The Young Turks - Fix the Flibuster

Episode Date: March 17, 2021

Senate Democrats see a path to remaking the filibuster in what would be “a tremendous sea change.” We ask you, should the Senate carve out a “Democracy Exception” or abolish the filibuster altogether? 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. All right. All right, well, are we on Turks, Jake Huger. the Lombres here. The Waz. Okay. This is going to be an excellent show. It is going to be a fun and educational show. The kind of show that we specialize it at TYT. But Waz, of course, you know, is the writer for the athletic and he also does a podcast with Nando Aveal. You guys know him. It's called

the Walk Bros, because they're awake the entire podcast. Never once do they fall asleep. Okay, so So Waz, a quick question before we get started with serious stuff. You and I have never done the show together before. That's ridiculous, unbelievable. We're addressing it at this point. So the Wizard of Waz, A, do you get it all the time? B, do you hate it? C, do you love it?

Wizard of Waz I don't get all the time is actually fine. I'm not opposed to it to be called the wizard. What I do get all the time is the old Budweiser ad. You mean like, was up? And so that's one that I usually get. I've gotten that a lot more often than Wizard of Waz. Yeah. So the only reason why I would hesitate, because I'm ready to give you that nickname instantly.

But you know, the Washington Wizards and like people, you know, that's the Wizards. It's like kind of a mixed bag, right? If it wasn't a mixed bag, I'd be going Wizard of Waz 100 miles an hour right now. Sure, but why you should go for it is because it's ethnically problematic since I'm I'm Haitian and we get stereotyped into being voodoo priestess and all of that type of stuff. So go with Wizard of Watts because I probably might be a wizard as the child of two Haitian immigrants. Put a hex on you people out there if you mess around with me. Yeah, hexes.

They're not for Wanda, Maximov alone anymore. Oh, yeah, I watch. I watch. Okay, all right. So, all right, you know what? you empowered wizard through the, you know, the way that you rolled that over into a positive, we're going with Wizard or Was. All right. But the problem is then it's going to be Waz or Whiz. Anyways, all right. I told you the wild show. I told you we're off to a crazy start.

All right. Look, one of the things we're going to tell you in this hour is the future. Okay, we've got the Wizard here, and we also have the Swami. So we got the future all locked. up, okay? So let's do this. So you all know that we can't pass a lot of bills in the Senate or overall because the filibuster. Now, the problem for the Democrats is that they really, really got to pass HR 1. What's HR 1? That is the pro voting rights anti-corruption bill that the House passed last time around and again this time around. So that was their top priority. That is why it's called H.R. 1. Very clever. You get it. So now, there are parts of the bill, I told you earlier, that they'll never pass because they are anti-corruption measures.

I'm going to prove that to you in a second. And I said they would strip those out, and then they would try to pass the rest of it. And in order to pass the rest of it, they have to get rid of the filibuster somehow. Well, well, that's where things get interesting, Okay, because as it turns out, they're now thinking of making an exception to the filibuster. A, drums, B, let's find out if that's a good thing or a bad thing, okay? So, number one, we're going to go to Jennifer Rubin. Is she a Democrat? No.

Is she a progressive? Hell no. But she's one of those never-Trumpers that has settled into the Democratic Party and is in the middle of trying to hijack it. So, of course, she hates the anti-corruption measures. But the reason I quote her, other than the fact that this is in the Washington Post and she's one of the leading indicators is because the Democratic establishment is almost indistinguishable from the never Trumpers. They're all corporate Republicans and Democrats and is really near impossible

to tell the difference if you're being an actual journalist, okay? So let's go to some of our quotes here to give you a sense of what they're going to do in this measure. And by the way, before I go to that, I should explain, both parts of the bill are great. And the voting rights part is super important and I really, really want it to pass, not just because it helps Democrats, but because it's actually really good policy. We want as many people to vote as possible. So I'm not against that part, but I'm also massively in favor of the anti-corruption parts, which Washington despises. Okay, so here's Rubin in the Washington Post. She writes, the sprawling HR1, however, addresses issues well beyond voting access,

encompassing everything from campaign finance reform to Supreme Court ethics. However meritorious all these provisions may be, the legislation's only hope, and it's a slim one, rests with the Democrats' willingness to pare down the measure to match the nature of the current assault on voting rights. It makes it sound like she's so worried about the assault on voting rights, that's why we have to kill the anti-corruption measures. No, those things are not logically connected. We'll come back to that in a second. Now, let me give you one more along these lines. She says a short, easily understood list of items such as that will be critical to driving popular support. It's easy to think of reasons to oppose campaign finance reform. Really, is it? The whole country's in favor. But she says it's easy to oppose campaign finance reform.

It's hard to deny the Justice Department's ability to anticipate and ward off anti-voting measures by states we now see are dedicated to reducing minority voting. In short, if Democrats remove issues that will be used as a pretext for opposition, they can make this a clear up or down issue on voter suppression. In other words, that's the Washington establishment saying, oh, hell no, we're not going to do the anti-corruption measures. Who the hell do you think we are? We are the corruption. So now what's Biden going to do? Well, he has promised to, quote, refined an advance for the People Act. That's the other word for the official title of HR1.

In other words, refine means, I ain't going to do the anti-corruption parts. Don't be crazy. Now, we're going to talk about the filibuster portion of this in a second, but first I want to bring Waz in. So was, am I over analyzing her comments and Biden's comments? Or do you think that I might be on to something? You're absolutely onto something. You know, the voting, first of all, we know they don't want to get rid of the filibuster.

If they did, they wouldn't be doing all this hemming and hauling. And we wouldn't have the conservative Dems coming out already before it's even proposed. Like, whoa, you know, we got to preserve the Senate norms because it's so pure. Our nation rests on the sanctity of these ridiculous arcane Senate rules. So we know they don't actually want to do that. And anti-corruption, I love that Jennifer Rubin is talking about it because the people who tend to benefit the most, from not having these anti-corruption measures are exactly who you said, the corporatist Dems and the establishment GOP, who for the most part have the least, you know, sort of differences that you can see within the party, right? Like, obviously there's a difference between, say, Bernie and Ted Cruz, if you will, in the Senate.

