The Young Turks - Democrat Echo Chambers

Episode Date: December 10, 2024

Police locate the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and his bio is shocking. Charlamagne Tha God joins TYT to discuss his new book and explain where he thinks Democrats went wrong in the 2024 election. Syrian rebels have toppled Bashar al-Assad, forcing him to flee to Russia in a dramatic Middle East shakeup." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) 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. USA. USA. Baga! All right. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jake U Granite Kasparian, all back in the studio here, Parley Market Studios in L.A.

Thoughts and prayers. To everyone. So anyways, a huge show ahead. Speaking of thoughts and prayers, they caught the United Healthcare CEO assassin. I'm going to tell you all about that in a minute. They apparently also caught Assad. What in the world happened there? Oh my God, that story is so interesting.

Trump does his first major interview with mainstream media after the election. We've got the details of that. Every one of these stories is so interesting and complicated because there used to be a black and white world. And now we no longer live in a black and white world in every way imaginable. And it's, well, look, I don't know if it's a blessing or a curse to live in interesting times, but that is where we are. So, Casper, let's get started. Well, let's start off with the updates on the United Healthcare CEO assassin. This is a strong person of interest.

He matches the description of the identification we've been looking for. He's also in possession of several items that we believe will connect him to this incident. Police have now apprehended a man by the name of Luigi Mangione in connection with the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He is the person of interest they were looking for, and they have noted that there are several elements of evidence indicating that he is, in fact, the individual who opened fire and assassinated the CEO in the early morning hours last Wednesday. Now, here's why police think that Mangione might be the killer here. According or among the lines in the two-page document found on strong person of interest, Luigi Mangione, are now the following two quotes. quote, these parasites had it coming, end quote, and I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done, a police official who had seen the document told CNN.

In the note, Mangione says, he acted alone and that he was self-funded. And there's a reason to believe he was self-funded. You look into his biography and he was not someone living in poverty by any means. We'll get to that in just a minute. Now, he also had a gun along with a suppressor similar to the one used in the assassination, as well as multiple fake IDs. The suspect, if you guys can recall, had checked into a hostel in New York City using a fake ID. Police believe that the gun was a so-called ghost gun, meaning that it could have been 3D printed.

As for the fake IDs in Altoona, Luigi Mangione was found with a fake New Jersey driver's license. bearing the name Mark Rosario and an address in Maplewood, an affluent suburb of Newark, a senior law enforcement official said. The official said the same name and address were used by the man believed to be the shooter when he checked into a hostel in Manhattan in November. Now Mangione was apparently eating at a McDonald's in Pennsylvania when an employee of said restaurant recognized him and called the police. Now, soon after Thompson was assassinated, the New York City Police Department released his photo, which most of you have likely already seen in the hopes that citizens would help identify the shooter. This was actually one of the mistakes he made because he briefly took his mask down. Some say to flirt with the person at the front desk of this hostel. Though it's hard to credit the break in the case to any one moment or piece of evidence, Joseph Kenny, the New York Police Department,

chief of detectives said that if he had to, it would be the release of that photograph to the media. So that basically that led to his capture. Yeah. So super interesting case here. First of all, I'm going to assume it's him because his manifesto was with him. So pretty clear. So second of all, let's talk about some of the negatives here, which are significant. First of all, he believes in violence already hate it can't stand it definitely the wrong direction okay in my opinion number two he used the word parasites to describe his enemies giant red flag so having been called a parasite a couple of times recently in debates it's concerning so guys stop using dehumanizing language against anyone else on whichever side you think is the opposite

of you right so whether it's Israel Palestine whether it's right wing left wing et cetera We've got to stop calling each other insects, bugs, parasites, et cetera, et cetera. This is terrible. So, so him shooting the CEO obviously horrific and I condemn it, whatever is beyond 100%. Okay. So now when you start looking into some of the things that he said, it gets interesting. So I think, so yeah, he agreed with Tucker Carlson and. He was a fan of Elon Musk.

He agreed with Tucker Carlson. immediately jump in the direction of like, let's make this a partisan issue. It's not a partisan issue. Americans across the political spectrum are unhappy with how health insurance and health care is carried out in this country. So I want to be clear about that. And anyone who's immediately distracting from what the heart of this issue is to make it a partisan argument is ridiculous, okay?

But that's not to say that I am justifying what this man did. Violence is not the answer here and is not going to reform our health care system, which we do desperately need. But that's the point I was going to, which is that it's not that we shouldn't discuss his partisanship. It's that his partisanship is unclear, and that is what's so interesting about this moment, that he could think, hey, I follow Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, but think that our privatized health care system is so outrageous and atrocious that he murdered the CEO of one of the privatized health insurance companies. That is amazing and fascinating.

And so you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to agree with whoever he follows or his policy of choice, whatever that might be, to find that moment in politics interesting. So and what has become the reaction, which we're going to talk more about later in the show as well, is also interesting because tons of right wing leaders came out and said, what a despicable guy. And he makes no good point about our system, et cetera. and right wing followers of theirs have rebelled and said, no. I mean, we don't agree with what he did, but he makes a terrific point about this health care system. So there is an uprising here kind of against any kind of established system, whether it is, you know, the establishment as we know it, or propaganda outlets, including right wing propaganda outlets. And there's a rebellion that is a part of the country. This is an unfortunate part of that rebellion in that this is taking it in the wrong direction

because it involves violence and that guy had kids, et cetera. This is not the right way to go. But the fact that the country is now in mass, rebelling against corporate rule is a fascinating moment here. One last quick thing about the partisanship. Look, you can look at the list of books you read and go, okay, I hate those people, etc. But then you notice, oh, Lorax is on the list. Am I supposed to hate Dr. Zeus? Don't worry about where the ideas came from other than that, hey, go do violence.

