The Young Turks - Charlamagne Vs. Kamala

Episode Date: October 17, 2024

Sean Hannity gushes over Trump, saying he “absolutely schooled” a Bloomberg editor after a chaotic interview. Harris faces questions on Black voter concerns at a town hall with Charlamagne tha God. Harris and the Democrats target Jill Stein with a new ad." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and I will be joined by John Ida Rola in the second hour as per uge on Wednesdays. But in the first hour, which I will be doing solo today, we're going to talk a little bit about Donald Trump's hour-long

interview with Bloomberg and the Chicago Economics Club, which is not a dorky high school club. It's actually a club full of adults who are concerned about economic matters and it's bipartisan. But there were some interesting moments, both from that whole conversation, but also the two different ways in which that story or that interview was covered in the press. So we're going to get to that at the top of show. Later, we're also going to talk about Kamala interview over at the breakfast club. They actually had a town hall with her. And they did discuss the economy a little bit. So we're going to get into that. Later in the show, we have our producers monitoring Kamala Harris's interview with Brett Baer over at Fox News. Hopefully we'll

have some video to show you, some highlights to show you later in the show of that conversation. But I'm really, really looking forward to the show today because there's a lot of great content, a lot of interesting election-related updates. So stick around for all. of that. But as always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. It's an easy and free way to help support the show. You can also support the show by becoming a member t.com slash join or just hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right, without further ado, let's get to our first story. You thought Trump was showing signs of mental decline. That's a pretty serious

accusation. The reason Donald Trump is canceling these interviews is that when he starts to stumble he starts to pivot. He cannot repeat consistently his position on key issues like the economy, like crime, or like immigration that are key issues to voters. And that's what you're seeing in his decline. We are used to seeing him have a discursive speaking style, but it has gotten more rambling. It has gotten more incoherent. And it's gotten longer. No, I'm just telling you, basic, it's called the weave. I think calling it the weave is PR to try to explain why he's talking this way. Is Donald Trump really suffering from mental decline?

It appears that is the dominant narrative currently on the left side of the political aisle, while conservative media is actually telling a completely different story. And I really do think that this is a perfect example of how it is that Americans, depending on how they identify politically, really do live in two completely different realities. This also gives us an opportunity to look into Donald Trump's hour-long interview just yesterday with Bloomberg's news editor-in-chief. His name is John Micklewate before the Chicago Economics Club. Now, look, one can certainly make Trump appear as an ADHD-addled boomer who makes little sense, who seems to be experiencing some cognitive decline. But it really depends on which portions of the hour-long conversation, you pick. And so if you look at this compilation, he seems unhinged. He seems like he's suffering for mental decline. Take a look. Should Google be broken up?

I just haven't gotten over something the Justice Department did yesterday, where Virginia cleaned up its voter rolls and got rid of thousands and thousands of bad votes. But the question is about Google, President Trump. Yeah, look, Google's got a lot of power. They're very bad to me. If I can finish, I'll go longer if you want, if it helps. Because you've got to be able to finish. You move too quickly.

No, you've got to be able to finish a thought because it's very important. You know, this is big stuff we're talking about. You can't go that quickly. You've gone from the dollar. So let me just tell you. So I said, no, I'm just telling you basic, it's called the weave. It's all these different things happen. Gavin Newscom, he's the governor of California.

Newsom. He signed Newscum, Michael. No, he corrected. He corrected him, that's the first time I've been correct. There are CEOs out here. If they said those sort of things about a rival CEO, they'd be sacked. But they don't have to survive like me. They don't have to go through what I have to go through.

The Mercedes Benz will start building in the United States. And they have a little bit. But you know what they really are? Assembly, like in South Carolina. But they build everything in Germany, and then they assemble it here. They get away with murder because they say, oh, yes, we're building. because they don't build them. They take them out of a box and they assemble them. We could have our child do it. So I watch the entirety of the interview. And in my opinion, those are the

highlights of Trump's worst moments. I don't think that he comes across as someone suffering from cognitive decline. I think he comes across as someone who is self-absorbed, obsessed with himself and his grievances. And he had an opportunity there to talk about an important potential policy when he was asked whether he believes it's a good idea to break up Google. Instead of answering the question, obviously, he immediately pivoted to, you know, election-related BS about how he's being wronged and how the election is rigged against him. And quite frankly, I am so sick of him airing his grievances day in and day out. I get it. There are instances of people being unfair to him. There are also instances of people telling the truth about him and he

