The Young Turks - Fox News Embraces John Delaney

Episode Date: July 31, 2019

John Delaney went on Fox News to cry. Adrienne Lawrence, Maytha Alhassen, and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. What's up? Welcome to the Young Turks, Anna Kasparian. Maita Alhassen, I don't know why I'm pausing.

It's okay. It came from my, I'm knocking, I got it. My jet-like energy was just transmitted to you. So I thought I would be insanely exhausted today because it was a long day yesterday, filled in for John on the damage report, did the main show, did the debate coverage, by the time I got home, it was like almost 10 o'clock. But you did two red eyes. Yeah.

And then it came here, which is crazy, insane. But thank you ladies for joining us today. I'm really excited about today's show. And we're going to do a little bit more analysis on last night's debate, which I'm excited about because I'm really curious to hear what you guys have to say about it. Later on, we are going to have a few live hits. John Iderola and Jank Yugar are still both in Detroit for obvious reasons. It's the second night of the debate, which we will be doing coverage of. As you know, we're not able to stream the debate as we did back in the day.

But right as the debate ends, we will go live and provide analysis, much like we did yesterday. So yeah, that's something that we can look forward to later. But let's get started with today's main show, because again, we do have a little more analysis. And I love going a little deeper in that analysis. So we're gonna do that with Delaney next. It was standing room only in this pub tonight, and the person who got the most love throughout the night was Senator Sanders. Trump is a pathological liar. Now, while that crowd certainly loved the progressives on stage, one individual did not

And that was John Delaney, who was bloodied, politically speaking, by the progressives on stage. In fact, Delaney was so salty about how much he was defeated or how badly he was defeated on that stage that he decided to enter enemy territory, Fox News, and trash Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Take a look. Let's go to video two, please. You're talking about Elizabeth Warren? Because she has a plan for everything, but she's never implemented a plan for anything.

Well, it's not just Elizabeth Warren. It's Bernie Sanders. And, I mean, if you take what they're saying to an extreme, what's next? Free vacations, you know, free housing, free everything. I mean, at some point we do have to pay for these things. I believe there is a role of government to do things to give people the kind of opportunity they deserve, like we've seen here in Detroit in the last couple of years, where we've seen a really good turnaround when the government and the private sector actually

work together. And that's kind of how I think about the way we should be approaching everything. So there are two things that I would like to debunk from that video, beginning with Brian Kilmead's accusation that Elizabeth Warren has never accomplished anything or hasn't done anything in government. The whole reason why we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is because Elizabeth Warren thought of it, pushed for it, and succeeded in getting that deal. done. That was her brainchild, that was something that she did to ensure that some of these predatory lenders would return the money that they had stolen from American consumers. And that agency, that government agency has returned tens of millions of dollars to Americans

who had been defrauded by these financial institutions. Now I bring that up because Elizabeth Warren actually accomplished that a while ago when she wasn't even in government, right? So she pushed for this, she finally convinced Obama and some of the Democrats in Congress to do it. She wanted to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Senate refused to confirm her. The Republicans in Senate refused to confirm her. So you know what she did after that?

She decided to run for Senate. And she won, obviously, she's a senator now. So I bring that up because we literally have a government agency that has the responsibility of returning money to defrauded Americans because of Elizabeth Warren, but she hasn't accomplished anything. That's the one thing I wanted to debunk. Before we get to the rest of it, I wanted to get some thoughts, though. Oh, it seemed like it was an incredible cheap shot.

Number one, it's unfortunate that Delaney felt he needed to go onto Fox News. But if he got beat so bad by the progressives that he's going to change parties, I could see that happening. He wasn't that devoted to begin with. But then also to act this way in terms of try to tear down Elizabeth Warren for her just speaking up and calling him out on his mess. Like that great, pretty much observation she made in terms of why one for president is If all you're going to talk about is what you can't do, that's exact purpose and point.

You should have a plan for what you can do, and that's not something Delaney had, but clearly he had a backup plan for after he got a beat down, which was to go on to Fox News and cry. Absolutely. And it is very telling that that's where he went the day after the Democratic debates, because those are his people. His people are not the people who are listening to Warren and Bernie Sanders and raving in the crowd. And you know what was so interesting, what's next? This alleged slippery slope of the promises that are so extreme, free housing, free vacations,

where are they going to get money for that? Well, guess what? In Denmark, there is no rental economy because people own their houses. How do they own their houses? Because the government gives them free money to go to college, so tuition is free, and then they get a stipend. They save that stipend and they buy a place. So actually, it is subsidized by the government, and the government did through the FHA

in the 1950s, subsidized. free housing for a select group of people. So he is the beneficiary of all that free welfare from the government and also corporate welfare. So one thing that I wanted, the second thing I wanted to debunk is the notion that these programs are quote unquote free. They're not free, they're funded through US taxpayer money, right? So I bring that up because on one hand, you'll have people like Jake Tapper who's also very

much against these programs. I mean, he won't explicitly say it, but you can tell in the framing of his questions that he's against programs like Medicare for all because, well, what is it going to do taxes? What is it going to do to taxes? You know, in his own weasily way, pretending as if he cares about the middle class and their taxes going up. No, you care about your taxes going up, right?

Like it's very clear. And so they'll argue that, oh my God, taxes are going to go up because that's how you're going to pay for it, right? And then you'll have the very same type of people make the argument that these are just free programs. These are handouts. They're not handouts, they're paid for through tax payer money, but let's keep it real. Those tax cuts that the wealthy got to enjoy under the Trump administration, two trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich would have to be reversed.

