually behind it. And so the fear mongering, very similar to what we saw in the lead up to the Iraq invasion is happening right now. And we cannot allow someone like Hugh Hewitt and people like him to keep fear mongering and spreading outright lies about how much of a threat. Iran poses.

Iran is not a threat. As you guys know, I mean, we covered the story earlier this week of a British intelligence official who said that Iran is not an imminent threat. And what did the Trump administration do? They came out and they tried to brush that under the rug and say, no, his facts are wrong. Iran is a threat. Based on what? Where's your evidence?

They don't provide any evidence. In fact, one more thing about that from the Washington Post, they said among the reasons Why the agitators for conflict say that Iran's a real threat is the literally rockets on a small ship. It's described as small ships. But also, secondly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and regular Iranian military units that some U.S. officials have interpreted as a potential threat to the U.S. military and diplomatic personnel.

That's not an evidence. That's Bolton saying, I am interpreting their revolution. Revolutionary Guard is hostile. That's not, I mean, by definition, that's not evidence. That's you saying I'd really, really like to go to war. And so that brings me finally to the people influencing him. I want to give credit to MSNBC here, which I don't often do. And I get frustrated by when they think the bombs are beautiful and the wars are great,

which they do on many occasions. But Chris Hayes also had a very good segment against the Iran war. And you're right about Ali Belchie's segments. So credit where credit is due, some people get upset at me for giving credit to Tucker Carlson on this. It doesn't mean I agree with him on anything else, but he is right. War with Iran would be disastrous in this case. And remember, the president doesn't listen to Alvalshi, but he does watch Tucker Carlson.

And so the thing that we have to watch out for is on any given day, John Bolton says to him, oh my God, they just ran into one of our ships, whether it's true or not true. Or they just fired at some of our troops, whether it's true or untrue. You gotta go to war right now. It's at least good to have some conservatives and defense officials saying, don't do that. It is good. One other factor into Trump's decision making could be Benjamin Netanyahu and the close relationship he has with him.

They're having a little bromance right now. And remember, the Israeli government does want the United States to fight its wars for it. Pretty much, especially when it comes to Iran. So these are all factors to take into consideration. But it is pretty depressing when you have a situation where you're rooting for the dumb guy who's leading the country and hoping that he ignores the warhawks in his administration. Yeah, and if Trump had any sense and was actually inclined towards peace, he'd fire Bolton in a second. No one who's in favor of peace would ever, ever hire John Bolton. We got to take a break, but when we come back, we're going to come back to domestic politics, including Trump ruling out his law.

latest plan for immigration reform. 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 Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Yugar, and I'll see you soon.