doesn't like it. And so he gets upset about that. And so what could have actually been a great interview, he managed to destroy by, again, indulging in his own personal grievances. But I don't really get a sense that he's suffering cognitive decline, certainly not in the way that Joe Biden has been suffering cognitive decline. And that's the reason why he was replaced with Kamala Harris. Now, you have the left side of the political aisle making this argument that, oh, Trump is old, and he is old. He's four years younger than Biden, but that's still pretty up there in age. But you have the left, like, making it seem as though, you know, his cognitive function is almost synonymous with Biden's. I don't think that's true. Then you look at the right side of the political aisle, and you get a completely different picture. And we all know that, you know, based on how algorithms work, based on the type of media that gets, recommended to people that's really based on what they've been watching, Americans really live into different bubbles, right? And so let's check in on the right. What did Sean Hannity have to say about Donald Trump's performance? Former president, Donald Trump absolutely schooled Bloomberg's

editor-in-chief today during a live appearance at the Economic Club of Chicago, despite things getting a little heated at times. Trump, frankly, masterfully navigated the situation, laid out What was a clear vision for American prosperity? To say that Donald Trump schooled the individual interviewing him, I think is a bit much. However, to be fair, there were some moments in this conversation where I feel that Trump did well, namely on questions about the U.S. economy and specifically on the issue of tariffs. In fact, he actually surprised me at how disciplined he was at these portions of the interview. And it seems it's because of the fact that this is an issue he actually cares about.

I mean, I don't think he really cares about possibly breaking up Google, which is why he immediately pivoted to something he does care about his grievances. In this case, when it comes to tariffs, he really, really loves tariffs. I don't think he's fibbing about that at all. He pursued the tariffs against China during his administration. And so he did weigh in on that in a detailed way, even with pushback from the Bloomberg news editor-in-chief. So let's take a look at that portion. Because I'm a believer in tariffs. I'm not sure that you are. I don't think you are, but I congratulate you in your career.

But to me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff. And it's my favorite word. It needs a public relations firm. The higher the tariff, the more likely it is to have them come into the country. The higher the tariff, the more you're going to put on the value of that piece, goods, the higher people are getting to pay in shops. Ready? The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory in the United States so it doesn't have to pay the tariff. That will take many, many, no.

Oh, it will go quickly. So there's two ways of looking at a tariff. You can do it as a money-making instrument or you can do it as something to get the companies. Now, if you want the companies to come in, the tariff has to be a lot higher. than 10% because 10% is not enough. They're not going to do it for 10. But you make a 50% tariff they're going to come in.

So if you notice his demeanor and the way he's answering the questions in these portions of the interview make clear that, you know, he's just behaving differently, right? Like he cares about this issue. He's able to message about where he stands on this issue. And, you know, we have talked about tariffs on this show before. I'm a little more open toward tariffs, to be quite frank. Jank is not as open as I am on tariffs. I think that certain tariffs could actually be beneficial to the U.S. economy, but it's also

very true that in the short term tariffs could lead to inflation because the costs will be transferred over to the consumers. Now, is Trump's theory on tariffs true? Well, look, the U.S. has a population of 333 million people, and that's a lot of consumers that companies are going to want to sell products to. If tariffs are too high, meaning if companies are exploiting cheap labor abroad, and then as they are importing the products here in the United States, they're forced to pay these super high tariffs, that could potentially incentivize plants and factories to just produce the products here in the United States, especially if

the U.S. consumers are not willing to carry the cost of the increased tax. tariffs, right? And so even Brookings, which is actually a liberal organization, confessed that Donald Trump's tariffs in his term, the ones that he actually implemented, spurred both job creation in the United States, and it also increased federal government revenue. So let's take a look at this chart, and I'll explain what we're looking at. So if you look at the final year represented in the chart, that's 2019. Brookings states that Trump increased tariffs on solar panels, washing machines, steel, and aluminum,

as well as on a broad range of products from China. Overall, in 2019, the U.S. government brought in 79 billion. dollars in tariffs, which is twice the value from two years earlier. So if you listen to his answer, he talks about how tariffs can be thought of as generating revenue. So that's what happened here when it came to Trump's tariffs in his first term. But there is a caveat, right? Because keep in mind that the federal government collects the revenue from the higher tariffs, and then the costs associated with tariffs, like let's say the company, you know, making products or manufacturing products abroad, brings those products here in the United States,

pays high tariffs as a result of that, those companies are going to transfer those costs usually to the consumers. But if the consumers are refusing to pay for the higher prices, companies are then going to look for ways to cut their costs so they can transfer lower prices to consumers and sell the products. And so Trump's theory is that the higher tariffs will eventually persuade these companies to manufacture in the United States, and that that would lead to more manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. Now, when it comes to spurring job creation, Brookings also had to concede that Trump was correct in implementing tariffs on imported steel, because that did increase manufacturing jobs in the U.S. That specific tariff. They write that tariffs on steel

products appear to have helped create several thousand jobs in the steel industry. Similarly, tariffs on washing machines are associated with approximately 1,800 new jobs at Whirlpool, Samsung, and LG factories in the United States. In these specific industries, then tariffs have probably been good for workers. Now, the problem with Trump is his form of communication, because he really is all over the place. He goes off on tangents as he's in the middle of talking about something or trying to make a concise statement about something related to the economy. And honestly, when it came to the portion of the interview where he's talking about steel,

that's kind of what happened. Let's take a look. I had a lot to do with steel. We were going to lose all our steel companies because China, as you remember, was dumping steel at levels that nobody's ever seen before. And I put a 50% tax on that and a tariff on that. all dumped steel. And it was also bad steel, what they called dirty steel.