That's an idea that's problematic, right? But every other idea should be discussed and not because somebody did a shooting or because somebody did a shooting, we shouldn't shut down the conversation. We need to have that conversation either way. Yeah, and look, the point that I want to make is I totally empathize with people who didn't shed a tear for the CEO. I think that's different from cheering on or wanting vigilante justice to be a part of the solution to a broken health care system. Because vigilanteism will very, very quickly devolve into something that will very likely victimize the very people

who are calling for it. So for instance, the justification that you hear time and time again, again, I emphasize with people who are upset at United Healthcare or our health care system in general. particular CEO in general considering the 32 to 33% denial rate at this health insurance company when it came to legitimate claims. And that was based on analysis by our own federal government, by the way. And other analysis had it at 32%. So they're denying a third of all claims, which is monstrous. That's insane. That's insane and unacceptable. So I totally agree with that. But look, my fear is when you start making justifications for vigilante violence, consider, you know, There are people we disagree with who have their own thoughts and would like to carry out vigilante

violence and they justify it by saying, well, that person deserved to die because they were killing innocent people. Perfect example is what happened to George Tiller, who was one of the few anti, one of the few late term abortion doctors in Kansas and was gunned down by an anti-abortion extremists who believe that, well, this is a doctor, a physician who's killing innocent babies. Look, I don't even understand that. That's not a conversation that's legitimate, right? No, it doesn't reform anything? It doesn't change anything? So I remember after 2008 economic crash, lots of countries are boiling over in rage,

including Greece, and they went to go shoot some bankers. And what did they do? They shot a teller and killed this innocent working person and didn't shoot any of the CEOs, the bankers, etc. And if they had, that wouldn't have made it any better. You have to fix the underlying system, just randomly shooting different actors in that system, doesn't do you any good. So, but look, those two things are different, and I want to be super clear about that.

The violence is a terrible idea as a matter of any kind of process. It should not include violence, right? But that is totally distinct from what is the violence about? What is the issue at hand here, right? So because if you do the logical extension of one of the positions here and you go, oh, okay, since he shot the CEO, we should not have a conversation about privatized health care right now because that only helps the shooter or whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, okay, under that logic, if somebody in the, God forbid, and the defense industries

gets shot, does that mean we can never discuss defense? We can never discuss foreign policy. We can never discuss anything. No, that's absurd. You can still have a conversation about it. You should. And as I said in the last week's show, 76,000 people die every year because of our privatized health care system.

They don't have health insurance. So are we allowed to talk about other deaths? Are we also allowed to talk about those 76,000 people who are dead every year? I'm going to say right now, okay? for any gatekeepers out there who want to gate keep any conversation at any given time. We're going to have any goddamn conversation we want at any goddamn time we want to have it. So if we want to talk about the necessary reforms to our health care system right now following the assassination of an executive for a health care company, yeah, we're going to do it. We're going to do it right now.

And I don't care if people get offended by that. Now is the time to do it. Yeah, 100%. And the whole country is asking for it. So by all means, for God's sake, universal health care, countries that have it have half the price. Half the cost that we do. Why are we paying twice as much? Where is that money going?

And it's going into this insane industry that profits off of all of our deaths. And when I say all of our deaths, it's not just those 76,000 according to studies that die every year because they don't have health injuries. It's also because on average, we live four years less than countries with universal health care. So that's killing all of us four years earlier than we would have died if we lived in a developed nation that has universal health care. We need to have that conversation now about the country. Absolutely. Just a few more details that we're learning. And of course, this is a developing story.

So, you know, Mangione was arrested on firearm charges in Pennsylvania. And if he is, in fact, the killer, if that is proven, it would mark the end of a five-day manhunt. It did take some time to find him. Over the weekend, there was an image of the assassin in a taxi cab that was also released. And police also found a backpack that they believe the shooter left behind, which contained both fake money from the monopoly board game as well as a jacket. So here's a photo of the backpack that they found. Now, as far as the suspect here, he's 26 years old. And he received a bachelor's and master's degree in engineering from the University of Pennsylvania.

A goodreads profile likely belonging to him wrote this in a review of the Unabomers manifesto. Quote, it's easy to quickly and thoughtlessly write this off as a manifesto of a lunatic in order to avoid facing some of the uncomfortable problems it identifies, but it's simply impossible to ignore how prescient many of his predictions about modern society turned out. He was a violent individual, rightfully imprisoned, who maimed innocent people, while these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy. Luddite. However, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary. In his review, Mangione also wrote thoughts someone else had shared about the Unabomber in a Reddit thread online, quoting a commenter who had described, I can never say this guy. Kaczynski's act as war and revolution, saying that he had had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely

nowhere and that violence never solved anything in a statement uttered by cowards, is a statement uttered by cowards and predators. Yeah. So again, his ode to violence is totally wrong. Violence almost always goes in the wrong direction, almost always helps authoritarian figures who would actually prop up the very worst instincts of society. So going in that direction is nonsensical. having said that, so what you're all supposed to say in media when there's a killer like this

is, oh, he's crazy, he's an idiot, he's this, that, the other thing. No, look, whether he's, quote, unquote, crazy is something that the law will have to decide, but he's, he's a, look, I'm afraid that I'm going to get yelled at for saying this, but to add to his point, we're going to say whatever makes sense. He's unfortunately a smart guy, okay, he's an engineer, he went to Penn, which is an Ivy League school. I read some of his writings. Obviously, I don't agree with any of the calls for violence, et cetera. And obviously I don't agree with some of the right way things that he writes.