And they don't like it. People like Delaney don't like that. Let me give you some more information about who Delaney is and what really drives him, right? Because these are not the type of questions that get asked of him, and I think it's important that people know who he is. So Delaney, according to Alex Koch at a sludge, Delaney has as much as $3.2 million invested in healthcare companies and funds with health industry holdings. Also the business friendly Democrat, a finance executive, and a former representative from

Maryland, is worth as much as $280 million. That is what drives him, and that is the reason why he is put on that stage to try to tear down progressives who have real solutions to issues that Americans have been struggling with for decades now. Let's go to the next video. There's more. You know, I don't understand why anybody does to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for. What's your reaction to that? I mean, you're running for president because you're being honest with the American people. I don't understand why people run and then they promise stuff

and then it never happens. Well, that's the response when someone really can't defend their plans. So, for example, if John F. Kennedy, when he said we should go to the moon by the end of the decade in the 60s, someone could have said to him, well, you're not saying we should go to the moon next month. So you're not being ambitious enough. Right. Right. So it's a dishonest, kind of lazy response.

It's similar to when they say it's a Republican talking point. You know, that's the problem with the extreme left of the party. When you point out obvious flaws in the things they're talking about, they say, well, that's a Republican talking point. And I'm like, no, it's actually a fact. So just going back to Ainsley and what she mentioned about people running as president, they get elected and they don't actually follow through with what they promised. I wonder if she's talking about Trump, who campaigned on lowering the price of prescription drugs, who campaigned on, you know, combating. immigration and solving that problem, who even said that he was going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

What happened? Remember when he said he was going to bring coal jobs back? We did a story about how we've lost more coal jobs under Trump's administration, because those jobs, honestly, in today's society, are antiquated. Industries are moving away from using coal as fuel. So it's amazing how they can make these arguments in attack. people on the left, but they'll never take a second to reflect on, you know, their favorite candidate or their favorite president who has essentially fallen short on every single promise

that he had during the campaign. And especially the one he ran or seemed to ran the hardest on, which is about Mexico paying for that border wall, which we now see gets to come out of taxpayer dollars. It's just, it's unfortunate to see someone like Delaney on the stage with other individuals who are committed to the American people. to the agenda. And it's clear that Delaney's really just trying to fill his own coffers and make sure that he meets his own interests, especially with all of his investments in health care as a businessman. And it just makes you wonder, why necessarily are these people

there? But as we get to see, you know, in him appearing on Fox News, he's there really to bring down and to knock down the progressives in the lefts who actually want to do something for the people. Absolutely. And more and more, you see that he is clearly positioning himself as a cool, collected Trump. And that's what makes him so appealing to a Fox News audience. And also this kind of love in America for some strange reason of the entrepreneuromics. For somebody who knows how to build themselves up allegedly, because he probably has a history like most of these folks do of generations of wealth, and then using that to create an industry

for themselves, and then maintaining it by having those relationships within politics so that their interests are protected. Absolutely, so while you might hear one narrative in mainstream media, certainly on Fox News, about how the moderate Democrats are the ones who have the biggest shot, the poll numbers indicate something very different. I mean, even establishment media, you read the New York Times, you read CNN, everyone seems to agree that the two progressives on stage. did really well yesterday. And it's not just about the perspectives of opinion writers on these

publications. It's also about the reaction they received from people. So let's give you a little taste of that. Here's a video from CNN. Who did you like tonight? Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I really did. What impressed you about her? She, she knows her words. She has answers and solutions. I thought Elizabeth Warren did the best job tonight. She showed passion, empathy, energy. intelligence, you know, grit, toughness. Some of the centrist Democrats didn't do so well tonight in this room, at least. Governor Bullock, the congressman, Delaney, and Ryan, they got booed at certain points here. Who did you not like tonight?

Delaney is my least favorite, by far. Why? I just, I don't think he has the solutions that America needs right now. Sorry. Mm-hmm. I mean, it is what it is. So whenever someone tries to feed you Delaney-like talking points, just know what the reality is.

There's a reason why he's barely even polling. There's a reason why he got the type of reaction he received last night during the debates. And it's not just about Delaney, it's about other candidates who represent the same nonsense he represents, which is the same, you know, incrementalist, let's play patty cakes with Republicans' policies. They're not gonna work. They haven't worked. And honestly, the frustration that people felt under the Obama administration for falling short on economic policy that actually helped the masses, that's what led to people, you know, flipping

from blue to red. And it's unfortunate because I don't agree with that vote. I don't agree with supporting Trump. He definitely, I mean, you can tell he had absolutely no interest in helping the average American. I mean, he's been exploiting the system of corruption his entire life. But we need someone better. We need to go back to Democratic candidates who actually do care about the average American,

care about economic justice, and the American worker. Yeah, and I think the miscalculation here is that there's an assumption that the Midwesterner is somebody who can be easily pandered to if you say that we have a moderate, electable person. But actually, that's the mistake. And that's the mistake because the person in the Midwest, the person who's the most downtrodden on because of all those policies, guess who's saying? sounding really good to them, a Warren, a Bernie Sanders, even a Marianne Williamson. You saw people in that crowd who were cheering like I've never heard in a democratic debate

based on her reparations argument. This is a Midwestern issue because they are forgotten economically and they're not going to be easily pander to. Yes. And I just hope we can all kind of consider this as Delaney's eulogy. I'm done, he's done, okay. Yeah, I mean, we might consider it that way, I don't know if he's in the same camp. But if he wants more of what he experienced last night, fine.

It was at least entertaining. Yeah, he's going to Ross Perrault, maybe. Yeah, we'll see, we'll see. All right, so now we're going to switch gears a little bit and go to John Ida Rola. John Irola is in Detroit. He's in fact at the Fox Theater in Detroit. What's up, John? Looking good.