It wasn't good steel, which is a bad thing for structural components of buildings and planes and things like that. They were dumping crap into our country. And I put a 50% tariff. I started at 25, I raised it to 50, because the 25 didn't quite do it. I raised it to 50, and that did it.

They stopped dumping steel. And I saved our steel by having that. We saved it. We saved our steel. Now, what was left, because we've lost so much. But there are certain companies you have to have. There are certain things you have to have. Steel, you have to have.

If you go to war, you know, there's a possibility you go to war. I kept us out of war. I was the only president in 82 years that kept you out of a war, except I defeated ISIS, but I inherited that one. There's no wars. And by the way, by the way, and I think it's very important. You can go, you know, I call it the weave. You can call it. You have the weave.

as long as you end up in the right location at the end. No, no, stop weaving. Stop weaving. You were talking about steel, and he was about to make a point about how it's important for the United States to manufacture steel products here on our soil because of national security concerns. That was the argument he was about to make. But before he even made that argument, his mind immediately wandered off to, I didn't start any new wars. I didn't start any new wars, even though I ripped up the Iran nuclear deal. I moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, which could have, at that moment, led to a war between Israelis and Palestinians. Obviously, the Iran nuclear deal being destroyed by Trump led to Iran being able to continue with a nuclear program.

Like, now I'm going off on a tangent. But my point is, he's not a good communicator because his mind wanders. And it's almost like this stream of consciousness that's unhindered by wanting to put out like a concise, clear message. And so I think that's what he's getting hit by in terms of his detractors. I don't think it's a sign of cognitive decline. Obviously, you know, he's able to reference things that he did accomplish during his term in office. He sometimes gets very specific and detail oriented with it during the same interview. So I don't think it's cognitive decline. I just think he's a poor communicator. But in regard to Trump's tariffs,

Brookings also argues that many workers employed in factories used imported goods in their production processes. And when these imports increase in cost due to tariffs, it harms their production often leading to job losses. That actually is a legitimate concern of high tariffs. But But we also need to be fair because jobs actually rose under Trump prior to the coronavirus pandemic leading to shutdowns and job losses, right? So the rise prior to the coronavirus pandemic in terms of manufacturing jobs was about 450,000 manufacturing jobs. So the way he implemented the tariffs in his term wasn't as disastrous as everyone predicted they would be. He's now throwing out some pretty crazy numbers in regard to the types of tariffs that

he would add on that do sound a bit much. But I just wanted to point out that portion of the conversation because I think it was a good example of him showing that he's not necessarily suffering cognitive decline. It's just that he's a poor communicator. Now, what did the Biden administration do once Biden was elected, inaugurated, and able to lead the country? Do you do away with the tariffs? No. In fact, by the end of 2022, the Biden administration was blocking exports of advanced manufacturing equipment and semiconductors to Beijing while revving up U.S. manufacturing, which, by the way, I gave Biden a lot of credit for. I thought that was a good move. You know, when it comes to the Chips Act, developing and manufacturing the chips here in the

United States is important and a good thing to do. Foreign policy continues to write that in many ways that was a continuation of the Trump policy of seeking to deny advanced chips to Chinese companies blocking Huawei technologies from cornering the global market for 5G telecommunications and wooing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, a global leader in the technology industry to build semiconductor factories in the United States. And then finally, Biden won congressional approval to spend as much as $600 billion in the coming years to subsidize companies that build factories domestically to make semiconductors electric vehicles, electric batteries, and other green technologies. I give you this information because Biden saw that Trump

did something that was actually working, and he expanded on it. And Biden deserves credit for that. He absolutely does. Finally, Trump bragged about how he negotiated with Boeing to significantly lower the price of remodeling two planes that we're supposed to serve as the new Air Force One. So let's take a look at that portion of the interview. When I first sat down, a general came into my office and he said, sir, it's nice to meet you. Would you please sign this? I said, what is it? It's a contract for a new Air Force One, which is actually two planes, not one, two Boeing 747. And I said, how much is it? $5.7 billion. It's a hell of an expensive plane. But there's reasons for that. He said, nope, I'm not signing it. I met with the head of Boeing. Wait, Dennis.