But having said that, he's not a dumb guy. He's not just like, oh my God, these thoughts don't make any sense. And they're, you know, a mishmosh and they're not logically connected. No, they're logically connected. And there are real issues that he's pointing out. But my God, this is the worst way to handle legitimate issues because one of the things I'm worried about is. So, for example, he talks about a disconnect that we have in my mind. society. And he talks about it in the context of Japan, for example. And he says things,

if we're being honest, that are similar to stuff that I'll say that I've said on this show, right? Hey, we need more human interaction. We need more personal interaction. And this is, and by the way, shooting people is the worst possible way you can get more human interaction. But anyway, so you separate out the ideas and you don't have to give any legitimacy to any or ownership to those ideas to him, right? But these are ideas that exist in the world. It should be discuss and most importantly about health care in this case, but but he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We cannot let this get out of control. If people start shooting one another, it's going to be an epic disaster, but we also need to get our health care

under control. And right now, I'm gratified to see both the right, the left wing and the independence and everyone across the political spectrum going, no, we didn't fix this. I don't know if the Democrats are pretending that we fixed it and the Republicans are pretending they have concepts of a plan to fix it in another decade, right? But the reality is we didn't fix this at all. And this health care system is killing us for profit. And that's inarguable. When we come back from the break, Charlemagne the God joins us for a discussion about the

outcome of the election and where his heart and mind currently stands on the Democratic Party. Come right back. All right, back on TYT, Janganana with you guys. And apparently Weldon Dragon, because he's just joined by hitting the join button below. We've got a great guest for you guys next to Anna. Take it away. All right. Well, joining us now is Charlemagne the God, host of the Breakfast Club, and also the author of

his latest book, Get Honest or Die Trying. Charlemagne, thank you so much for joining us. Hey, Sank, Anna, how are, man? My favorite, my favorite news network on the planet, the young turks. I love to hear that. I love to hear that. All right, so Charlemagne, look, I appreciated your book, especially because, you know, the thesis,

the main point that you're making is that we need to engage in deeper conversations, in good faith. But I'm curious if, you know, especially following the results of the presidential election, if you have come to terms with and realize that Democrats aren't really interested in having conversations. They're interested in playing the blame game. They're interested in providing cover for the failures of the Democratic Party. That's my take, but I'm curious if you agree with it. Yeah, I don't like broad generalizations, you know, even though, you know, we do say the Democratic Party. I think there are, there are a few in there that still want to have

honest conversations. I just think that, you know, some of them got to have the balls to stand up and be able to challenge the party, whatever that may be now. I don't even know what the Democratic Party is at this particular moment. They don't have any real leadership. They don't have any, you know, real, real messaging. They don't seem to have a real sense of direction at this point. So now it would be as good a time as any to stand up and, you know, challenge what was up to Democratic Party. Yeah.

So that's a great point. And that's exactly what we're trying to do here, which is one challenge of what we thought was the Democratic Party, too, is potentially rebuild that party into something that makes sense and could win elections that actually represents their voters, right? So look, I'll break it down into the three categories, Charlemagne, and then I'm curious, you know, which one you think you're closer to. Nobody has to be in any specific bucket or exclusively in that bucket, but I just want to get your take on it.

So one is what we normally call the establishment, right? Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, the people who take tons of corporate donor money, I think, and I'm buying, biasing you a little bit here, but I think they serve the donor class overall mainstream media is on their side, et cetera. Then there's the identitarian left that is a little bit more, you could use whatever terms you like, extreme, radical max, but, but hey, look, or identity politics, right? Hey, we need, you know, and have a certain ideology they will not waver from. And then there's a third wing, which is kind of the economically populous wing of Bernie Sanders 2016.

So out of those three, do you think that that makes sense as a way of looking at it? And out of those three, do you associate with one more than the other? It will probably be the economy, because I feel like, you know, there's nothing that moves in this country that isn't rooted in money. You know, Wu-Tang Clan say cash rules, everything around me. And it's a fact. I don't care if you're talking about, you know, health care. I don't care if you're talking about, you know, health care of you talking about housing. whatever it is, it's got to be rooted in the economy.

I mean, that's something Bill Clinton coined in the 90s, right? It's the economy, stupid. And, I mean, if you look at the main issue people voted for in 2024, it would have to be the same. So if I was rooted in any one of those three things, it would definitely be the economy. Yeah, so let me follow up on that show me. So, of course, I agree, and I framed it in a certain way. I get that, right? But New York Times just did a story today about, oh, it turns out that the Democrats lost,

lost young males who voted for Bernie Sanders that have now got some of them have gone over to MAGA. And that's because of what you just said. It's the economy, stupid. And they said, well, maybe it's sexism. But they keep saying that it's not. What it really is is that they're bothered that neither party is actually giving them anything that makes sense economically. And they've got high housing prices, high health care prices, high everything prices and low wages. And that's what's driving them to discontent with the Democratic Party. That resonated with me. Did that resonate with you? Absolutely, because when I'm having conversations,

the beauty of doing morning radio is that we, I get to talk to everyday working class people, like every day. And, you know, I do a lot of different community initiatives from South Carolina and New Jersey. So I really get to talk to the working class. And I don't get that sense of, hey, we didn't vote for this person because she was a woman. I mean, to be honest with you,

I knew more women, it seemed like, who didn't like Kamala Harris than men. Everything was rooted in the economy. I don't care what it was, whether it was, you know, the border. And they were saying that, you know, these illegal immigrants are coming over and getting more resources than people who had been living in these communities forever, you know, whether it was people who couldn't find jobs, whether it was the cost of groceries. Every single thing was rooted in the economy. And I say it all the time, man, you know, what people want in this country is people want to have some money in their pocket and they want to feel safe. That's it.

Whoever can provide that? We'll always have the ears of the people. Okay, I actually want you to elaborate on that further because I think some of the best moments on the breakfast club in this election process was when young black men would call in to explain why it was that they had turned on the Democratic Party. And I find their perspective incredibly important and very interesting. And I feel that they were just kind of left behind by the Democratic Party. And you know, one of the things that would come up over and over again was the immigration issue. And I'm not under the impression at all that these are anti-immigrant individuals, but people living in places like Chicago, for instance, who have seen their resources, which are usually used to nickel and dime, the local black community there, essentially be used for the influx of migrants who came in. federal government run by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris just kind of neglected the issue and

allowed these municipalities to struggle with the issue on their own. And the thing that frustrates me, Charlemagne, is that if you are someone who identifies as on the left, regardless of where you fall on that left wing spectrum, if you have the audacity to bring up this very real issue, well, I mean, you know how Sonny Hosten will treat you if you bring it up on the view, right? And I think that's an issue. I think it's a problem. The Democrats seem to not ever want to do a little bit of self-reflection to understand, okay, what can we do better the next time around? Instead, I see them kind of lashing out and blaming everyone else for the loss. What do you think? I agree. I was a victim of it. I mean, they lost that battle a couple of years ago. I remember a couple of years ago when Governor Greg Abbott and Governor Ron DeSantis were putting, you know, the migrants on buses and planes and sending them to so-called sanctuary cities.