But there's no meaningful difference between McConnell and Schumer, not that I could see anyway. So, yeah, I think, I think you nailed it on the head. Jennifer Rubin is completely aligned with the McConnell and Schumer types because those are the most powerful people in the party. Those are the most conservative people in the Democratic Party, specifically, who she now fakes to be making community with. So, yeah, I wish I had something to add, but I don't. You're right. Look, I'll take your right all day long. Nice to meet you. All right, let's go to the second part of it, because what you're referring to is a filibuster. And guys, you all know that if the Democrats wanted to pass their entire alleged agenda,

which has plenty of progressive stuff in it, so like the $15 minimum wage and an infrastructure bill that is pretty close to the Green New Deal, et cetera, they would end the filibuster right now, right now. Instead, they'll likely wait till they can't get anything else passed and then end the filibuster and then hand it over to the Republicans when the Republicans become the majority, right? That's the most likely outcome. But now there's a new idea, which is, well, maybe we could cheat. Maybe we could just carve out something for half of HR1. And in case if you're wondering why, why did the Democrats care so much? The more people vote, the more likely it is for Democrats to win. The people who say that are Republicans. They say it

over and over again. Trump accidentally said it. Paul Wyrich, who started a Heritage Foundation and so many other conservative groups, set it back in 1980 or 81. And we've shown you that clip 100 times. And Republican politicians all over the country are like, no, no, no, no, no voting. We just get a story on it last week, please. No, no, no, no, no. We got to limit There's 250 anti-voting legislations that are being proposed all across the country by Republican legislators right now. So the Democrats have self-interest in making sure the voting rights part of HR1 passes. But since they are deeply corrupt, they will pretend to do anti-corruption and go, oh, there was nothing we could do. Oh, golly, oh, you twist my arm, twist my arm.

Now, the only problem is since voting rights are not at all a budgetary issue, they cannot use reconciliation, I don't even think they could use reconciliation. And I want to use reconciliation for everything, okay? So now given that, well, the filibusters, their number one problem. And now the part where they cheat. But in a positive way, we're going to ask you about it in a poll because this one's really tricky, okay? But first, let me explain what it is. So I first, let's go to Jennifer Rubin again. She concludes at the end, everything should be done to find a bipartisan filibuster proof majority to champion such a bill. She knows that's not possible. Or if that fails to make crystal clear to all Democrats that a democracy exception to the filibuster

rule is essential. Now that's Jennifer Rubin. You see democracy exception. The reason I'm doing this story is I've already heard it from folks inside Washington. Here comes the democracy exception. Then I look, then I see, oh, yeah, here comes Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post talking about democracy exception. And then as we're about to do this story, boom, Stacey Abrams lands. And she says, quote, protection of democracy is so fundamental that it should be exempt from the filibuster rules. There we go. We got agreement. Mainstream Republicans, mainstream Democrats that are now nominally in the Democratic Party, the mainstream Republicans that have left enjoy the Democratic Party, they're like, yeah, we want to win. But to be fair to Stacey Abrams, her whole life is around

voting rights, and she's right, and those provisions are excellent, right? But this is a giant butt. If they do an exception to the filibuster for this piece of legislation, that is great, but frankly, helps Democrats in their elections, the reason to do their exception is so that you don't actually have to do anything progressive economically, and you can still get those don't as sweet, sweet cash from the Chamber of Commerce. Was, thoughts? It's so Democrat as to be kind of laughable. This idea that we would just do a half measure,

and we would make this one-time exception because voting is so critical. Democracy, it's so critical. But things like infrastructure, spending, a minimum wage, you know, things that are that materially affect people's lives aren't, this aren't as critical, right? All you got to do is go out and vote, vote, vote, because we know voting solves everything for people. That's, that's what does everything for people, which we know is just not true, right? Um, the bottom line

is, it's hard to believe that Democrats want to actually pass things that will make people's lives better when they stump for stuff like this, right? Like, when they frame it, like, Because there's nobody who's saying that, you know, the right to vote in this country isn't actually absolutely essential. Like, they're creating a sort of straw man argument that this is the most essential. We all agree with that, right? Like, and you just said, even Republicans know what it means for people to go out and vote. There's no doubt about that. To me, that's all the more reason to attach it to anti-corruption.

If you're, that's what the Republicans would do. They would be like, this is this essential thing. Let's tie this other thing that we really also like to it too. That's politics, right? Like, that's how that should work. Instead, they're handicapping and hamstringing themselves, like, before they even get to the fight. It's like, no, let's take out the anti-corruption stuff. And again, the only reason to do that is because they don't really believe in it.

Like, there's no other way to frame that. And, you know, we'll get into some of the, you know, the little. threats that are being lobbied about getting rid of the filibuster on the other side right now. But I think this filibuster fight kind of tells you everything you need to know about what's happening right now politically in Washington. Yeah. So look, the funny thing is I'm a little bit more generous than you are, right? But you actually triggered a thought there was that it's a really good point. Look, we want, we think voting is essential just for the reasons of democracy. So we like those portions of HR one, right?

But the Democrats will also say, hey, it also helps Democrats win because the more people vote, the more likely Democrats are to win. And then if we win, that way you'll get what you want. Lies. Well, wait a minute, you're telling us that by not getting rid of the rest of the filibuster, we're not going to get what we want. Like the point of putting you into office isn't to put you in office. The point of putting you in office is so you pass the bills that help all.

lives. Basically, the Democrats through this trick are saying, we want you to help our lives and protect democracy, to be fair, right? But not help your lives. Because if we wanted to help your lives, we just end the filibuster, we can do it tomorrow. And we're choosing not to, because we don't really want to pass those bills. It's super obvious we don't want to pass bills like $15 minimum wage, a green new deal. Medicare for all they despise, of course. They would never want to protect your health. I mean, what are we in the middle of a pandemic or something, they're corporate Democrats. So those are facts. Now the other, now the anti-corruption part was is even more inexcusable. And by the way, it hasn't happened yet. So I'm reading the

tea leaves for you guys. And when I see Joe Biden, forget Rubin, when I see President Biden say that he's going to refine the bill, my job is to translate that for you. And you get to see with your own eyes, are we right or are we wrong? I'm telling you now, well ahead of time. They're going to take out the anti-corruption parts. Now, Rubin says, oh, well, that's because it's going to run into a lot of trouble. Why? With who? It's actually the single most popular part of the bill.