I said, Dennis, got to have a three. Five point seven is too much. Five point seven billion. He said, the most I'll take off is four hundred million dollars. I said, well, that's not bad for one conversation. So I got it down. I said, nope, I'm not accepting. Then he took off two more. Then he took off. Anyway, two months went by, three months went by. I thought we blew the deal and it was okay with me. I didn't care. Calls back. He said, sir, $3,99,99,99, 99, 99, and 99 cents. One penny above below $4 billion. So I said, you get yourself a deal.

And when I heard that portion of the interview, I'm going to just be honest about my own biases. I didn't believe him. I'm like, he loves to brag about being a great deal maker. There's no way this happened. I'm not buying it at all. So I did fact check it and was pretty shocked to find Boeing's deal for Air Force One, which was cut by then CEO. He remembered the guy's name, Dennis Mullenberg, requires the company, not the federal government, to eat the cost of any overruns on the contract. Boeing reported a net loss of $1.2 billion for the first quarter of 2022 when a charge of $660 million associated with delays and higher costs for Air Force.

for the Air Force One program. So not only did Trump cut the cost to the U.S. taxpayer for remodeling these planes, he also cut a deal to ensure that if there are any delays, Boeing pays for those delays rather than the U.S. taxpayer or the U.S. government. So he deserves credit there. But I give you that example because what he just relayed to the public is not, in my opinion, an example of someone suffering from cognitive decline. So I just think media that's true, look, political figures obviously are going to try to find

some narrative. They're going to orchestrate it in order to hurt him politically. But I think it's far more effective to hit Trump on things that are real, okay? Donald Trump talking about, you know, retaliation against his political opponents. what Donald Trump has done in regard to overturning Roe v. Wade and the real world impacts that has had on real human beings across this country. Okay, the fact that he still today refuses to drop the fact that he did lose the 2020 presidential election and he did try to overturn the election, not simply with a capital riot, but with a fake elector's plot. He is a target-rich

environment. And what the media is doing when they put out these false narratives is they end up losing trust among the public. Gallup just put out their latest poll on media trust in America. And it is literally at an all time low. The last time it hit a record was in 2016 when about 36% of Americans said that they trust the media. Now it's down to 32%. And that's a problem. Because if you have a voter base that doesn't trust the press, well, then that creates openings for nefarious actors to put out all sorts of disinformation, misinformation, misinformation. You can't have a well-functioning democracy if, A, the media isn't doing its job in accurately informing the public about the candidates and what they're offering and what their downfalls are. And it's also going to lead to, you know, conspiracy theories and all sorts of nefarious so-called news sources being more trusted by the public than sources that would actually do a better job because they have resources and the ability to do a better job in covering the news. And the other thing that drives me crazy is, and by the way, that's not just a comment on left wing media.

That's a comment on media overall. The right wing provides cover for his foible. The left wing sometimes makes things up when they don't really need to. There's a lot of real-world things that they can attack him on. And my biggest issue is since you have these two sides and you have this media bubble situation happening, you have an electorate that's totally split because everyone lives in a completely different reality. Everyone's getting different information that's not necessarily accurate at all. Now, I should also note, while Trump saved the federal government a little bit of money

when it came to remodeling Air Force One, let's not forget that he increased this country's debt by 33%. Okay? He increased the debt to the tune of $8.4 trillion. He borrowed $8.4 trillion during his administration. So trillion, trillion dollars. That's a lot of money. So for the deficit Hawks, for those who are concerned about debt, he was a really great when it came to lowering debt or doing anything about the deficit here in the U.S. But again, the fact that Trump remembered the minute details of a deal that he made with Boeing over Air Force One, to me provides an example that he's not suffering from the same cognitive decline that Biden was. But he is suffering from all sorts of declines when it comes to

equality of life for Americans as a result of his policies, some of his policies. And I think that is where Democrats should be focusing. They're going to lose trust among the electorate if they make things up. And so again, the cognitive decline thing, I think is a pretty weak argument. But I do think that if you want to focus on some of the terrible things he's done, there's a lot to choose from. So just be honest about it and report accurately about what he did right and what he did wrong. It's that simple. All right, we've got to take a break. We'll be right back. I'm a very stable genius.

Thank you to everyone sending in comments in our member section and our viewers sending in super chats, including Christopher, who says 100% Anna, Trump sounds like my grandma when talking about the Mexicans. It's just narcissism, not dementia. Democrats and the media aren't honest and won't swing voters because of it. Yeah, I just think that it's a short-sighted tactic to be dishonest in order to defeat Trump. I think you can be a million percent honest and defeat Trump, while also for the Democratic Party offering policies that would actually fundamentally improve people's lives. Marlon Brimmer says Trump cut taxes and deregulated these corporations, but hey, he made a deal

with Boeing that saved money. Yeah, exactly. I mean, that goes back to the point that I was making about borrowing over $8 trillion during his administration, increasing the federal debt to the tune of 33%. I mean, that is not a joke. And so I wanted to point that out too. Constantine says just got a call from Jank like half an hour ago. It's super cool that he makes time for calling contributors. It made my evening. That's awesome. Jank is just a deeply decent person.