And then, you know, as soon as they got there, those so-called sanctuary cities, they weren't so sanctimonious, were they? They were literally saying, they were literally saying, hey, no, send them back, send them back. You can't come. You can't come. And I said back then, I thought that was evil genius. it was inhumane and cruel to do that, but on the flip side, you did say you were sanctuary cities and you said, you did say you wanted these people until you got them. And so then when they realized it was an issue and they were saying, don't come, it made the Republicans look like they had it right the whole time. I remember earlier this year, January, I was doing exactly what you just did, Anna. I was talking to my activist friends in Chicago, like my, my

homie's old. And she was going to city council meetings every week complaining about what was happening. And it wasn't even just about the fact that, you know, the, the migrants were coming over. She was just complaining that they're getting more resources than we are. I had a guy, he worked in a parking garage in New York. He saw me one day, and he came to me in tears, talking to me about how, you know, there were gangs that were coming over, you know, tearing up his neighborhood. And he was saying he knows it's because the border needs to be closed. This is a black woman I'm talking about and a Spanish man. These people were not MAGA in any way, shape or form. They were just talking to people about what was going on in their communities

in New York City. Mayor Adams let a bunch of migrants stay in the school overnight and made the kids that went to the school do home schooling that day because he needed to give the migrant housing for the night. People were calling into the radio station complaining about that. So when I get on the air and I say that, if I'm in an interview with, I think at the time I was doing an interview with Fox News, and they asked me a simple question, do I think the border is going to play an issue come November? I told them, Everything I just told y'all, next thing I know MSNBC has a headline that says, Charlemagne de God is spreading MAGA messaging.

That is not MAGA messaging. And that is Democrats dismissing what their base was actually telling them because they already had labeled the issue of the border, a Republican MAGA issue. And it wasn't, it was an American issue. And it was people in their party, people in their base are used to be in their base, complaining about it. And they didn't listen. So I have to just follow up real quick on what the gentleman told you about what he's

experiencing in his local community. So he says that his community is being torn apart by by gangs coming in. Was he credible? because we've covered similar stories because I think it's important to give these local communities a voice and more importantly, allow for the Democratic Party to realize what they're getting wrong to maybe, you know, recalibrate. But when we cover that story, you know, left wing shows like majority report, for instance, said that that's not true. It's completely debunked. There is no problem with migrant gangs coming in. So did you find the individual that was speaking to you credible or do you think he was just making it up or bought into right wing hysteria? Yeah. He was completely credible. I see him all the time now. Not only was he credible, he wanted me to come with him, you know, to his community. Not only was he credible, you know, he was willing to work with law enforcement, you know, to get these people out of his community. Like, like, he was so credible that, you know, the next time I came to him about following up on some of the things that he said, he didn't want any problems because he was like, I'm, I'm about to start. working with law enforcement to handle that issue. So it's like, yeah, why wouldn't he be credible? Like that's what I mean when I say like we dismiss, you know, these these people. Like,

why would any Democrat or any media outlet like dismiss this person's claims? How about send a field reporter out there and go see for yourself? Yeah, yeah, I love it. So look, Charleneen, we we get along so well because we agree so much. And, and like you were talking about the busing, on the first day that Greg Abbott started busing folks from Texas, to other states, I said, look, it's a smart strategy. And I remember even Anna was surprised that I said that and everybody was surprised. I'm like, look, we have an undocumented immigrant issue in this country. Why should only the border states deal with it?

And if you're sanctuary cities, it makes sense, you know, I don't sanction the way that they did it, et cetera, just like you said, right? So but we were told to shut that conversation down. Of course, we didn't, you didn't, and that's why we're considered heretics in a lot of way. That's why mainstream media oftentimes smear us, et cetera. But I want to go, I say that as a setup to what you talked about on the book, right? Get honest or die lying is the book. And in the essence of it is conversations.

So you say don't do the small talk, do the real talk, right? And so, but on mainstream media by figures like Joy Reid, you know, it was being spread that, hey, when it comes to Thanksgiving, don't go to Thanksgiving with MAGA family. and either exclude them from your Thanksgiving dinners or don't go to their Thanksgiving dinners. I think that's super harmful to the country because then we're going to get into our different tribes and never talk to each other and begin to see each other as enemies. But curious what your take on it is. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think it's one of the most ridiculous conversations because when people were telling me over the last couple of years that they were leaning towards Trump or they were leaning towards the Republican Party, I didn't, you know, shut them down. I didn't tell him that they're wrong. I asked a simple question, and that question is why. And I remember having a conversation with Larry King a long, long time ago, and he always told me the most important question to always ask is why. And so when I started asking why is when I started to understand, you know,

what people were wanting to vote for him for. And they weren't voting for him because, you know, they love him or he's some beloved figure. They were voting for him because they just thought he was better on these issues, which is the economy and the border. And another reason I think that that's just, ridiculous, you know, thing to say is because, man, yes, I voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. You know, as we all know, there are millions of people in this country who say that they're funding a genocide, like who can't stand the fact that they give so much money, you know, to Israel's military. I would hope that, you know, my Muslim brothers and sisters, my Arab brothers and sisters don't hate me.

don't ever want to speak to me because I voted, you know, for the Democratic Party. And I know that they're so against the Democratic Party and, you know, how they support Israel's military. So it goes both ways is what I'm simply saying. You may not like Trump supporters for something. And guess what? There's people who don't like you for, you know, who you chose to vote for as well. Yeah, Charlemagne, I just think if we're going to live in a, in a system that values the democratic process, we have to respect that people are going to come to their own conclusions about which candidate is the best for them. And so I didn't vote for Kamala Harris. I also didn't vote for Donald Trump. I had a deep issue with the, you know, Israel question

and what's been happening with the U.S. government funding, you know, the absolute terror that's taking place in Gaza. You know, earlier it was in Lebanon. Now there's a very weak ceasefire in place. But you get the picture. But I don't begrudge you for voting for Kamala Harris, right? that was the right decision for you. And the thing that I actually take much deeper issue with is the culture on the left in general that essentially tells people to bubble yourself away from anyone who disagrees, which leads to less understanding. I think in order to be a strong party, you need to understand what motivates people to vote for the other side. What are the arguments? What is the other side doing that seems to be appealing to voters? And this like,

willful ignorance, this culture of willful ignorance on the left has led to the demise of the left and people seem to be unwilling to accept that. I don't think that the majority of American voters on the other side are bad people at all. I want to understand them and I want us to all respect each other and respect the decisions we make for ourselves in this democratic process. But by opening up dialogue and conversations, I think that it would actually allow the Democratic Party to maybe realize that they've done things. in a way that is not appealing to American voters and they need to recalibrate some of their policies.