I mean, anti-corruption, you get like 96% approval in the country. All Republican voters will join us, all independent voters will join us. What she means is it's not popular in Washington. Of course, of course it's not popular in Washington. But so this is the insane stand there. So, but in that one, they don't even have an excuse. They could do the anti-corruption stuff with the democracy exception, but they're not going to. They're not going to because they are corrupt.

I'm telling you ahead of time, and you will see that movie play out exactly as I told you, and then you'll know what this game is all about. Okay, but meanwhile, I do what it was. I want to do one last thing here. I want to introduce this poll, because this is a hard poll. So, and for all of our polls, you go to t.com slash polls, and you'll see all of them, including this one obviously. So we're asking you, do you want them to create a democracy exception for the filibuster or restore the talking filibuster? That's a mansion idea. And these are

things that I've championed in the past two. Like decade ago, I was like, why are you just letting them do the filibuster without at least doing a filibuster, right? And talking it through. The third one is neither try to end the filibuster entirely. Now, that's the easy answer. But guys, understand that in Washington, if they go for that, if they go for the whole enchilada, they might not get it. Because some of the corporate Democrats are so thoroughly controlled by the Chamber of Commerce, they would not increase your wages on a boat. They would not increase them with a goat. They would not do it under penalty of law. There's no way they're going to get you health care and higher wages.

They're owned, totally owned. So we might not get it if you go in that direction. But on the other hand, that's, you know, then we would get, they would have no excuses left, but to actually do the agenda that they promised. So I'm curious what you guys are going to vote on that. Do you just take the democracy exception, make sure you get HR1 in? Do you go for a talking filibuster, which doesn't even guarantee HR1, but makes the $15 minimum wage and others a little bit more likely?

Or do you gamble and try to end a whole filibuster? Was, how are you going to vote? I mean, they gotta go for the gusto, the filibuster, and you know, a lot of people don't realize this as it exists right now. It was basically invented in this form by the Dixiecrats after reconstruction during Jim Crowe, essentially as a way to protect themselves from any piece of legislation that might help black people at all. That's it. That's the legacy of this maneuver in the Senate, right? Like this idea that is this sacred, you know, this sacred thing that the Senate's been doing forever and the forefathers. And back when George Washington had the wooden teeth, we just always filibustered stuff. It's not true. And, you know, more importantly, this idea that everybody's going to put forth about the Republican, and the Dems, they should have to come together into the table to pass stuff bipartisanly. Show me the proof that that's been happening with the filibuster. Where's the proof of this?

And I'll show you the proof that it's not. Last week, President Joe Biden and the Democratic Congress passed a $2 trillion stimulus package that no Republicans voted for, that 70% of the country is in favor. of. And then after it passes, a bunch of Republicans started taking credit for it. They didn't vote for it, but still wanted to take credit for it. It's like it's not working the way they're claiming that it does with the filibuster. So it's all the farce. It's a joke. Yeah, 100% right. Look, you know, the people in Washington will look at us and go, well, look, Waz's got a baseball cap on and, you know, he hasn't been working on local news covering fires

and car crashes for the last 20 years. Why should I trust him? You know, the guys on TV have such nice suits. And they say the filibusters part of the Senate tradition forever, and it's really important and brings together bipartisanship. No, they are absolutely positively wrong. Waz's right about the facts. The founding fathers actually hated the idea of a filibuster. They argue against it in Federalist 22. And they say that it was like literally why they did the Constitution and got rid of the Articles of Confederation because they did not want a super majority blocking everything. And the filibuster was largely used until Barack Obama's time. Well, then kind of also in that time too, but was to prevent civil rights.

It was mainly used almost exclusively to fight against civil rights, including anti-lynching laws. So senators said, no, we demand the right to lynch black people in the South, and we're going to use the filibuster to do that. So that's what the filibuster is. So we're going to break it down later in the show more. But in this case, we have got to call the most important thing, guys, is we've got to be honest and real. So whether they're going to do, the Democrats are going to do what they're going to do. But we're not going to let them get away with their lies. The mainstream media, oh, yeah, Philibus, it's so important.

So it was a democracy exception has always been around. No, you just invented it yesterday. Okay. Oh, yeah, well, of course you got to do a democracy. But that's progressive legislation. Oh, I don't know what that you're talking about. Economically, oh, they don't want anything passed. They say they want things passed.

They block their own legislation, but they say they want to pass. So I'm going to give them credit for wanting it. No, you guys are all wrong. You do not judge them by their words, their politicians. You judge them by their actions. If they actually wanted their agenda passed, they would end the filibuster tomorrow. They have every ability to do that. But they don't want the economic part of their agenda passed because it's progressive.

And that's why they play these games. All right, if you signed up for an hour long filibuster talk, you came to the right place. Because we're going to take a break when we come back. I'm going to outline that history for you guys because it's in the news so much. And Democrats, at least progressives, start to attack their own. own, ooh, okay, good, good, because they're not their own, because they're actually trying to help the bad guys. So that is a super interesting fight. What you do now is you take a second and a half to like and share the stream, and then we come right back.

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-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about

some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn 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. You know,

I'm trying to You know, I'm trying to You know, I'm going to be able to So, you know, You know.

I'm going to be I'm going to be. I'm going to be I'm going to be. I'm going to All right. Cofefefe 19, right, said. They want to make it easier for people to vote, yet they don't want to give people a reason to vote. Bingo, 100% right. Okay, you took the words right out of Waz's mouth. Okay, so politic tick tick ticks, right, sin. Much as I hate half measures, I think right now we're in a crisis. We have to counteract the GOP push against voting rights. Central stems aren't going to give us anything, but if more people can vote more easily, then we can sell progressive policy and candidates to these people. So look, these are fair point. They really are.