And it's the reason why I work for him. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Drew Wilson says, how does Kamala reconcile saying Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy while also saying she wants Republicans in her administration the right kind of Republicans to be fair to her, right? The neocons. They're the good ones. But I mean, you know how unhappy I am about that.

I don't think the Democratic Party should align themselves with Bush-era neocons. I despise the Cheney's. Look, Liz Cheney did the right thing toward the end of her career. She values democracy. That's great. That should be the bare minimum. And that doesn't mean I want to now have the Cheney's be part of the Democratic Party or to be part of a big tent that includes neocons who,

you know, in the case of Dick Cheney literally committed serious war crimes and illegally spied on Americans as well. All right, let's move on to, by way, does that sound like something a Republican would say? Like, I just, for anyone who is tempted to buy into the narrative that I'm like a far right winger now, come on. All right, let's get to our next story. Let's talk about Kamala Harris's interview on The Breakfast Club. Have you seen the clip, Madam Vice President, from the Greo. It's a clip that's kind of out of context, and it says that you won't do anything

specifically for black people. Have you seen that? I've not seen that. It's a clip that has you saying that you're not going to do anything specifically for black people. Well, that's just not true. President Obama was out there last week

waving his finger at black men. When are Liz Cheney and Hillary Clinton going to wave their finger at white women? When are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden going wave their finger at white men? Because 52% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, 55% voted for Trump in 2020. They all voted against their own interests.

When did the finger waving going to start at them? How about we don't finger wagg toward anyone, whether it's black men, white women. I don't think scolding people is conducive to winning elections. That's just me. But Kamala Harris returned to the Breakfast Club for a town hall style conversation hosted by Charlemagne the God. and the topic of black male voters increasingly supporting Donald Trump obviously came up. So let's watch how she responded to questions about that.

My plan includes making sure that for first time home buyers, they have a $25,000 down payment assistance to just get their foot in the door because we know folks will work hard, they'll save and pay that monthly mortgage. Second point is to bring down the cost of housing generally because one of the issues is we have a housing supply shortage and so that's about working with the private sector. In terms of our small businesses, which are part of the backbone of the economy of the black community

and part of the backbone of America's economy writ large. One of the big issues facing black entrepreneurs and black small businesses is access to capital. Because unlike my opponent who got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then file bankruptcy six times. Don't forget that. Calls himself a businessman. Not everybody has access to the capital,

but we know in the community we do not lack for ambition, aspirations, dreams, hard work ethic. We have brought down black unemployment. I said this earlier to one of the lowest levels in history. But I'm very clear. The community is not going to stand up and applaud just because everybody has a job. That should be a baseline.

line. My agenda is about tapping into the ambitions and the aspirations, knowing that folks want to have an opportunity. If they want, they should have a meaningful opportunity to build wealth, including intergenerational wealth. So clearly you can notice that Kamala Harris is continuing with the more moderate pro-small business narrative in the way that she's presenting her policy arguments. And the one thing I really do want to give her and Biden credit for is it is actually true that the black unemployment rate hit a record low under their administration. It's also true that prior to the Biden administration, Trump had made some gains in that area as well. He also had hit a record for lowering the unemployment rate among black voters.

But the Biden-Harris team surpassed him. So the unemployment rate hit an all-time low, a record low for the black or African-American unemployment rate, 4.8 percent that was set under Biden in April of 2023. That beat the Trump-era low that was a record at the time, which was 5.3 percent in August of 2019 and September of 2019. Obviously, after that, the coronavirus pandemic increased unemployment. for everybody. So that's why the numbers date back to, you know, late 2019 before the pandemic really took off. So Kamala was right to brag about those gains, and she should definitely

do more of that on the campaign trail, really talk about the fundamental ways the Biden administration managed to materially improve people's lives, the jobs that were created under the Biden administration. I think that is a winning message. So, you know, we've been I'm pretty critical of some of her more recent messaging, but I think she did well in that portion of the interview. Now, let's take a look at other things that she's proposing to ensure that she increases their support among blackmail voters, because it is true that Trump has managed to, you know, take some portion of those voters away from Democrats. So Philip Lewis had posted this on X earlier this week, and I thought it was interesting. He writes, Kamala Harris

unveiled new policy proposals aimed at black men, which includes providing a million loans to black entrepreneurs, creating more black male mentor programs, a health initiative for diseases like prostate cancer. My favorite was the last bullet point, which is protecting crypto assets. Got to look out for the donors. Got to look out for the donors. But the rest, you know, forgivable loans. that's fine. She was actually asked about that during an interview recently and someone asked about fraud. Like, well, what are you going to do to protect, you know, taxpayers from this program, you know, being used fraudulently. And that was an interesting exchange. It doesn't seem like she's really thought about that much yet. But that's kind of the problem with, in my opinion,

her campaign. It's kind of like, since it all kind of came together last minute, given the fact that Biden refused to drop out until it was very late in the game, you know, she's kind of coming up with policy proposals on the fly. And that does put her out a disadvantage compared to Trump, who's been thinking about these economic policies, you know, for years now, things like tariffs and things like that. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Buy your tickets now. I get a free chili dog. Chilly dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st.