But again, that would take some humility. That would take some self-awareness. And for some reason, I don't know, the party, the establishment members of the party have really moved away from that. That's more of a common question. Go ahead. That's why they lost, Anna, they lost because they put themselves in a bubble. And they put themselves in such a bubble and such an echo chamber that they don't even know what people outside of that bubble and echo chamber are talking about. I was having this kind of a bubble. conversation with them. I was saying that, you know, man, and I was saying it publicly, too, I said, you know, I feel like a lot of the energy and the enthusiasm that exists for the vice

president is largely within the party. It's largely within that bubble. I don't necessarily feel it, you know, when I'm out and about it. Now that we got more things to compare it to, I remember saying this don't feel like President Obama in 2008. This feels more like, you know, Hillary Clinton in 2016. I was, I was. was saying that. And I even heard Gavin Newsom on his podcast. He said the same thing. He said they were out on their governor's tour. And, you know, it was, you know, him and Governor Gretchen Whitma and Governor Josh Appiro, Governor Westmore. And he said they were going to all of these curated events, right? So they would pull up to these places that, you know,

Democrats had like barbershops that they had already, you know, scoped it out, had the people that they wanted in there going to these curated rallies. And he was like, that's still our bubble. So they weren't aware of what was going on outside of the bubble. And not knowing what was going on outside of the bubble is what caused them to lose. You asked me. that your show has with our show, which is that you take callers, we get tens of thousands of comments every single day on our YouTube, social media, et cetera. So we have this ambilical core to the audience and allows us to see where it's going.

And so we're, both of us were trying to warn them, hey, your base is slipping away from you. And they, and they thought we were the heretics, that we were the, no, we're just, we were the ones trying to warn you that you're going in the wrong direction. But I see some upsides, too, in what the core of the complaints were, right? Which is the economy and the border. So, yeah, Trump can take that in a very bad direction. But at least, like, it wasn't that racism and sexism got him elected. It was the economy and the border, right?

And sometimes there's, you know, some of those things cross over, et cetera. But this idea that the establishment Democrats and media has, that no, the other side is just, evil, so I guess evil one, is absurd. It's totally absurd. That's because they refuse to listen to their base, to actual voters, et cetera, and that's because almost everyone else in media is elitists, right? And so they view, like, talking to a real person or a populace is like some sort of crime against, you know, humanity or media, et cetera, and it's, and so it's leading them straight. Anyways, that's a long setup too. So now that Trump is in office and he, the brother likes being popular, right? So there is some potential significant downsides of Trump administration

and maybe some potential upsides, right? Because of that thirst to be popular and maybe fix the things that got them elected the economy, the border, etc. So what is the thing that you think might be a surprising upside of the Trump administration? And what is the thing you're most worried about with the Trump administration? Well, there's a few things that I think, I think there's a few things that could be upsides, you know, number one, he could want to just prove all his political opponents wrong. So for, you know, everybody that was out there, including myself, you know, who were calling him a fascist and, you know, an authoritarian, and, you know, we weren't saying these things for no reason. We were saying these things because of the things that were coming out

of his mouth, but he may want to just prove everybody wrong. And I mean, he's in a position right now where he's got control of, you know, all the branches of government. We know the Supreme Court is his, right? And you play around Alito and Thomas will probably retire. You know, Sotomayor is doing the typical Democrat thing and being stubborn and not moving. So he'll probably end up getting to add another, you know, Supreme Court justice. But that's a lot of power, right? So when you have all of that power, your people are expecting you to govern.

And I mean, we haven't seen Republicans, you know, govern for the people. In my lifetime, I can't even think if ever, right? So I think that, you know, we could be in a situation where 18 months after, you know, inauguration, if he implements those tariffs, the prices of goods could be sold through the roof that everybody that went out there and voted for him on the economy, they're going to be pissed off at them. And they're going to flip on them. But the reality is, are the Democrats in position to even recover that fumble that could happen? Because, I mean, that's the biggest, the biggest downside I see. The biggest downside I see is that so many people were not then

voted for, you know, the economy. And he may not deliver on that just because if you look at what any economist says, you know, those tariffs are going to be terrible for our country. So that's the biggest, the biggest upside is that he has so much power, but also the biggest downside is that he has so much power because if he actually delivers for the American people and they start to feel more relief, you know, in their pockets. And they start to feel, you know, more secure in their neighborhoods, man, the Republican Party could be in power for a very, very, very, very, very long time. But if he doesn't do those things, you know, it could be very short-lived.

But are the Democrats even in position to recover that fumble? I don't, I don't think so. Yeah, man, it's remarkable how much we agree. I mean, we normally do tough interviews, but we just keep on agreeing. Because, yeah, the fact that he wants to be popular could be a real force for good. and I don't think that almost anyone else on the Democratic side recognizes that yet, other than Bernie Sanders and Rokada. And yeah, and his obsession with wanting to be, you know, have as much power as possible

can lead in a very bad direction. But I also agree with you, Charlemagne, that in order for the Democrats to pick up that fumble, first they got to let go of the donor cash. As long as they're just holding on to the donor cash as tightly as they can, they're never going to be able to pick up a Republican fumble. Because they're too obsessed with, oh, what are the billionaires want? And I gotta serve the billionaires. So if it's that party, that party is not interesting.

So they better turn the F around before they hit another iceberg and another one. Because then otherwise we're just stuck with the Republicans. And that's a terrible place to be. We need two vibrant. The Young Turks Network is the only network I ever hear talk about the Democrats in the donor class. I mean, I've heard Bernie Sanders say it, but it feels like nobody, I don't never hear this on CNN. I never hear this conversation on MSNBC, I only hear it on the Young Turks Network. And I feel like, you know, somebody needs to start bringing, I mean, Bernie does.

Bernie definitely brings those conversations to those networks. But somebody really needs to start having that conversation with them in a real way. Because, you know, to the point that y'all always make here, the people are going to always rebel against the establishment. And one form of messaging, you know, that Donald Trump has had since 2016. And I don't know how the country, you know, has been convinced that. a white male billionaire is somehow for the people, but he has convinced them of it. And he said he's going to drain the swamp. And he says that we need to, you know, get rid of establishment politics.

And they've bought into it. And he's, the Democratic Party has been put into a corner and painted in the corner as being the establishment party who is beholding to the donor class. Yep. And that's, that is a very, very, very hard tag to shake once you're labeled that. Charlemagne, we always love having you on, love the conversation, and keep doing what you're doing. I love when you go on other shows and you speak your truth. Everyone check out his book, Get Honest or Die Trying, Why Small.

I'm sorry. That's the twist. Die lying, my bad. Why Small Talk sucks. It's an excellent book. And I, again, really do appreciate the message that you're trying to put out there with this book. Charlene, thank you again. Hope you come back soon.

Thank you for having me. I love you. I love the Young Turks. Y'all are the best cable news platform on the planet today. If you want truth, you come to the Young Turks. Thank you, Charlemagne. And everybody check out Breitford's Globe, too. All right.

Appreciate you. Charlemagne. See you soon. All right. We'll be right back, guys. All right, back on TYT, Dawn Whitehead, gifted six memberships. And Ramon gifted 10, you guys are amazing, we appreciate you guys. And you can join by hitting the join button below or you can go to tyt.com.

Obviously, Jenk and Anna here on the eutrix. Anna, go ahead. Well, there's a lot of news today, obviously, but one of the biggest stories is what's happening in Syria. So let's discuss the toppling of the Assad regime. But you can literally see, you know, scenes reminiscent of the fall of Baghdad, the destruction of Assad of statues, both Bashar al-Assad and his own father who ruled the country for some 50 odd years. The most shocking scenes really are some of these that have been coming out of the secret and historic prison that was in Damascus that housed a lot of these political prisoners. Well, Assad's regime has finally fallen. Rebels have officially toppled Bashar al-Assad's regime

in Syria, and this follows a 13-year civil war and six decades of the same family carrying out autocratic rule in the country. Now, Assad's father seized power back in the 1960s, and later Assad himself seized power in the country. Assad and his family, though, have been given asylum in Russia. Assad is no longer in Syria. Assad's sudden overthrow at the hands of a revolt, partly backed by Turkey and with roots in jihadist Sunni Islam, limits Iran's ability to spread weapons to its allies and could cost Russia its Mediterranean naval base. Now look, the most important thing to understand about the conflict in Syria, the civil war in Syria, is that it was exploited by a bunch of proxies, a bunch of different other state actors, including Israel,

the United States, Turkey, Russia. So it's a much more complex and complicated issue. And for anyone who's celebrating the fall of Assad, understand that we don't really know what's going to happen next. There's a presumptive leader who's been announced, but there are warring factions among the rebels. But the United States and Israel absolutely did back the rebels. We're going to get to some more details on that in just a second. But first, more on the presumptive new leader of Syria. His name is Abu Mohammed al-Golani, who said, a new history, my brothers, is being written in the entire region after this great victory. He said, adding that with hard work, Syria would be a beacon for the Islamic nation. Now, some more information about him, he has

described himself in the past as a committed jihadist that the United States has actually considered a wanted terrorist. He was imprisoned by the United States back in 2000, or U.S. forces, I should say, back in 2003 and 2004. After getting released, he fought alongside al-Qaeda in 2004. Now, despite all of this, Biden put out the following statement. Take a look. A long last, the Assad regime has fallen. This regime brutalized and tortured and killed, literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. The fall of the regime is a fundamental act of justice. It's a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria.

To build a better future for the proud country, it's also a moment of risk and uncertainty. As we all turn to the question of what comes next, The United States will work with our partners and the stakeholders in Syria to help them seize an opportunity to manage the risks. You know, for years, the main backers of Assad have been Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. But over the last week, their support collapsed, all three of them. Because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office. Now maybe I'm being too cynical, but hearing the president of the United States refer to

what's happening in Syria as a historic opportunity makes me nervous. Yep. Now the other thing to keep in mind is, yes, this was very much a proxy war with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah backing the Assad regime. But as you guys can imagine, you know, Russia has been preoccupied with its war in Ukraine. Hezbollah has been preoccupied fighting Israel as a result of what's happening to Palestinians in Gaza. And in regard to the other countries involved, you have Israel, Turkey, the United States,

and they very much back the rebels. In fact, here is John Bolton discussing Israel's interests. Take a look. If Assad and his al-White regime are replaced by Sunni Islamists, Iran is in deep trouble and its ability to support whatever's left of Hezbollah, whatever the Israelis haven't destroyed. And this whole opportunity for the rebels in Syria, we owe to Israel. And we owe to Israel's destruction, ongoing destruction of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and its ongoing dismemberment of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Middle East is definitely changing to Iran's detriment.

But let's also be clear, these Syrian rebels, by and large, are Islamists themselves. Many are al-Qaeda, ISIS fighters, and a terrorist regime in Damascus is in. in lieu of the Assad regime is like potentially jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The U.S. shouldn't get involved militarily, but it is dead wrong to say we don't have real interest in the outcome of this fight. Again, a statement like that, especially coming from John Bolton, is concerning. So, Jank, I'm going to let you jump in. There's a lot to get to, including Israel taking over some of the land in Syria now.