That's why I think the poll question is not a no-brainer. And so they conclude by saying taking the voting rights and then use it to amass more power for people who will vote for the right things. So remember, when more people get the vote, it's not just Democrats that have an advantage. Progressives have a bigger advantage too. Because usually newer voters, younger voters, and more likely to be progressive voters. And so these are all in our member section, t.y.com slash join to become a member. part of the show. And now I'm going to Colorado Blue Blazor regular. And he writes in,

I honestly believe that Democratic leadership does not want to win elections. They want to win their elections, but they want to be in the minority. They want every economic and political agenda that Republicans want, war, lowest possible taxes for themselves and the ultra wealthy, but don't want the pressure to do anything constructive. I got to be honest with you. I think that summarizes the last 40 years of American politics. And infinitely, better than any mainstream media reporter. Smartest audience in the world. Absolutely. I mean, does Nancy Pelosi want to be Speaker of the House? Sure. Does Schumer want to be majority? Sure. But they don't actually want to pass anything. That's why it's easier to be in the minority.

All right, back on Young Turks, Jenk and was with you guys. So I try to read their member comments to the YouTube and Twitch audience during the breaks. By the way, you could become a member on YouTube by hitting that join button below. It is so attractive. You're going to want to go ahead and hit that, okay? And it's just a buck 99 per month, just to show support and give the emotes, et cetera. $4.99 gets you the post game that me, Waz, and Francesca are going to do tonight.

You guys are going to love it, $9.99 gets you all of it. All right, but I want to read one quick thing from Twitch. Sir Wyatt Hill, who's been with us for three months, subscribe through Amazon Prime, so it's free if you do that for you guys. But we get the revenue. It's called hashtag Bezos Bugs. Who came up with that? You guys did. Our audience did, so roll with it.

But Sir Wyatt Hill made a great point. Did Trump ever use a democracy exception? I don't remember. Yeah, in other words, of course the Republicans didn't go, oh, exception this, exception that. Whatever they wanted to pass, $2 trillion tax get? Boom, they passed it instantly. Oh, reconciliation, whatever, who cares? Give me the goddamn money is what McConnell and Trump said. All right, so now speaking of McConnell, let's go to the next story. So Mitch McConnell is threatening the Democrats. If you guys take away the filibuster,

my God, we will then do our agenda. Okay, I think that's how democracy works, but let's break it down. So, first of all, let's get McConnell warmed up with this. Some Democratic senators seem to imagine this would be a tidy trade-off. If they could just break the rules on a razor-thin majority, but Mr. President, anyone who really knows the Senate knows that's not what would happen. So let me say this very clearly for all 99 or my colleagues, nobody serving in this chamber can even begin, can even begin to imagine what

a completely scorched earth Senate would look like. So look, I tell the turtle the slowest roll, but it's pretty slow to begin with. Oh, this will be scorched earth, I tell you see what I could do. Look, if I assume I'd laugh that stuff off, but hey, have Adagos, do your best. And you know what, every time you pop your head out of your shell and tell me, oh, I'm going to do this legislative maneuver, I'll just kill that legislative maneuver. You know why? Because I'm in the majority of you're not.

But Democrats don't roll that way, of course, because they're weak. So, but let's say, let's hear, here's McConnell doing more threats about how I'm going to tie everything up, even before we get to the filibuster. He's going to do threats on filibuster and say, I'm going to tie you up in rules and regulations. Ooh, go ahead, Mitch. Everything that Democrat senators did to President Bush and Trump, everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama, would be child's play compared to the disaster

that Democrats would create for their own priorities if, if they break the Senate. Even the most basic aspects of our colleagues' agenda, The most mundane task of the Biden presidency would actually be harder, harder, not easier. We're Democrats in a post-nuclear Senate. So in other words, if you get rid of the filibuster, again, I'm going to tie you down with all these rules and regulations. And, you know, what we did do Obama will be nothing about this. First of all, let me explain what they did to Obama.

For about 50 years, the filibuster was used on. average less than once a year. McConnell started using it on average 80 times a year under Obama. Dude, you fired all your missiles. You got nothing left. This is the most obvious bluff in the world. And whatever you have left, we can counter it in the majority. And so to the rest of us was, this looks like the emptiest threat anybody's ever seen. I guarantee you, like the Democrats are ordering depends now. They already bought the stock in it. It is insider trading. Oh my God, what is, you know, what's Mitch going to do to us with rules and regulations? You know what's so crazy is I hear that and hear a couple of things.

One, if I'm a Republican voter and I had the presidency, I had the Senate, I had the House, and you did none of this stuff, any of it, at any point, what does that say about this party? What does that say about this leadership and about what they actually want to do when they get in power? Because I don't understand how just the filibuster is what kept, you know, was say between you and all of these Republican wet dreams that never came through. It's nonsense. And, you know, I love the idea that shoveling money up to the richest Americans all over again isn't just the only thing that they want to do. Like, there's just no proof Ms. McConnell wants to do any of the crap that he just threatened to do. And, you know, lastly, basically all this tells me is that Democrats need to remember Obamacare. Remember, we're going to repeal and replace.

We're as soon as we get in there, we're going to kill these guys, we're going to do this. They couldn't strip a single one of the things that everybody loved about Obamacare. And that's why you see this threat. They know once policies that people like getting acted, they can't reverse them. That's why they can't take away Social Security, they can't take away Medicare, they can't take away pre-existing conditions. Hell, even the stimulus spending, they saw all the spending truck did, the checks that people got, the unemployment benefits, people loved it. They know they can't campaign against this stuff once the genie gets out of the bottle. And that's why Mitch McConnell has to come out with these threats, because he knows.

He is dead in the water the second that anything meaningful gets passed for the people of this country. So look, Waz is so on top of it because I want you to now watch the second half of what McConnell says, and you're going to see exactly what he's talking about. Okay, so let's show you two clips here. Start with the first one here. Go ahead. As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldn't just erase every liberal change that hurt the country. we'd strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero is zero input from the other side. First of all, what input did you ask for when Trump was in church?