which I thought was a really, really bad idea, essentially saying that if you're a black man who's not going to vote for Kamala Harris, well, it's probably sexism that's informing your decision to avoid doing so. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially the message. That's what he implied. Now, I think that that's unfair to people. And what I'm about to show you is important to listen to because it's better to listen to what voters are saying. Like, what is their rationale? Why are they opting to vote for Donald Trump instead of Kamala Harris? Listen to what they have to say.

Don't straw man. Don't put words in their mouths. And I'm mostly saying this for the Democratic Party. Because if you want to win these voters back, then you have to listen to what they're saying. You have to genuinely be curious about what their concerns are. And so here is a black conservative. He hosts the black conservative perspective on YouTube. His name is George Foreman.

And he recently covered this interview. And I thought what he had to say was pretty interesting. So take a look. I encourage people to get out of this very low-level thinking of what is ex-politician going to do for me based off my race. It's just not a productive conversation. You want to know the black agenda that Trump has. you'll know the black agenda for Trump, okay, since black people want to talk about what are you going to do for me. No tax on tips, which you have a lot of black people working these service jobs, jobs that rely on tip wages.

Okay, like, for example, they always want to use a stereotypical black barbers shop, right? You know, barbers, hey, tips go a long way for barbers, okay? I'm not sure why every barber in America isn't telling all of their customers, hey, vote for Trump, okay? Because it's going to help me out a lot. paying less taxes, no tax on overtime, you have a lot of black people working jobs, were you eligible for overtime, closing the border, mass deportations. Yeah, I think that's a lot, right? That's a whole lot of money being put into black people's pockets, okay, from the Trump agenda,

right? So clearly, Trump's messaging on immigration is having an impact. And I do think that Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, of course, sending migrants to liberal cities like Chicago has actually had an impact along with the messaging from Trump. I don't agree with mass deportations. I want to be clear about that. But remember what I was saying a few weeks ago, guys, about the specific things that Trump is saying on the campaign trail and then just repeating it over and over and over again? You might not agree with those policies. You might think, oh, this isn't really fleshed out and I'm not buying it. You

might not believe he'd actually implement these policies. But put the politics or separate the politics from the governance or the actual acts that, you know, a politician would do once they get elected. The like political messaging is clearly effective to some extent when Trump says no tax on tips. There's a lot of service workers out there who are going to find that message appealing. And so Democrats should think about that. Like, what can we do to simplify our economic message? How can we be repetitive with that economic message until it like really sinks in and people understand what we represent and what we're trying to do to benefit their lives? I do see Trump doing that to some extent. And I think with Kamala Harris, you know, she's,

she's starting to kind of get her stride when it comes to economic messaging, but she's not quite there yet. And then, you know, what Foreman said there about a universal program or universal policies as opposed to race-based policies, I tend to agree with, mostly because broad-based policies, universal policies tend to be more popular. That's why it's been impossible for Republicans to do away with Social Security and Medicare. Those are major social safety net programs that have universal appeal because they apply to everyone. So just something to keep in mind.

Okay, and then finally, let's go to one more video of Kamala Harris doing something that I think she needs to stop doing. President Obama was out there last week waving his finger at black men. When are Liz Cheney and Hillary Clinton going to wave their finger at white women?

When are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden going wave their finger at white men? because 52% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, 55% voted for Trump in 2020. They all voted against their own interests. When did the finger waving going to start at them? Well, thank you for highlighting that. I do have the support of over 200 Republicans

who worked for various administrations, including everyone going back to Ronald Reagan, to the Bushes, to John McCain and Mitt Romney, and including Liz Cheney, and I'm very proud to have her support. Please stop doing this. Please, I'm begging you, Kamala. Kamala, whatever you want to be called.