But I'm curious what you think. Yeah, first thing I thought when I saw it was, what in the world just, just happen. Wait a minute, this thing's been going on for what, almost a dozen years now or more, and all of a sudden in like a week, they just walk into Damascus and take it? It was impenetrable before. Russia was preoccupied. Yeah, no, no, no question. And that gets into what happened and the conclusions that we could draw in a second. But that was remarkable. And that begins to tell you some of these mysteries

in a second, the very fact of how quickly it happened and how easily it happened. And then a giant question mark about what comes next. But first, let me start to answer what I think are some of the things that we at least can know, right? Number one, the U.S. and the West are definitely in favor of what happened. And here's how you can tell, among other ways of doing it. The most easy one is if they did not like what happened, they would have taken the, current leader of this these rebel forces that took control and they would have said yeah he's down kate ah gee was former al Qaeda no he's always gonna stay al Qaeda al Qaeda ISIS terrorist

terrorist al Qaeda ISIS terrorist ass and they would have been like oh this is the worst thing that's ever should we take action should we take action we're moving our aircraft carriers etc instead they're like oh he was former al Qaeda don't worry about that he's fine now the butcher's gone oh everything's great everything okay so we were in favor of it no question you could tell not only from the government reaction, but if we're being honest, the mainstream media reaction. Because mainstream media usually takes their cues from the government. And if the government's not queuing them that we're worried, they write, we're not worried. Okay, yay, new Syria.

And you could tell in all the articles that I read where they're like, oh, the people came out and celebrated in the streets. No, hold on. Syria is deeply divided along ethnic and tribal lines. So Assad's side lost here. they are not at all excited. Those particular tribes, sex, ethnicities, the Alawites, the Shia, et cetera, in Syria. So when I see mainstream media telling me everyone in Syria is excited, I think, no, no, you got that totally wrong.

If I'm not mistaken, about 10% of the population in Syria is also Christian. And so if you have, you know, a takeover by, you know, extremists or individuals who describe themselves as jihadists, That's going to be a problem for the Christian population there. It certainly could be. Or if Israel takes over portions, they haven't been great to Christians either. So I'm going to get to that in a second. So in fact, let's do that now. Who are the two countries we know were involved in some way?

Turkey and Israel. Okay. So Turkey has their own interests, and their interests is do not let the Kurds take any kind of territory, whether it's in Turkey or in any other country, because then they're going to want Kurdistan and Turkey, etc. That's interest number one. Interest number two is Erdogan is now for the first time feeling massive, significant blowback about all the refugees and immigrants inside Turkey. Before he was using it, it was kind of, he actually did what Republicans think Democrats are doing in this country. He led a lot of people into Turkey and then let a lot of them

vote and they all voted for him. And that was a good little thing that he had going for a while politically, but now that game is worn thin and the Turks are super mad, so he's probably trying to push some of the Syrians back into Syria to appease that local population. And a million people went to Europe and a ton of people went to Turkey. And so there are all those factors. Now, when you turn to Israel, how do we know they were involved? Well, part of the reason why it looks like it was so easy is because Israel bombed Syrian government positions as this was happening.

Yes. So they bombed their, you know, we'll get into some of the details in a second. Their weapons depots, their ability to defend themselves, et cetera. They have some reasons why they claim they did that. But right after the invasion, this is the second part involving Israel. And again, we'll get into more details. But they instantly went into Syria and took more land. They went beyond the Golan Heights, beyond the buffer zone, and took extra land. Yes. So let me give you some of the details on that.

And by the way, guys, if you're looking for sources outside of U.S. mainstream legacy media to get information on international news, I think the Financial Times actually does a really good job. And so obviously they covered this story. And they write that on Monday, Israeli defense minister Israel Katz directed the Israeli military to continue striking throughout Syria in a bid to destroy weaponry. Israeli tanks and infantry have also crossed the border on the occupied Golan Heights into Syrian territory, seizing a previously demilitarized buffer zone and other strategic positions abandoned by the Syrian military. Now, Syria has served as a supply route for Iranian material to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And I actually want to skip ahead to the last video here, because I think

Jeremy Scahill, legendary reporter, has done incredible war reporting in his career, you know, kind of weighs in on Israel's role in all of this. So let's take a look at that. Let's remember that not long before October 7th, Netanyahu gave a speech at the United Nations in which he brandished a map of the Middle East that showed a total erasure of Palestine in any form whatsoever and portrayed it as a greater Israel that was going to be the conduit that would connect the south and north of the world in the eastern hemisphere with sort of a great new silk road that would be heralded in by Israel. And Netanyahu has made very clear that he supports a dramatic expansion of the state

of Israel. And so while he may be exaggerating Israel's role or the role that it played in the events in Syria, certainly Israel's actions in the Middle East did play a role. Netanyahu now is trying to seize the moment to literally invade kilometers into Syria. So look, this is a complicated, complex issue. And when you hear, you know, again, various actors talk about this being this historic opportunity. I don't know how this is all going to end up.

I don't know, you know, there is a power vacuum and there are factions within the rebels that don't agree with each other and are warring with each other. other. So who ends up controlling Syria? What does that governance look like? Will there be allowance of different faiths being practiced in this country? This is a terrifying situation in a lot of ways. And yes, look, you also have to acknowledge that Assad was brutal. There were people who absolutely despised Assad, people who were political prisoners of Assad's regime. So this is not to say that Assad was great. However, you also have to think about what happens in a power vacuum. Think about what the United States did in Libya, with Omar Gaddafi and how that

ended up for the people of Libya. Libya now has a literal slave trade going on. Yeah. And so these are all things to keep in mind as various narratives play out in the press. Yeah, look, any talk of the leaders being good or bad is not the point at all. So Saddam Hussein was a monster. That didn't mean that we should have got into Iraq. They didn't attack us. So that was done for completely different reasons. And it was a giant lie. by the Bush and Cheney administration that got us into that war. Bashar Assad is a butcher. I mean, if you think what Netanyahu did in Gaza is bad,

you should get a load of what Assad did in his own country, killing far more people, butchering so many more people using chemical weapons, et cetera. So, you know, F Assad, and I got no interest in him. But that's not the question. The question is, yes, but what's going to happen to Syria and what's going to happen to its people and what should happen? So when we talk about Israel, I know that they have some interests that are security related. Iran was fumbling weapons through Syria into Gaza, and so they wanted to stop that.

Iran had that government as its ally because the alowites were allied with the Shia. And remember, Iran is Shia and the rest of the Middle East is pretty much Sunni, Iraq is 60% Shia, 40% Sunni. So that country split, so they were ostensibly on Iran side. So Israel feels great about the defense issue and knocking out a Shia-backed government, right? And Iranian-backed government. On the other hand, if that's all it was, there would be no need to go take extra territory inside Syria. When I saw that they went past not only Golan Heights, but the buffer zone, I thought, hmm, they say they destroyed Assad. government's ability to fight back against these rebels because they were worried the rebels

would take those weapons and maybe one day use it. Maybe that's a plausible explanation. Another plausible explanation is that they had a deal, that the Turks and the Israelis had a deal with the rebels. And by the way, you guys go, and now you'll be the leaders of Syria, but we're going to steal more of your land. And so you're going to make a deal with us that we take more of your land and make it part of greater Israel, right?

And you get the rest of the country. That's a great deal if you're the rebels, because what do you care about the southern part that you barely even know about, right? And you're going to get to keep a great majority of the country. And the Turks, my guess, told them is, hey, don't empower the Kurds. And as long as you know, you're bad to the Kurds, we're okay with, you know, you controlling most of the country. So, but look, guys, these both of those countries have made a deal with the devil before. And it has turned out disastrous. Well, interesting, you say that, Jank, because,

Even John Bolton brings this up. Yeah, I was gonna go there. And so I think this last video is really important for you all to watch, because as much as I dislike John Bolton, I think he has a point here in regard to how this could backfire on Israel. Take a look. How does the rebel success begin to shift the dynamics in that region with Kurdish and Turkus-backed forces in the north and Islamic State fighters kind of throughout the country?

Well, it depends on how much territory they take. But certainly Israel was never happy with Assad, a pro-Iran regime to its north along the Golan Heights, and being used by Iran for 20 years, if not more, is a transit route to supply Hezbollah with weapons and ammunition and equipment to threaten Israel. But a Sunni extremist regime in Damascus isn't any better for Israel in many respects. So what do you think about that? Yeah, so that's, I was gonna go actually do a different part of what Bolton said. First let me address that. That's a very rare win for John Bolton.

I think that Israel hardliners have done this many times. Oh, we'll emboldened Hamas because Hamas will split the PLO into and the Palestinians will be divided and we'll pretend that there's no partner for peace. And we'll keep having them fight one another so we can take more and more of their land. Oh, Hamas came in and killed all these civilians in Israel. Oops, it backfired, right? Exactly. And it's much larger and worse now than the original PLO.

And so, God, America, Russia, Turkey, Israel have all made the same deal. It's always had blowback. Oh, we empowered Sunni extremist Muslims. And again, they're not having to do with Muslims. The most important part is that they're extremists, okay? Oh wow, the extremists stopped listening to us and then started fighting us, no one could have seen that coming. No, we see it coming right now, right now. A hundred percent, arming the Taliban in order to fight the communists, right? How did that turn

out for us in Afghanistan? That's what turned into al-Qaeda. So it turned into the Taliban, and then it later turned into a faction of al-Qaeda that wound up attacking us on 9-11, and it goes on and on. So this is a classic Netanyahu mistake in that regard. But the part of Bolton's commentary on CNN that I was going to mention is, at one point he said, well, because of all of this, we might have to redraw all the borders in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria. And I was like, here we go. Because remember, Bolton and Netanyahu and Cheney are all original neocons. And they've been wanting to redraw the map of the Middle East the entire time.

And you're gonna be shocked to find out, they want a lot more land for Israel. I know, a wild coincidence. It had nothing to do with the Iraq war. It has nothing to do with what happened in Syria. Poor Israel, oh golly, gee, they're only the most powerful military in the entire Middle East. But these things have nothing to do at all with Israel, okay? But we might have to redraw the map to make it a much, much larger Israel, okay? So that is, but that is also a terrible idea, not just because it's immoral,

because it's going to create an endless conflict and it's going to create more extremists. I don't want more extremists. Right, okay? So, and then finally, what in the world are they going to do? This is another sign that the American government is super happy with what happened because, I mean, Even the jail breaks, I read several different articles. And they're like, oh, yes, the ISIS and al-Qaeda prisoners were released from the jails. And then I'm like, that sentence doesn't sound good, right?

And then the next sentence is they're like, oh, but there was rejoicing in the streets. And they were tearing down Assad statues and everybody was happy. I'm like, okay, no, that's the American propaganda machine. It's ridiculous, yeah. Right? Now we're happy that the ISIS and Al-Qaeda were let out of prison? What kind of madness is this? So then they claim that the prime minister, and the prime minister did stay.

He's different than Bashar al-Assad. And he was elected, which is hilarious. The prime minister said, oh, we should go to elections next. Really? Are we going to go to elections? Even the talk of elections means that America and Israel and Turkey were involved. Because if they weren't getting financing from those countries, there's no way in the world of former Al-Qaeda leaders like, oh, maybe elections, yeah.

Okay, so, but that's not what's going to happen. Whoever that guy is, you know, well, we know who he is. He's going to stay in charge. You don't normally seize a country when you're a rebel extremist and go, I will give it back to the people. If he does, then I'll be shocked. Absolutely. And in the elections are real, I'll be shocked beyond belief, okay? But usually it's a set up for something else entirely.

I agree, yeah. Well, we'll stay on the story as it develops and give you more as it develops. But for now, we're gonna take a break. And when we come back for the second hour of the show, we'll talk about Donald Trump's sit down interview with Meet the Press over the weekend. Some surprising developments from that conversation. So we'll give you that and more. Come right back.