The Young Turks - Elizabeth Warren Throws Down The Gauntlet

Episode Date: May 18, 2019

Elizabeth Warren isn’t playing around on the abortion issue. Cenk Uygur, Brooke Thomas, and Hasan Piker, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. MORE TYT: https://tyt.com/trial Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. Drop it. Look at this interesting power panel.

Jay Huker, Hassan, Piker, Brooke Thomas. It's not a combo you see often, but that's fun for everybody. We've got a presidential candidate on the show today. No, not me. Ben Glebe, for now. Ben Glebe is going to be on the program in the second hour, so don't miss that. And Anna is going to be with us as well. We got a lot of amazing stories for you guys, including Elizabeth Warren proposal that Brooks

is going to tell us about in a second. Ocasier-Cortez goes after greedy drug companies, and the Republicans fight back on behalf of greedy drug companies. So that is amazing, that's amazing. It's amazing that they're showing their true colors. And a little bit later in this hour, a great bill by the Democrats. You don't hear me say that often. And I think it's gonna put the Republicans in an incredibly tough position.

So they say it's not gonna pass. I'm not so sure. Interesting. Okay, so lots of, oh, by the way, let me tell you guys one more thing before we get started. So yesterday I did the announcement how we're gonna do the rally in Iowa on June 8th. I'll be giving a speech there and it'll affect the presidential race. There's been some speculation, speculation, as Bush used say, about that. And we did a behind-the-scenes video that we put up, and you know how I was telling you

on t.t.com? Yeah, in order to attend that rally, go to t.t.com slash rally, okay, that's in Des Moines on June 8th. I gotta see you there, okay? It's really important that everybody show up for that. So let's make that happen. But we put up behind the scenes video last night and we told you on the website now we're unlocking some of the stuff that's for members only.

I watched it later today and I was like, we should lock that back up. We literally made that decision a couple of hours ago. But the members still have access to it, that's the whole point of membership. Okay, so tyt.com slash join to see that behind the scenes video. But for everybody else, let's, you know, cool it. All right, fun for everybody. All right, Brooke, let's get started. All right, let's get started.

Senator in 2020 hopeful Elizabeth Warren just released a pretty aggressive plan for reproductive rights. In a post on medium, she says Congress should pass new federal laws that protect access to reproductive care from right-wing ideologues in the states. Federal laws that ensure real access to birth control and abortion care for all women, federal laws that will stand no matter what the Supreme Court does. And she breaks that down further to this, saying Congress must prohibit states from interfering in the ability of a health care provider to provide medical care, including abortion services. Second, they must prohibit states, excuse me, from interfering in the ability of a patient to access medical care, including abortion services from a provider that offers

them. And she's also asking Congress for more to try and circumvent any attempt to essentially restrict Roe v. Wade protections. She's asking Congress to pass federal laws to preempt state efforts that functionally limit access for reproductive health care. States have passed countless targeted regulations on abortion providers called trap laws, which are designed to functionally limit and eliminate women's access to abortion care while not technically contributing grow. Can I just interrupt for one second to say they are the most appropriately named laws there are?

Trap. Yeah, trap laws. Yeah, they're meant to trap you and make sure that you do not get an abortion. Whether you want one or not, whether it's your body or not, it's a big government law passed by right wingers to trap you. But she's got more. Yeah, a little bit more. So a bill already proposed, there is a bill already proposed in Congress, the Women's

Health Protection Act, and that would provide. the mechanism to block these kinds of schemes concocted to deny women access to care. And Elizabeth Warren is saying Congress should pass it and also guarantee reproductive health coverage as part of all health coverage, making that a reality, starts with repealing the Hyde Amendment, which blocks abortion coverage for women under federally funded health care programs like Medicaid, the VA, and the Indian health services. Now, she acknowledges that court challenges will continue. And of course, the next president will be able to attempt to start.

start to undo some of the damage with the judges that they appoint, hopefully appointing fair judges. And she ends it with this. It's simple, our democracy should not be held hostage by right wing courts and women should not have to hope that Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump's Supreme Court will respect the law. Okay, so I love this, I think it's amazing, and I think it's super aggressive. I like it for two reasons, one, the policy, and two is the rhetoric and the idea behind

it. She said, look, Republicans are being super aggressive all over the country in pushing for the most extreme laws you've ever seen. So 99 years in prison for a doctor, et cetera. Well, why don't we push back and not extreme, but things that the American people agree with, 71% of Americans agree that reverse weight shouldn't be repealed. So why don't we fight back just as aggressive? Of it.

On the one hand, this is exactly where I think Warren thrives, where this kind of legislative action is exactly what she's really good at. But on the other hand, I feel like, from a rhetorical standpoint, I feel like she's not, or Democrats aren't really pouncing right now. I think, and I'm gonna be, I'm probably gonna get a lot of flack for what I'm about to say, but I think that this is a gift. Politically, these abortion bills all around the country are a gift to the Democratic Party.

It is time for them to radicalize. It's time for them to actually use the same kinds of rhetoric that Republicans use when they're talking about Democrats as like baby killers and whatnot. This is not a, this is a polarizing issue, but the country seems to be on the side of the Democrats largely, on the side of protecting Roe v. Wade and abortion, especially in the first trimester. And we should communicate that and show people that, hey, you might feel anxious because your voice isn't heard. And yet, it's not.

These people are trying to appeal to a tiny, tiny fraction of the Republican base. And they're doing identity politics, basically. They're trying to deny women of their agency. They're passing these draconian barbaric laws all around the country exclusively. So they look like they're doing something for their tiny but very, very. vocal minority inside of their constituency. Yeah, so I was wondering how you're going to go to the left of me on this husk, because you usually find a way, or to the radical of me, I don't know if that's the thing, so,

but I do want to clarify, you think it's a political gift, but policy-wise, I assume you're horrified that they're trying to do this. Yeah, of course, of course, this is terrifying, it's awful, it's, I mean, Sharia law has different interpretations, but from what white Americans understand. Sharia law as, this is literally that. I mean, this conversation should be centered around personhood and what is deemed a person. Because a fetus is not a person. There's no personhood associated with that.

And also throughout time, we've stripped people of personhood, whether it be black people to justify chattel slavery or even people now when we rob them. Like, I mean, the Alabama governor killed like two people the other day after passing this this insane, yeah, insane so-called pro-life bill. So we still pick and choose personhood at the legislative level all the time. And religious morality should have no say on whether or not a fetus is a person or not. Yeah. So in terms of the back to both politics and the policy of it, I was pleasantly surprised

to see both Elizabeth Warren and you should give credit to Kirsten Gillibrand, who actually came up with a similar policy, maybe even a little bit tougher the day before. So great credit to both of them for being so bold, and it shouldn't be surprising. So the Hyde Amendment does not allow the government to in any way shape or form fund abortions. And we've come to accept that as a reality in American political life, and every Democrat goes out there, I mean, I wouldn't take away the Hyde Amendment, don't get me wrong. But why? Like, I even got accustomed to that, and there's no reason why we should have gotten accustomed

to that. No, we don't agree. Health care means health care. It means you cover things that are vital to men and women in their health care, and this is certainly vital. So it's a bad damn time that presidential candidates and senators fought back and said, no, we don't agree with the Hyde Amendment, and we will fight vigorously to defeat it. And then the other part that's really strong and exposed to the hypocrisy of the Republicans

is getting rid of the domestic gag rule. So this says that providers who receive federal family planning funds cannot perform abortions, but also cannot even refer people to abortion providers. Hence, they are gagged from speaking on that issue. Now, I thought the right wing claimed they were advocates of free speech. Apparently not. So no, they mean their right to call people the N-word and to hate gay people, people of color, and the list goes on and on.

But when you say, how about, does a doctor have freedom of speech to actually give his medical advice? They go, no, no, you're not allowed to speak, shut up. Don't tell them your real medical advice, we're going to gag you. So should we fight back on that? Hell, yes. And in so doing, whenever you fight aggressively for your position, you expose the weakness and the hypocrisy of the other side.

So this is very well played and of course on policy exactly right. But for some reason, I'm sure that this won't impact Warren in the polls in a positive fashion. And we'll still talk about how Joe Biden is the best candidate that we could possibly have and the absolute Democratic frontrunner. And that's kind of what I was trying to allude to is like this is very, Warren is very, is very good at this sort of stuff. She's very good at coming up with immediate legislative proposals that will come across as aggressive.

But on the messaging side, I feel like she falls a little short. And I don't know why, but I feel like she comes across too timid, I guess. Or the media coverage of it is not reflective of how aggressive and how good this policy is. Yeah. And so some of that is in the assumptions of the media, no question. But for me, I've always said, the only thing that matters is policy. So if you've got the best policy and the strongest policy, that's, it doesn't speak for

itself, you still have to shout about it. Okay, unfortunately, a lot of Democrats and Obama did this often, assumed that his actions spoke for themselves, they do not, right? You've got to reinforce it, that's Haas's point, I agree with that. But if you get it passed, then it speaks for itself, because then it's the law of the land. And as usual here, Warren with the smartest and strongest policy, and I do want to say one other thing to the framing that the media does, they make it seem like it's a Republican versus Democratic issue and it's 50-50.

As I told you earlier, it's 71% of the country, it's not 50-50, that is an overwhelming majority that is pro-choice. But on top of that, did you know it's 52% of Republicans that think that Roe versus Wade should not be overturned? Including Tommy Lauren, apparently. Or we knew that already, but- Yeah, including Megan McCain in private, but not in public. Yeah. But of course, because Republican women have been voting against their own interest since they started

voting. Yeah. Yeah. I mean- Yeah. So, you look, Anna has said that before and people get really emotional about it. And they go, you're not allowed to say that about Republican women. First of all, they can defend themselves, or maybe they can't, but they have been voting against their interests on equal pay, on reproductive rights, and a host of other issues.

And you could say, hey, look, they have their own agency and whether they were brainwashed or not brainwashed, it's not our place to say. And you can say the same about women in oppressive Muslim fundamentalist cultures. Is it really their decision or were they brainwashed into it through a culture? And those are interesting philosophical debates to have. But what you can't really argue is the policy. So if you say that women should not be paid an equal wage for an equal job. Well, you voted against your own interest.

You might have had legitimate or illegitimate reasons for that, but you did. And that's actually something that we should be stressing, and you're absolutely correct. This is to take away agency from women and use religious morality as a backing for it and to bring back traditionalism any way possible. And Republicans do this very effectively. They talk about how this is a life or not, which is why I said this conversation should center around personhood. But what we should be doing right now is stressing the importance that, well, wait a minute, if this is a cluster of cells, if this thing is basically a fetus at this point, then why should this thing that's not even a person over, why should we focus on this thing that's a cluster of cells over the personhood of an actual human being?

Why should we allow the government to force people to carry pregnancies to term? And I think there is a reason behind it for Republicans. It's, you know, when you're pregnant, it's very difficult for you to be in the workforce. And it's- Interesting. Yeah, I mean, but that's precisely what, I think that's precisely the reason why they're doing this. The messaging around like life and whatnot, obviously I don't think anyone believes that.

I don't think Republicans believe it. That's why, evidenced by the fact that people aren't even criticizing the Georgia Bill, if you genuinely cared about the preservation of life, then why are you throwing women in jail for having a miscarriage? Yeah, I mean, look, last thing I'll say on that is, sorry, bro. Is that, look, I've been saying all week, then you take it. That's why viability is the correct standard. Because if you think it's an independent life form that has equal weight to the woman's life

and personhood, then you take it and you raise it. Oh, you can't raise it, because it's actually just the zygote. Okay, exactly my point. Yeah, but that should never be the standard alone, because obviously as scientific, as far as, like, we shouldn't allow medical achievements to now dictate what women should and shouldn't be able to do with their bodies. And I genuinely leave that because, like, I mean,

100 years ago, there was no viability outside of the body until a specific time, right? But now that we have, now, now second trimester fetuses can actually have viability outside of the womb. So, you know, in specific circumstances. So we shouldn't allow scientific achievement to change the rules, to change that dynamic either. All right, so let's move on to our next story because this morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act. And, of course, that is a bill that would protect, excuse me, LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing, the workplace, accommodations and other settings.

Now, of course, this amends the Civil Rights Act and fills a major gap because you may not know that currently there are no federal laws protecting LGBTQ Americans from discrimination. So this means legally someone can be fired from their job, evicted from a home, or kicked out of a business just because an employer, landlord, or business owner doesn't approve of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Now, back to the bill because yes, the Democratic House passed the bill, but that is not the end. And that's because, of course, it faces tough odds in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans who generally oppose expanding LGBTQ rights, making the bill very unlikely to actually become

law. Still, the House's vote moves the country in the right direction, and advocates are celebrating this moment because it's the first time the legislation has received a full vote from either chamber of Congress. For them, it's a sign of the progress LGBTQ rights have seen over the years, from greater social acceptance of LGBTQ people to the victory for marriage equality. So this is great in a lot of different ways. Well, we might have some disagreement on this because I am still conservative judicially.

And so there's a part of this fight that unfortunately I don't agree to. So first, a bill, fantastic. And yeah, I don't often say that about bills that Democratic leadership proposes. But here it's a layup. There are no corporate interests against it. In fact, there might be some in favor of it. So it's easier for the corporate Democrats to come on board. But great, I'll take it.

So you want to join progressives on this fight? Wonderful. So, and I don't agree with the political analysis that it will not pass the Senate. Really? Yes. So now the Republicans are usually dead side against every Democratic proposal and do not believe in equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community. But some Republicans have had come to Jesus moment, if you will, like Rob Portman from Ohio,

why? Because he found out his son is gay. He's like, when your son was gay, I didn't give a damn. And I was gonna take away all his rights. Now that my son is gay, I'm conservative. If it affects me, then I care. And so all of a sudden now he's in favor of those rights. Well, you just lost the Republican senator there.

And there's a couple that are up for a reelection in states that are purple to blue. So they're gonna get jittery about this. Besides which the whole country thinks that this law should pass, this is a stunning fact. Not only is this above 50% in every single state in the country, but it is overwhelming. Did you know that this law, the idea of LGBTQ people having the same rights and being protected in the workplace, housing, and in public accommodations is so overwhelmingly popular all across the country that even in Mississippi and Alabama, it polls at 59%. So, there's actually no reason on earth why the Republicans should vote against it, except

for the fact that their whole identity and parties based on hate. It's Republican identity politics, baby, I'm telling you, it's the, it's, in a lot of ways it's no different than what they're trying to do with the abortion ban, it's the same. They try to, they're trying to separate themselves from the Democratic Party, because when it comes to material redistribution, both the Democrats. and the Republicans are on the same team. They're on the side of the corporations and the wealthy. So they have to separate themselves in a meaningful way, and that is the culture war stuff that

they do. And this is a part of that where they're like, oh, well, you know, we should just keep giving businesses the right to discriminate if they want to against LGBTQ members. And then this conversation will most likely turn into trans people and how this is impacting businesses and their religious freedoms and whatnot. They're just going to try to spin this as much as possible despite the fact that most people understand that this is ridiculous and these protections should have been offered a long time ago.

So my point is, if you are one of the few Republicans who's watching this show right now and you vote Republican and you are of the mindset that maybe LGBTQ members should have the same protections and equality under the law, but you realize that Republicans aren't doing that, think about why. Why aren't they listening to their constituents? Because they have to distinguish themselves somehow from the Democratic Party. And this is the way they do it. And unfortunately, they're usually much more effective at doing it because the popular vote is on the side of the Democrats.

And yet they're still largely ineffective. The fact that we're having this conversation in the year 2019 is preposterous. So look, I want to give even more clarity to the polling than I refer to in Haas is referring to. So you might say, well, look, maybe polls at 59. percent in Mississippi, but maybe it's because that's 99% Democrats and still a minority of Republicans and it got to 59. No. So nationwide when you look at it, 70. The new BMO Vi-I Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. More flights. More of all the

things you want in a travel rewards card. And then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BEMO V.I. Porter Mastercard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BMO.com slash V-I. Porter to learn more. 9% of Democrats are in favor of gay people having the same rights of stray people. And specifically on this issue, public accommodations, housing, workplace, they should not be discriminated against. 70% of independence, so that's a huge number, but also a majority of Republicans, 56% of Republicans say, yes, they should have the same rights and they should not be discriminated

against in those specific instances. So Hassan is right, the Republican senators are going to say, I don't give a damn not only what the country thinks, I don't give a damn what my voters think. I'm gonna vote against it anyway, why? Because I distinguish myself by being the party of bigotry, hate, in this case, homophobia, etc. So, I am the exclusionary party, I don't, I want to build walls, I want to build them everywhere, and I want to keep other people out. And I don't want them to have the same rights, freedoms, and liberties that I have, and the people

in power have. That is the point of the Republican Party. And if you don't know that, well, wake up. Look at how they vote, don't worry about what we say. Look at how they vote. So in this case, what is going to be their excuse? Because they have to have an excuse. I just had another question for you.

No, freedom for private enterprise, like, they're going to use the, they're going to use the counter example of, well, you wouldn't let a Nazi actually bake a, I mean, you wouldn't let a Nazi customer make a Jewish, Jewish baker make a Nazi cake. And it's like, that's not a similar, that's not a reasonable comparison because being a Nazi is not the same as being gay or being trans. Like, it's not a protected, it's not a protected category and it shouldn't be, because one is just a hateful ideology, the other is just your state of existence. That's right. And so, and Haas is right. And I want to get to your question in second,

Brooke, what they're saying is, well, in order for us to say yes to something that the huge majority of Americans agreed to, we're going to have to extract the compromise. So what's your compromise? We want to allow businesses to kick people out of housing, to fire people, and to not let them into their restaurants, et cetera, if they're gay, if that business owner has a religious objection to gay people. But wait a minute, are there a lot of atheists going around saying, I can't stand gay people and I want to discriminate against them? Maybe some, but not a lot, right?

No, the whole basis of the discrimination, and this is an uncomfortable fact, but it's a fact nonetheless, is religion. If we didn't have Islam, Christianity, the major religions saying that a man shall not sleep with a man, we wouldn't have this problem at all. And so, it is, like, if you put that as your loophole, well, that kills the whole bill. I mean, who else wasn't discriminating against gay people? So the Republican idea is, no, no, no, okay, I hear you. No discrimination, except for the people who want the discriminate against gay people.

And what's the point of the bill? That's not a compromise. That kills the bill. And so it's hideous through and through. But go ahead, Brooke on the coach. Because you said something at the top of this. Is there something about this you disagree with? About the overall fight on this, yes.

So, good people make a legitimate argument in the courts that, no, you don't really even need this bill because the current anti-discrimination laws cover the LGBTQ community anyway, because you could say that it goes under the category of sex. You're not allowed to discriminate based on race religion, sex or disability. And they say, look, it's not a gender issue, but in a sense it is, because it's an idea identity revolving around the issue of sex. And so it's a creative argument, I applaud them for that creative argument, but I want to stick to what the law is saying, because that judicially, if we go beyond the law, conservatives

can go beyond what the law actually states. And I'm not in favor of that. So as much as I love this bill and I love this legislation, and I want to pass through Congress and every other body, I don't agree that if you go to the courts and say, let's just say that discrimination against gay people is also illegal, but it doesn't say that, and the people who passed that bill did not intend that, and we all know it. So that's my issue there. Okay.

But if we get this passed, you don't have to worry about any of that. We don't have to worry about that, right? Yeah. I think we're going to break now. Okay, all right, listen, quick break, and when we come back, more issues for you guys, including, unfortunately, more tragedy from the Trump administration, we'll be right. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations

are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional

wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must not learn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. All right, back on the young Turks.

You know one of our partners is aspiration. So they do not put your money in fossil fuels and they give you a great return. They also give 10% of their earnings to charity. I honestly don't know how they afford that, but bless their hearts. Okay, so I don't know how, however their accountants do it, that's great. And no ATM fees, no free checking, take advantage of it while you can. Progressive and get to the best returns. Anyway, aspiration.com slash TYT to take advantage of all that.

Now I'm gonna go to the comments. First, let me go to Angela Delamane in the member section. I'm so tired of people thinking they have a right to tell me what decisions I and my doctor make about my body. So here, here on that. Attila de Bagg writes in, greetings from Germany during my night shift to the TYT panel. Well, I'll write back at you, Attila. That's on Twitter, hashtag TYT live.

Now I go to the ones that I hesitate on. So as you will see. Anam Leith says, great panel impending Hassan the Hun rant that will have Brooke Blush. And yay, Jank is coming to my hometown, service dog Sarge and I will be there. Well, that's awesome. So I'm going to demine Iowa on June 8th for what I hope is an important speech and your participation is actually part of the point. So please come with me and we're going to try to have an effect, if you will, on politics

in America and the presidential race. So t.t.com slash rally so that you get information about where and when that's happening specifically. But nice compliment to Haas. And the Stone Buddha says, fellow Marxist Hassan the Hun on power panel, eff and awesome, you never know what's going to happen with Hassan there. That we're totally agreed on. Freedom Tide says, hey, I like two scoops of sugar in my cofefefei, hashtag too strong.

I don't know why you wrote that, but earlier today I was wearing my cofefeffey shirt from shoptyt.com, no joke. So you can check that out. And the rest are all compliments to Haas. This satisfied in the member section says, okay, Hassan is my new husband. Shank, are you watching and taking notes? Damn.

Okay. Even more offensive. Malbach 6 says give Hassan a raise. We young ones need it. Agreed. Yes, yes. Not just me. All of them.

All he has to do is show up. What? Everyone, everyone that's here. The show is barely started. Everyone, everyone that's, everyone that's here. Not just me. Okay. And Ernesto Osuna Garzon says.

I really like when Hassan is on the panel. Okay, so thank you guys, we appreciate the nice compliment. I was only reading the negative ones. I know, of course, because you're such a negative dude. Anyway, but keep fighting, brother. Says the guy, what are you positive? Oh, I'm Mr. Hope, you crazy? All right.

Hashtag Mr. Hope. All right, Brooke, what's next? Yeah, so we have a pretty sad story here. A two and a half year old Guatemalan child has died becoming actually the fourth known minor to die after being detained by border agents since December. There are the details, and this is just a quote right here, first off, the death of a single child in custody of our government is a horrific tragedy. And this was said by Jess Morales-Raketto, chair of the advocacy group, families belong together.

He goes on to say, four in six months is a clear pattern of willful, callous disregard for children's lives. Now, this little boy spent several weeks actually in the hospital and then later being diagnosed with pneumonia. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the boy's mother told Border Patrol agents, Her son was ill on April 6, and that was three days after they were apprehended near an international bridge in El Paso, Texas. The Guatemalan conflict is actually waiting for an official cause of death before sending

the child's body back to Guatemala. His mother is still here waiting on her immigration case to be resolved. All four children who have died after being apprehended by the border patrol were from Guatemala, which of course is ravaged by violence, poverty, and drought. More than 114,000 people from Guatemala have been apprehended by the Border Patrol between October and April, and this is important because many immigration detention facilities are overflowing and unequipped to house families with young children, especially as the numbers of families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border surge to record highs.

The Border Patrol made 99,000 apprehensions on the southern border just in April, and more than half were parents and children traveling together. Now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they're actually not answering any more questions about this latest little boy's death. But we know this, in recent weeks, the Border Patrol in El Paso has detained families for hours outside in a parking lot and under an international bridge. Migrant parents have complained of having to sleep at that location on the grounds outside or in poor conditions in tents.

Okay, so the first thing I look at in a situation like this is how responsive were the people in those detention centers. So in the first death that was reported, they had waited, in my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of people who looked at the case far too long before they responded. In this case, they did get the kid to the hospital on the first day that the issue was brought up. So as far as we know, this just happened, and you usually get more information as these cases develop.

But so in that sense, you could say, well, look, if they respond. right away, I don't know how much capability they have. But let's talk about that. Well, number one, they didn't in all four deaths, and so that's a significant concern. Number two, they shouldn't be holding these people in the first place. And so Trump is holding a record number of kids and families, et cetera, and that leads to more deaths when people are detained. Now, how could it make a difference?

So for example, if you're with a family member and you have a court date, you have to show back up to see if you're gonna get asylum, et cetera. and you get sick, they might drive you to the hospital right away. But if you're in a detention center, you might not want to call attention to yourself. You might not know what your rights are. You might not know what the rules are, even if the detention center was acting with best intent. And as we've seen in the past, that's not necessarily the case. And now this is no longer random.

That's four kids in a short span of time here. And so there are other things you can do, by the way. You can't just throw your hands up and go, I guess there's nothing we're doing. No, we could hold less people, but beyond that, the Red Cross is ready and willing to help. They say, look, we can help make sure people are not sick, et cetera, or get treatment when they are sick. And, you know, what's the usual Republican reaction? We don't need any help.

No, you do. Four kids have died. You definitely need the help. So if someone's offering it, take it. I think the real scary part about this, and I'm going to bring this back to the Holocaust for a second. There's an ongoing debate amongst scholars about intentionalism versus functionalism. And I'm, and the intentionalism argument is that, you know, there was rampant anti-Semitism

from Hitler and that the final solution was talked about ahead of time and that was always the ultimate goal. But the functionalist approach is that originally there was a lot of anti-Semitism and then this was a, there was functional utility in slowly but surely and rabidly starting to execute prisoners, right? And I'm, what I'm terrified by here is that I think, I'm still, obviously, I still believe that there was a final solution that people believed in ahead of time and were achieving that goal slowly, but surely.

But I'm starting to understand how people can argue from a functionalist perspective because One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol.

It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. This is like we are we're so ready to deny these people of any personhood of any agency whatsoever exclusively because they they got the they got a terrible end of the the birth lottery deal basically

that they're trying to better their lives. They're trying to secure a better existence for their children and they're suffering greatly for it. And in the media, we're doing everything we can in American media to vilify them exclusively because they came here as innocent citizens. And slowly but surely, the public opinion is changing as well. So I'm terrified that it starts off with a couple children and then before you know it, hey, what are we gonna do?

I mean, there's just too many people, they just keep dying. This has happened in American history before. We've had concentration camps for Latin American immigrant workers that we brought into this country in the era of World War I, World War II, and then disposed of them in a similar fashion, or used incredibly brutal tactics to fly them to different parts of Mexico, to make sure that they could not come back, to different places where they don't know anything about the landing area or the culture or even the language in some instances. And I feel like we are rapidly approaching that right now.

And if people are fine with children dying in concentration camps that we currently have of the border, then if they're fine with four people, they're definitely gonna be fine with 100,000 people at some point. And I'm terrified of that. So the results of these policies are horrific anyway, and any way you slice it, and there's a range of how horrific those policies wind up becoming. And so the Holocaust is a unique situation, but we have done things in this country that that unfortunately parallel some portions of at least the beginnings and the middle

of those series of events. So to build on what Haas is saying, so did we have different concentration camps in America at different types? Of course we did. We interned the Japanese during World War II, but we also had these concentration camps called slave barracks. I mean, what were they? Those were not voluntary, they were put into certain quarters and forced to work.

and often died in those places. Well, they all eventually dead, but a lot were killed in those places, on purpose, raped, et cetera. And let alone what Haas is referring to with the Latino situation, let alone what we did to the Native Americans and would often hold them in camps. And then what would we say in the Native American situation? Well, I guess they got diseased blankets and a lot of them wound up dying, there's nothing we could do about that. Well, there was something we could do about that.

Or that they're barbarians, we dehumanize them in every step of the way, and that's precisely what we're doing with the myth of the criminal immigrant, which is statistically untrue. I mean, evidence shows that immigrants are not predisposed to crime in any meaningful way, and they commit crime at much lower rates than natural-born U.S. citizens do. They give more than they take. So on the one hand, they're claiming that they're coming here to steal our welfare, which we don't really have a great welfare state to begin with. But on the other hand, they're also stealing our jobs.

And it's just warfare on every territory, that immigrants just cannot do anything right. That these migrants that are coming into this country are a scourge or an invasion. And that is deliberate. It's to justify these policies that they're pushing. All right, let's move on to something like maybe it's lighter, maybe. Well, I don't know how it could be more serious. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Okay, so look, here's the thing, because I get it.

Some of you out there are so just stuck on your own favorite candidate that you can't even have a little fun with a candidate that you don't like. Not a I, because I think Senator Kamala Harris flawlessly flipped the should-you-be Biden's VP question. Just take a look. Senator, are you sick of all the talk of how you'd be a perfect running mate? You know, listen, I think that sure, if people want to speculate about running mates, I encourage that because I think that Joe Biden would be a great running mate. As vice president, he's proven that he knows how to do the job. And there's certainly a lot of other candidates that would make for me a very viable and interesting vice president. So she used her humor there. But here's the

thing. Behind the scenes, the word is that her camp is not happy with this question. As you can imagine, Harris had already been working to dispel the narrative that she's less electable than other 2020 contenders as Democrats try to win back white working class voters who back Donald Trump. The focus on her as vice presidential material actually is seen by some allies, of course, and it should be a sexist given the general lack of discussion about whether male presidential hopefuls are viable. And it's not just that, though, because Democratic supporters of Harris are actually pushing this policy publicly, this idea, excuse me, publicly.

Last week, members of the influential congressional black caucus floated Biden and Harris as a dream ticket, and that put her in an uncomfortable spot of trying to delicately push back on it without offending the group of which she is a member. So, I'm so glad about the black caucus. I mean, there are a bunch of cowards. Every single person, I'm sorry. I don't like Kamala Harris. I'll just say that right off the bat.

But you can't say that congressional black caucus is a bunch of cowards. Why are they putting up Joe Biden, a person who is like who's spoken fondly about compromising with segregationists, who's eulogized Strom Thurman, who has opposed integration in the form of busing, who has co-sponsored drug bills that were incredibly damaging to the African American community that perpetuated the war on drugs, that criminalized black existence in the form of the other, the crime bill, that is what his most famous legislative accomplishment was, why are they backing this person? Yeah, but you cannot call the Congressional Black Caucus, which includes members like

Representative John Lewis, of all people. Okay, not all of them, but it's just because they're not. It's frustrating to me that every politician, no matter what, is very flag, very obviously going against the best interests of the constituencies or even the identities that they're supposed to be representing, if that's what we're going to be talking about. Because Joe Biden fails on all accounts. His track record is god-awful. His current standing is god-awful, too.

I mean, everything he says is a political gaff. He's not even intelligent enough to, like, make a Pete Booty Justice style. retort to all of these, you know, to any of these questions, like he can't even deflect away. It's just terrible. He's terrible across the board. And any person that puts him up as the primary frontrunner for the Democratic Party is not a friend of mine.

I do not find them to be interested in the best interest of the American people. It doesn't matter if it's the Congressional Black Caucus. It doesn't matter what the historic legacy is. I'm sorry. It's ridiculous. And it's Joe Biden. It's not like I'm saying this about Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris has a lot of other issues, but it's just terrible.

I can't believe that these people are just still pushing this narrative. Yeah, so I think- It's so damaging. Yeah, I think that we're allowed to bifurcate things. So here's what I mean by that. So John Lewis is a legend in the civil rights arena, but as a person who fought for a positive change in this country overall, that doesn't mean he's never wrong, it doesn't mean we can't disagree with him politically, and it doesn't mean that he doesn't sometimes make judgment calls based on politics rather than policy.

Let's keep it real. He's a congressman, that happens. And we're using John Lewis. You can't say that somebody who's put their life on the line. Not him, but anyone who puts up, anyone who puts up Joe Biden right now as the frontrunner and even throws Kamala Harris under the bus as a vice president rather than the actual president is not representing the interest of their black constituents at all. It's not representing the interests of Americans at all.

That's what I mean. You could have been a brave civil rights hero, but still be cowardly. I don't know if John Lewis was personally responsible for putting Joe Biden as a frontrunner, but I'm just saying that this move right here is a cowardly move. We do not need Joe Biden. Joe Biden is terrible. Let me weigh in here. So a couple of things.

One, we have no idea which way John Lewis is voting internally in the black caucus. Group in general. Okay, and second of all, yes, the word cowardly is inflammatory, but can you make political calculations that are based on fear rather than being bold? Yes, can the Congressional Black Caucus do that from time to time as any caucus does? Yes, okay. Now I would argue that they shouldn't have supported Hillary Clinton in the last primary cycle because her record on African American issues was not that great.

But there was this perception that Bill Clinton was really positive for the African American community. I'm not sure that the track record actually indicated that, but it would have taken political courage to go against someone who everyone viewed to be the likely candidate. And it would have cost you politically possibly if you went against her and she won. So can you say perhaps some people, by the way, a lot of people I'm sure genuinely believed in that caucus and otherwise in many caucuses, because almost all of the Democrats, voted for Hillary Clinton, the representatives did, the politicians did, right?

Did some of them genuinely believe Hillary Clinton was a better candidate? Of course. Did some of them do that because they were afraid to cross her? Come on, keep it real, it's politics, of course they were. Now however you characterize that is up to you and up to Haas and everybody else on the panel, right? But in this case, I have a couple of issues here. Number one, Biden's track record is even worse than Hillary Clinton's with African Americans,

So on the substance of what Hassan's saying on the policy, I agree. And then number two, look, I understand why you might want to support Kamala Harris or Cory Booker for the Congressional Black Caucus. I don't know why you would feel pressure to support Joe Biden, given his track record. And they say that political at least frames it as that's their only choices. Why is they your only choice? Or you could vote with a guy who marched with Dr. King and fought for civil rights and was arrested fighting for civil rights when he was chained to an African-American.

woman, when he didn't have to do any of that, and he wasn't a politician, and he did that earnestly. Does that mean the Congressional Black Caucus has to agree with me? Of course not, right? And they don't have to support Bernie Sanders, but I would argue that he should at least be in that conversation if there was another candidate. If Joe Biden had done the things that Bernie Sanders did, they're about the same age. He didn't. In fact, he fought for against busing.

So when you have that dichotomy and that's stark a dichotomy, and you say one guy is, is not in the conversation, and the other guy is in the conversation, then I do question what factors you're using for that decision. Are you using policy or are you using likelihood of victory and how it's going to play for you, et cetera? I think that's a legitimate question. Hold on. Sorry.

Yeah, I just want to say that I don't think they always get it right. I was a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus years and years ago supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, if you remember. Oh, that's a great point. That's right. don't get it wrong, I just will not sit here and think it's okay to say that the Congressional Black Caucus is a bunch of cowards. I think that that's a step too far.

There are people who are not cowardly. And I just wasn't okay with that statement just personally, but of course they get it wrong. And to be fair, nobody else would say, like, I understand why you would support, if they only came out and only supported the black candidate, there would be so much backlash about that every single time. And what else was I gonna say? They can't just do that. Every single candidate, every single candidate, even someone's favorite candidate, you can find something

they've done great for black people and something that they have done that has been detrimental to black people, because that's just the history of politics, every single Democratic candidate. Every single one has done something that is harmful to black Americans, to that group of people there. But Don Joe Biden, whose legacy is specifically doing harmful things to the black community. You think he's done nothing good for budget? No, that's not fair. But no, no, both sides are not fair.

All of his biggest legislative accomplishments are incredibly damaging to the black community, whether it be the acceleration of the war on drugs or, like I said, the crime control bills. Like, I mean, this is, I don't know what else to say about. Look, I think his overall track record, hold on, hold on, hold on. His overall track record is not as good as even an average Democrat. But that doesn't mean he didn't do anything good for African Americans. No, he's a Democrat. He voted for a lot of bills that help the average guy rather than the wealthy, the powerful,

et cetera. And we know how the demographic breakdown in this country has broken down. So that winds up helping African Americans, et cetera. So it's unfair to say he didn't do anything to help black people, that's no. But does he have a good track record on this? I would argue he does not. I would agree. And so, but I want to go back to one other central point here about Kamala Harris,

which is that, look, the joke is a, you know, very predictable, God bless though, you know, it's good, it's fine. And the political ruined it by saying that they talked it through and decided on the joke. Don't say that. Don't say that. Okay. It ruins everything. Yeah.

Anyway, anyway. But the point is the most important one, which is that, look, I get it, she's trailing Joe Biden. And so people who are trailing usually wind up becoming a vice president rather than president. But it's super early in the process. And there is something sexist about it. I had this discussion with Ben Mangos of Michael Shure on Old School earlier in this week. And what they were saying is obviously not their point of view, they're very, very progressive,

but what they were hearing from some folks is that there is a buzz out there, a point of view within Democratic circles that Kamala Harris might not be able to win over the white working class voters being a woman and being black, and maybe that's something that you should count against her when trying to pick a nominee. And so they're just reporting that that's a fact that is out there. And that is what I want to push back against. Not the fact that it exists, if it does, that idea. Hell no, we're not gonna pick a candidate based on what people think might be the discrimination

with Trump voters we're trying to win over. No, no, no, no, no, no. We're not gonna pick a Democratic nominee based on what you think Trump voters are gonna think about a black person or a woman. That's a hell to the effing no, okay? So, and these are the same, honestly, I'm trying not to call them idiots, but conventional wisdom that told us that Barack Obama couldn't win. I remember having that conversation on the air a hundred times, because we've been around forever

when Obama was running, and I said, I don't care what you think in the elites and the people in Washington and what conventional wisdom think. The American people are gonna choose based on policy and whether they want change, et cetera. The Republican Party has been a disaster, they're like, no, Jake, you don't understand. A black man will never win. We should go safe and pick Hillary Clinton because she's white. You don't understand, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. He can't ever win because the country is so deeply racist, et cetera, that he- and what happened?

You were wrong. And here we are, so many years later after Obama won twice, still having the same goddamn conversation. Judge Kamala Harris on our record, and there I have issues with her, okay, but do not judge are based on these insane arbitrary characteristics, and worst of all, we've got to appeal to Trump voters, so we're not going to pick someone black or a woman. It's disgusting. No way.

Yeah, totally disgusting. A lot of the issues one can have about Kamala Harris, if you just write them like your top two in the list, those are stronger over on Biden. So I do agree that it's ridiculous. But that's what happens. Black people have a higher bar than white people do with black people oftentimes. Listen, I'm not talking about black activists, I'm talking about just like general black voters in what I've seen.

There are harsher criticisms against her than Biden. I 100% agree. She has similar angers about him. Yeah, no, for sure. I mean, like Kamala Harris, her opinion on truancy and jailing black mothers and whatnot. Not great, not great, but definitely nowhere near as bad as Joe Biden. Like as harmful as Joe Biden to the black community. I mean, so that's why, like, sometimes the right wing will say.

I know. Sometimes the right wing will say absurd. things like, oh my God, the white people don't have a chance in this country. Cory Booker is just as establishment and corporate as Joe Biden, but now he's being discounted completely. Why? Because, oh, he's black, so that's an extra disadvantage that he has in appealing to white working class voters.

Can I just say one last thing? So no, it's obviously harder on black candidates, and that's totally unfair. Can I just say one last thing? All right. All right. All right, we have to technically go to a break. We've got to come right back. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data.

But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important.

ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired Magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXPRE SVPN.com. T.Y.t. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young church.

Time for a quick, one quick comment and one quick story. Queen Fah on Twitter says, Brooke, let that lioness out. I'm waiting for that fire, okay, and she did, she did, asking you shall receive. All right, what's next, Brooke? All right, she's back in the cage, but maybe for a second, a Pennsylvania school district actually is getting a ton of backlash for an active shooter drill. And you'll see why. To make sure our teachers are doing what they're supposed to do in event of a real emergency.

Show your hand! Show me your hand now! There is a shooter in the middle, the street is on the phone lockdown. Either confront and apprehend the actor or we need to neutralize the actor. My role in the safety drill was the active shooter. I started upstairs in the science department and busted in the classroom. in the classrooms and fired off shots. Without any notice, the shooter came into the room and shot right at me and I needed

and screamed. And understand their role in that process until we can neutralize any potential threat or any real threat that's in the building. It's dealt with effectively, efficiently. All right, so you saw it there, a teacher pretending to be an active shooter wearing an Arab headscarf. And this video was filmed in January, and the intention was to practice emergency and build confidence in the staff members' awareness of how to respond to an emergency,

and that's from the Penn Trafford School District. That's located just east of Pittsburgh. They wrote this in an online statement. And of course, they also said the scarf was just part of a costume, not meant to represent any particular culture or religion, actually specifying in their statement the district strongly believes in diversity and inclusion and strives to provide its students an educational environment reflective of the world community. So they essentially said, no, no, no, you're stupid instead of saying we're sorry.

These people should not be around kids. Okay. People might get mad at me for this, but I don't think this was on purpose. I don't think that they were trying to showcase a Middle Eastern shooter. I mean, we all know that if they were trying to make it demographically representative, school shooters are not Middle Easterners. That's not the main threat that we have here. But that's even besides the point.

I think the problem here is we're focusing on the headscarf, the Middle Eastern headware, in an active school shooting scenario, like a training montage, and not the fact that a training montage has to exist to begin with. That is the real problem. This is kind of like saying, well, why aren't there more female prison guards? I mean, yeah, okay, diversity, great. They're using that, basically. They're doing the liberal thing where it's like, hey, we wanted to showcase a broad representation

of different groups, and that's why we had a Middle Eastern headscarf that this person was wearing, but he was also wearing a blonde wig. So, no, I don't think that it was deliberate or I don't think that it was on purpose. And it's also not true, like that's not, you know, Middle Easterners are not presenting any sort of problems to schools in the form of school. But we treat them like they are though. And so it's not super fair to say that it's at all, because they are still treated like that in this country.

But I think you're right about the second part. That was scary to see and ridiculous. Yeah, so I slightly do disagree with Huss. And I don't put it on the teacher, but I do put it on the order. organizers because they brought a headscarf as one of the options to put on for the shooters. And that's not like it's super common in the middle of Pennsylvania to have like an Arab headscarf.

So you see what I'm saying? Like if they brought a fez, you'd be like, what? Where'd you bring the, where'd you get the fes from? So whereas if it was like a baseball cap but it said like, you know, the Muslim Tigers. You're like, okay, I mean, it's a baseball cap, that's common in Pennsylvania. I don't know. So look, overall, if. If whoever brought the headscarf was trying to say that Middle Easterners are more likely

to do it, you all get it, right? That's just not remotely the case. And if you wanted it to say, hey, let's make it more realistic, then I guess people would have to put on whiteface in order to do the shootings. But you don't have to get into race, you don't have to get into religion. And the most important point we all agree on, which is instead of teaching our kids how to not get shot and teaching our teachers which children to shoot at when there's a shooter situation, why don't we actually take issue with the real core problem, which is way too

many guns and lax gun rules that allows for unfortunately a massacre a day in America. And that's a fact, and that's why we got to teach our kids these horrific training classes to begin with. Maybe you should have worn a MAGA hat instead of a headscarf. Who knows? That would be a little bit more demographically representative of school shooters, I think. That actually is true, but you shouldn't wear a MAGA hat either. I wish the teacher would have just said no.

I think that people in charge of a young mind should make better decisions. But the reason why I said what I said is because this is something that a lot of people who LARP is like military operatives in America love to do. They wear the CAFEA all the time and it's a purple one. I don't, that's why I thought like some, some hurrah tactical, like I want to look like a veteran guy probably had one lying around and they wanted to cover the head of the person, which is why I assumed that it wasn't, you know, which is why I assume that it wasn't like deliberate in that regard.

Yeah, it was definitely a disguise, to be fair, right? You could have chosen other props for a disguise, but now you've got the whole context. Okay, we gotta go, thank you guys. Everybody check out Haas on Breakdown and Brooke on Damage Report and everywhere else. and we've got a presidential candidate on the panel when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t.

I'm your host, Jan Jueger, and I'll see you soon.