Please stop, stop doing this. Stop doing this. Please, please, please. Guys, I'm not saying this because I'm a secret Republican. I'm saying this because I effing despise neocons, okay? And I'm not the only one. It's not a popular message. When you are the Democrat who's going around talking about how much Republicans love you,

well, then why wouldn't Republican voters just vote for the Republican? Just stop doing that. Okay, I get that you personally feel honored that you have been endorsed by Dick Cheney, which blows my mind. Keep that to yourself. Keep it to yourself. And by the way, it's like a weird pivot considering what Charlemagne asked her. Like, he asked her something entirely different, but, you know, she got distracted by her love

affair with the Cheney's, I guess. It's just, just stop doing it. It's not good. No one likes them, okay? Republican voters don't like them. So if Kamala Harris is trying to bring moderate Republican voters to the Democratic side, I don't think attaching herself to the Cheney's is going to do it. And finally, I can't end this by saying that one of my biggest pet peeves in any election

cycle at this point is the sense of entitlement, okay? neither candidate is entitled to a damn thing. They need to make their case to the electorate. And that includes Donald Trump, who said this recently. People that have worked there and worked there well for years are now being told that they no longer have a job because they have illegal immigrants coming in and taking their job. And I'll tell you what, any African American or Hispanic,

and you know how well I'm doing there, that votes for Kamala, you've got to have your head examined. No, they don't have to have their head examined. People get to participate in our democratic process. I value democracy. And in a democracy, the candidates are supposed to persuade the voters to support them. And if they fail in persuading them, the idea of shaming them or scolding them really makes me sick. because again, no one is entitled to a vote.

No one is entitled to support from a specific demographic. You have to make your case. And I think Americans are getting pretty sick of like the scolding and the shaming that goes on, pressuring people to vote a certain way. I think it worked to some extent in the past. I don't think it's working anymore. And it's about time politicians wake up to that fact. All right.

We got to take a break when we come back. More news, including, hmm. We're going to talk a little bit about basically campaign ads that are now coming out to attack Jill Stein. Democrats are panicking because the margins are real slim in some of these swing states. So I'm going to give you that story and more when we return. Welcome back, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. And before we get to the second hour of the show, I wanted to share this. Stein, Green Party candidate for president.

So why are Trump's close allies helping her? Stein was key to Trump's 2016 wins in battleground states. She's not sorry she helped Trump win. That's why I vote for Stein. it's really a vote for Trump. Jill Stein, I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from them.

I'm Kamala Harris, and I approve this message. Well, what you just saw is kind of rare, actually. The Democratic Party, on behalf of Kamala Harris, of course, they're putting out attack ads against a third-party candidate, Jill Stein, who tends to run as the third-party candidate in presidential election. And they're going after her pretty viciously because this race between Trump and Kamala Harris is very, very close. And when you look at the swing states, I mean, they're neck and neck. States like Michigan and Pennsylvania are incredibly important in order for Kamala Harris to win the electoral college.

And so I think that this is a sign of panic. And so they're going off and attacking Jill Stein to see if they can maybe hurt her electorally so she doesn't take too many votes in some of these swing states. So last week, the DNC released their new ad titled Crucial in their latest effort to basically target voters in swing states where Jill Stein is on the ballot. So let's take a look at this map. So while Stein is on the ballot in a majority of the states, Democrats are increasingly worried about Pennsylvania. Michigan and Wisconsin especially. Okay? So one of the Democrats' biggest fears is that Jill Stein could be going for like a repeat of

what happened in 2016, but that also kind of gives you the impression that Jill Stein was the spoiler for Hillary Clinton in the race against Donald Trump. Is that true? Did Jill Stein make all of the difference? We're going to dig into that in just a minute. But the fear is so great, the DNC and Kamala Harris have, you know, gained even more backup in this fight. The Gen Z advocacy group Voters of Tomorrow, which backs Harris, obviously, is launching their own attack ads against Jill Stein. They're branding the third party candidate as a scammer.

Let's take a look. Have you ever heard of this infamous scammer? She's literally worse than Elizabeth Holmes, the Firefest guys. and Anna Delvey combined. Her name is Jill Stein, and despite the sweet old lady look, she's been scamming the entire country for over eight years. It's kind of a lot to go through, but let's break it down. This is part one of the Jill Stein scam.

So if you didn't know, back in 2016, she ran as a spoiler presidential candidate, just like she's doing right now. So what happened? Well, in Michigan, Stein won 51,000 votes, which isn't a lot, but Trump won by under 11,000. In Wisconsin, Trump's margin was 23,000 votes, while Stein won 31,000.

And in Pennsylvania, she got 50,000 votes, and you guessed it, Trump won by 44,000. This means it was Jill Stein who put Donald Trump in the White House, and she doesn't care. Despite claiming to be a climate champion, Jill Stein can't come up with any shit to give about putting a man whose administration rolled back over 100 EPA regulations

and pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement in the White House. When she was asked if she had any regrets about her role in helping Trump win, she said no, and she wants to do it again. We can't let that happen. Okay, come back for part two to learn about how she's scamming the country to help Trump win this year. Okay. So whether we're talking about 2016 or this current presidential race, a third party candidate should not be able to make the difference. Do you get what I'm saying, guys?

