The Young Turks - Mainstream Media Praises Trump And Impeachment Update

Episode Date: April 24, 2019

Mainstream media buddies up to Trump. Will the Democrats impeach? 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. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Tilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. 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 to the Young Church.

Thank you, Grant, and Kisperin with you guys. And one of my favorite stories today is Tucker Carlson crying about how Christians just can't catch a break in this country. So we'll do that. Or in other countries. No, no, no, no, no. There's a lot of unfair treatment toward Christians. Yes, and America is a huge part of that. Because you know how much America hates Christians.

The reality is there's a war on Easter and that's the lead and they're just burying it. Everyone's burying it. There's a war on Easter. Yeah. And on Christmas obviously and no, that's it, that's it. No, there's no war on Festivists. I thought for a second there might be, but I think that one, there was an armisticeice right before it got started.

Although you would need some sort of war I think before an armistist. Anyways, all right, let's do the stories. I wanna start off with fun. Yes. There's nothing more fun than Donald Trump crying. Donald Trump executed what he is best at, crying on Twitter about non-issues. And of course it has to do with the media and its treatment of the most powerful man literally in the world.

So Donald Trump goes on this rant saying, quote, in the old days, if you were president and you had a good economy, you were basically immune from criticism. Remember, it's the economy stupid. Today I have, as president, perhaps the greatest economy in history, and to the mainstream media, it means nothing, but it will. All right, let's break that one down. First of all, in the old days, if you had a good economy, like, let's say, Bill Clinton had an astounding economy, you're immune from criticism, except for the fact that Bill Clinton

got impeached. Oops. And then he says, remember, it's economy stupid. You know who's saying that was? Bill Clinton. I actually didn't know that was Bill Clinton's statement. Yes, that was during his campaign and getting his campaign team to focus on the economy and that's how you win elections.

And so he's amazing, the fact, like he walked right into it, right? How did Hillary Clinton not take her husband's advice there when she was running? Well, she didn't take his advice on a couple of different grounds. He kept screaming that she should go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. They're like, ah, old washed up, Bill Clinton, what would he know? Oops, okay. But wait a minute, I thought he was immune from criticism because he had a great economy. By the way, guess what?

The media does applaud you for the economy and you don't deserve anyone applauding you. And I'm not making the argument that, oh, the economy started improving under Obama and you can't take credit. I'm not even making that argument. The economy actually sucks for a lot of people, and I'll explain why in just a second. But first, let me prove my point about how the media does give you credit over and over again for what they consider a great economy. In fact, the outlets that you criticize the most, CNN, Washington Post, they give you credit.

Here's an example, CNN. Something feels different about the Trump economy. I've created over a million jobs since I'm president. There's a momentum, an energy, a bravado. The stock market is way up again today. We're setting a record literally all the time. It's as if corporate America, Wall Street, and even blue-collar workers suddenly have their mojo back.

We will buy American and we will hire American. It turns out the only thing the American economy was missing these last 10 years was confidence. And nobody is as confident as Donald J. Trump. Well, the only thing the economy was missing over the last 10 years was confidence, was I was confident? What? What?

And then the whole thing about blue collar workers, blue collar workers are getting their mojo back. How? How are they getting their mojo back? Most of these jobs that have lowered the unemployment rate in America are part-time jobs, temporary jobs, jobs with incredibly low wages, very little benefits if they have benefits at all. I mean, come on. No, no, but look, look, I just need to be clear. That was not a Trump ad. That was CNN.

That was a CNN report, news report from CNN. That's the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen. But look, it's because the establishment does basically work for the wealthy. And so when the stock market is up, they're like, whatever, okay, yes, it's because the blue-collar workers have their mojo back. Wages haven't gone out for blue-collar workers in 40 years. What on God's green earth are you talking about? Did you go and talk to any blue-collar workers?

Do you have any facts to back that up? No, no, the economy runs on confidence. No, it doesn't. Man, by the way, she's not the first one to make that up. It's a mythology put out by the corporate media that, oh, you know, just these corporate executives, they just need a little confidence. And the way to give them confidence is to lower taxes so they all get richer. And that creates a stable economy that they can rely on and have confidence to do investments,

except they didn't do investments. They did stock buybacks. So all of it is total nonsense. And it's that mythology aimed at lowering taxes, deregulation created by the rich for the rich. And that infomercial was brought to you by CNN. And still Donald Trump cries. Yeah, and he still cries, exactly. And CNN isn't the only outlet.

I have seen mainstream media outlets tout his economic policies and the success of his economic policies over and over again. By the way, again, we've made this point a million times, but I want to make it one more time because you mentioned stock buybacks. Yes, the stock market's doing really well. But even conservatives are concerned about the bubble that's being created by corporate stock buybacks because it's artificially inflating the value of the shares. And so, I mean, that is a ticking time bomb.

But with that said, let's go to Washington Post, another outlet that Trump targets and criticizes on a regular basis. But in reality, when it comes to Trump's huge handouts to corporations, Washington Post is all for it. Take a look. The economy is hands down the best thing that's going for President Trump right now. But let's take a look at his report card on the economy and what we're likely to see in 2018.

The first thing that he loves to talk about is the stock market. The Dow just passed 25,000 for the first time ever. He likes to call it the Trump bump. He gets an A plus for the stock market. It was up over 25% last year. And if you go all the way back to the election, it's up over 30%. Now you can nitpick how to compare that to President Obama. If you compare since inauguration day, President Obama is a little bit better.

But if you go back to the election, President Trump did it even better than Obama did in his first year. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Trump loves to talk about it, and it was a key issue in the election. On that, I think I'd give him an A, very solid A. We saw great job growth last year, just over 2 million jobs. It was a tad smaller than what we saw in President Obama's final year in office. Trump had a great run with blue collar jobs.

Again, not an infomercial, that's a report from Washington Post. Unbelievable. But Donald Trump still cries. They're being unfair to me, they only gave me A plus an A and did these giant ads for me posing as news reports, never mentioning your wages, by the way. I never mentioning that I said I was gonna raise your wages, and I haven't at all. In fact, if you account for inflation, your wages have gone down. But my rich friends took home a ton of money, and the people who run these multi-billion

dollar corporate media organizations love it. For example, Jeff Bezos, who owns Washington Post, well, his company, Amazon, paid zero dollars in taxes. Well, he loves the loopholes that Trump has, he didn't, to be fair, Democrats and Republicans do it, Obama did it, Bush did it, they all do it, because they're all. owned by the donors. And so, but Trump has continued it and he said they were gonna do, oh, we're gonna lower tax because we're gonna take away the loopholes.

They didn't take away any loopholes. Amazon is making more money than any company in the history of the world and paid zero dollars in taxes. Yeah, and when you like really think about it in your context as a middle class or working class American, you paid more in taxes and federal taxes than Amazon did. That is absurd. So like, of course these corporations love it and they don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican who's giving them access to these corporate tax loopholes.

As long as they get to take advantage of it, they're happy. Now, Trump's rant continues, and I want to go to Graphic 3. He writes, I wonder if the New York Times will apologize to me a second time as they did after the 2016 election, but this one will have to be a far bigger and better apology. On this one, they will have to get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness. They are truly the enemy of the people. So I just want to draw attention to the following headline from Politico that reads, New York Times to Trump, we did not apologize.

This was published in 2017 following the first time Trump claimed that the New York Times had apologized to him for its unfair coverage of the Trump campaign. The New York Times did not apologize for that. In fact, they tweeted the following, false, we did not apologize, we stand by our coverage and thank our millions of subscribers for supporting our journalism. Now what they did do was they said to the readers, sorry that we missed the trend of Trump rising. That's not an apology to Trump, Trump won, there's nothing to apologize for, saying that

we should have spotted that trend better. But by the way, has the New York Times learned anything from that? Nope. So as Bernie Sanders rises, they're like, what name so? Progressives, populists, either on the left or the right, we hate them, we're the New York Times. So we will treat them with great disdain. Later, we will apologize to our readers again for missing it because we can't get past our establishment

blinders. But that's a separate issue. He's obviously lying that they apologize to Donald Trump himself. Now, but to me, the much more important line in that is. Now I'm gonna read this line to you. But think about who else might have said a line like this. My top candidate is Joffrey Barathean, okay? So from that same tweet, on this one, they will have to get down on their knees and beg

for forgiveness, they are truly enemy of the people. That does sound like Joffrey Barathe's. I mean, it's exactly what Joffrey Baratheon would say. So this is the president of the United States of America demanding that the media get down on their knees and beg his forgiveness because otherwise they are the enemy of the people. Does that sound like an American president? It sounds like a dictator. It sounds like a king out of Game of Thrones, a very bad one at that.

It sounds like someone who wants to crush the press and only have fawning coverage of him. That's just not our system of government. That's why I'm telling you guys, look, there's this, like these tweets are fun because you're, they're unbelievable, they're shocking, they're outrageous, right? They're not fun in that it is the president of the United States of America. And he is deeply, mentally unstable and does not believe in our system of government at all. So there's this constant assumption that he thinks like we think. Well, no, I mean, he wouldn't get rid of election.

He wouldn't arrest his political opponents. That's not what we do in America. He would arrest his political opponents and say, have you not heard him? He says every day, why aren't we rounding up Democrats and putting them in jail? He says it every day, you know why? Because he means it. So I think you make a valid point and it's concerning, but at the same time, it's, for me personally, it's more embarrassing, right?

Because he is the most powerful man in the world and organizations like Turning Point USA who back Trump to the death have coined the phrase oppression Olympics in order to characterize the left, when in reality the person that they support is constantly crucial. crying and whining about how everything is so unfair. Life is so unfair. The media is so unfair to me, oh my God. Come on, man, isn't that embarrassing? And I'm saying it should be embarrassing for Trump, but of course he has no self-awareness.

But isn't it embarrassing to Turning Point USA that you guys consistently support him when he acts like a child? Isn't it embarrassing to his base when you have someone who's supposed to be the epitome of an alpha male, but in reality, all he does with the vast majority of his time is whine and cry about how life isn't fair. He is a man in a tremendous position of privilege, and still he thinks life is so unfair. Life is so unfair for me. You know, in Hunger Games, it was President Snow, wasn't it?

Yeah. But here we have President Snowflake. Totally. And every day he cries on Twitter, and every day conservatives are like, that's right, that's what a real man does. They go and they cry and cry and cry about how unfair everybody's being, okay? And one day they're gonna apologize and be back for forgiveness, that's what they're gonna do.

God, you're all so pathetic. But to me that even the more pathetic part is you are following and idolizing a literal lunatic, a guy who's lost his mind, who's like, I will make them back for forgiveness. Oh, Psycho Joe, that's another tweet, you know, about Joe Scarborough is sick, disturbing. Oh yeah, you're ready to go down, shit, hey, you're ready to go get out. I mean, that's the president of the United States, and you're following that lunatic. You know what? Congratulations.

Let's play a fun game. Why don't we use the hashtag President Snowflake and use that hashtag on Twitter to describe your favorite Trump's snowflake moment? Yeah, that's good, I like that. Let's get that going, okay? And you could do it to every Trump tweet where he cries and just, I mean, ask him, when are you ever going to stop crying? Which leads us to another tweet.

You got the Twitter one? His complaint, well, I can just read and tell you what it is. So he complained in this same series of tweets, oh my God, I would have a hundred million Twitter followers if Twitter wasn't discriminating against me. Dude, you have 59 million subscribers, you're the president of the United States, you're the commander in chief, just man up for a second, man. You're crying that you have 59 million Twitter followers. Okay, and he says, oh, every once in a while they take away my Twitter for some of my

Twitter followers. Because they're bots, they do that to everybody. They stay systematically clean. And they're like, no, it's always discrimination against conservatives. Dude, if everybody's discriminating against you, how'd you become president? Like, it doesn't occur to him that he's actually the most powerful man on earth. Yeah. Because he's too busy crying, right?

And so, no, look, we've elected also basically another Alex Jones as president. He believes every conspiracy theory. Oh yeah, Twitter's definitely cheating against the president, yeah, because that won't get noticed at all, okay? And so if there's one person that has no power that they're picking on, it's the president of the United States. Yeah, that's likely. Yeah, that's very likely, because that's what people in power do.

They go, let me pick a fight with someone more powerful so I can get in a lot of trouble. No, usually they pick on the powerless, right? So anyway, in this case, there's no conspiracy. It's never been, there is no proof of it whatsoever. And but he cannot, he'll believe any, Obama wasn't born here. No way, no way, okay? And I don't believe that he even got the good grades at Columbia or Harvard, okay? And Twitter is taking away my bot followers, okay?

And you know, hashtag President Slow Flake. So lame. Anyway, all right. No, seriously, if you idolize Donald Trump. You are such a sad, sad loser. It's embarrassing. Such a loser, man. To have this guy crying all over Twitter and be like, that's my hero.

He's so strong the way he just goes out there and says weirdo things and it says he's the victim. I love victims. I can't believe the liberals have a victim ideology. It's amazing. It really is. So let's talk a little bit about impeachment. That topic is the cause of a little bit of infighting for the Democrats, and I think there's a good reason for it, so let's talk about it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been clear with other members of the House and also the Senate is having a similar debate about impeachment.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has been clear in saying, I don't think that impeachment is a good idea. She held a call with House Democrats this week, and during that call, she made her case. She said, quote, we have to save our democracy. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about saving our democracy. If it is what we need to do to honor our responsibility to Congress, if that's the place. To the Constitution. Oh, to the Constitution.

Sorry about that. To honor our responsibility of the Constitution, if that's the place the facts take us, that's the place we have to go. Now, that makes it seem as though she's in favor of impeachment. But what she's saying there is, no, let's hold. I don't think it's a good idea right now. there are a number of investigations happening, and we should wait to see where these investigations lead us.

She also continued to say, I know it's going to take courage on the part of all of our members to stick with a program that might not be as fast as they want. But again, I confess to you, and I say this to even my good friend Val Demings, who by the way wants impeachment, for whom I have the highest esteem, I'm not struggling with this decision, I'm not struggling with whether or not to impeach him. I do not want to proceed with impeachment proceedings. Yeah. So usual Democratic weak leadership, it's not the resistance, it's hashtag submission.

And it was immediate. The surrender was so swift. Pelosi sent Steny Hoyer out, her number two in charge, within four hours of the actual Mueller report coming out to say, we are sorry. We are sorry, we will not impeach. Donald Trump is our leader, we will not impeach, we are so sorry. God, they're so pathetic. So let me just jump in for a second.

Normally I would agree with you, and there are, of course, establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who are incredibly weak, they don't want to fight. Now the reason that they give is, look, this could actually backfire politically, we've discussed that on the show, I don't really wanna, you know, re-litigate that. But Nancy Pelosi isn't the only one, right? In fact, there are a number of presidential candidates, some of whom we are pretty supportive of, who also don't want to move forward with impeachment. And I want to go to a video that kind of outlines all that.

Before we do though, I want to launch our petition, okay? Because I don't agree at all. I don't care if it's Bernie Sanders, I don't care who it is, okay? Now we fight, we fight on principle, not based on political expediency. So you cannot let the president be above the law. So we're launching this petition right now, and it's on t.com slash impeach. And it says now that the Mueller report has come out and has indicated the president has committed a clear crime, obstruction of justice.

Congress should immediately move to impeach Donald J. Trump. This is his second provable crime, the other being campaign finance violations. If Congress does not act, it sends an unacceptable message that the president is above the law. I, the undersigned, believe in America and our democracy, and ask Congress to enforce the law, t-y-t.com slash impeach to sign it. Look, maybe a million signatures will get their attention because all they care about is politics for the Nancy Pelosi's of the world. So, okay, then let's show them our political force and our strengths.

Okay, now let's go to people we don't like and do like and look at the video, and then we'll discuss further on whether it's the right thing to do. The impeachment proceedings are up to the House. They're going to have to make that decision. I am in the Senate. So if the House brings the impeachment proceedings before us, we will deal with them. There is a third way to hold this president accountable, and that is by defeating him in the 2020 election. If any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the Mueller report,

they would be arrested and put in jail. And the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. This is not about politics. This is about principle. At the end of the day, what is most important to me is to see that Donald Trump is not re-elected president. If for the next year, year and a half, going right into the heart of the election, all that the Congress is talking about is impeaching Trump and Trump, Trump, Trump,

and mulla, mulla, mulla. And we're not talking about healthcare. We're not talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage. What I worry about is that works to Trump's advantage. This president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice. I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment. I'm also a realist. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they will weigh on the facts instead of unpartisan adherence to being protective of this president. And that's what concerns me and what will be the eventual outcome. So we have to be realistic about what might be the end result. But that doesn't mean the process should not take hold. I think he's made it pretty clear that he deserves impeachment. But I'm also going to leave

it to the House and Senate to figure that out because my role in the process is trying to relegate Trumpism to the dustbin of history while we're making sure there is oversight and accountability, which there's got to be. We've also got to make sure we're talking about the things that most affect people in an immediate and concrete sense. I mean, it's hard to look away from a horror show. That's just how it is. It's mesmerizing. But we have got to figure out a way to change the channel.

Okay, so there is a couple of different camps here. So there are the people who say, look, I want to focus on policy. That's largely Bernie Sanders. They're the people who talk out of both sides of their mouth. Oh, my God, he's got impeachment coming. But I ain't going to undo it. That's the house. I'm gonna leave it to the House.

I'm gonna leave it to the House in the Senate. That's Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Yeah, and Buttigieg is a mayor, so yeah, of course you're gonna leave it to the House in the Senate. Yeah, nobody asks you to go and prosecute, you're not in the house, we get them. We're asking you, do you think they should do it? But overall, I still don't agree with Bernie Sanders. And so he says, oh, that's all the Congress is gonna do.

What do you think they're gonna do now? Okay, so if we, if I thought we had a shot at Medicare for all and this was gonna distracted, then I'm having a conversation. It's not like Cumberler Harris rightfully points out, even though I don't like that framing, oh, well, there's more Republicans in the Senate, so it's unlikely that it's going to happen. There's also more Republicans in the Senate, so Medicare for all is not going to happen, besides which Nancy Pelosi hates Medicare for all and doesn't want it to happen. So it's not even going to get it out of the House, it's not even going to get voted

in the House, unless we put an enormous amount of pressure. So they're going to sit around for two years doing nothing anyway, anyway. So just in terms of Congress, so you might as well do something which is enforce the law and put principle above politics, even if you thought it was bad politics, and I don't think it's bad politics. So you know who actually persuaded me on this? Because I was on the fence, I didn't know how I felt about impeachment and I was actually leaning toward, let's just focus on getting him out of office, let's get someone else elected in.

That's more important than wasting our time with something that Republicans and the Senate are not gonna vote in favor of, right? But Elizabeth Warren made such a compelling point yesterday because even if the end result isn't what we'd want, which is impeachment, the reality is this is about ensuring that you set a precedent and you make sure that the president of the United States is not above the law. There were definitely findings in that report, obstruction of justice findings that were beyond problematic, and Mueller left it to Congress to do something about it. And to know that we have members of Congress, especially members of the Democratic Party who

are like, oh, this is going to be too tough and it might be politically unpopular, so we're not going to fight. That's pathetic. You want to make sure that you hold Trump's feet to the fire. And it's not just about Trump. It's about the future of the presidency, and it's about ensuring that Congress does its job, which is provide a part of the important part of the checks and balances that are written in our Constitution.

And also, we can't have somebody be above the law. That's not what this country is. So look, the campaign finance violations, having somebody else make payments to your campaign, people go to prison for that all the time. You know who went to prison for it? A guy who got no love for it all, Dinesh D'Souza, weirdo, right winger, et cetera. But he broke a law that was very, very similar. No, he broke the same law as Donald Trump under very similar circumstances as Donald Trump,

and he went to jail for it. You know who else is going to go to jail for it? Donald Trump's co-conspirator in this case, Michael Coole. He's going to prison for three years. So now when Pelosi says, nah, I'm gonna do more investigation, nah, I don't really want to do it. I think the politics is bad. She always thinks surrender is the best politics.

That's all she's ever done. Same with Schumer. It's like, oh, I got a great idea on politics. Let's surrender right away, right away, surrender, right away, surrender, right? No, that's not good politics. Fighting is good politics. Making your own case is good politics. So it's completely unfair.

to every other American that he doesn't have to follow the law and that no one is going to enforce it. And on obstruction of justice, his second felony. Mueller report very clearly lays out at least five excellent reasons why he committed obstruction of justice and says Congress should do something about this. We don't think the Department of Justice can indict a sitting president, but Congress certainly can do take action. And Mueller made a huge mistake.

He assumed that the Democrats had a spine. What a terrible assumption. Democrats are like, oh, you told us to do something about it. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, I can't. That would require me to do something in my life. And look, why is Pelosi and Schumer in this camp? Because as Nancy Pelosi herself admitted, Donald Trump's great for fundraising. So they've raised a lot of money the Democrats have using Trump as the boogeyman.

That's all they care about. Yeah, and I'm gonna add more to that because the reason that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi site for not pursuing impeachment is because they claim they're worried that it would be politically unpopular and that it would backfire in the polls, that people would look at Trump as someone who's being treated unfairly by members of Congress. But at the same time, Nancy Pelosi is arguing, you know, instead of doing these impeachment proceedings, why don't we focus on doing these investigations? And so there have been a number of subpoenas for Trump's taxes, a number of subpoenas

when it comes to Trump's security clearances, those subpoenas are going to have, and those investigations are going to have the same type of, you know, optical effect that you would get from impeachment proceedings, right? So for those who think that there's some sort of, you know, witch hunt against Donald Trump, if there were impeachment proceedings, they're going to think the same thing when it comes to these investigations, it's not going to change. You know, when it comes to optics, it's going to appear to be the same thing. Look, they keep saying this nonsense talking point.

Oh, it's only going to help Trump because, you know, it'll get his voters energized. His voters are already energized. They came out in his base, came out in Reagan numbers in 2016. They actually came out in great numbers in 2018. The Democrats just had slightly better numbers in turnout, right? So it's not like they were dispirited or anything in 2020s. They keep like, oh, don't offend Republicans because then they might come out and vote. Did come out and vote anyway, you morons?

So, yes, you're supposed to fight the other party. That's what you're supposed to do in an election, not tiptoe around them and be like, oh, I don't want to, I don't want to anger the Republicans. Are you guys okay? The Republicans, are you okay? Where's the Republicans come in and punch Democrats in their face every single election? Do you ever see Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz going to go, I don't want to offend Democratic voters? Hilarious.

When they attack Democrats, they go, oh, this is a big gift to Nancy Pelosi. I can't believe we attacked Democrats. That was a big gift to Chuck Schumer. Never said. Think about that disparity. And again, the corporate media never points out that disparity. It's amazing and unbelievable. And so lastly, on Anna's point about more investigations and the polling.

So you're gonna do more investigations, Pelosi? It's like a year and a half left. Well, like when they conclude a year from now, well then we'll have a four month window. What you're saying is, I'm not gonna do it. I'm not gonna do impeachment, I'm not ever gonna do it. Now, are they right about the politics? Last thing. So yes, I've made this case a thousand times fighting actually gets you to better results, and

the Republicans have proved that through their strategy, and the Democrats lost a thousand seats cowering in a corner from the Republicans. So those are facts, and so their strategies are proven failure over and over again. But right now, Donald Trump's approval rating stands at 39%. That's terrible! I remember when Bush slipped into the 30s, and there was like a panic, and everybody's like, Oh my God, a president is in the 30s, that's terrible. Can the Republican Party ever recover, et cetera?

He's, Trump is at 39%? Everyone's like, oh, he's on top of the world. Don't anger Trump voters, don't anchor Trump. You're so scared, you're so sad. So, and you know, they asked in that same poll, would you definitely vote for Trump, consider voting for Trump, definitely not vote for Trump, et cetera? 24% say they're definitely gonna vote for Trump. By the way, that's a bad number for him.

I thought his immovable base was 28% based on other polling. Apparently it has moved, it's only 24% that's a terrible number. Who would, what percentage say that they will definitely vote against Trump? 49%. That does not include the people who are likely to vote against Donald Trump or are on the fence or probably going to vote. None of that, just definitely, definitely going to vote against Trump. Is that 49% that's a monster number.

He is deeply unpopular and still the Democrats are afraid of their own shadow. Pathetic. Look, the last line of this petition is the most important. Ask Congress to enforce the law. TYT.com slash impeach. When we come back from the break, we are going to give you an update on the Federal Reserve and Trump's nominees for the Federal Reserve. Lots of drama.

I love it. A total circus clown show. A bunch of jugglers. We'll tell you about it when we come back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Inging the Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional

wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional 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. That's right, he's gonna be on the show. It's gonna be great, he's gonna have a conversation with Jank. I was waiting for the pit bull horns, they didn't come, but it's okay. So this'll be great, I'm really looking forward to that.

And you're gonna have a great interview today too. Yeah, I got two good interviews, I got Max Blumenthal coming on, but also Dana Milbank from the Washington Post. He wrote that article comparing Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, and so that should be an interesting conversation. Don't miss the third hour of today's show. Obviously, members get all of it, t-y-t.com slash join Anna. Let's do.

All right. Donald Trump has named two individuals to serve on the Federal Reserve. One of those individuals was Herman Cain and the other was Stephen Moore. Now, Herman Cain is no longer up for consideration. And Stephen Moore is, but there are some issues there, and the trauma is incredible. So let's start off with Herman Cain. Now, Herman Kane claims that he has told Donald Trump that he doesn't want to serve on the Federal Reserve and that he has asked Trump to not name him.

Now, in reality, I think that it's a lot more complicated. There have been a number of Republicans who, Republican senators specifically, who said that they would not vote to confirm Herman Kane. Mitt Romney was one of them. And so Herman Kane says, no, I'm gonna put out an op-ed explaining what's really going on, and I'm gonna read you some of the excerpts here. So he says, after I went through phase one of the background check, which involves my 50-year business career being picked over like a carcass, I was told they were next checking everything

I'd ever written for anything that could be controversial. This includes my time with the North Star Writers Group before we started this site, six years of weekly columns on just about every issue under the sun. So he's making an argument that look, they're gonna, they're gonna find something, right? If you're looking, you're gonna find something and I don't really wanna go through that process. Yeah, well, with Herman King, they're gonna find a lot of things. Right, remember when he was running in 2012, there were sexual harassment allegations against him, there was a woman who came forward and said she had a long-term affair with him.

So yeah. The affair is less troubling than the sexual harassment. Right. And there were more than one women that came forward. And that was before the Me Too movement. I mean, you open up that can of worms and it's not going to play well for Herman Kane. And apparently the things he wrote are terrible as well. But he says none of that was the real reason.

Well, it certainly partly was the real reason. There's a second part to the real reason, but I keep going. Then he talks about how serving on the Federal Reserve would negatively impact his ability to make money. He says, I would have to let go of most of my business interests, I could not serve on any boards, I could not do any paid speeches, I could not advocate on behalf of capitalism. That is, I mean, that's my favorite part. You would be on the federal reserve, okay?

You would be on the federal reserve. Let me continue reading the rest of it. How will capitalism recover without Herman Kane advocating on behalf of it? by executing capitalism, like as in carrying out capitalism on the board of the Federal Reserve. Right. Anyway, let's keep going. And he says that he wouldn't be able to host my radio show or make appearances on Fox business. I'm going to make a side point here, but it's important.

So look at the things that he labeled there. None of them are real businesses. They are all ways of funneling money to people who will say what Republicans want to hear, especially if you're a minority who are saying things that Republicans want to hear. And right wingers want to hear, paid speeches given to people by corporate interests and rich people, et cetera, and going on Fox News. Hey, I got a black guy on Fox News telling me that the culture of the black people are wrong and et cetera, et cetera, and every single thing that he talked about was not an actual business.

It was just being paid to be a show for rich folks in this country who don't like minorities. So this next part was my personal favorite. He writes, I also started wondering if I'd be giving up too much influence to get a little bit of policy impact. With my current media activities, I can reach close to 4 million people a month with the ideas I believe in. So I don't know, maybe I'm the one living under a rock, but Herman Cain had influence? Like one of the things that stood out about Trump potentially naming him as a nominee was

the fact that Herman Cain has been MIA. No one's been thinking about Herman Kane, no one's considered Herman Kane. Herman Kane was not on the mind of any Americans at all, at all. In fact, when Americans were asked, are you thinking about Herman Kane? They answered, nine, nine, nine. Okay, so, but I did love that quote, because if he has so much influence with the four million people he's reaching per month, that he's willing to turn down a federal reserve seat, Well, since we reach about 250 million people a month, I guess we're 60 times more powerful

than a person sitting on the board of the Federal Reserve. That does make me feel pretty good. Okay, hey, Federal Reserve, don't even ask, don't even think about it, 60 times more powerful than you. But look, I know what really happened. He claims it was my decision, I'm the one who doesn't want to serve on the board. Remember, when it was first reported that it was likely that Trump would name him, he was very excited.

He put out, I believe an op-ed talking about how excited he is and what he would do. And what I find interesting is, look, the real reason is I think senators, even Republican senators were weirded out by the reminder that he put this out back in 2012. United States, I am in America, one hope. That was his ad. That was part of that, but it was creepy. All right, no, in all seriousness, guys, let me prove to you that his excuse is a lie. So how does he make money?

He said, going on Fox News, being on the boards of companies' paid speeches, right? Every one of those categories would be greatly enhanced if he sat on the Federal Reserve. Not at the time that he sits on the board, but after he gets out, do you have any idea the kind of offers he would get to sit on company boards, and how much more he would be paid for his speeches, and how much more Fox News would want him as an analyst? They'd be like, this isn't just our clown that we brought in, Herman Clown Kane. No, this is a former Federal Reserve board member, Jesus, so when he says black culture is wrong, it's really wrong, right?

And so, or whatever else, he says that the rich should get tax cuts, man, he was on the board of the Federal Reserve. No, are you kidding me, that's why he was so excited when he first got named. He's like, yes, I'm gonna cash in! I'm gonna have even more than 4 million people that I get reach per month on my radio show? Sure. Anyway, so no, the real reason is yes, partly they're gonna find out all those skeletons in his cloud.

Those skeletons are so bad. Remember, he actually was doing pretty well because the whole Republican Party is a clown show when he was running for president. He dropped out of the race because the sexual harassment stuff was so bad. so toxic that he wasn't going to survive it. And so, but the, but an even bigger reason is the Republican senators, they said it publicly. They're like, no, guys are a total clown, no, go find, there's a million people who'll do exactly what we tell them to do, who will support the policies that hate, help the rich and aid

and abet multinational corporations, there's a million of them. Pick a non-clown, right? That's right, and not- So he wasn't gonna get the seat, and it was gonna be super, embarrassing when the Republicans voted him down. Exactly, and so once those senators, which again included Mitt Romney, became very public about how they plan to vote against his confirmation, that's when aid surrounding Donald Trump started trying to convince him to avoid naming Herman Kane publicly, officially naming him.

And Mitch McConnell had a talk with him and was like, and had to talk with other Republican senators and was like, yo, go talk to Trump. And error your grievances, let him know that you're concerned about Herman Kane. And so why would Trump pull the nomination? Because he hates losing and being embarrassed. And if the Democrats and the Republicans join forces to make sure that his selection was defeated, oh man, that would sting. So when McConnell walks in and goes, here is X number of Republican senators, we're going

to vote with the Democrats and Herman Kane is going to lose. He's like, well, I never wanted Herman. But Herman says he doesn't even want it. That's right. No, no, no, no, we're the one who made the strong decision to pull Herman Kane. Yeah, he tweeted about it. He said, my friend Herman Kane, a truly wonderful man, has asked me not to nominate him for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board.

I will respect his wishes. Herman is a great American who truly loves our country. Yes. He said, please don't make me more rich and powerful, please, and I'm going to respect his wishes. Right. that he was so happy that the president graciously decided to tweet that on his behalf. All right, Herman, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Now the second person in question is Stephen Moore, and he is still up for the Federal Reserve Board, so let's talk about him. Stephen Moore is one of the individuals that Donald Trump has nominated to serve on the Federal Reserve. But there's an issue, apparently CNN has come across a number of articles and op-eds that Moore has written for the National Review. Now, these, to be fair, these op-eds are pretty old. They're from 1998 to about 2003, but they say some pretty misogynistic things.

And honestly, that's kind of whitewashing it. Let me give you the details of what he had written. So in one of his columns for National Review, more decried the feminization. of basketball generally and wrote that it was an obscenity that a woman was allowed to referee a men's NCAA game. An obscenity. Yeah. So.

Okay. There's a lot more where that came from. Anna's going to give you more quotes. But so I'm, look, the question is, did you change? So we'll get to the substance of that in a second, but I'm mainly greatly amused by some of his theories. Me too. Yeah.

Oh, you're going to love some of this stuff. And let me be clear, before I read the rest, I want to explain why I'm amused. For me, reading the way that he feels about these issues shows just this insecurity and this fear that I love, right? So there's a little more equality, obviously there's been even more progress for women since he's written these things. And the fact that he's crying and whining about it is hilarious to me. So it doesn't upset me, it doesn't anger me, I'm more amused than anything.

Let me read you more. Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women? What's next? Women invited to bachelor parties, which is by the way happening. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that kind of happens. If you're going to bachelor parties where they're not invited, you might have gone to the wrong party. No, I love it.

I love it. I love it so much. I love what dorks they are, they're like, what's next? Women at bachelor parties. Okay, but let me just say, you, you curve, I love it. You correctly, your mind correctly went there, right? And my mind went to, because I'm a woman, so my mind went to, well, you know, there are a lot of co-ed bachelor parties these days.

Like we're the bride and the groom, get their friends together and they all party together. Oh, sure, sure. No, that happens. No, no, I know it happens. I'm just saying there's been co-ed bachelor parties for a long time. I know, I didn't think about it in those terms. But apparently not one that Stephen Moore went to. I actually, I like the other part of that too.

Is there no place where men can take vacations for women? Well, they actually are West Hollywood in L.A., the village in New York. It's a lot of places where you can take a vacation for women. But what I also find amusing, just giving a woman's perspective on this. So he's trying to make a point about like, ah, you know, this man, we need a break from these women. Yeah, women need a break from you too, trust me, right? So anyway, let me continue.

Oh, yeah, oh yeah, so then he talks about women in combat. Oh, yeah, they've done that already. Why can't women ref the women's games and men the men's games? You know, these are the same guys who are always like, American military's number one, baby, military is so strong. Well, women have been in combat for all that time. What happened? I thought it was supposed to fall apart. Yeah, I mean, look, one quick, serious point.

You know, women were not allowed into certain business organizations like the rotary, et cetera. And you know what? It cost them a lot of business. And so my dad was one of the people who voted yes on allowing women into the rotary, because you know that's how it was back in the day. And he's like, yes, since they've come, you know what's happened? Nothing, we just do the same thing. We get together, talking about business, we do some charity, we joke around a little bit.

And now they get to do business deals too. But like why is Stephen Moore concerned? Why are they so like- It's insecurity. Like bothered by that. And dude, nobody's stopping you from going to a steak dinner with three of your best male friends. Like, there's no law against it. No, no, there are laws, laws, there are rules and regulations against mail time. You're not allowed to have, you're not allowed to have alone time with your male friends,

okay? We're watching you, Stephen Moore, we're coming for you. It's everything, I know, look, it's a consistent theme with conservatives. Everything's about them being victims. I know. Why won't women leave me alone? Really, Steven, that's your top problem, women won't leave you alone? Okay, okay, so there's more.

So he says, no more women refs, no more, no women announcers, no women beer vendors, no women anything. No women anything. No, I know, it's hilarious. There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate and if and only if they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant. And then he says, Bernstein should wear a halter top, this is a no-brainer, CB.

Yes. So I didn't know who she was because I'm not in that world. So I'm guessing he was attracted to her. Yeah. Yeah. Here's another solid guess, and I put his Federal Reserve board seat on it. Bonnie Burstein versus Stephen Moore in basketball trivia. No, no women allowed.

No women allowed in trivia. Okay. Okay. It reminds me of like the she-man women haters club or whatever it was from the little rascals. Mm-hmm. Do you remember that? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, he's a child.

And then Bonnie Bernstein responded and said, you want hoops knowledge? Or you want halter tops, hit the club scene, you want hoops knowledge, try actually listening. Yes, all right, I'm gonna do more. So look, he says it was a spoof piece and it was from 20 years ago. There were several of them, by the way. Yeah, and it goes on and on. And I'm gonna say one great one to that, okay, but, and I get that, I get it better than Anybody does, right?

But did you change Stephen Moore? And so are you now progressive, or even if your politics aren't progressive economically, for example, and you want tax cuts for the rich and you want more wars, okay, but are you, you know, do you reject this point of view and do you now think, you know, women should be allowed to do all these different activities, et cetera? You've never written that, you've never shown in any way, shape, or form that your opinions have changed. It's not like Stephen Moore is claiming to be a changed man.

And his politics didn't change, nothing changed. So it's one thing to say, hey, that was 20 years ago, very understandable, and I've changed. It's another thing to say, that happened 20 years ago, I totally believe the same things, but technically it happened 20 years ago. Yeah. Right? So, and then to me, though, of course, the worst part is not what he said but what he's done. In 2013, they found him in contempt of court for family that pay his ex-wife more than $330,000

in alimony and child support. Where are the fathers? That's what I want to know. Where are the fathers? So here's the guy preaching personal responsibility and he wouldn't pay for his kids. They had to lock him out of his own house and threaten to sell it. And he's like, wait, that affects me. That's my house.

I like that house. All right, God damn it, I'll pay my kids, right? So okay. So that's family values apparently from the right wing. And lastly, let's end on fun. I love this screed against pee-wee soccer. Why? He said it was, quote, particularly insidious.

You know, I've always wondered that about pee-wee soccer. I always had a hunch that it was not just insidious, but particularly insidious. And so why? Because boys and girls play together. So here we go again, he's going to say, oh my God, why are the boys? Because he keeps talking in a lot of these articles about how women are in fear. and so Venus Williams should not be paid as much as men, she's an inferior tennis player, etc. But no, hold the phone. It turns out, he thinks, at that age, girls are so much better

than boys, it's not fair to the boys. Insidious. And he says it would do, quote, irreparable harm to the psyche of America's little boys. Oh my God. Oh, there's so, there's such snowflakes. It would It would never occur to me that my eight-year-old son play soccer with girls would do irreparable harm to his psyche because the girls are so much better, obviously, at that age. You should put him in therapy. So, and he's amazing, man. Everything is about protecting their tiny, fragile ego. Like, oh no, the girls are better than me.

The girls aren't better than me. They're not better than me. Why can't I get a safe space for girls? Okay, this guy is, by the way, not nominated for some, you know, undersecretary position. Federal Reserve Board. Clown orama. Well, you know, you bring the circus to town, don't be surprised when the clowns show up. When we come back, we will talk about more clowns, including the right wing, panicking over Elizabeth Warren's proposal to end student loan debt.

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

is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to expressvpn.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks.

If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. Okay, just a super random note here. So the ratings are in from last night, and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders did the best, of course. Clobuchar did the worst, of course. So Mediaite has a headline.

Let's see how they wrote it. Biggest winners from CNN's Democratic Town Hall is Elizabeth Warren and the Boston Marathon Bomber. Wow, wow. Because Bernie Sanders talked about the, or was asked about the Boston Marathon bomber and how he should be able to vote from prison. So I knew who wrote the article before I clicked on it, of course Tommy Christopher, who despises Bernie Sanders and doesn't like Elizabeth Warren either.

And we'll write about three anti Bernie Sanders articles per day, which media puts up nonstop. And by the way, he thought the best performance, unsurprisingly, was by Klobuchar. But that she would do her sensible centrist strategy would do even better in a debate. That seems unbiased. Okay, we move forward. Jesus Christ, man. Okay. Anyway, if you want to see me take on someone that has similar thoughts, third hour

of today's show, Dana Melblank from The Washington Post, so that ought to be interesting fireworks. Member comments real quick, I bathe in Devin Nunes's tears, writes in, waiting for Kid Rock to be nominated for Secretary of Agriculture. Amy says, what is happening now regarding impeachment of Trump reminds me why Obama was so wrong when he said we need to look forward instead of looking backward when it came to the Bush-Cheney torture machine, we cannot abandon our principles for political expediency, as Jenks said.

Yes. I like that it's now me saying that, even though it was originally as Elizabeth Warren. Yeah. Yeah, I liked the tweet until it got to you. I'm just kidding. You know, people give me credit for quoting Naomi Klein all over the internet, too, about privatizing the gays and socializing the cost. That's Naomi Klein, bless her heart.

Anyway, by the way, t.t.com slash impeach, if you want to sign that impeachment petition. And last one, Rebel Kitten said, is Herman Kane Trump's one black friend? Remember, he once said, I have a African-American friend or a black friend. And then when he was at a rally, he said, look, that's my black friend. God. Oh, that's so embarrassing, as usual. All right, what's thanks, Anna. All right.

Elizabeth Warren put out her proposal to combat student loan debt. And it is a very comprehensive plan that would cancel up to 50,000. $20,000 in student loan debt for individuals earning an income of $100,000 or less. And it would also make tuition free at public colleges and universities. Now of course, as expected, there are some people on the right, and I would assume a few people on the left as well, who have an issue with canceling student loan debt. And it's because of the argument that you're about to see. Now this is an opinion piece that was published in the Washington Examiner, that is a right

wing outlet, so let's be clear about that. But nonetheless, here's the headline, Elizabeth Warren's plan to cancel student loan debt would be a slap in the face to all those who struggle to pay off their loans. So it's written by a man named Philip Klein, and apparently he got a lot of angry responses to this op-ed, but let me read you the case that he's making. In the escalating battle of the 2020 Democratic presidential, in the escalating battle of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to see who can offer the most free stuff, Senator Elizabeth Warren has taken the extraordinary step of calling for having the government forgive student loan

debt. This pander will not only be incredibly costly, but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance. So he's arguing, look, I mean, all these people who did the right thing and managed to to pay off their student loans are gonna be upset and they should be upset. But here's the thing, like for giving student loan debt and making tuition free at public colleges and universities, does it simply benefit the individual who's going to school or wants to get an education?

It benefits everyone. So let me give you specific examples. And he acknowledges some of this, by the way. If the millennial generation is burdened with so much debt that they can't. can't, let's say qualify for mortgages, then they're not able to buy homes. You know who that affects construction workers, right? The entire real estate industry suffers as a result of that. So there's that.

If you are unable to get a loan for a car or buy a car, that negatively impacts the auto industry. So it has a wide and broad negative impact on the economy overall. It's not just about the person who's dealing with that burden. And also, okay, so if you find cures for illnesses, do you refuse to give that cure to people who are suffering from those illnesses because people in the past died from those illnesses? Yeah, that's one to grow on right there. Under this logic, we shouldn't ever fix anything. Well, hey, look, the people who suffered before, they had to suffer, so what are you going

around fixing it for? One of our viewers wrote in yesterday saying, hey, look, for the people who were unjustly imprisoned but serve their whole sentence, I guess they should turn around and say, don't let any of the unjustly imprisoned people go because I had to serve my whole sentence. Yeah. Right? No, that's not how it should work. You should say, oh, thank God they're at least freeing them, right?

Because we were all put into prison when we shouldn't be, for example. And more importantly, look, I don't deny that people had to deal with a boot, you know, the burdens of student loan debt, you know, a decade ago. But the point that I want to make is that student or the costs of going to college have really skyrocketed over the last decade. So someone looking to get a college education today or someone looking to get a college education five years ago is dealing with a completely different animal compared to someone who went to college 20 years ago, 25 years ago, right?

And so the problem keeps getting worse and it's having more and more of an impact on our broader economy. And this is why it's important to do something about it now. It's also serving as a deterrent for millennials who might want to start a family but think, hey, you know what? I don't think I can. A, I don't think I can afford a kid because I'm dealing with these loans that I can't get rid of even if I file for bankruptcy.

And B, what if I do have a kid and I want to put him or her in school, I can't afford it. Yeah, look, I partly get it because, so I hate to doing homework when I was a kid. kid, and if I ever did my homework and then the teacher said, oh, by the way, I changed my mind, you don't have to hand that in, I would have been like, no, now likely I never made that mistake. I'd always turn it in late or sometimes not at all. Anyway, but we shouldn't let that bitterness affect policy.

So because under the same logic, you could say, I can't believe the greatest generation didn't have to pay for college like I had to pay for college. God damn World War II veterans, I can't believe they got the GI Bill, and then they built this country because they had economic opportunity, and then they gave me economic opportunity. Right, no, we had it right back then. You give people economic opportunity and the economy grows, and people get a chance to live the American dream. Now if you paid all those debts, like a lot of us did, yeah, in a sense you got screwed.

And you know who you got screwed by? The donor class, they paid the politicians to change the laws. And so the laws they changed meant the rich paid less taxes, corporations paid less taxes. And so they had to get their money from somewhere. So they stopped funding college like they used to at the federal and state level. So then they had to increase tuition. So you did get screwed, but you didn't get screwed by the people who are now would be the beneficiary of the correct policy.

You got screwed by the people who shifted those costs onto you when you should have never You never had to pay those costs. Like, for example, if you had to, right, if later we shifted, they kept on going, which they're trying to do now, and shifted the cost of high school and junior high and elementary school onto the students, so what, we can never fix that? Oh, no, no, no, no, the rich wanted lower and lower and lower taxes, so now the elementary school kids have to start taking out loans. And so since they started taking out loans and then some of them paid it, never fix

the system. Never fix it. That makes no sense. So this part of his op-ed, you know, tried to kind of illustrate this and, you know, how unfair it is that some people had to suffer and do the right thing and others don't have to, at the same extent, right? Because by the way, let me be clear about one other thing. I like Elizabeth Warren's policy, and I think that it's the most progressive from what

we've seen of any other candidate. But it doesn't cancel all student loan debt. $50,000 is a lot, but it doesn't cover all of the loans that a lot of students have to take out, especially graduate students. So some people are still gonna have loans that they're gonna have to pay off. So it doesn't wipe out student loan debt for everyone completely. It does for a pretty sizable portion of borrowers, but just keep that in mind for context. He continues to write, there are those who have cut expenses to the bare bones to pay off

Loans while watching their friends with similar salaries eat out and travel and deprioritize paying off loans. Those who are more responsible will feel justifiably enraged at the idea that those who may have been more profligate will now get a bailout from the government. Okay, so the reason why I want to read that to you is because it shows you where his head at, where his head is at and how conservatives think of people who have trouble paying off their loans. They think, if you're having trouble paying off your loan, it's because you're messing

around, right? You're going out, you're eating avocado toast, and you're living this lavish life. And if you just applied yourself and you prioritize paying off these loans, you can do it. See, he's living in a different disconnected world. That is not the reality of people who are dealing with this giant burden. Most of the people who are having trouble paying off their student loans are not having that trouble because they took too many vacations to Europe. But they come out of from a rich mindset.

So they assume you have the same problems that they have. Exactly. What they perceive to be problems. Look, lastly, they get upset and they call it a giveaway when it affects 42 million Americans. But when the bankers get a bailout, and that affects just a couple of thousand people, and if you include what the Federal Reserve did, trillions of dollars, totally fine. We bailed them out. They collapsed their own businesses and the rest of our economy.

Costs $8 million, that's fine, that's fine. And then how about the rich? So the top 1% got 83% of the benefits of Trump's tax cuts, right? And they got $61,000 on average. So you didn't complain when Trump did a $2 trillion giveaway to the top 1%. But you do complain when Elizabeth Warren says, let's help 42 million Americans. And so all of a sudden, that's a giveaway. No, the Republicans are the masters of giveaways.

They just give it away to their own donors. Yeah, and let's keep it real. Warren's plan would positively impact everyone because it would have a positive impact on the economy, period. When we come back, we will discuss some of the Buttigieg critics in South Bend, Indiana. These are people of color who feel that they've been left behind by some of Buttigieg's policies. I think it's relevant, especially considering he was asked about it during his town hall last night. And we'll also get to Tucker Carlson and his victimology about poor Christians and how they can't catch a break.

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