How's it going, Anna? Yeah, I brought my one nice outfit. All right, so. So what's going on? Give me the latest. Give me the deets. What are you seeing? What are you hearing? What are you looking forward to tonight? Well, what I see is, you know, we've got the debate hall right behind us. Across the way, it looks like the Biden and the Yang people were able to get their signs deployed the most outside of the spot where the debate's actually going to be held. I've been talking with a lot of people since last night's debate. And I also expected, like you guys were just talking about, that Delaney was probably like kaput. And in terms of being able to make it to the debate stage, that's probably true. But he's also apparently extremely wealthy, and the murmurings I'm hearing are that he doesn't intend to actually drop out for quite a while, even if he's not on the debate stage. He's going to hang out. And yes, he might not make it on the stage, but he'll probably have no trouble getting back on Fox News. So, John, what is what is the reasoning or the logic behind doing that? Why would he want to do that, knowing that his political views are deeply unpopular with a party that's clearly moved to the left?

I mean, I don't think this is the actual reason, but one argument would be that he thinks that he's genuinely right and he has to fight back against what he sees as a dangerous turn for the party. No politician's actually that honest, though. I would say that it's possible that he thinks that either this is sort of a moment and if he holds out perhaps a future party will find him more appealing, or it could be that he thinks that perhaps some state level race or something like that. Like he might be positioning himself not very well for the presidency, but to raise his profile in advance of either, you know, a commenting position on Fox News, a governor's run, or something like that. John, what has the sentiment been like outside of Delaney? What have folks

been saying about the other candidates that we haven't really been hearing in mainstream traditional media? I don't know. I mean, look, I'm in a different sort of bubble, but this is 100% of bubble here. And I mentioned, I think, in our coverage last night that most of the people in the press room were pretty restrained as the debate was actually going on. There weren't a lot of people who were making extremely clear who they actually supported. There were a few lines, honestly, the lines that you guys pointed out that got a lot of applause and support. I've talked to a few people not involved in all this who were just like living in Detroit. I talked with one woman and she said that she liked Warren. She liked some of the stuff that

Williamson said, but she also said that she likes Biden. She said that she finds him to be very charismatic, and he seems like he's always had people's back. So that is one person I talk to, so I think you can take that to the bank. And John, since you were there last night and you're there this night and you're in that beautiful bubble, what would you say the vibe is like in a different way tonight? I mean, in relation to what's going to happen tonight, I honestly can't say I haven't jumped back into the belly of the beast yet. Maybe once I do that, I'll be able to get sort of a

vibe for what people are expecting. I've been talking to a few people, and my expectation is that it's probably not likely to be as fiery as last night. Last night, we really saw a clear, I would say, delineation of the ideological battle lines. And we had people defending, honestly, both sides, the more moderate side and the more left side. I think that we might see something like that tonight because there are candidates like Biden who are pitching themselves as, I think more honestly, as a centrist. And then there are people who say that they're now progressives. And to some extent, maybe that's true. I think that there's a divide, but I think a lot of it's feigned. I think that these people, when it comes to the, at the end of the day, what they

actually are looking to accomplish on issues like health care, things like that, I don't think there's as much of a difference that will be on the stage today. There might be some conflict because they have to try to differentiate themselves. There's so many people on the stage. But I don't know, on the issues that were talked about last night, the ones that were biggest, I don't know how much honest disagreement there really is. So do you think that there will be this, like, is there a lingering question that you think will be the heart or the focus of this debate? So I'll just tell you what my, one of my predictions is.

Now Kamala Harris has been pretty wishy-washy on Medicare for All. She'll go up on stage, as we know, and she'll say she claims, she'll say that she supports Medicare for all and then she'll, you know, back out of what she said on stage later. Do you think that CNN is going to hold her accountable for that? Maybe ask her to really clarify what she means and her support of Medicare for all. And if that's not the issue that they focus on, is there something that you hope they focus on? It might be that they do that. They did make reference in last night's debate to some of the previous, you know,

raise your hands moments. They seem to like using that sort of thing. And so maybe they'll do that again. I honestly, I don't know. They were very willing to use a variety of different centrist candidates last night to try to pick apart, whether you think it was fair or not, Sanders and Warren. I don't necessarily see that happening with Biden. I mean, it would make for an exciting night, and they want ratings. So maybe they'll go down that road.

I think the thing that I've been predicting since last night is that we're probably less likely to see sort of a let's take out the battle lines on Medicare for all and have. people defend their position and more, can we spur some more moments to attack Biden for particular things from his past? Can we get someone to finally start picking into Kamala Harris's record? I think that all of them have some landmines that are going to, they're going to attempt to exploit them. And I think that a number of the candidates on the stage are going to have seen what Kamala Harris was able to accomplish in terms of a polling and or fundraising, and there's going to be an incentive to try to duplicate that. I don't know that they'll be successful at it, And it's probable that Biden is going to be more prepared for some of those attacks than he was last time.

But I think that the attempt might be made. You know, one other thing that I'm very curious about going into the second night of the debate is there's been some drama. There's been some beef between Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard. Like Tulsi Gabbard isn't really known for attacking people. But, you know, she's a dove when it comes to Biden, but a hawk when it comes to Kamala Harris. So do you think that there might be any type of drama or any type of instigation by CNN when it comes to that issue? Because you're right, they do like the, they love the little quotes that they can use. They love, you know, having some sort of dramatic moment that they can talk about for the next week.

I think that there's an okay chance that they'll bring up the Tulsi comments about Kamala's, you know, fitness to be commander in chief. that's possible. I don't know that they'll necessarily tie it in with Biden. I know, I was making you know. Yeah, I mean, it's possible because, you know, she did, you have that triangle of those three of Tulsi Biden and Harris. And you had Tulsi defending Biden against Harris's last attack at the last debate. And now she's, you know, picked this thing with Harris. It's possible that we'll see more to flesh that out. I'm trying to get an idea of what that relationship is. I get the incentive for Tulsi is to draw this back to, you know, her preferred territory is talking about being commander in chief, her past in the military, things like that. I'm not exactly sure. I didn't

see the context on that last comment to see why she singled out Harris as opposed to, I mean, you could say the same thing about any number of people on the stage if you want to talk about experience in the military. So I don't know that Tulsi will double down on those comments. It's possible that the moderators will bring it up, though. Do you think that people, maybe this is too early are pitching themselves as potential VPs, especially during this debate with Biden? Yeah, it's possible, I think. And while it is early, we expect that between this set of debates and the next set, a number of different candidates are going to drop out. So if you're going to hope to do that, you can't wait until December, January, or February like you could in a normal

nominating contest. You got to get on that now because you might not have much influence later on. I don't know who exactly I would throw into that, but the cabinet's a big place. There's a lot of spots, and not everyone can really be thinking there's a good chance that they're going to win at this point. I mean, if you've been polling at zero or one or two percent, we have to start to wonder what your game plan is, like you guys were talking about with Delaney. And so we might see that. But as you say, it is early, and you never know what could happen coming out of this debate.

I think that there are still some people who think that they definitely have a chance. Yeah, and indeed, kind of piggybacking off of that question. And yesterday we really saw kind of Liz and Bernie do this almost tag team thing where they didn't go after each other. Can you foresee any of that happening tonight? And if so, between who? I don't know that any two people on the stage tonight have the both the ideological similarity but also the shared history as Bernie and Warren. I mean, maybe Castro and Booker, I don't know. I don't see exactly why that would develop though.

Yeah, no, I don't think that we'll likely see. That's what I was talking about the ideological divide before. I don't think that we'll have two people sort of set off against the others. I think this is more likely to be a royal rumble. Not only do you have like, you know, the frontrunner, Biden in terms of the polling, but you have a number of different candidates that have staked out very particular issue territory for themselves. So, you know, it's likely that Inslee is going to try to make it about climate change. Gabbard is going to bring up some national security stuff.

There might be someone who stakes out territory around immigration. or something like that, I think that this is likely to be a far more fragmented night in terms of where the conversation takes itself. All right, John. Well, we are going to have you take part of our analysis later tonight when we do debate coverage. Thank you so much for joining in and doing this live hit during our main show. Looking forward to speaking with you tonight. Same here. All right. And for all of you who are watching now and you're wondering, all right, well, what is the game plan for TYT's coverage for debate night? We are gonna basically do the same thing that we did yesterday.

The debate is likely to go on until about 10 p.m. Eastern time, but we will go live, I'm sorry, 10.30 p.m. Eastern time. We will go live at 10 p.m. Eastern time. So we will start our coverage a little before the debate is over. So you can join us then, and we will provide the same type of analysis that we did yesterday. We'll have some highlights from the debate. We'll break it down issue by issue. Members, you actually have the ability to rewind 30 minutes and watch the beginning of our coverage so you don't have to miss anything if you decide you want to watch the debate all the way through. So if you're interested in becoming a member, super easy to do so.

You can go to t.t.com slash join to become a member. And if you're still like a little ify about it, you're like, I don't know, is it worth it? Is the exclusive content enough to convince me? You get to try out membership. Go to tyt.com slash trial, and you get to see what we have to offer for about a week. And then you can make your decision. Again, t-y-t.com slash join-to-join, t-y-t dot com slash trial, just to try it out, and then you can decide. Anyway, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, Claire McCaskill is sharing her expert analysis as someone who just lost her re-election rate. 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 UNFTRTR 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 have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training, or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for you and FDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Welcome back to TYT. I want to give you some info, the 411, on some of our latest partners. The Weekly is one of our latest partners. And this is a wonderful show that you guys should check out

on FX or Hulu. The Weekly is one of our newest sponsors and it airs on FX. Each half hour episode features a Times journalist investigating one of the more pressing issues of the day and also brings unparalleled journalism to the screen from the collapse of the taxi medallion industry to the impact of GM's transformation into an automotive tech company and I promise you they have other topics as well. Every Sunday the weekly tells these stories in an unforgettable way. So you can catch episodes of the weekly streaming now on Hulu, or you can watch each new

episode Sunday nights at 10 p.m. on FX. Also, one of my favorite sponsors, Aspiration. Aspiration is a great place to do your banking. It is a financial institution that will not charge you any shady fees. They will not invest your money in any shady company, including the fossil fuel industry. And they also do pay you 2% interest rate on your savings account. So please check them out, aspiration.com slash t-y-t to open your account. All right, with that so, let's move on.

Free stuff from the government does not play well in the Midwest. That is Claire McCaskill, a woman who lost her re-election bid in North Dakota, but somehow she's an expert who can weigh in on politics on MSNBC. Now, she shared that expert analysis after the first night of the Democratic debates, and she made a point to specifically go after Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Let's hear more. America is generally not as far along the left line as Bernie and Elizabeth. Free stuff from the government does not play well in the Midwest because they're just convinced

that they're never the ones getting the free stuff. They're working really hard and they can't afford to retire. And that was part of the thing that Trump did. He said, basically, I'm going to tap into your anger and your angst. We're going to blame the Mexicans and the Muslims for everything that's wrong with the world. And a lot of people who voted for Barack Obama said, you know, maybe this guy is finally going to, you know, let's pull the pin on the grenade and toss it and see what happens. So there's Claire McCaskill who lost her re-election bid in Missouri. and she lost her reelection bid running as Republican light.

But she is on MSNBC giving analysis, arguing that the progressives on stage have no business pushing for policies that are actually pretty popular. And then there's a lot of conflicting points in what she said there, right? Because she talks about how, look, these people voted for Trump because they don't have enough money to retire. She, I wonder why they don't have enough money to retire. I wonder why so many retirees are currently going bankrupt because they can't afford to pay their medical bills, right?

But let's talk about how it would be a smart strategy to run as Republican light, because that worked out real well from McCaskill in Missouri. Do you guys want to jump in? Sorry. I mean, I know I ran too much before tossing to you guys. But it's just frustrating because this country really does reward failure. Oh, God, isn't that true? But only failure of certain people, as we see.

And it's interesting how McCaskill just kind of has this viewpoint that it doesn't go well in the Midwest, even though, as we've observed, people there are struggling. They do need help, just like the rest of us do. And also, these are things, this is money that we work for. These are things that are paid out of our taxes that we've contributed from our paychecks. There's no free handouts. This is us being able to get back what we have earned, as opposed to it going to major corporations and big farm, and everything else that does not trickle down.

to us and we, the people. Yeah, like we were talking about a little bit earlier, entrepreneuromics has a logic to it. And the logic is that if you don't make yourself from something, this imaginary invisible something, then you don't want to work, and you're a bad person if you don't want to work, and you rely on other people and their saviness to make themselves to give back to them. And so it's created this idea of a philanthropic class. And that philanthropic class is such a, it's such a two, what is that, oh my God, two-way street?

No, sword. Oh, double-edged sword. Thank you. You guys, I haven't slept in 48 hours. It's such a double-edged sword because here's what happens. They get revered for being able to make that money as an alleged entrepreneur or business person. And then they say, oh, guess what?

I'm gonna give away to you and you have to applaud me for being that kind and giving. But really, the foundation is a setup to keep their money. It's a setup to keep themselves from being taxed. And that's what, again, going back to Elizabeth Warren, all people want is fairness. They want to get the fruits of being taxed at a percentage that's higher than wealthy people. And that's what they want. I just like every other country in Europe wanna see that my tax money that's being taken out every single paycheck is going to give me something and not give a Delaney

something and not give a Trump something. Exactly, exactly. I mean, and try to think of it. I mean, people think politics is way more complicated than it needs to be. It's not that complicated. Think about it in your own terms, in your own life, what you spend money for and what you expect to get back, right? So I like to think of it as every month I have to pay the homeowners association a certain

fee, right? And that fee goes toward maintaining the grounds, you know, the paying for the water bill, whatever it is, imagine like paying that fee every month and having the head of the HOA tell you, okay, here's a thing, we're not gonna give you free water. You're just looking for free water, and that's unacceptable. What we're gonna do is we're gonna take this money and we're gonna bill-dose the building next door because we don't like the head of the HOA in that building, right? I mean, that's essentially what our government does.

Our money goes toward nonsense wars, and we purposely do it because, hey, the private contractors love those giant federal contracts, right? They love that taxpayer money. I mean, we gotta pay Boeing, we gotta pay Raytheon, we gotta pay all of these defense contractors, that's where the money goes. And then little by little, they keep cutting taxes for the wealthy, again, lately to the tune of two trillion dollars over the next 10 years. And then they also start defunding programs that help people.

who need it. I would much rather have my money go toward keeping children in poverty fed in America than giving contracts to defense contractors. And also when they do have those quote unquote programs that are funding people and trying to make up for historic inequalities, they have conditions, right? If you are a woman who is on welfare, you have to be a single mother to receive that money. And so that prevents her from having any sort of real relationships with other people. Such a good point.

I mean, and so people are in a permanent class of poverty and always vulnerable to any sort of hit. What I really love that Elizabeth Warren's messaging around healthcare is that people are pretty much a healthcare bill away from poverty. Yes, all of us. All of us. All of us. And we are that vulnerable, whether you are in the working class, whether you are middle class.

So to not talk about why we're in that position that has gone, been the result of decades of endless wars, decades of giving tax breaks to wealthy Americans, not even rich, we're just talking about wealthy, we're talking about 0.01% of Americans who outsource all your jobs, too. Yes, that's right. So we're getting the raw deal. You're going back to the HOA, and the HOA is supposed to provide you with water. The response is, oh, you're lazy, why don't you go find your water? Exactly, exactly.

You paid me money, but you're so lazy, you can't put your little rain collector. So the rage that someone would feel if they would be confronted with that type of situation is the rage that they should feel toward our federal government and people like McCaskill. And honestly, people felt enough rage to vote her out of office, which is why she lost her reelection bid, which we'll get to in a second, because I want to give you some commentary on that. But I want to share some tweets that I thought were fantastic in response to what McCaskill said. This is from Walid Shahid, and he writes, free stuff from the government does not play well

in the Midwest, Claire McCaskill. Number one, Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar are also from the Midwest. And obviously they champion the types of policies we heard from the progressives on stage last night. And also number two, Medicare and Social Security are both technically free stuff, and they play very well. Now look, the second part, I really wanna move away from using the right-wing framing on these programs. They're not free, right?

These are not free programs. These are programs that are paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. This is money that we pay into the system, and it should go back to helping us, to helping our peers, to helping our fellow Americans, right? Let's move away from that Republican talking point. Now, by the way, and Shaheed is amazing, and I make that mistake as well. Like when I refer to the pro-life, you know, the anti-abortion group as pro-life. They're not pro-life.

I mean, they sit by and they watch these migrant children die at the border. They don't care. They're not pro-life. They're championing executions all over the country. Exactly. So let's move away from that framing. Let's not use their PR stunts to make them look better than they really are. So Parker Malloy writes, out of curiosity, why does Claire McCaskill have all this free time

to be paid cable news commentator again or to be a paid cable news commentator again? It's a great point. And then I want to read a few excerpts from the New York Times. This is a piece from 2018. Beating back a liberal suburban groundswell that proved lethal to many House Republicans, Josh Howley claimed victory here on Tuesday over Senator Claire McCaskill. So this is the night that she lost, toppling one of Senate Democrats' last remaining moderate voices, the Associated Press said.

Ms. McCaskill turned heads in the campaign's closing days by backing Trump's polarizing approach to a caravan of asylum seekers marching toward the southern border and releasing a radio ad that described her as not one of those crazy Democrats. She later elaborated on Fox News. So seems like a great expert to have on a program, to do analysis on what does and does not play well with voters. She definitely seems to go with whatever side in the moment could possibly benefit her, knowing she's on her way out of office.

and, hey, she's going to need a job, she's going to need opportunities. And so we see her pretty much almost speaking out that Republican rhetoric and keeping that dialogue going to help that side. And it's just, it really is unfortunate to see this, especially because you know so many people are struggling. And the thought in their mind by planting that seed that this is a handout, as opposed of something you've worked for, is very damaging because they may actually turn it away out of ego and pride.

And that really becomes an issue because then you start having the poverty that becomes even more problematic and becomes more systematic. And that's a big thing. When we come back from the break, I will read your tweets and we'll also show you some highlights from Jenks' interview with Marianne Williamson. 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 our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers.

ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash 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.

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 support you. supporting independent media become a member at t yt.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. Welcome back, everyone. I just want to let you know that if you're looking for a way you can help support this show, and this is a member-supported show, there are various options. We have our partners, which I've told you about already.

But we also have a membership on YouTube. So if you're interested in becoming a member on YouTube, all you have to do is click that little join button. that you see. And it's a great option because you get perks within the platform, including perks within the chat room. You also get access to our emojis. And so again, just click on that little join button and you can make it happen. I want to read a few members' comments, and these are TYT members.

Nicholas Ward says Claire McCaskill would know what doesn't play well in the Midwest, having just run a campaign that didn't play well in the Midwest, exactly, exactly. By the way, I know in the beginning of that story, I mentioned North Dakota. I had North Dakota on my mind because I had this whole idea of talking about the most federally dependent states in the Midwest, and North Dakota came up. So it's one of those things where you just like say something and think something different. But luckily Brett caught that. Unprecedented madness says, says the woman who got a socialist paycheck and benefits provided

by taxpayers for how long? McCaskill only likes socialism when the check is written to her. Oh, okay. I mean, all of these guys, though. All of them are getting government health care, right? I mean, they're all just hustling for themselves. Yep, they don't care about the people. Booker writes in and says, I love it when Edwin goes, mm-hmm, that's gonna fire it.

Booker writes in and says, thank you, Anna, I'm so tired of people calling all of this stuff free. No one ever talks about free stuff when farmers are bailed out or vets get preferential treatment, although they get paychecks or companies get tax subsidies. I don't care if my take home pay doesn't change at all if everyone can have health care. I agree with you. Yes. Yes. And by the way, I mean, you can do comparative analysis between how much we pay in taxes and how

much some of these Scandinavian countries pay in taxes. I had a great conversation with a tourist from a Scandinavian country. country at a bar. And when they told me how much they pay in taxes, it's pretty much the same as I'm similar. It's just that their money goes toward taking care of their people. Right. For us, we have a very different story.

And a few TYT lives for you. The mathematician says, free stuff doesn't play well in the Midwest, yes, Americans would love to keep paying for healthcare, give McCaskill that millionaire check until she runs for POTUS. She's also subtly racist, I don't know if you notice, notice. They don't think they're their ones to get free stuff, all right? And then finally, Metha, where did you get that top? That was from- It's actually kind of a romper situation.

It's not really a top. Yeah, I'm getting, girl. Sorry. I mean, I gotta let the folks know. I get fashion questions all the time. Hello sponsors out there. You go to a seamstress, right? I do have a seamstress.

I do have a seamstress, and I need to go back to her. That's on A-level game stuff. Yeah, I'm just saying this is where that is. I got trained to being a Lebanese, culturally Lebanese. So that's part of, yeah, that's part of the package. We need to have a post game at some point about fashion because I want to be more sustainable when it comes to my choices and I found like great options. So at some point when Jenks not here and we have like a women's only post game, we'll talk

about it. I like it. I'm sure Jenk would love to be part of that conversation. All right, so speaking of Jank, let's move on and talk about his interview with Mary Ann Williamson. Jank Yugar was at the spin room or in the spin room during the first night of the Democratic debate. And when you're in the spin room, you get an opportunity to run into various candidates, maybe some of their advisors, and you get to do interviews.

Well, he conducted an interview with Mary Ann Williamson and talked a lot about Medicare for All. So let's hear what she had to say. Obviously, I didn't agree with your Medicare for All answer, but you did kill on a couple of other issues. Okay. And you know, what you know, when I said what I said, I felt dirty after I said it.

I felt like, you know, I felt like, you know, I maybe had to, I had to say it. So I, the needle really moved for me on that tonight. When I, because hearing it from them and having to say to myself, you're agreeing with John Delaney here. You're really being pulled over here. I could just feel, I felt I was going to have people like yourself, like on my text.

No. There is this irony that you score so well when you talk against corporate rule, and you did it against tonight. And on the issue of Medicare for all, you seem like, you know, you're stuck on that one. It feels like you're almost in mid-evolution. I am. But I am. I am. And that's the truth of the matter.

But I think the needle moved left today. That's really interesting. So you think the needle moved for you a little bit when you saw yourself in the middle of the debate agreeing with John Delaney? Yeah. So before I jump in with my thoughts, I wanted to hear what you ladies had to say. Okay, so I thought it was, I thought it was really cool that she was open-minded not to consider other people's viewpoints. And I think that's really strong.

And that is something I would want a presidential candidate or anybody who's a politician. I think you should always be learning. And also because it doesn't tether you to one corporation or one interest in any way, so you can't necessarily be manipulated if you are open-minded. Then again, I also would like to think that she's done sufficient research and has come to the stage with a complete knowledge base of not only what her competitors are saying, but just of what the options are so that she can articulate what is best for this nation. So that's kind of like a- Yeah, absolutely.

I think it's refreshing to hear a politician admit that there was some sort of change for them. And I think that Marianne Williamson also represents a pulse. that is unheard on a debate stage, one that says, okay, I am listening to you. I'm curious to see what you're saying, and if that aligns with the ways that I've approached this issue. And she does later clarify that she was talking about a transition from public option, from private insurance to in the future, everybody being on Medicare for all. And so I think that through that conversation, it was eye-opening for her, I've actually talked

to Marianne Williamson a couple of times. I used to go to her sermons on Monday nights, and a lot of people in Los Angeles did. And I can tell you that when I've talked to her about things like I said, thank you for your tweets on Syria. As she was exiting, her whole body turned around and she ran to me, and she said, tell me what's going on. So she's curious in a way that I don't see from many politicians that have a script that they need to stick to and don't want to be you're very far away from.

Yeah, so I don't like politicians who stick to a script and refuse to evolve on issues even when they're provided evidence indicating that their positions are wrong or short-sighted. But with that said, that interview did not sit well with me. Okay, so I'm gonna try to be diplomatic. This isn't a joke, right? So like the issue of Medicare for all and healthcare in America overall, like that is not a joke. That is not something I'm interested in seeing a presidential candidate evolve on in real time, right?

So like the fact that she's doing this debate, she had said on Colbert's show, I don't want to be an agent of chaos in response to why she's against Medicare for all, right? Okay, so she's kind of all over the place on that issue. It doesn't sit well with me. With that said though, she has interesting things to say. I actually do think she deserves a place on the debate stage. Because if I compare her to Tim Ryan, John Delaney, I mean, almost any other like establishment candidate who's up there, especially just keeping it real, a white male establishment

candidate. Been there, done that, we've seen that throughout the history of America, I want something different. It's not just because they're male, it's because they don't bring anything to the table that's different. Bernie Sanders is a white male, obviously I'm a huge fan, and it's because he brings something different to the table. With Marianne Williamson, no one else on that stage talks about reparations as clearly as she does.

She's actually thought this through, and I commend her for that. But when it comes to the issue of healthcare, I'm not really interested in seeing someone evolve on it in real time, right? I want someone who knows what they're talking about and who has conviction when talking about it. Well, I think it's also about in this moment really, the conversation we were having with John decoding people's intentions for being on that stage, having that national platform.

And my hunch with Marianne Williamson is that she wants to revive or awaken a moral and spiritual conversation that doesn't exist as a national discourse in America. To the extent that we are talking about it at the same time and watching the same thing. It exists in pockets, it exists as maybe a far Christian right. conversation, it exists maybe in Muslim spaces or Jewish spaces, or we're not having a collective conversation about the moral debt that we have resting on the wealth of centuries of free labor. Yeah.

I think she would be great as a minister of social responsibility or, you know, good thoughts and happy places. And hey, I would love for her to run any kind of reparations, you know, set up, that'd be awesome. But when it comes to collectively being a true presidential candidate, it does. doesn't seem like she has those fundamental roots that we need for someone to know the issues, to have a command of them, and also to be able to guide and lead on them that doesn't involve, you know, crystals and sage.

So she actually signed TYT's Progressive Pledge, which specifically mentions that you have to fight for Medicare for All. She signed that, and then she went on Colbert's show and said she didn't want to be an agent of chaos. So she, that does not sit well with me either, obviously. But she also talks or clarifies her, tries to clarify her position a little more in this next clip. So let's take a look at that. The argument that I think you made tonight will sound to people like you don't want to eventually wind up there.

Oh, no, no. Oh, my goodness. Oh, I've never been that. I've never been that. That's really depressing that it sounded that way. What do you view as the role for private insurance? Let's put it this way, eventually. Any role? Eventually. Eventually, eventually. Eventually, they're gone. They are as, they perform as greedily as Elizabeth Frinson was saying tonight. It is horrible. They take a lot of money and give as little care as possible. I'm very aware of that. I remember when I had my own daughter and the doctor

didn't want me to have to leave the hospital that fast. And the insurance companies made me. You have to be clear, you have to speak with conviction, you have to know what you stand for. And out of all the issues, health care is not one of the topics you should be like wavering on. So again, I'm not as dismissive of her as others are. Like people talk about the orbs and the crystals and like, whatever, it's funny. But that doesn't, it's not something that disqualifies her in my eyes. What does disqualify a candidate is someone who doesn't really know what they stand for, especially when it comes to the important issues.

That's just where I stand. Yeah. Now online, I saw somewhere where she was kind of described as having Santa Featherer. Faye Aunt Syndrome, whereas she knows she'll pray over you and speak all these good things, but doesn't really have those core principles to get it done. And so I love to hear her speak. I love to hear the things that she says on certain issues, but when it comes to getting it done, I'm good.

Yeah. No, like I said, I think she had a clear plan for being on this stage the second time now that she's been on, and that is I'm going to inject a conversation we haven't been having, and that is reparations, especially from a white woman, because that's, you know, clearly gets dismissed if it's a black person who talks about reparations. And so I think she wanted to be on that stage, to have that conversation. And I don't know if she gave much thought to the other things that should be important. Right.

That's a good point. Yeah. All right, well, one more story before we wrap up the first hour. Mitch McConnell is real salty about the fact that people are calling him out for not protecting U.S. elections. Now, there's overwhelming evidence indicating that Russia not only tried to meddle in our elections the last time around, they're currently meddling in our elections. And so the lawmakers who actually want to do something about this, both on the left and

the right, have drafted legislation which has passed in the House, but Mitch McConnell has blocked it in the Senate. So just to give you a little taste of what he's blocked, he got in the way of a bill that would require campaigns to report to the FBI. Contributions by foreign nationals, gee, I wonder why he'd block that. Let me give you more. A bipartisan bill that would protect lawmakers from foreign attacks. Maybe like hacking, that kind of stuff.

Chuck Schumer's Securing America's Federal Elections Act, which would direct $600 million in election assistance to states and require paper ballot backups. A bipartisan bill requiring Facebook, Google, and other internet companies to disclose purchasers of political ads to identify foreign influence. Again, this is legislation that he blocked, he won't even allow a vote for it in the Senate. But I'm not even done yet. A bipartisan bill to ease cooperation between state election officials and federal intelligence agencies, a bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on any entity that attacks a U.S. election.

And finally, a bipartisan bill with severe new sanctions on Russia for its cyber crimes. Again, blocked every single one of them. And he got called out. So Dana Milbank wrote a piece in the Washington Post, let's quickly go to Graphic 3. Mitch McConnell is a Russian agent. And he did not like that one bit and whined about it like a little baby on the Senate floor. Take a look. We can't let modern day McCarthyism win.

So here's my commitment. No matter how much they lie, no matter how much they bully, I will not be in terms. For decades, I've used my Senate seat to stand up to Russia and protect the United States of America. I'm proud of my record. I'm proud that it's right there in black and white, and liars cannot gaslight it away. Facts matter. Details matter. History matters.

And if our nation is losing its ability to debate public policy without screaming about treason, That really matters. Okay, so he's not allowing for a debate on the Senate floor. He's blocking this legislation. He's blocking any type of vote, any type of discussion. He is such a weasel and he's beyond undemocratic. He is exactly what Dana Milbank wrote about in his piece. And I love the fact that he got his feelings hurt because he is a Russia.

I mean, look, is he working with Russia? No, that's not what anyone's accusing him of. What he is doing by blocking this legislation is essentially jeopardizing our democracy, our elections, just to help his buddy Donald Trump. And so he even tweeted about this because his feelings are hurt. He said modern day McCarthyism is poison for American democracy. No, your poison for American democracy. It is shameful to imply that policy disagreements make the other side unpatriotic.

The people who push such unhinged smears are doing Putin's destatiation. a debilizing work for him. Well, AOC hit him up on Twitter, and I love this response. She said, quote, McCarthyism is the practice of baselessly accusing political opponents of being communists as unjust grounds for targeting and harassment. You are blocking action to protect U.S. elections despite official DOJ pleas. That doesn't make you a communist, it makes you a bad leader. Ladies.

Well, yeah. I think she was kind enough in using a term bad leader. Like, if anything, this man is treasonous in his actions, are you kidding? How blatant, how more blatant could it get? It is apparent in his actions that he won't even let this be decided on. I don't even think someone should necessarily have this significant of power, especially under these circumstances. The U.S. is so vulnerable, and yet he says that's perfectly fine, let's continue the way

it is. Because it's short-sighted, right? I mean, the meddling helped one candidate. And so in his mind, why would I want to pass any type of legislation that could potentially help protect our elections so the right candidate based on votes wins, right? How is he using McCarthyism? Let's like break this down for a second. I know AOC talked about this, but this is such a pervasive tactic on the right is to co-op

the social justice language of the left and use it for their own victim blaming. So Mitch McConnell used of McCarthyism, which was targeted. targeting people who maybe identified as socialists or communists and then blacklisted them. And then they had to go underground. They couldn't work that's affected people in Hollywood, affected politicians. People were sent to jail for this. And then Donald Trump using the term witch hunt, which was used to persecute women, what Donald Trump has been doing his lifetime to women.

Like I can't wrap my brain around these folks using these terms as protective shields, legitimate critiques, concerns of the unraveling of our political process here. They've created a new playbook, essentially, with what they've done. And the problem is, is that they continue to take away from people who have that real need and the right to vote and to exercise and to use their voices. And now, hey, just because their vote has been compromised, why do anything about it? And so we're going to continue compromising that. And it just continues to really just speaks to the legacy of America in keeping people disenfranchised.

from being able to vote and have a say in how their governments run. Yeah. Yeah, we still haven't done anything about voting down in Georgia, what went down in Florida. We, I mean, this is, again, it's pervasive. And so it continues the legacy of disenfranchising certain populations and then over counting certain other types of populations and votes, whether it's gerrymandering or being able to block legislation like this that would allow for foreign interference much easier. This is the reason why I get so frustrated with Democrats who think they need to run as centrist to appeal to Republican voters.

Because if their policies, if Republican policies were actually popular, do you think Republicans would cheat the way that they do, gerrymander the way that they do, disenfranchised voters the way that they do? They have to cheat in order to win elections. That's right. That is one example of why their policy proposals are not popular. And you look at the polling, issue by issue, progressive policies poll really well. What Democrats should focus more on as opposed to like changing their messaging and becoming more moderate or centrist is, hey, what can I do to fight back against these Republican lawmakers who are gaming the system to their advantage?

Absolutely. I mean, with the exception of Bush W's incumbency, the Republicans haven't won a presidential campaign since 1988. So if you take that to my, and they've been cheating all that all the way up to George Bush and then post him. So they've had to get even more aggressive with the way that they cheat and scam the system. And they're even more blatant about it now because it's even more clear that we don't want their policies, we don't want their ideologies.

America's change and it's Republicans who aren't unwilling to let that go. All right, I just want to remind you all that the Revolution rally from yesterday is available to our members right now. So if you're a member, please check it out if you want to. It's archived for you. And for everyone else who is not a member, please become one because that really does help to support this show. It helps to keep us afloat.

But if you are unable to pay for it or afford it right now, we hear you. It will be available for you later by the end of the week. But for members, you get first dibs on that content. Revolution Rally is available for you today. All right, Adrian Lawrence, Matha Alhaston, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you. All right, we're going to take a quick break. Whole new panel when we come back.

We'll see you in just a minute. 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.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.