If Trump is so disastrous, it should be a cakewalk for Democrats. That's the point that I'm trying to make here. The election should not be this close to begin with. And considering the fact that it is this close, I find it incredibly problematic that the Democrats are lashing out at Jill Stein or third party candidates, instead of maybe taking a moment at reflecting, doing a little bit of self-reflection, and trying to figure out, okay, what can we do to increase our margins in states like Pennsylvania, like Michigan where they're having problems. Why are Democrats having problems in Michigan? Gee,

I wonder why. I mean, you have a huge Arab and Muslim community in Michigan. And they have been screaming from the rooftops in regard to what they want from the Democrats. But then you've got that APAC money. You've got, you know, the pro-Israel lobby. And Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to take the legal bribes. And since they're taking the legal bribes, they have to carry out the best wishes of the moneyed interests, right? And so since they're unable to pivot away from the failed policies that we've seen from the Biden administration in regard to the Middle East, they're instead pivoting toward Jill Stein and lashing out against third party candidates. I just think that it's not

a smart tactic. I think it would be far better if they real. hey, there are some moneyed interests that don't actually benefit us electorally because our base wants something entirely different from what the moneyed interests want. That's my take on it. But let's actually do a little digging because I'm curious. Was Jill Stein really the spoiler in 2016? Was she the one who made all the difference and thus handed Donald Trump a win? Well, let's take a look. So, um, In Michigan, Wisconsin, this is an article from Vox in 2016. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, one could plausibly blame third parties for the outcome. In Michigan, Clinton lost by less than a percentage point, a deficit she could have recovered from with half of Stein's votes. Again, in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Clinton lost by one point, Jill Stein's votes would have covered her loss. Now, had Clinton won all three states, obviously she would have won the election, while people like the Democrats were quick to blame Jill Stein and her votes for the loss, or the people who voted for her for Hillary Clinton's loss, exit polling did show a different story. So under that scenario, Clinton would have won Michigan, still lost Florida and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, would have been a 48 to 48 percent toss up. Clinton would have needed to win both. of those states to reach 270 electoral college votes. So even in the artificial world of that

exit poll that Erase Stein and libertarian candidate at the time, Gary Johnson, Clinton seemed likely to lose. In the 2024 race, according to an NBC news poll released on Sunday, 1% of registered voters in the 38 states where Jill Stein is on the ballot said that they would vote for her. Harrison Trump were tied at 48% in the head-to-head results of the poll. But Trump, but Trump a one-point edge, hold on one second, but Trump had a one point edge when third-party candidates were included. Both results are within the margin of error. So, you know, there are some instances where the third-party candidates, certainly someone like RFK, would hurt Trump rather than help Trump.

So it really depends on the third party candidate. But guys, the point I'm trying to make here is it shouldn't be this close. The Democratic Party, which used to be the party of FDR, which used to have an easy time winning elections, which the old Democratic Party would have crushed Donald Trump. But I do think it's a problem that they have allowed him to take on economic messaging that is to the left of the Democratic Party. or to the left of what the Democratic Party traditionally represented. You guys, tariffs were not a right-wing thing historically in this country.

Tariffs used to be supported by the Democrats. And now you have Trump going around talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States by implementing more tariffs against countries like China. So I don't want Kamala Harris to get into a conversation about tariffs. I don't think that's the best path for her. But I do think that if Democrats are noticing they're having a harder and harder time winning elections against someone like Donald Trump, someone who, yes, does have a criminal record. Yes, has said horrific things about pretty much every group that you can imagine in this country. It should be a cakewalk. The fact that it isn't a cakewalk, I believe, is an indictment not on Jill Stein, but an indictment of the Democratic Party and how far they have fallen. And if that upset, that's you, that's okay, you can be upset. But it is the reality of the situation. Trump should be easy to beat. The fact that he's not really worries me. Now, Jill Stein's campaign

spokesperson told Newsmax in an email, the notion that Democrats and Republicans own everyone's votes and that Greens supposedly take votes from the political establishment is preposterous, I don't think that's preposterous. I mean, obviously the third party candidate is going to take votes from the establishment or the established parties. But nonetheless, I think blaming Jill Stein for the Democrats' loss, if that is in fact what ends up happening, is weak and pathetic and really does lack any and all self-reflection. She continues, no candidate owns your vote. They have to earn your vote. And to be fair to Kamala Harris, she keeps saying over and over again that she intends to earn people's votes.

Biggest piece of advice I can give to her, maybe listen less to the Biden team that you have unfortunately brought on and listen more to whoever was advising you in the beginning of your campaign where your popularity did shoot up. Like people loved what you had to say. People were excited. Tim Walls was a great choice. Maybe go back to a little bit more of that. I think that would actually suit her.

in this election. Anyway, it's got to take a break. When we come back, John Ida Roll will join me for the second hour. Don't miss it.