Come on! Come on, do people look at this with a straight face? Remember when Trump was like, look, I'm really looking forward to a lot of input from the Democrats? And McConnell was like, oh, yeah, keep that input coming in, okay, zero, zero. But mainly to Waz's point now, watch this last part. How about this? Nationwide right to work for working Americans. Defunding Planned Parenthood in sanctuary cities on day one.

A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn. Concealed carry. reciprocity in all 50 states in the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border. Look, the extreme right wing is nuts on a lot of stuff, but they are right about one core thing, which is the same thing that we believe about our side, which is that establishment Republicans don't mean a word of what they say. Now, the agenda that he just listed is the top agenda of the

Republicans. They had everything. Waz nailed it. They had all the branches. They could have passed anything they wanted. They didn't pass any of that stuff. Why? Guys, why? Why don't the establishment Democrats ever pass anything they claim that they want? And the establishment Republicans never passed the things that the right wing wants? Because they're not here to serve you. They're here to serve their corporate donors. So the only thing that ever passes is things that the Chamber of Commerce has accepted. So what under Trump? What was that? They didn't even bother building a wall. They're like, there's not a money in that, right? It passed a $2 trillion tax cut for the richest people and mainly for corporations. And then on top of that, what did Trump pass and

then Biden pass? COVID relief. Well, that sounds pretty good. That comes to us. We kind of like that, right? Yes, there are parts of it that are great. But the majority of the money went to multinational corporations through the first relief package and through what the Federal Reserve did, up to $4 trillion of money printed and handed off to corporations. And even the money that went to... 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 T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans.

That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Us under the new Biden bill, it stimulates the economy and then helps those same businesses. And that's why they were okay with it. What was the one part that the corporations were not okay with in that bill? raising your wage. Yep. So the $15 minimum wage got stripped out, not because of Democratic or Republican priorities.

And remember 75% of the country, including an overwhelming majority of Republicans, wanted that provision in the bill, okay? But it got stripped out because the only person or the only entity that counts said no, and that was the Chamber of Commerce. So business 100% controls both establishment wings of the Republican and Democratic Party. Man, it's so crazy because all you have to do is think about these things in the frame of who benefits, right? Like obviously we would all benefit from universal healthcare. We would all benefit from not being left to the whims of whatever job we work for, whether or not they felt like giving us healthcare and paying for it.

And why do they want to keep that as something they're responsible for? Because it's a bargaining chip. They say, oh, we don't want, we don't have to increase your wage. We're letting you live on health care. Why would we pay you more? Why would they want a minimum, a wage hike of $15? Because something like Amazon would look and say, look, if you wanted to go work at McDonald's for eight bucks, you could do that.

Or you could come mess with us for 14. If McDonald's was offering $15 an hour, Amazon would have to raise their wages. That's the only people who are against these things, these provisions are capital. Nobody else. Economists, the people who study this stuff have all basically come to agreement like there's no reason not to do this. Actually, universal health care would bring down the cost of it, you know, a minimum wage hike would not materially cripple the economy. In fact, it would work for everybody, all people involved. The only people against it, like Jink, like just beautifully just illustrated, this capital is the business class.

Yeah, and by the way, we do the show with the audience. So YouTube super chat, sometimes we read those comments. Subliminal sapper just wrote in, the right has rhinos and we have dynos, both in their age and the way that they vote. It's 100% true, smartest audience in the world. Okay, hit the join button below if you want to join us on YouTube. All right, now, look, one last thing about that. Think about what Mitch McConnell is telling you.

If the Republicans were to hold the House, the Senate, and the White House again, we would pass our entire agenda. Okay, what would be wrong with that if we live in a democracy? Now, I don't like their agenda, so I'd fight against their agenda. But yeah, that's what's supposed to happen in a democracy. If you win, you do your agenda. Instead, the filibuster and all these rules and regulations in the Senate are used to make sure that they could pretend that they're going to do something for the two sides and never actually do it. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work. In a democracy, the side that wins

is actually supposed to do their agenda. And so he's now threatening the Democrats. Like, if you guys actually stop bluffing and actually do your agenda, then we'll do our agenda. and the chamber will be really, really mad with both of us. Okay, you know what that entire Mitch McConnell's speech was? Crying to Mommy. Okay, and Mommy is the Chamber of Commerce. Mommy, they're going to do something you don't want. The Donald Force says it things we don't want, Mommy.

Boom, go back in the show. All right. All right. Wax on and wax off. All right, listen, we gotta take a break. But when we come back, I'm still not done with the filibuster. I'm gonna break that filibuster by the end of the show. Okay, we're gonna filibuster, Philbusters. It's not the first time we've done it. No, but seriously, finally, when we come back, the history of the filibuster, this will blow your mind, and this is the video you're gonna go share with all your family and friends. We'll be right back.

So, I'm going to be able to be. I don't know. I'm going to be able to be. I don't know. All right. Back to our members, Catman Steve says about Mitch McConnell, he was crying for his friend Joe Manchin to save him again, the undemocratic one vote majority, right? Biden at some point's got to decide who's president.

Is it Manchin or is it Biden? But the reality is, it's both. Biden's using Manchin as a foil. Like, oh, golly, gee, there's nothing I could do. Joe Manchin twisted my arm. Joe, twist again, twist again. I don't want to do that stuff. You and I both don't want to do it.

twist it. So that's what's happening. Just be anti-racist writes in, what blows my mind is both Republicans and Democrats fail to realize that they too are but puppets for the rich. Jess, you know, I think there's some chance they do recognize that. I think that what's sadder is the media doesn't recognize it. Like Ted Cruz knows he's taking orders. He knows he's a servant, right? I mean, in a best case scenario, he's the head butler, right? But when the Mercer slammed the door in his face during the Trump convention back in 2016, after they gave him $13 million in the primaries, he then turned around and started phone banking for Trump and doing everything they wanted. You think he doesn't

know? He knows he's a little bitch for the rich. That's who that's who he is. And so he's like, yes, sir, what do you need me to do next, sir? He's the most servile piece of crap you've ever seen. It's just the media doesn't know. They're like, oh, Ted Cruz thinks this. He doesn't think anything, you morons. All right, back on Young Turks. Jank and Waz with you guys today. I'm not done with the filibuster by damn site, so let's keep going, okay? So lots of talk about how we need filibuster reform driven mainly by progressives, but now a lot

of Democrats want to pass HR1 because it makes them more likely to win the next set of elections. So now a lot of the leaders are talking about it, but a couple of their own is preventing them, including Kirsten Cinema. We're going to get to cinema in a second because her hypocrisy is awesome and we're going to break it down for you guys. But first, Dick Durbin, number two in charge of the Democrats in the Senate, actually saying that they might want to get rid of the filibuster. Let's watch. The filibuster is still making a mockery of American democracy. The filibuster is still being misused by some senators to block legislation urgently needed and supported by a strong majority of the American people.

