The Young Turks - Free Fallin'

Episode Date: June 2, 2023

Lawrence O'Donnell is celebrating Democrats conceding to everything Republicans wanted in the Debt Ceiling Deal. President Joe Biden took a fall on stage in the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony in Colorado. The US is unhappy that Mexico is spending money on its own citizens. Gen Z teens are so unruly in malls, fed by their TikTok addiction, that a growing number are requiring chaperones and supervision. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur), Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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, welcome to the young Turks, Jane Cougar, Anna Kasparan with you guys. We have a lot of substantive news. And then we have some goofy news because, you know, it's America, it's life, it's 2023. These things happen. How should people pronounce their own names? Falling down, is it a tremendous problem? Do we have to do something about it in America?

So these issues will be floated up and then they will be decided. Oh my God, that's it. You came to the right place. Okay. So without further ado, the legendary journalist. Legendary. Everybody's saying this. Well, look, people are talking about it now. Okay, all right, we're going to have a pride special today, which means we will not have a bonus episode for our members, which means we'll have limited time to cover the wonderful stories we have in the rundown today. So let's get started. You ready?

Anna mainly says to me, her co-host. Okay, yes, let's do it. All right. We begin with an update on the debt deal. This was a win for Democrats. That's what it was. the House of Representatives voted not just to raise the debt ceiling, but to actually eliminate the debt ceiling for two years.

For the rest of President Biden's first term, for the rest of this congressional term, the Democrats will not have to face the debt ceiling again before they face another election. On MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell celebrated the fact that Democrats conceded to everything Republicans wanted in the debt deal, but since, you know, Biden was willing to make a deal with the devil, he did get something in return, something that he thinks is worth it, even though it doesn't benefit ordinary people, it just benefits people who are already

an elected office. So what could that be? Let's watch. This was not an easy thing to achieve. The Republicans could have insisted on only a six-month extension on the debt ceiling. One year so that they could come back one year from now and pound Joe Biden again in a negotiation like this. But Kevin McCarthy gave up because Kevin McCarthy did not want to come back to that room. Kevin McCarthy did not want to be in another highly pressurized debt ceiling negotiation again.

And so Kevin McCarthy gave President Biden two full years on the debt ceiling. That is an outcome that was almost unimaginable even a week ago. I'm sorry, why exactly are we supposed to care about the comfort of President Joe Biden as he runs for reelection? I'd like to understand why that should take priority over all of these provisions that scream to the American people that Joe Biden and congressional Democrats were willing to make any and all concessions to Republicans as long as debt ceiling negotiations would be done for the next two years. Like how is this the win?

I mean, it shows you exactly what the priorities are for Democrats and courts. corporate media types like Lawrence O'Donnell, right? Who cares about, you know, making it more difficult, implementing more obstacles for people in need when it comes to obtaining what we have left of our social safety debt? Who cares about that? Who cares about the new PAYGO law rules that will impact the executive branch, essentially making it impossible for the Biden administration to do anything through executive order? And we know nothing gets passed through Congress that would actually benefit ordinary Americans. because of the way Congress works, they like to point to the, you know, filibuster in the Senate for all these reasons why they're not able to pass the legislation they campaign on.

I mean, it's just, I, that was embarrassing. Yeah, so. Like, Lawrence O'Donnell should be embarrassed. I know he thinks he's proud of that segment, he should be embarrassed. Incredibly well done, I know you're gonna go off, Jank. I'm just trying to get my point in before you go off and you should go off because this is ridiculous. Yeah, so I actually know Lawrence Donald, a little bit. little bit personally, because I worked at MS, I was one of their hosts, as he is.

Is he as dumb in real life? No, he's actually a very smart guy. Shocking. And he's super fun at parties, really, really good guy. That segment was deeply, deeply deceptive. And it was meant to be deceptive. And it's not like Lawrence doesn't know because he is a smart guy. So I watched the whole thing, because I was curious where he was going to find the win,

because I know what's in the bill, I know what the substance is, and the score was basically 8-0. The Republicans got all these different things that we outlined for you the other day, cut after cut after cut, and the Democrats got exactly zero in the bill. No, no, be fair, Jank. Yeah. At least Biden doesn't have to engage in debt deal negotiations for two years. So they got something. I mean, it doesn't benefit you, but it benefits Joe Biden, am I right?

Yeah. So then I was looking to see what Lawrence's arguments were, because he's, again, smart guy. So what's the points that he's going to make? The first point he made is, well, look at the numbers. The numbers tell you who won, and more Democrats voted for this than Republicans did. So we have that clip. We have that clip. So let's show you that, and then I come back and explain all the lies in the segment.

Let's watch. If you're wondering who won the debt ceiling deal, the proof is in the vote in the House of Representatives. The total vote was 314 in favor, 117 opposed. 165 Democrats voted for it. 149 Republicans voted for it. 71 Republicans voted against it, and only 46 Democrats voted against it. More Democrats supported this bill than Republicans, because this was a win for Democrats.

So let me address that in a completely different way, okay? So he didn't mention any of the policies, the entire segment, because he knows for a fact that they got routed on policy. $30 billion off of the COVID relief, $20 billion off of IRS funding, a freezing cap on spending, and goes on and on and brutal, absolutely. brutal. No wins for Democrats, none, zero. Oh, well, we got an exemption on the thing that we didn't even need to negotiate. So we didn't need to get a half a win on snap. He gave away work requirements, which they said they would never do. Okay. So instead, Lauren says, and

unfortunately this works for the MSNBC audience. He says, since more Democrats voted for than Republicans, by definition, it must be a good thing. Because Democrats gave it to you, and Democrats are angels. And Republicans are bad guys. Angels, bad. bad guys, good cop, bad cop. Hey, what happened at the end? Oh yeah, the rich won everything, and they took it all from you. The donors won everything. And so my interpretation of the same exact fact pattern is, so you're telling me more Democrats voted for a Republican bill than Republicans. But that's a fact. The Democrats didn't ask for the debt ceiling fight. I think secretly they did. But technically, according to Lawrence, Donald, they're peers of

driven stone, they're saints. They didn't want this dead silk, why? And they didn't want to give away all these things to Republicans. But somehow, more Democrats voted for it than Republicans did. I wonder if that doesn't mean the Democrats won. It means they're on the same goddamn team.

It should, I won 65 for Democrats, 149 for Republicans. Corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans, it was always meant to rob you. We were right from day one. We showed you exactly what they were going to do ahead of time.

We told you they would do this deal. We told you the Democrats would get absolutely nothing out of it. We told you the Republicans would celebrate while saying, oh, golly, gee, we didn't get enough. And we told you the media would paint it as a victory for Biden when he literally got absolutely nothing. All right, the last two arguments that he had were, well, we got rid of the debt ceiling for two, he said, we got rid of it. And I was like, when did he get rid of the death ceiling? Then he's like for two years. But why is that even important?

Like, it's important because Biden, doesn't want to be inconvenienced with debt deal negotiations as he is running for reelection. It is a win specifically for Joe Biden and his political needs. It is not a win for the American people. This is austerity, okay, for the American people. That is exactly what we got out of this bill. Again, let me just reiterate. I know we're being repetitive, but it's important for you guys to understand this.

Because as Jenk mentioned, segments like the one you just saw from Lawrence O'Donnell intentionally leave out the actual policy that's been implemented here. So work requirements for snap recipients. Pay go rules for the executive branch, okay? Meaning if the executive branch wants to implement any policy, any executive order and it costs any money, well, he would have to defund some other program in order to come up with the funds for it, okay? Fast track on new fossil fuel projects. It would only need to be approved by one government agency on environmental grounds. Spending, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, spending caps on non-defense discretionary spending, which actually amounts to a spending cut when you take inflation into account.

I mean, it is just one after another, one policy after another that hurts ordinary Americans materially. And they're trying to sell it to us as if it's a big win by the Democratic Party. I gotta say, Jenk, real quick, before we get to your next point, if it's such a big win for Democrats, why is a progressive Mitch McConnell in the Senate saying that he can't wait to vote for it. He can't wait to approve this policy, which has just been voted in favor of in the House. Let's watch. House Republicans unity gave them the upper hand. They used it to secure a much needed step in the right direction. When this agreement reaches the Senate, I'll be proud

to support it without delay. What a win for Democrats. Mish McConnell is very excited to support. the legislation. No, but then let's use Lawrence O'Donnell's logic. If Democrats voted for, then it must be awesome. If the Republicans like it, it must be terrible, those evil dastardly Republicans. Well, Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans, just told you he loves it. So by Lawrence O'Donnell logic, then this is the worst bill in American history. Thank you, Lawrence, we appreciate it.

Okay, look, so on this, Kevin, he said Kevin McCarthy, he gave up. Oh, come on, Lawrence, what an outrageous silly lie, right? He stopped because he got more than he could have imagined. There was you're looking for $10 billion in IRS funding cuts. Biden gave him 20 for no reason. That's right. Biden said he wasn't going to negotiate. He doesn't have to negotiate.

And he can just use the 14th Amendment as clear as day, right? And the Republicans get this gift after gift after gift after gift. And then McCarthy's like, I don't, I'm full, man. I can't have one water thing, more water thin way for. How much is this any are you going to give us? And the second reason he quote unquote stopped or gave up in Lawrence O'Donnell's terminology is because his donors are like, no, remember, rob the poor in the middle class, give it to us because defense spending is still growing up and they didn't touch taxes for the rich at all, right?

So once you get the ransom, now remember, we don't actually want to endanger the debt ceiling because that would endanger the stock market. So once you got your goodies, take the deal right away. Why do you think McCarthy and McConnell are dancing in the streets? Because their donors are ecstatic and millions are going to pour into their coffers. But I swear to God, people who watch mainstream media, that speech that O'Donnell gave was super compelling. Every establishment Democrat friend I have go, well, more Democrats voted for it. It must be great, by definition.

Let's hear from other conservatives, right? We just heard from Mitch McConnell, who loves the bill, can't wait to vote in favor of it once it hits the Senate. But you should always check out what the conservative narrative is. Because over at the National Review, Dan McLaughlin is celebrating the bill as well. What a win for Democrats, right? Here's what he writes. Politically, this is an unambiguous win for McCarthy and House Republicans who were expected to get nothing and an unambiguous defeat for Joe Biden, who promised that House Republicans

would get nothing. It also shows, and this is a damning excerpt from his piece that I agree with, he writes, it also shows that Democrats on the Hill are just bystanders now on any issue that requires the affirmative consent of the House. He also writes that McCarthy had, and I had been saying this, this is absolutely true. McCarthy had limited leverage, and the good news is that he didn't agree to any of Biden's demands for tax hikes or really much else that was affirmatively harmful. I mean, he considers those things harmful because this is a conservative's perspective.

But get a load of this, they're celebrating the fact that, you know, Republicans really didn't have much leverage here, and they got what they wanted. And when they're saying that they didn't have much leverage, it's the fact that ain't nobody going to let the world economy crash, okay? Republicans aren't going to let that happen. Democrats aren't going to let that happen. Why do I say that? It's not because they're worried about other people, okay?

Never make the mistake of thinking that. It's because they're worried about themselves. They are heavily invested in the stock market. I think one of the main reasons why some of these people want to be in elected office in the first place is because insider trading is apparently completely allowed. It is treated with impunity if you're a member of Congress. That's why so many of them become tremendously wealthy as they sit there, you know, experiencing and enjoying the halls of power.

Okay, so the idea that Biden had to negotiate with them in the first place is ridiculous. And here you have Dan McLaughlin from the National Review saying as much. Okay, go ahead, Jane. Yeah, all right. So he mentioned, for example, hey, Biden was supposed to ask for tax hikes, but we didn't even get that. So it was such a win for the Republicans. That's because Biden doesn't want tax hikes.

I know for for Normie Democrats. If you're if you don't know Normie Democrats, they're outraged by that suggestion. They're like Biden is an angel. They send it from heaven down a year to bestow us this great bipartisan compromise. And you guys are still complaining. But guys, do you do you? And the thing is, look, this is the same thing. And by the way, because of this, always remember this, when we get really mad and frustrated and we're also kind of amused at the right wing for believing the utter crap on Fox News, and you think, oh my God, look at how dumb they are.

Are they? Because he's perfectly smart people on the Democratic side as soon as the media says, what a great deal that we got nothing and they got everything. They're going, oh, that's a great deal. I love that deal, man. You know, more Democrats voted for it. More Democrats voted for it. So Biden never even asked your tax hikes. A normal compromise, even if you were going to get into this negotiation which you should

have never gotten into, right? You go, okay, well, I'll do those cuts if you give me tax increases. That's how a compromise works. But we got nothing other than the one thing that O'Donnell mentioned and we now mentioned several times. We said, well, now we're not going to talk about the debt ceiling for two years. But that was the original hostage. So you've heard that hostage analogy a lot.

Let me finish with this, completing that analogy, right? So a bunch of criminals break into your home and they hold your family hostage. And then you give them this, that, the other, you say, take my bank account, take all the clothes, take all the computers, take two of my family members, take all this. And Lawrence O'Donnell does a segment, what a win, the hostage takers will not come back for two years. I mean, they're gonna come back in the third year for Democrat wins, and they're gonna take more hostages. and more family members and all of your money, and you got nothing in return. You didn't even call the cops, but we're going to say you just obliterating your own side is a win because you were on that side.

Look, if you believe this propaganda, you'll believe anything. All right, we got to take a break. Let's do that. When we come back, we have more news for you, including a pretty awful moment for Biden today. That happened to be one of the top Democrats' fears. So that and more coming up. All right back on TYT, Jankana with you guys, more news. Well, we've got an update on a Supreme Court ruling that you should know about, so let's do it.

Imagine you're a newly unionized Starbucks barista discussing whether to strike. You've got lots to think about. But what you probably wouldn't expect to have to consider is whether your union-busting boss, Howard Schultz, is going to sue you for the impact of your strike on Starbucks. For the coffee that gets wasted or milk that goes sour or lost revenue from customers who get tired of waiting in line. But if a Seattle Concrete Mixing Company and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, get their way before, the Supreme Court this year. That's the crazy position that American unions are going to be in if they want to strike.

Well, in a near unanimous vote, the Supreme Court did in fact give the US Chamber of Commerce and the employer in question what they wanted. So let's give you the details. The Supreme Court did vote almost unanimously with the exception of Justice Katanjee Brown Jackson. In favor of the employer, the case is called Glacier Northwest versus International Brotherhood of Teamsters. And for more context on this case, why don't we go to the next clip featuring the reporting done by more perfect union?

The case the Supreme Court is considering is called Glacier Northwest versus International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 174. And here are the facts. After months of contract negotiations, cement mixers at Glacier North West decided to go on strike. They drove their trucks back to the company's headquarters and walked off the job. Workers left trucks that had already been loaded with cement running so that the cement wouldn't instantly harden inside the truck's drums. The strike lasted one week before the company's reached agreement on a new contract. The issue in this case revolves around

what happened next. The employer sued the Teamsters for tortious destruction of the company's property. Glacier asked a Washington state court to make the Teamsters pay for damage to their trucks as a result of cement hardening after the strike began. So there's a minor caveat to what happened. So yes, the workers did leave their mixers running when they went on strike, but they also loaded the trucks with wet concrete before they went on strike, which they, of course, didn't have to do. And that's what the case is kind of hinging on right now. That's what the damages portion of this claim has to do with. As the video also mentioned, such cases are supposed to be settled by federal law first.

So under San Diego Trades Council v. Garman in 1959, when either a labor union or an employer engages in an activity that is arguably protected under federal labor law, the NLRB must first decide if the activity was in fact protected. Now, vandalism and or violence are, of course, not protected under federal labor law. And the Supreme Court in this case ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Glacier Northwest's ability to sue its workers. And that sets a precedent that I think is worth discussing, right? Because it's not just about what it means for this particular case. It's what this ruling means for potential strikes that union members might want to engage in in the future. It could have a chilling effect, Jake. So look, when we first discussed, I explained that I think that this is something that could use nuance and balance.

So what does that mean? Well, if you're about to go on strike and you smash the crap out of all the laptops and equipment in the store or wherever you're working, and then you walk out, yeah, you're responsible for that. You can't, you can't do that, right? On the other hand, if you did everything right, you delivered the cement, you brought it back, you didn't take it home or anything like that, you brought it back to the facility, and you kept the machine running, the reason why it hardened is because there were no workers. Yeah, but that's because there's a strike, right? And that's on management.

That is not purposely destructing property, destroying property. That means this decision is devastating. Because now if you go on strike, everybody's just going to say, oh, well, you cost me my profits. That's exactly right, right? Because that's definitely going to happen. The whole point of suing the workers is to claim that there were financial damages associated with the strike in question. And so there's always going to be damages to the company when a strike takes place. They're going to lose money. By definition.

Right, that's the whole point of striking. That's where the leverage is for the workers. So now the Supreme Court is saying, yeah, you can strike, but then you're going to owe the company millions, millions of dollars on money they would have made if they had paid you right and you had gone into work. But they didn't want to pay you right. They wanted to crush you and we're going to help you help them crush you into smithereens. And if you dare raise your head, we'll probably garnish your wages for the rest of your life, trying to pay off the supposed phantom profits that they would have made if you had just been a good servant to corporate. rule. So by the way, now the second thing that's gigantic about this decision and why we're covering, eight to one. I know, I know. So for decade after decade, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama bragged openly. We are putting in Supreme Court justices that are business friendly, pro business. Well,

they delivered. And they delivered. Nice job. So the only one that voted no was Katanji Brown Jackson, give credit to Joe Biden on that one. You see us ripping Biden daily, but we always give credit where credit is due. She's the only one that voted no. And that's probably because she just got there and is not a part of group think yet. So but anyway, massive credit to her and I'm thrilled to show it. I'm heartbroken by Sonia Sotomayor. So eight, so all the Obama and Clinton judges stuffed in there filled with like, hey, we care about social issues. Oh, but corporations have to win on everything. So congratulations. Complete take over the Supreme Court. No, but you worded it exactly the way it needs to be worded. That is the entirety of the

mainstream Democratic Party at this point. And I can't emphasize that enough. Both parties, because of the flow of corporate money, you know, going to these campaign coffers, they're brought by the same people. They just are. So you have two pro-corporate parties that just try to differentiate themselves as much as they can on social issues. Oftentimes with congressional Democrats, it's all rhetoric. They don't actually do anything to improve the lives of people that they purport to care about, disenfranchised groups historically discriminated against groups, they don't really actually do anything to benefit their lives. Then you look at the Supreme Court and you see the same type of basically branding play out among the so-called liberal justices,

where they might be good on some social issues, but when it comes to corporate issues, they tend to side with corporate interests. And guys, this is super important. It's not a conspiracy theory. There isn't a memo written and Sotomayor doesn't go, okay, I have been programmed to do this. I will follow my corporate overlords. No, it's not like that. So how does it work? It's basically the invisible hand of the market. I wrote about this in my book, Justice is coming.

And it's the critical thing is the pre-selection. The game is rigged before the game even starts. So yeah, you see the Clarence Thomas, you know, outrageous corruption with Harlan Crow. But by the way, Sotomayor had something similar as well. But that's not the main issue. The main issue is who picks the Supreme Court justice? Exactly. Oh, the politicians do.

And who picks the politicians? Oh, the donors do. The Chamber of Commerce does. So when the Chamber of Commerce says, I now say Obama is an acceptable presidential candidate. Bernie Sanders is not an acceptable presidential candidate. Well, the money flows in a certain direction. And it flows to the Clintons, the Obamas, et cetera. And then they go, well, now I did promise some things to my voters.

And so on social issues, I'll give them something. It'll be a perfect cover story because we don't really care about the social issues. All we care about is the money. The money rules everything. And so they go, okay, I'll pick pro business guys. And by the time you wake up to the scam we're running, it'll be eight to one. And the Supreme Court will be hopelessly corrupt and you'll never get it back. And by the way, they don't need any decisions after this.

You don't have a right to strike anymore. They'll destroy your life if you do. So it's already over. I want to read from Katanji Brown Jackson. Again, the only Supreme Court justice who ruled against the employer and the Chamber of Commerce in this case, graphic five. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson dissented saying the ruling, quote, risks erosion of the right to strike. Jackson pointed to the fact that the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint after the state court ruling, charging the company with unfair labor practices and saying that

the driver's actions were arguably protected. And again, she is the only Supreme Court Justice who was actually concerned about the erosion of labor rights if this decision sided with the employer. And unfortunately in this case, they sided with the employer. Look, always look at the dissents. Justice Byron White in the cases that allowed for unlimited bribery in American politics, decisions of 76 and 78, Bellotti and Buckley, he wrote in the dissent, this is a mortal danger to our democracy. If this goes forward, we won't have a democracy. And he was 100% right. And here, Katanji Brown Jackson is warning, you won't have a right to strike because then you'll have to pay millions and millions of millions no matter where you strike.

And she's absolutely right. And no one will heat it. And right now the press is not covering this at all because the last thing in the world they care about is American workers. They're owned by corporations. Of course. So they're like, yay, corporations win again. And hey, this is the thing the press loves the most in the world. Bipartisan agreement. Both the conservative and the liberal justices, liberal justices, both decide to screw you and make sure that corporate rule remains intact. I don't find that to be a wonderful compromise. I find it to be an absolute disaster.

President Joe Biden is okay. However, you did just watch him take a tumble during the Air Force Academy's graduation ceremony. Now, what's interesting about this story, look, I'm not really interested in making fun of him. It's awful when you see elderly people fall like that. It could be incredibly damaging to their bodies. But what is interesting about this is the backstory and the fears that top Democrats allegedly have in regard to Biden literally tripping and falling as he's campaigning. So before we get to that, I do want to just say that this isn't an isolated incident.

Biden has had many moments on the stage that have not been good. And his age has a lot to do with it. But it doesn't matter, he's being forced upon Democratic voters by the Democratic establishment because they think that he would be the best candidate to beat Donald Trump. Nonetheless, here's what I'm talking about when it comes to Biden on the stage. I know. You guys get the point. Okay.

Now, a spokesperson, the White House communications director, Ben LaBolt says this. He's fine. There was a sandbag on stage while he was shaking hands. But Alex Thompson, who's the national political correspondent over at Axios, said on Twitter that some top Democrats have privately been saying for months that they're nervous about Biden, again on the trail. So I turn to you, Jank. What do you think about all this? Okay, so ha ha, is that what we're supposed to say? No. Okay, I feel terrible for him. By the way, I also feel terrible for Diane Feinside. So why are we ruled by people who are 200 years old? That's actually the main issue. And substance over gaffs like this or falls and

Prats, etc. But I know media, so they're gonna be obsessed with this. In fact, I'm gonna tell you the they're going to cover it in some ways that you'll see as usual that we are right ahead of time. So, but I don't rejoice when I see that. I think like there's something wrong in our system that only the people who are super old can rule us. And there's a reason why I've explained it before. For those of you who are new, let me explain it real quick. Because those are safe investments for corporate donors. That's exactly right. They get return on investment. They like safe investments. You get a new person and they're like, well, I don't know. I don't know if he'll take the bribe. I don't know if he'll do what he wants. Biden has a storied career, 50 years of

taking donor money and delivering exactly what the donors want. Pelosi, same thing. Mitch McConnell, same thing. Kevin McCarthy, same thing. Okay. So and Schumer, all like they're, McCarthy's the youngest by far. The rest of them are absolutely ancient because of one simple concept, return on investment. So media looks at this and goes, this is a giant problem for Biden. He just gave away the store and the debt ceiling deal. They're like, that's a big win for Biden. Because they love that. They love, you think, you think that the big names and corporate media are concerned about austerity measures that impact ordinary Americans? No, they love it. They celebrate. They don't care about those issues at all. There is a, they're completely disconnected from everyone

else, all of the issues that we're dealing with, people in corporate media are not concerned. We're talking about people who, for the, they're working on platforms or in platforms that are owned by major media conglomerates and corporations. And they have very nice salaries. They don't have to worry about SNAP benefits. So earlier today, we showed you the Lawrence Hoddle segment on MSNBC, but it was really literally every show on MSNBC that took the debt ceiling deal where Democrats lost on literally every single issue. just got absolutely routed and he declared a victory, a huge amazing victory. When they see this clip, they'll probably think, Biden wins again.

Well, yeah, man, you know, he had to negotiate with the floor. There was nothing you could do, so he had to give some ground. He had to. And then they all saying, there was nothing he could do, there was nothing he could do. So here's my prediction. And you're already seeing it all over media and you'll see more and more of it. So when you see this, you go, well, he needs a challenger. Everybody goes, well, you know, even the most normy, most established from Democrats are like,

kind of, I see it, right? I can see it with my own eyes. I see pretty little lies about how we got a great deal on the debt ceiling deal. But this one I can see with my eyes, he tripped, and he's old, and I got an issue with it. So then you say, all right, let's run a progressive against him. Well, there's already one, Marianne Williamson's running. Oh, no way, why is she challenging Biden? All right, let's get a new progressive, I don't know, Nina Turner or something, right?

They're like, how dare you want a betrayal? At the same exact time, you will see columns saying, Gavin Newson needs to come in. We need a savior. I will actively work against Gavin Newsom. It doesn't matter. They love him. He has destroyed the state of California. He is a nightmare.

And he's a-nightmare. He's a slick, rich dude that nobody's going to relate to. But the establishment loves him. So you will, sometimes you'll see it on the same day. I would vote for a bag of potatoes before I would vote for Gavin Newsom. The country unfortunately or fortunately shares your sentiment. But so they will say, if a progressive comes there, as a betrayal, betrayal of Democrats, Democratic Party, as if the Democratic voters are being betrayed, right?

Mary Ann Williams, why aren't she even in the race? She's so stoutly, you see how she treats her staff and she believes in spiritual stuff. That's what you get for being a challenger to Biden. Gavin, please come on, challenge Biden. You got a challenge Biden. You see him tripped? Gavin, Gavin, Gavin, Buttigieg, Buttigieg, Buttigieg, give us a corporate Democrat, corporate Democrat. That's what this is about.

That's what this is about. So, yeah, he's in bad shape. He's older. I don't blame him for tripping. there was a sandbag, so what? So what? It could have been Bernie and we love Bernie, right? So don't get on him for that, okay? But get on him for the substance. And yes, we need a challenger, not because he tripped, but because he's falling down on stage, but because his poll numbers are falling down. He's at 35%. Even if you don't agree with us on policy and you love it

when Republicans win on negotiations, okay? And you somehow call yourself a Democrat. That's fine. But he's not going to win. And we all agree to that. There's no one at 35% that's an incumbent that has ever won. So now that you mention that, I think it's important to see how Trump handled the news of Biden's latest fall. Because remember, when Trump sees someone as a political threat, he's pretty vicious. He sees Ron DeSantis as a political threat. And he has been relentlessly cruel to DeSantis.

And it's been fun to watch. But weirdly enough, his reaction to this situation, a little different from what I would have expected. So let's go to that video. Here's what he had to say. He's at the Air Force Academy. He actually fell down. Well, I hope he wasn't hurt. I hope he wasn't hurt.

But the whole thing is, look, the whole thing is crazy. You got to be careful about that. You got to be careful about that because you don't want that. Even if you have to tip, toe down a ramp, you've got to tip. It's just like, laughable way he talks. Anyway, but look, some might say that Donald Trump himself has had quite a few trips and falls while he's been campaigning and while he was president. Maybe he has this moment of self-awareness. Trump never has any moments of self-awareness.

I just think the way he reacted to that made it clear to me that he ain't worried about Biden. Well, that's interesting. Yeah, he's, if you notice, I mean, he barely attacks Biden. Oh, he attacks DeSantis 24-7 because he's worried about the Santa. Exactly. Okay, he's Biden at 35%. He's like, that guy only beat me by 43,000 votes last time in the electoral college. Now he's 15 points less popular. That's a cake walk, right? And so, and to be fair, no, Trump, it's not that Trump a trip before or fell. But yeah, that joke that he made is about him tiptoeing down at West Point, a different graduate. or also military graduation down this ramp. And so he knows that in this case, his house is also made of glass. So it's a rare decision not to throw stones. I know, Jake, but literally today, one of the other things that he said was that, you know, I don't really like the word woke. I don't like the word woke.

People don't, if you ask people to define it, they can't even define it, they don't even know what it means. I mean, this is a guy who's going around complaining about woke and wokeness. like incessantly, right? See, that goes to this point. Look, the primary comes before the general election for sure, I get it, right? He's got to worry about the first obstacle, right? But at the same time, like, if he was worried about Biden, he'd be like, woke is terrible.

I hate woke and everybody's woke and I despise it, right? But he doesn't think Biden's the threat. He thinks DeSantis is a woman. Exactly. And so when Santis is using the word woke over and over, all of a sudden, Trump's like, what's wrong with Vogue? Woke. That's just a giant ad saying, I'm worried about DeSantis.

I don't care about Biden. I'm going to beat him with a stick. It's going to be super easy and laughable. And what's sick and disgusting is that it's probably true. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including, let's see, what do I want to talk about next? Oh, the United States government is very, very upset with Mexico because Mexico wants to spend

its resources on its own people. So I'll tell you how we learned about that when we come back. All right back on TYT, Jankana with you guys, but also Noelle Do. Noelle just hit the join button below the video on YouTube. We appreciate you all can do likewise. And also upgrade through there, which athletes LLC just did. They upgraded to TYT. executive producer position. We appreciate it. And, and we're kind of proud that we've kept that entry level price for membership, which you get everything with is it's still at $4.99 month. It's like basically a cup of coffee. So if you can, please check that out. Impacts page shows the impact you guys have had in the world through the show, tyt.com slash impact.

And if you want to join, t.com slash join. All right, Anna. The leak documents indicate that the office of the director of national intelligence, or I should say from the office of the director of national intelligence indicates that the United States government is very upset with the government of Mexico because they have the audacity to want to spend some of their, you know, resources on the people of Mexico as opposed to spending those resources on the priorities of the United States government. I'm not kidding, that is what this leaked document indicates. Before we get to the details of the leak document, let's talk a little bit about how the Intercept,

which reported the story, obtained the document in the first place. So the leak comes from that young man, Jack Tashara, who decided to leak classified documents in a discord. Now, this was online, of course, and later he was arrested for doing this. There are other documents that Tashara allegedly uploaded, but have not been officially confirmed. And the document we're about to cover belongs in that category. The United States government has confirmed some of the other leaked documents, but this isn't one of them. Now, the Intercept has been reporting on the unconfirmed batch of documents, and they're a pretty trustworthy outlet. They do great reporting.

And so that's the reason why we're talking about this, but it is important to give you that caveat as we move forward. So that aside, let's get to the leak document itself. We have an image for you, it shows you what the leak document says, and an excerpt from it reads as follows. President Lopez Obrador's federal budget for 2023 gives priority to social spending and signature infrastructure projects rather than the investments needed to address bilateral issues with the United States such as immigration, security, and trade. Lopez Orbador's meager investment in migration, security, and trade-related organizations will probably undermine Mexico's ability to follow through on commitments to stem the flow of irregular migrants and fentanyl to the United States and boost economic competitiveness in North America. So look, there is a lot to unpack from the two excerpts that I just read

for you. For one, it is true that in recent months, especially, Lopez Obrador has decided to invest more in social spending in Mexico, and that has helped to make him very popular. So Lopez Obrador's 23 federal budget presented to the Mexican Congress last fall does increase funding for social programs, including a significant raise for the pension provided to older Mexicans. It also prioritizes large infrastructure projects, which are mostly concentrated in southern states of the country. This social spending has been working out for him. His approval rating currently stands at 65%. And Lopez Obrador's government has also raised the minimum wage, something that the United States has failed to do since the Bush administration, provided

cash and food assistance to older Mexicans, as well as scholarships for students nationwide. And by the way, it's worth noting that Obrador absolutely has played along with the United States immigration policies. And I'll get to those details in just a moment. But before I do, what do you make of this, Jank? So this lays bare who the United States government works for. So this isn't about Mexico, it's about us. And unfortunately, still the same guys. They work for corporate interests.

So this is not a document that says these are national security interests for America. You can make that argument on the migration issue and some of the fentanyl issue, et cetera. But the business issue, there's nothing new in national security at all. They're like, how dare, and why do you care about what Mexico is doing to invest in helping its own people? Why do you care about the minimum wage in Mexico going to being higher? How is that relevant to the American people, the American workers, the American voters, citizens are national security? It's not relevant at all. But for the people who actually run this country, corporate interests, that is a lot.

of great relevance. So all of a sudden, our national security documents are like, as Anna read to you, it undermined Mexico's ability to fall through our commitments to boost economic competitiveness in North America. Yes, exactly. The code word for that is you're supposed to be helping American business interests. Exactly. So when you raise the minimum wage in a country like Mexico, which historically speaking has been exploited by U.S.-based companies for their labor, Well, it makes it a little more tricky to find cheap labor to exploit, right? Because all of a sudden, the workers there now get paid based on the country's minimum wage there. And you also have to analyze this with the backdrop of what's currently taking place, the increased hostilities between the United States and China.

There is this effort to move, you know, any type of business activity that U.S. corporations might be doing in China to other countries. Now, obviously it would be far better if they bring those jobs back here to the United States. But of course, these corporations don't want to do that. They want to maximize their profits by being able to exploit the cheapest labor possible. So a lot of workers in Mexico were utilized for this process. And if their wages go up, that hurts the bottom line for these multinational corporations, for these US-based corporations as well. That's why they talk about competitiveness in North America.

Right, okay? So wait, if you solve the migration issue and you treat your citizens a lot better, we might not get that cheap labor. We're not happy with this at all. But now, the second part of it, I think, completely gives away the game. So let me read you something from Earl Anthony Wayne, who served as U.S. ambassador to Mexico in 2011-2015. He said what Omlo has been doing has been investing in infrastructure projects in the south of the country. That's a less of a priority for us because we trade mostly with the center and northern parts of the country where all the productive enterprises are.

Interesting. So in other words, all there are poor people down in southern Mexico and we can't make a buck off of them. I love this euphemism. The productive enterprises are in the north. So how dare you try to help the southern part of your country when you should be helping the business. interests that do business with American companies in the north. By the way, imagine if Mexico said this about America. If you're like, how dare America help the southern states?

They're not productive at all to us. We'd rather work with the productive and better northern states that are better at business and richer. We don't want to help the poor people of the red states. I mean, we would lose our minds. We would invade Mexico tomorrow, right? But this is our national security apparatus. That doesn't work for us at all. They work for multinational corporations.

All right. Can I just say one last thing about this story? Yeah, sure. So as Anna told you, his obradors popularity is a 65%. Why is we pointed out minimum wage, pensions, scholarships for the young, all the things Joe Biden didn't do. Joe Biden gave everything to corporate America. And what's his popularity at?

35%. So you pretend to do student debt relief. He knows it's going to get knocked off by the Supreme Court and just gave away the interest rate issue on the student debt to Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans. He didn't do any of the promises on paid family leave, higher minimum wage, et cetera, et cetera. And so people were like, oh, you gave us nothing. So you're at 35%. Orbador, you gave us a lot. And you're supposed to serve us and you did and you actually are a president in a democracy,

65%. See, that's not that hard. And by the way, Oberdoer's not a seat. He's done a lot of things wrong, okay? Including, by the way, devastating parts of the rainforest. So I'm not doing like raw, raw over door. He's got good sides and bad sides. I'm just telling you, raw politics. You do things for your own people, you're going to be popular. If you do things for your donors like Joe Biden does, you're going to be unpopular. Super obvious. But in a country like the United States where you have these establishments make decisions on your behalf in regard to who's going to run, who's the appropriate candidate. I mean, like, that's the thing, right? So it doesn't even matter how low Joe Biden's approval rating is, because the DNC is going to force him

upon us. Like, he is the person that we have to vote for. Because if you don't vote for him, Donald Trump might get elected. And that's what every election has now turned into, right? Just fear mongering about the other side while fully admitting that they're gonna do nothing for you. Oh, otherwise Donald Trump, wait, is Donald Trump in a Democratic primary? Because the Democratic primary is what's next. The Democratic primary is where you're limiting any good candidate that could beat Donald Trump. You're like, no. So no, it's because, and by the way, they're not even limiting the Gavin Newsom's of the world. They would love for them to come in. They only limit progressive challengers because they will not serve for corporate rule and corporate

media's job is to put you back to sleep and do propaganda and marketing on behalf of corporate rule. All right. Teens are being restricted in public spaces because of how unruly they've been behaving. We're not going to cover that story yet. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we've got that and more. Don't listen.

Should teens be banned? Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. work listen 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