The Young Turks - Kamala Harris' Healthcare Gaffe

Episode Date: May 14, 2019

Kamala Harris is getting wishy-washy on Medicare for All. Cenk Uygur 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. All right, welcome the young church, Jake Hugh Granite Gospairn with you guys, Song of Fire and Ice tonight. So, you know I'm on fire.

Okay, well, never mind, song of fire and fire tonight. So there will be a lot of Dracharis. So the Rashida Taleb story has been enraged, the first couple of stories has been enraged, the rest of the show has been enraged. So this will be fun. Are there no bounds to Republican lies? The correct answer is no. And so we live in a world where one side is decided they have detached from reality.

And so how do you deal with that? And how do you get the mainstream media to absorb that and do their jobs? And that is among the biggest challenges we have in the country. All right, so let's do it. All right. Healthcare lobbyists are working overtime in an effort to defeat any possibility of Medicare for all becoming a reality. Now there's one particular group known as Center Forward that is getting together with like-minded

individuals to come up with a game plan to defeat Medicare for all. And one of the things that they do, and this is certainly indicative of the healthcare industry overall, is they get some of these congressional staffers together at fancy ritsy resorts in an effort to wine and dine them and convince them to work against Medicare for all. Now according to The Intercept, Center Forward's big idea on Medicare Part D, for instance, is to maintain the lobbyist authored provisions of the law that bar the government from bargaining for lower prices for medicine.

Such restrictions cost taxpayers and patients as much as $73 billion a year while boosting the profits of drug makers. So to give you an idea of how they push for what they want in terms of continuing the private healthcare industry and continuing the system the way it is, several aids to Democratic leadership filed a disclosure showing that they received pay travel to attend the center forward retreat, including chiefs of staff to Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. So again, this is very similar to what pharmaceutical companies do with some doctors.

They'll have some sort of retreat at a fancy resort. The doctors will go, they get whined and dined, and it's likely that they'll get influenced by what the pharmaceutical industry wants. And the same thing is happening here with center forward, the private health care industry and these congressional staffers. So there's more analogies there, but the only thing that I'll disagree with a little bit is that there's not a chance they'll be influenced. It's a guarantee.

This is corruption defined. And so they come over and they say, okay, now here's your marching orders, and you will do as you're told. The $560 trip to a fancy retreat is, the tip of the iceberg. That's not the real deal, that's just where they tell them what their job is. We are your donors, you shut up and you do as you're told, but we're telling you in a very nice and pleasant context of a mansion that you've all been invited to, right? No, the real deal is in the money that they contribute to their politicians and other

forms of the lobbying. So center forward is just a rebrand for corporate Democrats. They've had a lot of rebrands because they're toxic and nobody likes them, no actual voters like them. There's no voters in America who are like, oh my God, if I could just get a Democrat who loves giant multinational corporations and does favors for them instead of looking out for our voters. That voter does not exist. The only thing that props them up is branding, marketing, and help from television.

So everybody on TV are like, oh my God, these centrist Democrats are so reasonable. The way they want to work with Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell and the oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies and the defense contractors, that is how bipartisanship should work. And there's corruption on that level too. But in this case, I mean, look, we've had what? The blue dog Democrats, they were in attendance, if any of them still exist. Almost all of them have lost their elections, again, because they are deeply unpopular

in the real world. Problem solvers caucus, that means I worked with Mitch McConnell to solve the donor problems, and new Democrats. And those are all corporate Democrats, now you got center forward, you can call it whatever the hell you like, it's corruption either way. So look, even the progressive presidential candidates, unfortunately, won't call it what it is. And you have to name it. So people love saying that about other issues, I'll say it about this issue.

Corruption. So is Steny Hoyer corrupt? Yes, yes. And so Jim Clyburn, yes, he's done some great work in the past in other issues. Is he corrupt in this way? Yes. So the people to do who have attended, Kurt Schrader, Dan Lipinski, of course. Dan Lipinski is a massively right-wing Democrat.

And he's in a very blue district, and he goes over, why is he so right-wing? Part of it is ideological on issues like abortion, and part of it is he gets legally bribed to be that right-wing, and he's that kind of guy who loves taking that legalized bribery. So that's what this story's about. And they're just rubbing your face in it, because they're like, who cares? Come to our mansion, we'll do it right in front of everybody. Well, I'll put you in the room with the Republicans. You guys will all give us everything we want.

Then you go run ads pretending you're against us. It'll be a nice little trick, and we'll rob the American people together. It's not a fun trick. Right, and you mentioned the Blue Dog Democrats, which I'm glad you mentioned, because this is essentially the same group, right? So, Blue Dog Democrats fought aggressively against the Affordable Care Act. They fought aggressively and won in defeating any opportunity or chance for a public option as part of the Affordable Care Act.

And you're right in that this group has now rebranded itself and they're going with center forward. And you have Democrats and Republicans working together to defeat something that polls incredibly well. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation did a poll asking specifically, do you sort of? Do you support a single payer healthcare system, right? So there's no Medicare for all, there's no language like that, specifically a single payer health care system.

56% of voters, this includes Democrats and Republicans, were supportive of a single payer health care system, which means that they're working against what the majority of Americans want. And Jake mentioned legalized bribery, and in this case, it is legal because there was a loophole So for instance, let's go to Graphic 4. The Ethics Committee rules bar-registered lobbyists from arranging luxury travel for Congress. Although Center Forward's board is made up almost entirely of registered corporate lobbyists, really?

The event forms were signed by the group's executive director, Corey Kramer, who is not a registered lobbyist, a technicality that helps skirt the prohibition on lobbyist funded travel. So they use all these loopholes in order to get around ethics. Ethics rules. So look, Republicans also attended, Sean Duffy, Rodney Davis, Will Hurd, and these are all the guys that Joe Scarborough and the rest of television celebrate. So my question to you is bipartisan compromise, to what end? And that's the question I'm gonna keep on asking no matter what, to what end?

Because they say, well, bipartisanship is great, really? What if they have a bipartisan agreement to nuke a country? Well, I would call it not great, right? And you say, well, that's an extreme example. How about if they need a bipartisan agreement to rob the American people of $73 billion? Well, that wouldn't be great either, right? That's exactly what's happened here. It's not a little like it, it's not an analogy, because George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump,

all of them said you are not allowed to negotiate with drug companies, you will bow your head and pay them an extra $73 billion that we definitely do not have to pay them if we negotiated like every other country in the world. And by the way, Obama ran campaign ads saying that he would defeat it, that he wouldn't do that policy, and he did anyway. And now you tell me it's not corruption, sorry, I believe the much simpler possibility. It is corruption. Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party got paid by the drug companies as they're getting

paid today to do that corruption to help them rob you of that $73 billion. I know what their excuses are. Oh, we had to do a deal in order to get the Heritage Foundation plan passed. We killed a public option. We killed negotiating with drug prices. We left the entire health insurance industry in private hands and at their mercy. And they were allowed to raise their prices for insurance, let alone drugs, any way that they wanted.

All those companies, we had to make. But what a lucky break. Our donors totally agreed with that. Wow, so lucky Obama and the Democrats. Then Trump said, he ran ads, he went on the stump. Why can't we negotiate with drug companies? I'm gonna end that. What happened?

He came in and like a little lap dog. Trump was like, yes, absolutely, sir, corruption. Trump's like, I didn't know we were doing corruption. Of course I jump in it. So now Trump and all the Republicans say, no, do not negotiate drug prices. It is insane. Is this capitalism, guys? Is this capitalism when you say, I'm not going to negotiate anything.

I'm just going to, whatever a company tells me to do, I'm just going to hand not my money, the taxpayer's money, the taxpayer's money. If you're a conservative, you should despise this. So no, Joe Scarborough, rest of television, I do not agree to this bipartisan agreement. This is a bipartisan agreement to rob us blind. Where's my goddamn $73 billion? And by the way, some people don't take those drugs because they're so expensive. And you know what happens?

They die. That's real. They're in the middle of a fire, and we don't send them help, and we say, oh, you want the fire out? You got cancer? You got something that is existential threat, life or death? We're not going to send help, and on top of that, we're going to charge you more, making it more likely that you're going to die.

No. If you have bipartisan agreement on things that the American people agree to, wonderful. If you have it on stuff that the donors agree to and that the American people hate, no deal. So call them what they are. These Democrats that go to these retreats and sell you out, they are not on your team, they're not your colleagues, they're the corporate donor's colleagues. And they're paid to rob you like they did here. So presidential candidates are, of course, discussing Medicare for all.

And Kamala Harris had to clarify her statement, so let's talk about that a little bit. Kamala Harris's first town hall with CNN, she was asked a question about Medicare for all and whether or not she supported it. Now she gave a pretty strong answer, and it appeared that she was very supportive of Medicare for all. But then later, there was a little bit of equivocating happening, there was a little bit of a concession to some of the more moderate Democrats when it came to this issue. And so recently, Jake Tapper asked her to clarify what her true position is, and here's

what she had to say. You said on stage with me in January that when it comes to private insurance, quote, let's eliminate all of that, let's move on. Yes. Now you later said we don't need to get rid of all private insurance. But let's clear that. Which is it exactly? Well, we were together.

Yes. And you'll remember and roll the tape, please. No, we can roll the tape. Well, you support the Bernie Sanders bill, which essentially gets rid of insurance. I support Medicare for all, but I really do need to clear up what happened on that stage. It was in the context of saying, let's get rid of all the bureaucracy, let's get all Oh, not the insurance companies. No, that's not what I meant.

I know it was interpreted that way. If you watch the tape, I think you'll see that there are obviously many interpretations of what I said. What I meant is let's get rid of the bureaucracy. Okay, we're gonna roll the tape for you. So she asked, we'll do that because we care about the facts here. So so far, Jake Tapper's done nothing wrong. He's challenging her on something that any good journalist should challenge her on.

Well, you said get rid of private insurance, then you walked it back. So which one is it? Great question, no problem at all. Her answer, I mean, there's the awkward laughing because she got caught. And so, all right, move past the style, go to the substance. And she says, no, no, no, I just meant get rid of the bureaucracy. I'm not sure that's what you meant at all. And those two things are, they don't make sense.

So like, do you want to get rid of private insurance or don't you? So let's roll the tape and see what she actually said back then. What is your solution to ensure that people have access to quality health care at an affordable price? And does that solution involve cutting insurance companies, as we know them, out of the equation? I believe the solution, and I'm actually feel very strongly about this, is that we need to have Medicare for all. That's just the bottom one. Correct me if I'm wrong. To reiterate, you support the Medicare for All bill, I think initially co-sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders.

You're also a correspondent on it. I believe it will totally eliminate private insurance. So for people out there who like their insurance, they don't get to keep it. Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require. Who of us has not had that situation where you've got to wait for approval and the doctor says, well, I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.

Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on. So she could say, hey, I said eliminate all of that when referring to all that paperwork, et cetera. But clearly, he asked, would you get rid of private insurance? And she began by saying yes. And she ended by saying, let's get rid of all of that. And by the way, that's actually a good answer. Right.

She should have just stuck with it instead of doing what politicians do. Afterwards, she had her spokespeople walk it back. And now she's somewhere in the middle of the road. And even after the second tap her interview, I'm not exactly sure where she is. Right. So she does seem to be wishy-washy when it comes to this issue. But later in the interview, she gets a little more specific. So I want you to watch and tell me if you're going to give her any credit.

Let's take a look at the next tape. The bill gets rid of insurance. But no, no, no. It does not get rid of insurance. It does not get rid of insurance. And listen, and let me just tell you where I am. Let's tell you where I am. All right.

I support Medicare for all. It is my preferred... As a principle, you mean? Not Bernie Sanders bill. I support the bill. Okay. I support the bill. Because the bill gets rid of private insurance for everything that is...

It doesn't get rid of supplemental insurance. Right, for cosmetic surgery, but for all... So it doesn't get rid of all insurance. Okay, it doesn't get rid of all insurance, but for all essential health care benefits. But why? Ask the question why. The question, the answer to that question, is because Medicare for all and the vision of what it will be includes an expansion of coverage. So, Medicare for all will include vision, it'll include dental, it'll include hearing aids.

So I love the second half of that answer. Yeah, me too. And I wish she'd have stayed on that and she'd emphasize it more, but she is trying to equivocate. Yes. She's trying to put out there, I'm not saying get rid of all private insurance, but I'm for Medicare for all, which would get rid of all private insurance except supplemental insurance for things like cosmetic surgery. If you're gonna have that position, go in defending it, and then you'll be a champion

for it and we'll rally and we'll be like, hey, that's it, that's wonderful. But when you equivocate, you're doing it for a reason and we know it. So you could turn around and say to people who are not in favor of Medicare for all, well, I didn't say I get rid of all private insurance, and turn around the people who like Medicare for all and say, I did say I'm for Medicare for all. You want it both ways, and it's not the old days. In the 1990s, you could have done that until the cows came home. Now you're gonna get caught.

And now what could have been a good answer is now turned into a bad. answer because you look like a politician. Yeah, I agree with you in that the second part of the interview was much stronger, but the way that she words everything is for future plausible deniability. 100%. Depending on where the country's headed, depending on where the party's headed. And so she doesn't want to get pushback from those who are super supportive of Medicare for all.

She doesn't want to get push back from those who are not supportive of Medicare for all, which is the democratic establishment for the most part. Now there was one tiny snippet of this interview that was. incredibly strong, and I want to give her credit for it. Let's take a look. The bill also says, quote, every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled to benefits for health care services under this act. Not every individual who's a citizen, but every individual who's a resident. So you support giving universal health care, Medicare for all, to people who are in this country illegally?

Let me just be very clear about this. I am opposed to any policy that would deny in our country any human being from access to public safety, public education, or public health, period. I love that. Yes, so normally when she says, let me be clear about this, she's about to be unclear about it. But not in that case. Right.

In that case, she was clear about it. Now, so that was just a very solid answer. Now let's go to Jake Tapper. Okay, can you frame things from a more Mitch McConnell point of view? Correct answer is no, you cannot. And so if Jake was like the BBC and he's challenging all comers very aggressively, that's fine. And he could turn around and say, look, I don't have a point of view on Medicare for all or not Medicare for all, I'm just asking tough questions of Kamala Harris.

Should we get rid of private insurance or shouldn't we? Okay, that would be one thing. And can Jake Tapper say he's been tough on the Trump administration from time to time? Definitely. Is he tough on establishment Republicans? Hell no. Hell no, he never challenges Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz that way, no way. So what's wrong with the framing?

He says, are people like their private insurance? Are you gonna get rid of that private insurance? Well, yes, why? Because you're not telling the whole truth to the American people when you frame that question in that way. We get rid of that insurance to give you better insurance. What do I mean by better? It covers more things.

So if you were like, oh, right now my insurance has a low copay, good news, this has no co-pay. Well, my insurance is pretty good because it covers cancer and heart attacks. I mean, it doesn't cover other issues, good news. Medicare for All covers all of that and everything else, all the way through dental and vision. Now every time the tapers of the world frame it as, you're getting good at private insurance, and they don't tell you the other half of the equation, which is that you would get better insurance.

That is journalistic malpractice. Yeah, and going back to the last video that we showed you, the way he asked the question was 100% inaccurate. So he specifically mentions that the proposal would cover residents of the United States, and then he proceeded to ask her, do you support health insurance or, I'm sorry, coverage for people who are here illegally? Well, first of all, it would cover residents who are not here illegally, and secondly, residents pay taxes.

So why wouldn't they have access to the health care provided under Medicare for all? He says which undocumented people also pay taxes through payroll tax and sales tax. And since they're not documented, they never get that money back. In fact, studies have shown that they pay more into the system than they get out of the system. But when Tapper frames it that way, it makes it seem like, oh, well, the right wing is right, these people are just, they're here illegally and milking off of us by getting like treatment for a gunshot or for a heart attack. We're not letting them bleed to death on the streets and they didn't pay into it.

But actually they did. And so that is why the framing is all wrong. So that's why when they said about Saddam Hussein, hey, did he do 9-11, 70% of the country thought he did when we went to the Iraq war because the media said, Bush says this, Cheney says this, Bush says this, Cheney says this, and they never corrected them. They just reversed. So that didn't do 9-11. So that was terrible journalism.

Can I at least, I mean, at this point, they always admit like, oh, well, you know, there were some problems during the Iraq war coverage and we should have done better. Okay, how? How should you have done better? You should have given the full information instead of the talking point from both sides or either side. You should have actually pursued the truth rather than what the Republican Party says or the Democratic Party says.

But have they learned from that? Have they fixed it? No. So when the Republican talking point is, they're going to take your private insurance. 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-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host Delfts, into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed

over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. It's a way that you like so much, why do you like it? It has low deductibles, I can deal with my premium. And you don't tell them that the new plan has no deductibles, no premiums, no co-pays, and covers more, well then you, that's horrible, it's misrepresenting what the reality

is. Now if you were to say, hey, taxes are going to go up for 5% of the country in order to make this happen, that would be true, okay, then say that, and you want to give that content. No problem about 95% of the country has lower costs under this system 5% does have higher costs Okay, be upfront about that. We're not looking to hide the ball, but when you make it seem like Medicare for all is higher taxes and people just don't even have insurance, that's insane. And if you say, oh no, no, everybody knows that.

No, they don't. No they don't because all they ever hear is television pundits tell them how there's no private insurance. And so look, Kamala Harris, stop going with you. Your consultants are telling you and what your gut as a politician is, which is equivocation. You're actually right on Medicare for all. You're right on supporting Bernie Sanders bill. Come out guns blazing. Don't say on that one hand this, on the other hand that. Say, Jake, understand, you did half of that here. You could have done the whole interview on that. Yeah, we take away private insurance because we give you better insurance.

Be strong. Kamala Harris has it in her to be super strong. Yes. So by all means, do it already. Well, we come back from the break. Corey Booker does not have it in him to be strong. He has it in him to be super slimy, especially when it comes to attacking other fellow Democrats.

Can I just say on that, he's amazing. Because I might actually agree with him on the issue. But the way he does it is he loses me. He's unreal. He's such a politician. All right, we'll tell you when we come back. All right, back on TYT. Let's go to member comments first.

By the way, I still have a cough, so buckle up for that. Katie Nicole 87 says, I should be working on my 15-page final paper that's due tomorrow, but I've got to watch CYT, correct priorities. Oh, I would love to go back to school. I would love it so much. Can you do these while I cough? God, I'm so jealous. Yeah, yeah.

Go ahead. All right, look, lots of fun things are happening at TYT. For instance, Game of Thrones, it's still happening, and TYT is still reviewing every episode of Game of Thrones every Sunday night. And episode five was just recently reviewed by Jenk, were all these people involved? Yeah, Brooke, John, Ben. You guys should have watched it. You should have watched the Game of Thrones episode.

And you should have watched the review because last night's episode was insane. Also, we're doing an Ask Me Anything on our post game Tuesdays starting May 14th. And you can watch live by going to t.com slash live to watch it as we stream. And of course, if you're a member, you can get access to that any time. Okay, let me just say two quick things about that. Only members can ask questions on Ask Me Anything. So, but it's freely available to everybody. So make sure you check it out, that's tomorrow, okay?

And then on Game of Thrones, we're doing the last one, obviously, on Sunday. And I was gonna say Calisi returns, but now, I don't know that you want that title, Anna. I don't. Okay, because you were Calisi, oops. Although when I get mad, I think about this. There is definitely a trick, Dr. Carrots involved. So the great return of Anna Cusparian to Game of Thrones reviews, there's actually going to be seven of us.

So we're all going to bring the whole band together for the last episode. So don't miss that. And check out our predictions if you remember, t.t.com slash join to see who's going to win, who's going to sit on the throne on the last episode. Is it DeNaris? Is it John Snow or a number of wild cards we mentioned? In fact, neither one of them won the poll at the end. What?

I gotta watch the review. That's right. That's awesome. And a couple of comments here. A stiff upper lib writes in in member section, right off the bat, TYT shows why I listen to them and not network news. It's about the money, money. It's 603 and I'm hearing things I won't hear on the multi-billion dollar finance network news.

Facts are facts. I bathe in Ben Shapiro's tears. Oh, yes. He writes in, gotta love Jenkin destroy segments. Thank you. Mimi on Twitter says Kamala is so fake to me. She's like reality TV, very poorly scripted. I just don't trust her.

And Bernice Panders says, yes, Jank, I'm stuck in a small town, 98% whitewashed, conservative religious Trump supporting Republicans like my family. They expect me to get by on an unsustainable disability of $400 a month, after minimum medical costs and say quit crying, get off my vital meds. Hashtag poverty. She's. I mean, when you say bootstraps is getting off of your medication, which you need to live, I think that, and you call that, conservatives call that compassion?

No, that's insanity, man. That's the exact opposite. All right, we got a lot more stories for you guys. Elizabeth Warren has proposed breaking up the big tech companies. Now, out of all the Democratic candidates, she has come out with more policy proposals, more detailed policy proposals. And guess what? Corey Booker is not having it. Here he is on ABCs this week. Elizabeth Warren's already out there saying break up Facebook, break up Google.

I don't think that-break up Amazon. Right, but I don't think that a president should be running around pointing at companies and saying breaking them up without any kind of process here. It's not me and my own personal opinion about going after folks. That sounds more like a Donald Trump thing to say, like I'm going to break up you guys. No, we need to create systems and processes. You just compared to Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump? I most certainly did not. Well, that's what she's saying.

She's the one that's saying that. Well, again, she has, let her discuss and debate her positions. I'm telling you right now, we do not need a president that is going to use her own personal beliefs and tell you which companies we should break up. Okay, so what are your positions? I'm very, very curious, right? Other than giant favors for the pharmaceutical industry, so we can't negotiate drug prices. Anyway, her policy is actually pretty detailed, and New York Times, of all places,

went into detail about her policy and talked about exactly what she would attempt to do. So let me give you those details. Let me fact check Cory Booker and tell you exactly what she wants. So Warren laid out her proposal calling for regulators who would undo some tech mergers as well as legislation that would prohibit platforms from both offering a marketplace for commerce and participating in that marketplace. So for instance, if you're on Amazon, you can use Amazon to purchase products, but Amazon also creates its own products that you can buy in that marketplace.

Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users' data with third parties. Dual entities such as Amazon Marketplace and Amazon Basics would be split apart. Now, let's go to process a little bit. Warren's plan creates two tiers of companies that would fall under the new regulations. Those that have an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more, and those with annual revenue of $90 million to $25 billion. The upper tier would be required to structurally separate their products from their marketplace. Smaller companies would be subject to regulations, but would not be forced to separate

themselves from the online marketplace. Anyway, if you read the proposal, it's incredibly, incredibly detailed, and for him to just claim, oh, there's no processes, there's no process. She's just like Trump. First of all, it sounds like your consultants told her, told you to compare her to Trump. 100%. Right? And that's such a low, below the belt hit and it's disgusting.

And secondly, what are you proposing? Like what do you bring to the table? Because so far I haven't seen anything. He's agreed with some other proposals. Okay, so look, this is why Cory Booker would have been a good politician in the 1990s, and that's what TV pundits look for. So they really like Cory Booker. in Klobuchar are artificially inflated because all the TV pundits like them and they keep

putting them in the upper batch of candidates based on really nothing. And even with all that extra hype in marketing, they're still polling at 2%. At most I've ever seen is like 3%. Sad. And so why? Because for this day and age, Cory Booker is actually a pretty bad politician. And so let me explain. In this case, I probably agree with him.

I'm not sure that breaking up Facebook, Amazon, et cetera, is the right way to go now. I'd rather focus on other industries. We've talked about it on the show before. It's a super legitimate debate, and I might be convinced later that it is time, but right now I'm not in that camp. So I actually agree with Cory Booker, but somehow he lost me anyway. Okay, hold. So I don't want to reopen that debate, we've already had it on the show.

But the one thing that I want to note is that he's not arguing again. against breaking up these companies. He's arguing that Elizabeth Warren hasn't thought this through and hasn't really detailed the processes in getting it done. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, well, he didn't clarify, but he certainly seems to be in the camp based on what he said there, that he thinks it's not a good idea. And that it's not about the substance, but that it is about it's personal.

Like Trump makes it personal, that somehow Elizabeth Warren has some personal animus towards these companies, based on what? What, like, what did Amazon ever do to her? They deliver something late? I don't know any of that. What are you talking about? Right. So, Facebook did once remove one of our ads attacking Facebook, but then they put it back.

But that's not as, but that was after she announced that she thought they should be broken up. So that makes no sense. Look, I, he's attacking a fellow Democrat. But I'm in the camp of that's totally okay. So we're in a primary. If Cory Booker wants to say, hey, look, I. I think Facebook, et cetera, should not be broken up. Elizabeth Warren does think that.

We disagree. This is why we disagree. And so have a legitimate debate over it. So even though he started out with me in his camp on, it's okay to attack another Democrat, and I largely agree with you on the policy, he lost me anyway. Why? What did you do? You just compared it to Trump?

What the hell did you do that for? Because that's needlessly, gratuitously demeaning for no reason at all. Other than probably one of your consultants told you just compare progressives to Donald Trump. They're both radicals and that'll shore up your centrist base. How's that working out for you, Corey? Right. Okay? And then to have the worst criticism of Elizabeth Warren I have ever seen that she doesn't

have detailed enough process? Have you ever read any of her proposals? She's by far the most detailed in the proposals. That's not even close. I really like Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren policies are more detailed, more process oriented, and it's not close, okay? And it is interesting because on one hand, you'll have some members of the Democratic establishment argue that she's too wonky, she's too policy oriented, she's too detailed,

it's working against her. And then on the other hand, you'll have people like Cory Booker just completely make things up and make it appear as though she hasn't thought things through and she's nothing more than another version of Trump. And I think the attempt to compare her to Trump was a way of getting some cheap buzz. Because again, what has he brought to the table? If you bring something new and exciting policy wise to the table, people would discuss your policy. But no one's discussing your policy because you've brought nothing new and exciting to the table.

And more importantly, can you imagine, just think for one second, if Bernie Sanders had just done an interview on ABCs this week and compared Joe Biden to Donald Trump, can you imagine the anger, The calls for unity, how dare you? 100%. So it's just fascinating how there is a double standard in the Democratic Party, where progressives, and in the media, where progressives are just not allowed to ever, ever, ever fight the other side. But when it comes to the Klobuchar's or the Cory Bookers of the world, they can literally compare

the progressives to Trump and it just flies under the radar, no big deal. Oh, I mean, the other day, Hickenlooper compared Bernie Sanders to Stalin. And while at the same time saying, I don't attack other candidates. And by the way, so that is aided and embedded by the media. I said the media, because the media, when they compare progressives to Trump or Stalin, makes note of it, Jonathan Carl, to be fair, made note of it, and then they move on. They don't find it scandalous. But if you compare an establishment candidate to one of those people, they'd be like,

these radical progressives, look at these outrageous lack of civility. To compare someone to a murderer like Joseph Stalin or to a monster like Donald Trump. Lack of civility and lack of unity. So the double standard is unbearable. By the way, that goes to Cory Booker's third strike in that interview. He said, Jonathan Carl rightfully says, oh, you just compare to Elizabeth Warren or Donald Trump. And he says, no, I didn't. We all just heard it.

We can rewind the tape. But he's such a politician, he can't help himself. No, I didn't. My consultants told me to, because he's going to give attention and get me a bump. They also told me to deny it while I'm doing it. It's crazy. It's not at all clever. I mean, Cory Booker is the classic definition of, you're going to get caught, right?

I've been saying that about the internet catches you. It's not the old days where cable news guys are like, oh, Cory, Klobuchar, oh, you guys are so good. And they never question you. The internet's going to catch you and Booker always gets caught. So now, last thing, to be fair to Booker, he is really good and better than the rest on one issue. Criminal justice reform, okay?

Okay. No, he is. You're right, okay. So Senator Booker, why don't you concentrate on that? Why don't you go on the war path on that? Like Andrew Yang has done on universal basic income. And Elizabeth Warren has on the banks and Bernie has on income inequality and Medicare for all, et cetera.

You could own that and say, if I'm president, we're gonna get, and look, some of the stuff you might have said from time to time. And again, I'm giving you credit for the good work that you did in Congress. And by the way, got a pass that you should rightfully brag about that, okay? But say, I'm gonna end the marijuana prohibition immediately and talk about it in every case and we're going to free all those people who are wrongly imprisoned, mostly because of the color of their skin all across America. We're not gonna have it, we're gonna end private prisons, we're gonna do things like that,

be strong and forceful on the issue that you're good at. And look, then you wanna back up everybody on Medicare for all Green New Deal? Great, then you've got a lane. But if your lane is centrist, corporate friendly, don't touch my friends in the corporate world, that's a terrible lane, and you're gonna get run over. So I'm telling you, you wanna listen to it, that's your issue, you don't wanna listen, you wanna be angry about it, that's your issue. But that's the reality, and this is not playing well.

Nobody looks at that interviewing things, Booker nailed it, warrants just like Trump, thank God, I'm now voting for Cory Booker, said zero people in America. When we come back from the break, we will discuss the latest instance of the right-wing twisting Representative Rashida Talib's words to make her seem as if she is anti-Semitic. Oh man, if you mentioned warpath, buckle up, brace for impact from when we come back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t yt dot com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free segment

all right back on the young turks lots of great comments here uh rocky mountain landin in our member section says with all due respect how the hell do you consider yourself a progressive but aren't on board with breaking up monopolies and using antitrust laws so that's directed at me and you're fired okay wait i can't do that you can fire me um okay i'm playing look i am for using anti trust laws, I am against monopolies. I just want to go after lower hanging fruit first. And so I think that we should look at all the different companies in their monopoly power. I think media is a huge target.

And because they have consolidated power more than almost any other industry. I think there are many other industries like banking that we should look at. And so I'm not opposed to the tech situation, I just would want to study it more. And I would get to it after the more dangerous situation, in my opinion, okay? But that's a fine debate to have, and thank you for challenging us. We appreciate that. The math magician says, the final episode of Game of Thrones will be three hours long. My prediction, the final episode will jump forward decades to see the fate of survivors,

and Daeneres haunted by the slaughter at King's Landing. And they returned- Spoiler alert, but-b-b-b-b-b-b-b. Yeah, but- I know. I hear you, right. And the return of the Night King, yes, you read correctly. Okay, that's a wild prediction, okay, but let's see what happens. Anyway, that's of course right after the show review on Sunday night right here. And then last two here from Twitter are Joya Janaluski says, making my dad listen to the

Young Turks on this five hour drive back to Dayton, I think he's digging it so far. Hey, Mr. Janaluski, how you doing? Appreciate that you're giving us a shot. And gaining traction, says, Anna, speaking of going back to school, at 44 years old, I start law in August, in large part due to your coverage and the hope that AOC gave me. I figured if she can do what she did, I can do this. Wow. Yes, you can.

Okay, thank you for writing that in. Look, you also inspire us, okay? So, Anna, what's next? During a recent interview with Yahoo News, Rashida Talib had defended her preference for a one state solution in Israel. And she was also taken out of context by right wingers who tried to make her appear as some sort of anti-Semitic individual who's against Jewish people and the state of Israel. Now I'm gonna give you the full video in context and then we'll discuss.

Take a look. What is your vision for a one-state solution that meets both Palestinian and Israeli or Jewish national aspirations? Absolutely. And let me tell you, I mean, for me, just a few, I think two weeks ago or so, we celebrated, or just it took a moment, I think, in our country to remember the Holocaust. And there's, you know, there's a kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks. when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, the human dignity,

their existence in many ways have been wiped out and some people's passport. I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and horrific persecution of Jews. across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them.

And so when I think about one state, I think about the fact that why couldn't we do it in a better way? And I don't want people to do it in the name of Judaism, just like I don't want people to use Islam in that way. It has to be done in a way of values around equality and around the fact that you shouldn't impress others so that you can feel free and safe. Why can we all be free and safe together? So all of you who just watched it, you saw what she said, you know what she intended, meant, and clearly stated. It wasn't even that ambiguous at all.

She said, look, the Holocaust was tragic and horrific. And it shouldn't have, the state of Israel shouldn't have necessarily been created in the way that it was. And you can disagree with that, right? But at least I think some comfort in knowing that it created a safe haven for Jews. So who had just, you know, escaped this tragedy of the Holocaust. Super clear. Now I'm going to show you what Republicans said about it. And then actually some reporters, believe it or not, actually corrected the Republicans this time.

Right. And I wanna also emphasize the two phrases that really stood out to me while she was speaking. Tragedy of the Holocaust, horrific persecution of Jews. Those were phrases verbatim from that last video. Now the US ambassador to Israel tweeted about this and said, quote, your words are both grossly anti-Semitic and ignorant. You should take some time to learn the history before trying to rewrite it. Liz Cheney, a very noted warbonger, says, surely Speaker Pelosi and leader Hoyer will finally

take action against vile anti-Semitism in their ranks. This must cross a line, even for them. Rashida Talib says, thinking of the Holocaust provides her a calming feeling. No, that is not what she said. She did not say thinking of the Holocaust gives her a calming feeling. I mean, she specifically said it gave her a calming feeling to know that a, a, a, a a safe place was created for them. But of course, they have every incentive to twist her words and make her out to be some

sort of dangerous person who's against. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID. more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network

data to protect you from eavesdroppers and 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. The Jewish community and the state of Israel, which is not the case.

Paul Waldman wrote in the Washington Post, if you read Taleb's words and decided that she said thinking of the Holocaust itself gave her a calming feeling, you'd have to be too stupid to be capable of tying your own shoes. And he said, look, Liz Cheney might be a lot of things, but she ain't stupid. She's doing it on purpose. And he said, she is, quote, unconstrained by any concern for truth or morality. That is absolutely true. It also applies to Steve Scalise.

Scalise said, and wait until you get a load of what Scalise has done in the past. He said, there is no justification for the twisted and disgusting comments made by Rashida Talib just after days after the annual day of Holocaust remembers. More than 6 million Jews were murdered during the time, et cetera, right? During the Holocaust, he said, and there's nothing calming about that fact. But she didn't say there was anything calming about that fact, and that's a brazen lie. So the Washington Post followed up in a different article, and they asked them, look, you must have obviously not heard the second half of the statement, where she didn't say it was calming that the Holocaust happened, said it was calming that at least there was a safe haven for Jews after the Holocaust. the Holocaust happened.

And Cheney and Scalise's offices both said, yeah, don't care, no, we think she's a vile anti-Semite and thought the Holocaust was coming. And the reporter Amber Phillips in that case is like, oh my God, what do you, I don't understand. She said it's a brazen example of how reality is mattering less and less in politics. She went on to say that this is a particularly fact-free and baseless attack. It's as close as it gets to just making stuff up. So finally, reporters doing a wonderful job of calling it as it is, although far too many headlines still repeat, Republicans call Rashida-Talib anti-Semitic.

That's a terrible headline. As Paul Waldman correctly points out, he says the headline should reflect what the reality of the story is, and the reality of the story is, he said, Republicans smeared Democrat with bogus anti-Semitism charge would be the more correct headline that would accurately capture what is happening in this case. And if you're wondering about Steve Scalise, well, maybe he's really so sensitive about anti-Semitism and clouded his judgment of being able to understand the English language, right? Well, he does care about anti-Semitism, but not necessarily in the way that you would expect.

He's one of the top three Republicans in the House. Earlier in his career, he gave a speech to a white supremacist group and told them that he is, quote, David Duke without the baggage. But they don't get attacked as anti-Semitic. I mean, Mo Brooks in March of this year, read from Mind Comp on the House floor. And was there any anger from Republicans? Was there any anger from the media? Of course not.

Of course not. And so the one thing that Republicans do well, unfortunately, with the help of the media, is perpetuating lies about their political opponents. And that's exactly what's happening with Rashida Talib. That's exactly what's happening with Representative Omar. And it's just, we're constantly in this position of playing defense. They're constantly playing offense. They're constantly twisting words and trying to smear people.

And then the left is left trying to figure out how to rebut all of their ridiculous claims. So again, Walman broke this down perfectly. He talked about five-step way that the Republicans do this on a regular basis. It always starts out on the blogs, right-wing blogs that don't care about truth or reality. It jumps to Fox News, it jumps to Republican leaders, then it goes to Trump, and most importantly, aided and embedded by most of the mainstream media, which then takes the headline of controversy around whether Ilhan Omar or Rashida Taleb is anti-Semitic. But once you've framed it that way, they've already lost the battle.

And so the media has to do a much better job. Here they have begun that process. But overall, they have to do a much better job of accurately titling these things and calling them what it is. So any rational person that watched that clip knows that she did not call the Holocaust calming. So when they lie about it, you have to call it a lie. You have to call it a lie, otherwise you're not being objective.

You're doing political correctness on behalf of it. half of the Republican Party. By the way, speaking of accurate labels, I made a little mistake earlier in the show when I mentioned Danny Dannen, I read his tweet. He's actually Israel's ambassador to the U.N., not the U.S. ambassador to Israel. So I just want to make that quick correction. Yes, I just want to say about that. Look, if Israel's ambassador doesn't like what Rashida Talib is saying, because he represents

the right-wing government of Israel, that is not at all surprising. So I'm not bothered by that, of course he's gonna say, oh my gosh, he defended Palestinians. They should have no rights, we should occupy them for the rest of time. That's not a surprising statement, okay? Yes, I did hyperbole on his statement, okay, it's not exactly what he said. We read you the exact quote earlier. Now, see, we are honest about our point of view. But when the Republicans come in and lie about what Rashida Talib said, why do they do it?

Because of the second guilty party here. One is the media that calls it 50-50 and helps to smear these Democrats and progressives. The other is Democratic leadership. Why does Liz Cheney say, hey, it's time for Pelosi and Hoyer to do something? Because last time they bullied Pelosi and Hoyer, they actually didn't have to bully him much. Pelosi and Hoyer wanted to throw Ilhan Omar under a bus. And so they did it to Ilhan Omar and they're like, why don't you execute politically, Talib, like we had you do to Al-Had Omar.

Hurry up and do it already. By the way, you should know this. an important facet of politics and it's involved in the story. There are progressive groups that fight back and they do make a difference and you could be part of that. So Justice Democrats immediately put out a press release saying that Democratic leadership should do the opposite and back to leap. And within two hours of that, they in fact did.

Nice. So Pelosi and Democratic leadership in this case did back to leave. I mean, look, it's so easy because one side is 100% right. The other side is completely made up a fake controversy. But even then, you gotta hold your breath with Democratic leadership. But the pressure is super important. Just Democrats puts on the pressure and then they get the result. And so good, again, positive movement in the media and Democratic leadership in this issue.

But overall, they shouldn't have done it to Omar, they've got to fight back. Their weakness encourages Republicans like Liz Cheney. And I noticed, I've noted the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy of. I mean, can you imagine anyone who says they're David Duke without the baggage and talking about anti-semitism with a straight face? Yeah, I can totally imagine it. And that's the Republicans. Yeah.

And by the way, the guy who pointed that out is Jonathan Chait writing for New York Magazine. He also said, quote, amazingly, her positive comment about the establishment of the state of Israel is being twisted into a positive comment about the Holocaust. And of course that's also not true. Another reporter doing a great job of pointing it out, even though he doesn't agree with her one state solution. By the way, neither do I. But you have to be honest about what she actually said, okay?

And in terms of Liz Cheney, Liz Cheney, you're talking about how you're concerned about things that might have gone wrong in a war. Why don't you look around the house and see if you could find a war criminal? And after you've criticized your own dad for torture and the killing of up to about a million civilians in Iraq, including all those children, then maybe we could have a conversation about whether you care about war crimes. And one of our viewers made a great point on Twitter. They said, remember Liz Cheney condemned her own sister to win in Wyoming, said gay marriage

is wrong. Her sister is in a marriage and part of the LGBT community. But she wouldn't condemn her dad for torture and war crimes. That's who Liz Cheney is. So I'm not having a conversation about what Liz Cheney thinks Democrats should do on made-up charges. No, Democrats need to fight back super hard. If I was Democratic leadership, you know what I'd do today? I'd be like, oh, Liz Cheney, thank you for bringing up the issue of anti-Semitism.

Because we are going to do a bill on that, just like we did with Ilhan Omar. And this time, we're going to name names. Steve Scalise, who brags about being like David Duke, Mo Brooks, who read Minkoff in a positive light on the House floor, and Donald Trump, who said there was very fine people on the Nazi side of Charlottesville who chanted, the Jews will not replace us. We are going to condemn their out of control, unbelievable anti-Semitism that has actually led to people being killed in synagogues across the country. That's what the Democrats should do today.

When we come back, more attacks on Representative Ilhan Omar. Very similar story, different Congresswoman. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.