Rather than protecting the finally balanced system our founders created, today's filibuster throws a system out of balance, giving one half of one branch of government what amounts to veto over the rest of government. It promotes gridlock, not good governance. Look, that's super obvious, right? But just four years ago, 31 Democratic senators were like, we will never get rid of the filibuster. It allows us to hide. Why would we get rid of our blankie? We could hide under the blankie and pretend we're progressive economic legislation and never actually

passed it. And Durbin was among those folks. He didn't want to get rid of the filibuster. So now he does because they need that HR1, a sweet, sweet HR1 voting rights, which is great, but also helps them win. So that's why he's going in this direction. Now, one of those principal opponents is Krista Sinema. The Republican, oops, the Democratic senator from Arizona.

Now, why is the Democrat want to block it? She is, along with Joe Manchin, the two most pro-corporate senators in the Democratic Party and maybe in all of the Senate. So she wants to block every economic piece of legislation that the Democrats have on behalf of her corporate donors. That's who cinema is. So let me be clear about her quotes. She said, retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things that we want

get done, hilarious. Rather, it's meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be, a place where senators come together, find compromise, and get things done for our country. Okay, let me be super clear. None of that is true. And I'm going to prove it definitively for you guys in a minute. That is not what the filibuster is for. The filibuster was to end civil rights. So I will explain. But first, is she at all open to the, to negotiating on this with fellow Democrats. She's open and negotiating everything with the Republicans. She just said it. I want to compromise with the Republicans. I'm desperate to give Republicans things that they don't deserve because they're in the minority. But I want to give it to them anyway because that's what my donors

want. Okay. So how about compromising with Democrats? Is she open any reform of the filibuster? She says in January, spokesperson for Sinema said she was against eliminating the filibuster and quote, not open to changing our mind on that point. So to Republicans. Republicans, yes, to Democrats and progressives, hell no. Okay? Now what's great is Brianna Westbrook, former Justice Democrat candidate. Now, Vice Chair, the Democratic Party in Arizona, now has some degree of power. This is why I tell you to run for things, because you can make a difference.

And Brianna's awesome. So she's saying, hey, you know what? You said that you wanted fundamental change. We know we can't get fundamental change without getting rid of the filibuster. So let me throw your video right back at you. back at you. They're in the same party in the same state. That's why this is courageous, is bold and I'm here for it. Let's watch. This is Brianna Westbrook. Looking at a revival of the progressive movement in Arizona, things are so bad in our state that that actually can

sometimes be helpful because it really brings people together to fight in a collective movement for progress. So that's Brianna Westbrook, throwing cinema's own words right back at her. You said things are so bad that you need this reform. Now you're saying, ah, we don't need any stinking reform. I rather just agree with Republicans. That's just basically a fact. By the way, you don't actually agree with the Republican voters. You agree with Republican politicians.

So now let's go to a Dino for progress poll in Arizona. So do her voters agree with her? And this is not just Democrats, this is all voters in Arizona. Is it more important to you that senators pass major legislation to address the problems we face as a nation, or that they preserve. traditional Senate procedures and rules like the filibuster. The majority, 61%, said it is more important to pass major legislation. Around a quarter, 26% said it was more important to preserve traditional Senate procedures. So Chris's Cinema, the politician, is doing this for 26% of her

electorate? That makes no sense. What that poll doesn't tell you is 99% of her donors don't want her to end the filibuster because that's their excuse for not passing higher wages, healthcare for everybody, et cetera, okay? By the way, of her own Democratic voters, 76% say, is more important to pass major legislation. So now, let's talk about what the reality is. Look, you hear all the time, all filibuster, I mean, it is part of Senate tradition, it's so important, and it's been around forever, and it make it sound like it's part of the Constitution. It is not at all part of the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers hated it as I'm about to prove to you, okay? But first, let me give you even

more context. How often was the filibuster used in the past? Almost never. So let me explain. From 1917 to 1970, and this is Ezra Klein from the New York Times, and these are facts. The Senate took 49 votes to break filibusters, 49. Those are cloture votes. That is fewer than one each year. On average, less than one a year between 1917 to 1970. Okay, we're to get to what those votes were in a second, okay? But it's barely used. That is this actual Senate tradition for over 50 years, barely used, okay? Now, since 2010, it has taken an average of more than 80 votes each year to end filibusters, more than 80. Gee, what happened in 2010? All right, Obama was president, and McConnell wanted to block his entire agenda. So McConnell came in and said,

once a year, no, we're going to do it more than 80 times a year. More than 80 times a year. That's in 2010. That's just 10, 11 years ago. Senate tradition my ass. Okay, they didn't use to block these bills like this. Okay, it is just not, it's empirically false. By the way, look, I get why cinema wants to lie. I get why McConnell wants to lie because they work for corporations. They don't work for you. But media, what are you doing? Good job here by Ezra Klein of the New York Times, give him credit, give the New York Times credit. But the rest of the media, why do you keep calling it Senate tradition when it was never tradition? And I remember covering it on the young Turks as McConnell was doing it. I'm like, why don't they make them do a real filibuster and talk it

through? He's doing 80 year. And everybody else in the media was like, no, Jake, I don't know what you're talking about. We were born yesterday. Didn't last year? Didn't we have 79 or 81? No, we didn't. We didn't. It's just not true. But the media all regurgitate corporate talking points. So wait, hold up now, though. What was this about here, though? What is the Founding Fathers actually wanted? What was the filibuster? How did he even come about? So he's in a conversation, Ezra Klein was in his new show in New York Times, the podcast. And I'm taking this from the transcript. With Adam Gentleson, who is a great guy, he used to work for Harry. Don't hold it against him. He's generally a progressive, and he wrote a book about this whole phenomenon.

And it's called Killswitch, the Rise of the Modern Senate and the Cripling of American Democracy. And he's an expert on the filibuster, okay? And remember, he worked in the Senate, so he knows all these rules inside and out and the history. He explains, the irony here is that the framers saw this coming. And they identified this misperception about supermajority threshold at the time in 1789. The reason they saw it was that they had just finished having direct firsthand experience with the Articles of Confederation, which did require a supermajority threshold for most major categories of legislation. Do you understand what he's saying there?

Filibuster's not in the Constitution because they didn't want it in the Constitution. In fact, they wrote the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation sucked. And the Articles of Confederation had supermajorities like the filibuster. So they couldn't pass anything. You remember you read it in a civics class? You didn't read about the filibuster part. But you read the parts about how the Articles of Confederation was so bogged down, they couldn't pass any legislation. Guess what?

We went back to the Articles of Confederation. We went back to the thing that the founding fathers said, that definitely doesn't work. We got to do just simple majority. Now, get a load of this. If you're still not convinced, here's Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 22, explaining this very concept. Back then, again, the concept of super majorities, just like a filibuster. Here we go.

The necessity of unanimity in public bodies or of something approaching towards it, so basically a super majority requirement. has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security, but its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute to pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt Junto, or junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. Now, what does that mean? That means a small group in the minority, in this case the Republicans, could just block everything to embarrass the current administration. Well, in fact, it would be politically motivated to do that. It would be political negligence not to block the legislation of the current

party in place if you're the minority. So Hamilton explained, this country will never get anything done if we let the minority block legislation. We must have the majority in a democracy actually passed the laws that they said they would pass. There is absolutely no dispute about it. The founding fathers hated the idea of a filibuster. That is why they did not put it in the Constitution. In fact, they wrote the whole Constitution to get rid of the idea. So media, I'm begging you to do your job.

I'm begging you. Because you guys control the national conversation. As long as you keep telling falsehoods about how the filibuster is part of American tradition, It allows the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans to hide behind that veil. So finally, I promise it to you guys. So what did they use the filibuster for between 1917 and 1970 when they used to use it about once a year? Well, Adam explains, civil rights didn't pass back then. And I think it's really important for 87 years, every single civil rights bill that came before Congress.

And there were many, many from the end of reconstruction in 1877 to the first time as Southern Philippines, Buster was broken in 1964. Every single civil rights bill that came before the Senate was systematically forced to clear a supermajority threshold, and they were unable to do it. And so they all failed. They never, and this is amazing, they never used it for a piece of legislation that was not about civil rights. In fact, a huge percentage of those bills that they killed were anti-lynching was. So let me give you this final quote. Adam Gentleson, explains. When Gallup polled federal anti-lynching laws in 1937, they found support of 72%, including a majority support in the South. Anti-poll tax laws also had upwards of 60% support. The country

was ready for those civil rights laws. But because of the supermajority threshold, they didn't pass in the Senate. Now look, you could look at that number and go, oh my God, only 72% were against lynchings in 1937. But at the same time, the country was certainly ready to pass an anti-lynching law, but they couldn't pass one for another 30 years because the racist senators from the South said, no, we demand the right to lynch black people. And that's what they use the filibuster for almost exclusively. So don't tell me that the filibuster is a good thing. It is a monstrous thing that our founding fathers despised and was used mainly for the worst acts in American history was. Yeah, man, the way the media, and specifically, I'm not talking about own or Fox News or hate radio.

I'm talking about CNN. I'm talking about MSNBC. I'm talking about the outlets that are not your nice liberal auntie watches on a nightly basis. You're nice soccer mom auntie watches all the time. They're the ones espousing this drek. It's just BS. This is not some, you know, parliamentary tradition that should just be held so sacred. And I might add, man, if four years of Donald Trump in office didn't teach us anything, it should have taught us this, that most of these norms nobody cares about.

This dude spent four years completely obliterating and smashing every civic, procedural, all kinds of norms. And guess what? We're still here somehow. I think we would be able to survive an abolishment of the filibuster, Jank. I'm sorry, it's hard for me to believe that we can't. After watching Donald Trump treat these cultural norms within the, federal government as nothing, which they obviously are.

That's such a great point, was, because honestly, I didn't, I forgot that for a second. You're right. After Trump, we're having a conversation about norms. We're having a conversation about norms. We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. Okay. Don't talk to me about practice or the playoffs, okay?

No, we're not talking about etiquette. We're not talking about norms. We're not talking about procedures. Okay? But, and guys, like I said, because it isn't about that. It's about the cover that the Democrats need to not pass $15 minimum wage, to not pass Green New Deal, to not pass Medicare for all, to not pass the economic agenda that they pretended to be in favor of. So media, please do your job and explain people what the real facts are and the real history are so they can vote the right way. All right. Look, I'm going to do one more story because I'm a bad man. Okay. So while stay with me. Stay with me, brother. Stay with me. I'm here. Okay. Okay. All right. Megan McCain has advice for us. So this ought to be good. And so she's going to bring up Kamala Harris. She's going to say all sorts of nonsense. Let's listen. And then we will tell you what the realities. I want to show a clip to explain why it's happening with Republicans. Let's just say there's a vaccine that is approved and even distributed. before the election. Would you get it? Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us.

I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it. So she's expressing skepticism about the vaccine under the Trump administration. A lot of Republicans, I know, are expressing skepticism about the vaccine under the Biden administration, which is why this has been so dangerous that this has become so politicized. Both sides are equally responsible for this. Republicans are contrarian by nature. We are built in, from my very fabric up, to question authority and to question big government. And when big government is saying, you have to do X, Y, and Z, we're going to question it.

Except for one of the Patriot Act. Yeah. Yeah, good point wise. So all right, first of all, Waz is right. They pass the Patriot Act, they pass all this. They don't want to question anything. As long as they're in charge, they want you to bow your heads and do exactly as they tell you to do.

Second of all, equally responsible? Both sides are equally responsible for showing mistrust about the government in coronavirus. Proposterous, man. She cut off Kamala Harris there. You know what the rest of her answer was? But if Dr. Fauci says that it's fine, I trust him so that I would take it, right? Conveniently, she left that part of the clip out, right? Basically what Kamala Harris was saying is if you gave me an actual scientist and not

a moron like Donald Trump, then I'll trust it. But I'm not gonna trust an idiot that doesn't know a goddamn thing about coronavirus. And why does she say something like that? I don't know, because Donald Trump thought you could inject, disinfect it into your lungs and get rid of coronavirus, and that you would have to be really one of the dumbest people alive, which unfortunately is about 40% of this country, to believe anything that comes out of that fool's mouth. So here, we're going to show you. We got comments from Dr. Berks, who's going to regulate here. But I want to show you what Trump said, and Dr. Berks's reaction

to that, to give you a sense of whether this issue is 50-50 or not on who to trust. So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, And I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. Right, and then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or, or, or. almost a cleaning because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number of the lungs.

So it would be interesting to check that so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds interesting to me. He took her brother away, man. She's never heard anything dumber in her life. Never, never. And I saw her brain imploding as he was talking. Like, I was a doctor. What am I doing here?

What am I doing here? And I saw it rolling around and I heard like, oh my God, like, oh my God, half the country believes this. Oh my God, half the country believes this. Okay, now, if you're saying, hey, Jank, you're extrapolating there. You don't know that she was thinking that. Well, good news. We have Dr. Berks now talking about it.

So Brent, roll that tape. That moment, obviously, there's a lot of tape on that. You can see how extraordinarily uncomfortable I was. Unfortunately, he was not speaking to me. He was speaking to the DHS scientists who had presented the data. And then when he did turn to me, I said not a treatment. I, you know, I have spent almost 30 years in the military. Those of you who have served in the military know that there are discussions you have in private

with your commanding officers and there's discussions you had in public. Frankly, I didn't know how to handle that episode. I still think about it every day. When I was spoken to, I said not a treatment. If someone didn't have the military training that I had, maybe they would have reacted differently. It was something Dr. Fauci and I talked about all the time is how to correct the record.

So, of course she thought he was a moron because she's a doctor. Okay. And doctors, no, you can't inject disinfect it into your lungs or zap your body with lights and have that fix coronavirus. You also can't do hydroxy as he, you know, like just made up out a whole cloth. He's like, I don't know, maybe we go with hydroxychloricid or maybe we go with legs zapped into our brains. What do you think, Dr. Birx? And she said, another thing she said in that interview was that moment, obviously, there's a lot of tape on that.

You can see how extraordinarily uncomfortable I was. Yeah, I was. We could see it. So now, Megan McCain is telling us, no, no, you should try. No, no, you should treat both sides equally. And, and, you know, Trump, Biden, I can't tell the difference. Yeah, and Megan McCain clearly, obviously, has no credibility, right? Like, there's no other way to paint that, but I will say this.

The Dems around election time were getting cute with how they decided to frame and politicize certain things. Kamala did get a little too cute in her answer right there, right? Like, because she did want to make it. She did want to take a dig at Trump and the untrustworthy nature of how he handled the virus and the response to it. She was getting cute. She was getting political. And I will say, like, this is around the same time when Nancy Pelosi was like, no, we can't pass a stimulus before the election because people might like it. And Trump might get votes off of it.

So I will say, you know, they were getting cute around then about the things that they decided to politicize. But again, Maggie McCain, she has no credibility. Once you do this both sides, equal stuff, it's nonsense. It was the White House. It was Trump who used his bully pulpit to politicize the shutdown, to politicize the mass mandates, to politicize all the stuff, not going to church, not going to school. He's the one that said, no, we want to get you back in church. We want to get you back to work. We're the ones who wanted, not the Democrats.

So that was completely Trump's doing. Like, there's no two ways about that. Yeah, Wizard of Wa's regulating right there. It's true. The Democrats did do those things. But in terms of science, there's no comparison. The one guy was an idiot that didn't have any idea what he was doing. And telling us, oh, you should have trusted him.

No, we're not, well, I was going to use an old school. I was wondering why I couldn't get oxy clean at Costco around the time. It was confusing, man. It was weird how that worked out. Chlorox and stuff. I mean, I didn't know how to hit the vet. All right. One last thing about McCain.

She also said in that segment, she said there's been many, many opportunities to write this wrong, including President Biden going on TV and giving credit to President Trump for the help with the rollout of the vaccine, which he didn't do. No, no. Okay, Megan, let me be super clear. We are never going to give that moron credit for it. anything, okay, because if he did accidentally do something right, it's because he tripped over it. Okay, you just saw the morons say we should inject disinfected into our lungs.

You think he had a strategy, you think he had a brilliant strategy on coronavirus. No, I'm not gonna let them rewrite history. I'm just not gonna do it. No, no, he had no earthly idea what he was doing. When he came out of the hospital, because he himself got coronavirus, because that's how stupid he was. He's a president, man. They can put you in a bubble. And you don't have any idea how many doctors there are to protect the president, right? And he's like, I don't need no sticking doctors. You're going to coronavirus. He like baseline coronavirus and then got it because he's that dumb as a president of the

United States. And then he comes out in that same speech that you're looking out there. And he's like, you know, they say I'm immune, maybe, I don't know. You're speaking of the nation. Why didn't you find out? You were in the freaking hospital. You had it. You've been president for 10 months during coronavirus. So no, we are not going to thank you. thank him, Megan. All these Republicans go around, go, hey, what are you guys going to thank Trump? Now, I'm done with that

talking point. The correct answer is never, ever. Okay, I think I'm done. All right. Waz is going to stay here. I'm going to stay here. Francesc is going to join us. We're going to have a great second kind of hour. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full

episode of the Young Turks. Support our work listen to ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon