The Young Turks - Mitt Romney Goes In On Trump And Is His Attack A Ploy To Challenge Trump In 2020?

Episode Date: January 3, 2019

Incoming Senator Mitt Romney wrote a scathing op-ed on Trump. Is his recent article a start to a potential 2020 presidential bid? Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

Welcome to the Young Turks. Happy New Year, everybody. I'm somewhat muted on it, though, because two stories in this show, but one in particular has made me furious. I can't stop thinking about it for the last couple of hours. Anyway, Jared Jackson, Jank Uger, John Iderola, with you guys in the New Year. I wish it didn't affect the rest of my mood, but that the story about the House rules that they are passing, it will defeat every progressive priority we have for two years.

one rule. In one rule, they will wipe out everything that you care about. And almost everyone is going to vote for it. So it's, it's, why are we, why are we doing this? I mean, somebody called Jimmy Dorr, somebody called the Green Party, these people are the Democratic leaders are the worst of the worst, but it's not just that. What is really heartbreaking is what some progressives in the House are set to do. We'll tell you who the good guys are, and there aren't many of them, and we'll tell you

who the bad guys are. And so, and there's heartbreaking people on that list. Anyway, and Politico attacks Elizabeth Warren, of course they do. Of course, we told you, the mainstream media hates you. They hate progressives, they, and so they can't help themselves. But they're accidentally gonna make a progressive president, that's the good news. Every time they attack Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, an angel gets its wings, and they pick up thousands, if not millions of votes.

So keep going, dumbasses. All right, man, I'm in a mood. Okay, so, look. Happy New Year! Glad I'm on the panel. Okay. So, anyway, I was supposed to be lighter news right now, but look, I got to give you the final tally on the membership drive.

So, guys, the membership drive is over. We're not going to talk about it, obviously anywhere in what we did over the last couple of months, okay? And to some of you, that's a relief. Some of you miss it a little bit. But so now that it's over, I do have to give you a final tally. So we started our membership drive right after Labor Day, and at that point, let's see where the thermometer was.

We were at 27,661, and you could of course become a member still to this day, any day, all day, At t-y-t.com slash join. You don't have to use any of the host names anymore. That competition is over. I'll tell you who won in a second. And then we ended on midnight, December 31st of 2018, at the number 42,000. Can I see it? 42,864.

So added a little over 15,000 numbers. So wonderful, wonderful. The goal was 42,000. We went past that, but as you see, the thermometer goes all the way up to 100,000. And the reason for that is, once we get to 100,000, I don't believe any force on Earth can knock us out. Climate change. Well, if anything can, that probably will do it.

Luckily, that's a Chinese hoax. So anyway, and so we've got to get to 100,000 overall, but nice and easy, I mean, sign up furiously, don't get me wrong, and t.t.com slash holidays still exist. which is a week free trial. And so give it a shot, see if you like it. We really appreciate it. But overall, to get to sustainability and to make sure that a progressive outlet like this remains on air forever, we've got to get to $100,000.

Okay, and where are we today? Right now, we're at $42,944. So can I see $43,000 by the end of today? Okay. All right. And that'll be that. Oh, one last thing, who won the contest between the hosts? Well, for a while, John was in second place.

Yeah, it's a good days. Yeah, John did come in, he came in third. And we had well over a dozen hosts on there and Mariguana representing a lot of the employees as well, JR obviously was on there. I believe a woman named Anna or Anna, Kasparian. Yeah, Anna Kusperian was on there and we, her and I went back and forth, back and forth, not really too much, actually. She was mainly in the lead.

Yeah, but I did catch her over Christmas, it was, people are calling it the Christmas miracle, not me, just people are calling it that, and I passed her, but with a week left, she passed me back and the final 10th least, she beat me by 60 people, which is a lot. That's a lot of them. Yes, so she signed up 754 members, and without really breaking too much of a sweat. So, bless her heart for that, Anna Kasparian, champion of the world, are hats off to her, hence why we don't have hats today. How did she do that? That's crazy.

I had like a big last push, but then I had to go for the holidays, so. Oh, well. Jimmy, door came in fourth, Hassan came in fifth, Emma came in six. Sorry, Jerry. I don't know it. Hey, I'm just saying equal airtime. Fair campaigns, a lot of times, you know, we need to take money out of these campaigns. It's the liberal, progressive way to go for future.

There you go, there you go. It's rigged all along. You're right about that, Chair. Okay, so thank you, Anna. Thank you to everybody that participated. We deeply, deeply appreciate it. By the way, the adding the $15,000, basically $15,000 just during that time, like that's obviously we have far more, but adding the $15,000, how many outlets would be?

to have 15,000 members. Yeah, a lot. And look, you know, every time you put your faith in us and believe in us and think that we can carry that progressive message forward, it means the world to us and it literally keeps us alive. And we try our hardest to deliver for you guys. And I hope that we do. And I hope that you enjoy the membership that you have and that it's worth it.

All right. Let's do the show where we will have trials and trials. relations. Yes. Incoming Senator Mitt Romney published an op-ed in the Washington Post that was critical of Donald Trump, at least in a shallow fashion. We'll break down how it was and how it wasn't critical. But here's an excerpt. First, Mitt Romney says, when he won the election, speaking about Donald Trump, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. but on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month

is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office. He gave him two years into his presidency, let alone all the campaign and everything. Mitt Romney was still watching day after day to see if Donald Trump would rise to the occasion. Turns out he didn't. But before we go to the commentary, understand what he is and isn't criticizing about Donald Trump. He's criticizing whether he rises to the mental. But he's not criticizing much of what Donald Trump has actually done. He goes on to say this.

He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China's unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. And since he doesn't carve out any sort of exception for Kavanaugh there, I have to assume that he supports him as well, regardless of the allegations about both the president and the judge in that case. So he's getting a lot of press and pushback for criticizing Donald Trump, but he's really only criticizing his style, really, much more than the substance.

Yeah, well, look, to be a little further fair to Mitt Romney, he does call out his racism as well. In a limited fashion saying, I'll do it going forward, but it's an obvious reference to what has already happened, but you could argue that's still style, you could argue that substance. Well, actually, really fast on that, because you point out, yes, so he points out the racism part. But then, when asked about if he would support Donald Trump's push for border security, he's

like, yeah, I support the president. And that's the institutionalization of the racism, the substance. And that goes to the heart of my criticism of this piece. And I think what you're alluding to, John, which is, so there are some lies that are acceptable in Washington, actually a lot of lies that are acceptable in Washington. And so, and a lot of racism and sexism and bigotry, et cetera, that's acceptable in Washington. You just have to do it in a polite way and in the right way. So for example, when he says that he thinks there's excessive regulation and Trump has done a good

job reeling that back in, I actually think that that is an arguable position. I don't agree with that at all, but I think that an honest person can be genuinely mistaken in thinking that Wall Street is overregulated, right? I know, when you say it out loud, it doesn't seem really quite possible to believe that. But I think that overall in regulations, of course you could have that argument, and it could be a real one and an honest one. When he says that the U.S. corporate taxes have now been brought to the same level as other countries, well, that's intentionally dishonest.

That does not take into account are loopholes. And they said they would get rid of loopholes and tax reform, and they didn't. And so now the effective tax rate for American companies are much lower than the rest of the world. And Mitt Romney is sophisticated enough and rich enough to know that. And so that is a purposeful lie. And that lie is intended to benefit the rich like Mitt Romney and his donors. And so that's an acceptable lie in Washington. Those are alternative facts that are perfectly fine.

The border wall and immigration policies, in a lot of ways, have that institutional racism and bigotry that John was alluding to. Min Romney doesn't have a problem with that. He just has a problem when you actually say it, right? So I would prefer to actually end the underlying problem rather than Donald Trump being too stupid to say it in a polite way. This is the, it's the, it's the, Mitt Romney is the character of the past Republican party before Trump walked in, right? Everyone harkens back to it. You know, whenever people see W. Bush around and they go, oh, somehow a guy has made me miss W, we say.

Oh, man, look, it was bad then I remember how much we dislike their policies, but it must be so much worse now. Many of those policies are exactly the same. We know the gauntlet, the normal process of tax cuts and not paying for them. Tax cuts for the rich making everyone else pay for them. That's the same cycle that keeps having. Mitt Romney's on board for that stuff. People have said, hey, what if Donald Trump is somehow eliminated or impeached or leaves on his own? Then we got Mike Pence, who's good at sitting there and going like this?

And saying and doing the same things that President Trump does. So the only thing they don't like is the way that he approaches it, as we all point out right here. But it's illustrative of the Republican Party and also the media, because he's going to get credit for this. They're going to say, look at Mitt Romney coming out, strong against the president. An incoming senator, tough guy, he's going to be there to have something against the president. No, he's not. He's there to say, hey, maybe you should stop calling names, stop tweeting so much, and be eloquent like me and do the same horrible things. Yeah, they should let him sit in flake seat.

And he knows it's going to work for them to give him credit. Those are all such great points. In fact, Trump said, oh, we hope he doesn't pull a flake. Well, what is pulling a flake? Criticizing and then voting with you over, what, 95, 98% of the time? You should be so lucky that he pulls a flake. And J.R. is exactly right about the media. They go along with this alternative facts, and it's maddening.

And so at the end of the day, Mitt Romney is most upset about Donald Trump because of how he does not effectively cover up the lies in racism. of the Republican Party. They all agree and vote on the same exact policies. Even the so-called critics of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, none of them are under 90% in their voting record with Donald Trump, not even close to under 90%. They all vote with them lockstep, obvious, notable exception, John McCain on Affordable Care Act and Susan Collins and Murkowski, I believe.

And so, but, and Murkowski, give her credit on the, on the vote. Kavanaugh. But I just named you four votes out of thousands upon thousands. So spare me your crocodile tears as the party continues to do the same thing. I'm gonna jump ahead a bit so I can read the full context of Trump's response. He says, here we go with Mitt Romney, but so fast question will be, is he a flake? I hope not. Would much prefer that Mitt focus on border security and so many other things where he can

be helpful. I won big and he didn't. He should be happy for all Republicans be a team player and win. Just for context, bear in mind that although Trump did technically win, Mitt Romney got a higher share of the vote back during his run for the presidency against a much better candidate, by the way. So that probably digs under Trump's skin just a little bit there. But there was one of the response.

Outside of just Trump, another fairly high-ranking member of the Republican Party responded to this. So that's Rana McDaniel, who said, POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24-7 for an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack real Donald Trump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats in media want and is disappointing and unproductive. So that is Rana McDaniel attacking incoming Republican freshman Mitt Romney. Of course, on Staten there is the fact that she's a Romney and she knows who he is because that's her uncle.

No, literally, Mitt Romney is her uncle. Sometimes on the show, I'll say he's not my uncle, he's literally her uncle. He's literally her uncle. And I love that the Republican Party is run by someone that almost sounds like they were named after Ronald McDonald. Ronald McDonald. So, anyway, so she's basically, that's her saying, don't worry, Mr. President, don't fire me, I am loyal to you.

Okay, well, enjoy it. Okay, so let's turn to a related topic. Question for the panel, with Mitt Romney writing his op-ed, is he intending to primary Donald Trump. And before you answer, I want to briefly read one more section from his op-ed. He concludes by saying, I remain optimistic about our future. In an innovation age, Americans excel. More importantly, noble instincts live in the hearts of Americans.

The people of this great land will eschew the politics of anger and fear if they are summoned to the responsibility by leaders in homes, in churches, in schools, in businesses, in government, who raise our sights and respect the dignity of every child. of God, the ideal that is the essence of America. So after that, you go- I approve this message. Yeah, and after that, the next thing is, so therefore, we've launched the exploratory committee, or I've decided to run, I've consulted with my wife and family, and they said

they're willing to take this on with me. It sounds like it's there, but it's also, it's generic enough that it cannot be there too. So it could be the launch, it could be not necessarily that statement, but it could be setting up. We have this majestic view of the country and the right people to be the, you know, the right people to be there and the churches and the community leaders who you don't give a damn about that to lead us into that next level of a great America, but he's just going to wait

and read. So read the leaves, you know, so he's going to start and go in and maybe have his differences and see what happens with the president first, see if he even has to run against him, and then see what kind of field opens up. But I kind of feel, you know, he's kind of the Republican Hillary as far as, like, the runs. Yeah. It's happened enough that people go, again, even if they like him, enough the supporters will say, yeah, I remember him losing.

Yeah. So there's two reasons why he could be writing the op-ed today. Among them is not, because he feels greatly moved by this country, and he does not want Donald Trump to besmirch its character with some of the bad words he said. So two possible reasons is, hey, I'm coming in as a new senator, and I want to make my mark and let everybody know Mitt Romney's in town, okay, perfectly normal reason. Seems funny, but. Yeah, but look, he's a politician and he wants the spotlight, so I get it, right?

The other possible reason, and it's not an either or, it could be both, is, well, this is when people are announcing their run for presidency. Elizabeth Warren announced just a couple of days ago, and so people are constantly talking about how Flake might run against Trump and John Kasek might run against Trump in a Republican primary. So this is Mitt Romney waving his hands going, don't forget about me, don't forget about me. And Mitt Romney has an incurable case of wanting to be president, absolutely incurable. I mean, he's going to carry it all the way to the end, whenever that is, right?

And so does he want to be president? Absolutely. He wants to run for president this time around? Well, you know, how's it going out there? Which is the wind blowing? So if he thought he had any kind of realistic chance, he'd do it in a second. Does he have a realistic chance? I don't think so, but we'll see what he thinks.

But yes, it's the bottom line is, I do think it's both. Yeah, the thing is, he could win Utah, I guess. I don't see like Trump voters are gonna turn against their man for Mitt Romney. I don't see that. I don't see it happening. So I actually, I have a third option. I don't think it's necessarily either of those. It could be, possibly.

I think the third option is, do just enough criticism of Donald Trump pitch yourself as the healing Republican so that not that you primary Donald Trump, which is going to be so difficult, but you're there if Donald Trump doesn't run. If Donald Trump is taken down and then it's President Pence who could theoretically run for reelection. but he's tarnished by the whole thing too. Don't you need to heal the Republican Party at that point? Who better than Mitt Romney, a guy who talks about mantles and things?

Yeah, ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. So Mike Pence's strategy is, be cool, stay low, okay, don't do anything. Whenever Trump says anything, you go, yes, sir, man, I have another, sir. So that if Trump goes down, Pence can turn to Trump voters and go, I was with you the whole time. I was with you the whole time. Right. Now, a lot of Republicans now think there's a very realistic chance that Donald Trump is gonna go down and before the end of his turn.

Look, what do you think Mueller's gonna give Trump? Unicorns and rainbows? No, he's coming with a bag of coal and indictments, okay? So, to mix metaphors. Santa and unicorns and stuff, I think Harry Potter's in there somewhere. So, you know, I don't know that he's probably not going to indict the president because he thinks he can't directly do that, but he'll have plenty of evidence to do that on several charges.

This is no longer conjecture, we know at least on the campaign finance. He is the co-conspirator of Michael Cohen. That is absolutely clear, clear felony violation, et cetera. So Mitt Romney is smart enough to know that. So he's angling for, look, if Trump is wounded and survives, maybe I primary him. If Trump is wounded and then gone, boom, I'm not gonna let Pence just take the presidency. No way, no way. That's when Kasich jumps in for sure, and then Flake and Romney are trying to figure out what

their angle is. That's what this editorial is all about. And back to J.R's point one last time. Hey, rest of the media, come on. Look, I get it, you wanna give credit to anyone who opposes Donald Trump. But you gotta give context, brothers and sisters. You gotta say, hey, Mitt Romney, I guess credit to you for calling you. out Trump, but this is fairly clear political maneuvering to get yourself in a position

to perhaps run. Yeah, one other little wrinkle, just for a little bit of fun, Donald Trump's response to Mitt Romney would imply that he's not worried about any potential primary run. And I think that that's probably realistic, he's got a lockdown on his base and everything. But that doesn't mean that nobody is worried about Mitt Romney or someone else primary in one. I saw today actually a message, apparently it was blasted out an email from Javon Williams and RNC committeemen who said this, unfortunately, loopholes in the rules governing the 2020 renomination campaign are enabling so-called Republicans to flirt with the possibility

of contested primaries and caucuses. While President Trump would win renomination, it wouldn't come quick and it wouldn't be inexpensive. Any contested renomination campaign, even a forlorn hope would only help Democrats. Accordingly, I am asking for your support to take the unprecedented step of amending the rules to close loopholes in the renomination campaign. Or as we talked about in the damage board this morning, the ultimate alpha male rule. Make it illegal to run against you.

We're so afraid. I mean, we keep, you know, it sounds like it's overdoing it, but it's obvious, there's the breakdown of everything democratic in our system. Like, you know, we don't need anyone else to run against the president anymore. There's no more, let's not have any more primaries. Then next, like, hey, what's what about these term limits? Let's get rid of those now. Hey, let's get rid of all kinds of elections in the first place.

We have our king. And I know that sounds crazy, but there's levels to get to things. We don't get to the crazy before you get to the small crazy. And then have said in nice, eloquent terms, like, yeah, these weird loopholes that Americans put in the system to have a democratic voting process. That's crazy how that works. Man, you know, I ask you to join me in undoing American processes. Yeah, I love that they call voting a loophole.

And I'm amused by Javon Wasserman-Scholtz-Williams efforts here. And I would love it if they did that because they would just be replicating what the Democrats did in 2016. Hey, shut out all dissent. I bet party leaders know what the right thing to do is. Just let's go with whoever's already in power. Yeah, that was a winning strategy. Why don't you guys try that this time, see how it turns out. Why?

Why we take our first break? Yeah, we will. And when we come back. Rage The Democrats have proposed to kill every progressive priority with one rule

one rule to bind them all and who will fight back and who will not that unfortunately is a deeply disappointing answer that we will give you when we return. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic

or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, And just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows.

But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained

all at the same time. All right, back on the old. Chirks, all right, we're laughing about some tweets that came in. All right, anyway, let's do a couple of things here. I'm going to do my last, maybe not last, but certainly last for a while. Shout out for Amplify program, and I appreciate that you guys did that. It's still up. If you want to participate, t.y.t.com slash Amplify, bless your heart.

We're just not going to talk about it on air as much as we did, obviously, during the membership drive. But definitely need to thank a bunch of people that did participate at the end there, which is really, really appreciated. Neil Clark from Garwood, New Jersey, $150. You'll get the T-shirt as well. Becky Champay from Columbia, Missouri. Mark Hensman from Ellicott City, Maryland, 150. Roz from Las Cruces, New Mexico, where I've been. Thank you, brother. An anonymous member, you, 500, thank you. We really appreciate it. Tim Jordan from Seattle, $150.00. Gary Steeleman from Wilmington, Delaware. Delaware 150, Jeffrey Williams from St.

Albans, Vermont, 150, Dennis Craig Roof from Sherman Oaks, 500. Thank you, Dennis, you're going on the honor roll on TYAT.com. When that's up, we will let you guys know. Taylor Shamshiri from Houston, 150, Owias Bank from Dallas, 150. So Texas contingent coming in strong at the end. And Sid from Doha, Qatar at 150. Thank you guys, really appreciate it. Just time for a couple of

tweet comments here from our members, and then we'll get to the rage. Shy Coltrane 42 says the establishment's backing up Biden, Beto, and Kamala Harris, traditional corporate Democrats. If any of these Dems get in, progressives will be at the losing end. Well, I think today's, the story we're about to do is a good example of what establishment Democrats do, which is basically nothing. They just protect their donors and sit on their ass, which is what they plan to do. Anyway, and lastly, one of 19 says, what is disappointing about Mid's opinion piece is that

the mainstream media hails the courage of this article. They have stated that Mid is the quote polar opposite of Trump, but as TYT has mentioned, there is no difference with respect to policies. Well, thank you for pointing that out. We appreciate that as well. I can't help but read one last one. If lots of Republicans believe Trump will go down, why keep pushing him for 2020? Because they have no courage.

They're not gonna stick their neck out until they're 100% sure. Yeah. Because if they're wrong, then the Trump loyalists will turn on them with great fury. And they'll almost certainly lose in a primary. Which, to be fair, that's happened to a lot of Republicans in media who have dared to stand against him. Yeah, no question. Ah, you- In some primary contest earlier this year.

Yeah, I'm going to read this, I keep lying about how it's the last one. I'm going to read one YouTube super chat comment because it's relevant to the next story. Hey, Chang, please message Kassir Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ianna Presley, and Rashida Talib, etc. Justice Democrats were very, very, very proud of them and rooting for them every second. Tomorrow's a very big day. Well, you know, it's a very big day in a couple of ways. One is it's their first day. And trust me, they have, I have messaged them.

You have messaged them. They have heard you very, very loudly and clearly. Actually, Accio Cortez sent a very nice email saying she appreciated what everybody said on the panel for getting Turk of the year. We didn't send the video during, she just watched it. And so that's wonderful of her. But they're also going to take a vote that is going to make a huge difference. We've also messaged about that.

Okay, anyway, let's get to the store. Yeah, and hopefully you guys will message about it too. Okay, a war is underway in Washington, D.C. over a proposed rule change for the incoming Democratic new House majority, and that is focused on the inclusion of a pay-as-you-go provision. I'm gonna use a little bit of parliamentary speak, we're gonna explain what it means. The new rule establishes a point of order against any bill that increases the deficit within a 10-year budget window.

The House could attach an emergency designation to legislation to get around the pay-go rule, hypothetically. The point of order could be waived by a majority vote of the House. Another way of reading, that is the point of order would have to be overruled by a majority of voter House. But the idea there is that hypothetically, if you had any sort of large scale legislation that affects a significant chunk of the economy, whether about education, real estate, health care, Social Security, all of those sorts of things, if it is rated by the CBO to raise

the deficit, then hypothetically, it faces an automatic block if there's not offsetting budget cuts or tax increases. that to get these things accomplished, you would have to do things that make it a lot harder to sell, or at least the idea is that you would make it harder to sell. Okay, so this is monumental, this is everything. If they pass this rule that single-handedly kills Green New Deal, Medicare for all, college for all, and almost every other major progressive priority. Now, you think that's an accident?

Of course not. The Democratic leadership doesn't want any of those progressive policies, and they think this is a cute way of killing it. What do you think? It's the 1990s, that there's no internet, that you just have the knuckleheads on television go, oh, well, it's just the arcane rules, I guess nobody cares. I got New Street, Nancy Pelosi, and all the Democratic leadership, and yes, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we know, and we care.

You're not going to kill it in the middle of the night and have it go on notice. So let's talk about why. So when Republicans are in charge, they do not kneecap themselves. They don't pass, for example, tax go. Now I made that out, what would tax go be? Well, it would be the equivalent of pay go, right? Tax go would be, hey, you're not allowed to cut taxes unless you find a way to pay for it.

They never pass that. Why? Because they want to cut taxes on their donors and they want to be able to get away with it and put a $1.9 trillion hole in deficit, and they don't care. When Democrats get in and they have all these progressive policy priorities, but hey, if you can't pay for it by raising taxes, which then the Republicans will run ads against you on, which then Nancy Pelosi will turn around conveniently and go, well, golly, gee, I can't have my purple state and red state Democrats have ads run against them because they're raising taxes.

So we're not going to do that. That means we're not going to do anything, anything at all. We'll dink and dunk. We'll do 5% change, and we'll get Morning Joe to sign off on it. Okay, no deal, no deal. So now, look, Nancy Pelosi being a corporate hack is a fact and unsurprising. When asked why you should be a leader, she said, I raise the most money. In other words, I have the biggest corporate donors.

She almost sounds like Trump. I have the strongest donors. I have the biggest donors. I'm surrounded by an island. I'm an island. I'm surrounded by big money, ocean money, okay? So I get it, Nancy. We all get it, okay?

So that's not what I'm upset about today. What I'm upset about is right now there are only two people who have said they're going to vote, no. You're not going to be surprised by their names. You want to see the tweets? We will in a second. So the two people who have said they're going to vote no are Alexandria, Ocasio-Cortez, and Rokana.

Now, the sound of silence from the other progressives is deafening, absolutely deafening. So Mark Pocan, who is the so-called leader of the Progressive Caucus, puts out a tweet about, hey, well, you know, you guys, it's tied to something else, which is tied to another thing, and golly, gee, we'd have to reverse something else. Oh, would that be difficult? Would that require you to work? I don't know Mark Pocan from Adam, okay? Everybody tells me he's a good progressive.

Really? I believe it when I see it. And immediate unilateral surrender is not what good progressives do. They don't help Nancy Pelosi and the donors kill every single progressive priority as their first action. They do not do that. And what is heartbreaking, right now, the vote hasn't happened yet. They've got a little bit of time. But right now, as things stand, Representative Primaloghia.

also leader of the Progressive Caucus, as far as we can tell, she has shown no inclination to vote no. If she votes yes for this, I mean, she is supposed to be our leader. And we do know Representative Jayapal, and she's been great in the past. But if she votes yes for this and kills every progressive priority, I got bad news for her. It is not going to go unnoticed. And we will then probably, if you go to make up for it in a thousand different ways, probably tell people the thousand different ways you've tried to make up for it.

And they will hold that grudge for the rest of their lives. Go ask Elizabeth Warren on whether she supported Bernie Sanders and whether people have let that go or not, okay? And that was on a thing that was about politics, it wasn't even about policy. You kill all of our policies in one fell swoop. I don't care what the excuses are, and no progressives going to care what the excuses are. So anyway, think about it. Let's see what happens.

There's no more being able to act like you don't know how things work anymore. So as you said, there's the age of information. Voters know more than what, at least previous what they were allowed to be known or had to access to. So you could say to voters, hey, this is what's going to happen because I said so. And generally people would believe them. Now that there's people that come out and actually have a real approach to the way things go, when you make these decisions, people will point them out.

But it still needs to be proven. There's this thought that, oh, there's these young voters, there's these progressives. They don't really know what they're doing. They're just out here radically wide-eyed and mad. And then they made this one decision and a couple seats got flipped. But you know what? We're going to continue to do what we always do. And they're going to forget about it because they're young and they're dumb.

Something needs to be proven finally. So after the fight comes, the hard part now is continuing to fight when you think you won. So there's this celebration. Oh, look, we got this, we got this, we got that. Even when Obama came in, we got this, we got that. But there still needs to be enough of a pushback saying, but you said this, and we're going to demand that you do this. And until that happens, and if we fail to do that, the next cycle, they'll go,

oh, that's right, we were right. They are young, dumb, and just reactionary, and they don't know how this whole thing works. When is it, Alexander? Longbendy Twizzler's candy keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going. Quizzlers, keep the fun going. Andrea Ocasio-Cortez comes in. You know what they kept saying about her?

Look at this young woman. Doesn't know what she's doing. What does she know about civics? What does she know about government? And that's what they think about everyone. She's representative of what they think the rest of the voting block is. Well, in reality, as you point out, G. She's the only one that actually, apparently, along with Rokana, that actually does

know the import of it. Yeah. Actually understands how policy works and how legislation works. I can't believe they think they're going to trick us. I'm gonna go to Pelosi's deputy Jiffa staff after John gives you the tweets from the good guys, and he thinks he's so clever, God, what children, they think they're playing three-dimensional chess. Didn't we go through that with Obama already?

And then at the end of the three-dimensional chess, Trump becomes president. Oops, you guys don't know anything, you don't know anything. You're not gonna get this past people, all you're gonna get is rage. All right, yeah, maybe back in the 80s, people wouldn't have known about the rules changes or whatever, but like, I mean, this is kind of like our job, like I play a little bit of Fortnite, he works on his car, you play with your kid, and other than that, we're watching you. That's all we do. That's all we do. That's all we do. So anyway, I want to give credit to the two who deserve it, including Rokana, who's going to be on the damage report on Friday

to talk about this issue. Hopefully they won't have already had the vote by then, or they'll have had it and succeeded. But Rowe said, I will be voting no on the rules package with PAYGO. It is terrible economics. The Austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history. AOC said tomorrow I will also vote no on the rules package, which is trying to slip in PAYGO. PAYGO isn't only bad economics, as Rokane explains. It's also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on health care and other legislation. We shouldn't hinder ourselves from the start.

I will go even further as saying it's not only bad politics and all of what they've said. It also reinforces BS right-wing narratives about how left-wing priorities cost money, but right-wing stuff is just free. Everything just magically, just hand the money, it doesn't matter. You don't balloon the deficit, even though that's happened under Donald Trump. It is bad in pretty much every way it could be bad. Yeah, and in fact, Roan makes another point that's fantastic. He says, I do not understand why Democrats don't have the courage of our convictions

and make the case that our policies will lead to growth. And in our case, that's actually true. Green New Deal creates jobs, which leads some more growth. Medicare for all actually brings down health care costs, which actually helps the economy and helps the federal budget at the same time. We've got to actually believe it, but the thing is, and that's exactly where the rub is. Nancy Pelosi doesn't actually believe any of those things. This is not a rule change designed to go after Republicans.

This is a rule change designed to go after progressives. Since Nancy Pelosi is not remotely a progressive, and I was right about that, I'll take apologies from every establishment figure right now, okay, who said, oh, no, you don't know. You don't know, maybe she'll propose all sorts of progressive priorities. No, she's trying to kill every single one of them with one rule. Of course she is, of course she is. Nancy Pelosi, a progressive, preposterous. No, she does this to say, ha ha, look at what I did to you guys.

I took away all your power, and now you're gonna vote for it. Understand this, they only need 18 votes to block it. They don't need 18 Republican votes. They just need 18 Democratic votes to block it. Although some could be a Republican. Yeah. We would like that, by the way. Yeah, well, no, no, no, you need the Republican votes plus 18 Democratic votes, okay?

So now they say, oh, but I mean, that would be voting against Nancy Pelosi's. And let me ask in a very clear way, so what? So what, what are you gonna do? You're gonna vote, let her vote Medicare for All Down, then why are you in office? But why, why, and I got to ask, Representative Jayapal, why do you have a Medicare for all pack and a Medicare for all caucus if you're going to vote yes on PAYGO? You know that Nancy, I don't, look, I don't mean to be insulting, but you know that Nancy Pelosi is going to use this vote against you, right?

The minute you vote for PAYGO, she's, and you try to bring out Medicare for all, she's going to say, oh, Representative Jayapal, I'm so sorry to hear that. But under my rules that you voted yes on and you encourage a progressive caucus to vote yes on, We can't have that. Don't pull. I mean, that's a Republican trick. Don't fall for that trick. It's a trap.

You only need 18 votes. The Progressive Caucus has dozens upon dozens of members. It's the largest caucus right now. It could easily defeat this. She has to know how it works. So now it's always the age old question. Is it they don't know or they don't care to or act like they don't know and just going to let it just go?

There's policies that are like, that are signature for her. you're pointing out. And they're going to get shut down just in this way. It has to be asked specifically and directly to her to see if this is what you really want to get yourself involved with. Yeah. Well, so obviously we're saying this. We're hoping that some of them will be watching, but all of you watching can also help because this vote has not happened yet. You can put pressure on these people. We need 16 other votes. You can probably think of quite a few of those. A lot of their names that we praise very often on this show. You can reach out directly to those people. A lot of them are particularly known for being active on social media and responsive

to the needs of the people who message them. So now is the time to let them know that this is not some small procedural background thing. This is something you're watching, this is something you'll remember, and they need to know that. Small thing, you remember when the, after the primaries, I mean after the midterms, everyone said, hey, you know what, these Democrats are going to come in and they're going to be, they're going to raise hell for Trump, hasn't started yet. And also, hey, don't come in too hot on Trump, because.

Because, you know, you don't want to waste all your political capital just on trying to get him out of office. And also, who was supporting Nancy Pelosi for the speakership suddenly? And everybody said, hmm, I wonder why the president suddenly loves Nancy Pelosi. She got an office. He goes, she's a strong fighter as much as I don't like her. She's in it to win it. She's one of the best it's ever been.

Everybody said, why, that's weird. It's not that hard. As soon as he said it, just go, oh, he knows what she's going to do for him. You knew it. Why don't we know it? Well, it's a sad day for them, we do know it. And look, it's, Nancy Pelosi was always going to be a corporate tool. And so I don't care if that offense people in Washington.

Look, whether it fenced people on Washington or not, people all across the country believe that. They view her as an elitist, and I think rightfully so. So I'm not surprised by that. Mark Pocan, he, okay, whatever, I've never seen him fight for anything, but that's fine, that's fine. Look, I want Mark Pocan to be successful. I want him to be a strong progressive. I want him to be our leader.

I don't see it yet. I think he was one of the first to sign on on getting rid of vice, if I remember correctly. Okay, that's wonderful. Now he won't be able to do any of it. I understand that. I just want to get credit. Okay, yeah, I understand. But look, why am I tough on Giant Paul right now?

Why have I mentioned her over and over in her? Because I do believe in her. I do believe in her. And look, they haven't voted yet. But where's Jamie Raskin? Jamie Raskin is awesome. But where's Jamie Raskin? Where's, where's Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar, Iyana Presley?

Where's Raul Grijalba? Where are all these guys? So you can't get 18 votes to protect progressive priorities. So let me talk to you about the last trick. Drew Hamill, Deputy Chief of Safar, Nancy Pelosi says a vote against the Democratic Rules package. Hold on, let me explain. They don't just put up PAYGO.

At least they're sophisticated enough to do this. They put it amongst a whole bunch of other rule changes, and the rest of the rule changes are benign. They're fine. There's something wrong with that. Some of them are good. Okay, and some of them are good, right? So they're like, oh, it's in a package.

You can't vote? I'll tell you how stupid that is in a second. But he goes, a vote against the Democratic Rules package is a vote to let Mick Mulvaney make across-the-board cuts, unilaterally reversing democratic initiatives and funding increases because it would go back to the old rule of cut go, which is what the Republicans had, which is even worse than PAYGO. No, it wouldn't. No, it wouldn't, John's right?

You know what you do? You're proposed another bill. Oh, I know. Look, to be fair, Nancy Pelosi's only been a Speaker of the House once before, and now will be Speaker of the House twice. What would she know about the rules? Oh, my God, you could introduce legislation again, but changes slightly? Or allow people to present an amendment.

Wow, I didn't know that. Wow, that is quite surprising. Now, who do you think you're talking to you, children? We're not the children, you're the children. You're not talking to television pundits. They don't know anything. It's easy to trick them. Besides which, you don't have to trick them.

They're on your team, and you know that. Now you're talking to the whole country because of the Internet. You think you can just say something stupid like, oh, this will help Mick Mulvaney because I guess it'll be the last vote we ever have in the house. And we'll be stuck with Kutko. Nobody believes that. You're a schmuck for saying that. And so it's not a cute trick and it's not going to work.

Every progressive out there should right now contact every one of those congressmen, most especially the progressives. And Nancy Pelosi, of course shouldn't be Speaker of the House. Of course she shouldn't. What did we tell you from day one? She's not just going to not fight for us, she's going to fight against us, against us. Why would we support that person? No, thank you, no thank you.

So they should vote against her for Speaker of the House too. They won't, they won't, because it's impolite in Washington. We didn't send you to Washington to be polite. We sent you for our priorities. When I say our priorities, I mean the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70% of Americans are for Medicare for all, and you're gonna kill Medicare for all, and you think it's gonna happen in the dark of night? No, we're gonna shine a giant.

light on it, and we're never going to let you forget it. Great. Probably should take our last break. Yes. When we back, rage turns to the establishment and their attacks against Elizabeth Warren. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices.

But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to expressvpn.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-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 time. All right, back on a Young Turks, Jank, John, and J.R. with you guys. Let me read a bunch of comments. Purcell says, post a list of Dems who don't vote against pay as you go.

Then we can tweet the hell out of them. We'll do. Let's see. I mean, look, the vote is coming up. Let's do it before that vote, actually. Let's do it now. I know. I know.

But we, let's get, I'm torn between let's give people a time. chance, right, and but you got to reach out to them now. Like don't reach out to them saying I hate you, reach out to them saying you're going to decide whether I love you or hate you. Ryan Grimm tweeted this morning that he's talked with at least five representatives who said that they are weighing it based on public reaction. Yeah, the public reaction, I guarantee you right now is not good, not good. I mean, they really, they don't know.

They don't know whether killing every progressive priority is going to play well. I mean, it's just, they're so clueless in Washington, it's unbelievable. All right, Maxillaria says, PAYGO is a way for establishment demps to still not have comprehensive slate of issues moving into a presidential year, 100%, right? This is a quote unquote cute tactic that ignores long-term hard toward, long-term harm towards left-wing politics. Austerity does not work. Jerusalem says, time to get the TYT army in action, absolutely will do.

Thank you for reminding me of that. Your mama says, I'm absolutely enraged that these Dems are going to. put PAYGO into place. Republicans couldn't care less about the deficit, but them's love to kneecap themselves over anything. They're the Washington generals of politics disgusting. What I tell you, they're paid to loose. That's exactly what's happening here. They, it's not the Republicans. The Democrats have passed a rule saying, we're going to hamstring ourselves. Well, I just hope that they're able to fix the economy in time for a Republican president to come into office and spend it all. Yeah, exactly. Casey Land 224 on Twitter says,

Is it possible some are keeping quiet about their vote in order to delay counterattack before the vote? Look, I've- Maybe, look, I've talked to some folks, and right now it does not look good. So the only thing that could turn it around is you guys. I'm not kidding, they are paying attention to you guys. I get people reaching out all the time asking, what do you guys think? Okay, so let them know what you think. It's not too late yet, we haven't had the vote yet, okay?

So if you got a congressman, look up who they are and tell them to vote against this. And that if they're unclear about it, say progressives in unison, you want unity, you got unity, we all hate this rule. And we don't want it, and it's an outrage. It means you work for your donors and not for us. Okay, let's keep going. Okay. Politico came under fire today for a tweet regarding Elizabeth Warren, where they asked, how is she going to avoid a Clinton

Redux being written off is too unlikable to win. And here's a few excerpts from the article. It says Elizabeth Warren is too divisive and too liberal. Washington Democrats have complained privately. So Politico's not saying it. It's just people they talk to are saying it. Her DNA rule out was a disaster and quite possibly a White House deal breaker. She's already falling in the polls.

And perhaps most stinging shares too many of the attributes that sank Hillary Clinton. This is coming as a shock to progressives across the country. But let's pause there before we go on with more of their nonsense. All right, so first of all, you write any article you like and you betray your bias in the topics that you select and the framing that you give those topics. So is there positive things you could write about Elizabeth Warren? Yeah, absolutely. You could talk about her record against Wall Street and against corruption and how well that plays

with progressives and how that polls stunningly well. I mean, you chose not to write that article. You chose to write a negative one, okay, all right, look, you can write a balanced one. But apparently all of a sudden, neutrality doesn't apply. It only applies when it comes to odious Republican positions. But when it comes to progressives, no, no, not even neutrality. No, you just get a spit in the face. Okay, so that's point one.

Point two is, no, I believe that they did talk to Washington Democrats. And I don't think they're making it up. We're not right-wingers. They didn't go in a room one day and say, okay, how are we getting at Elizabeth Warren? Let's pretend that we have the Democratic sources. No, those democratic sources exist. They're the same ones that supported Hillary Clinton. I don't know any progressives that are going around and saying, oh, Elizabeth Warren,

she's the same as Hillary Clinton. Nobody thinks that. If you look at their policy, nobody believes that. And so who'd you talk to? Which Washington Democrats? You talked to establishment Democrats, didn't you? Didn't you? You did, and you know it.

And what did they tell you? Oh, no, she's just like Hillary Clinton. What do you mean? You supported Hillary Clinton. No, the reason you were talking crap about Elizabeth Warren, is because she's not like Hillary Clinton. If she actually was like Hillary Clinton, for example, Cory Booker, you would go around saying how wonderful he is, how great he is, right?

That would never happen. So now that it's Elizabeth Warren, you go, oh yeah, it's the same problem as Hillary Clinton. Now, which leads us to another point, how are they similar? What are you talking about? Wait a minute. They are both women, I suppose. Huh, I wonder if that's the one. Because, look, saying that she has the same policies as Hillary Clinton would be, I mean,

I don't know whether to call it negligent or maniacal. I mean, are you a political reporter? Have you looked at Elizabeth Warren's policies? And the main criticism of Hillary Clinton, because apparently nobody in Washington can remember anything, right, was that she was too close to Wall Street. Elizabeth Warren's number one issue is being tough on Wall Street and regulating them because of the Financial Protection Bureau and every bill she's passed in every committee hearing that she's laid into the bankers.

You don't know that? You don't know that. At a bare minimum, political hires the worst reporters and the worst editors I have ever seen. They don't know anything about politics. Or they think, ah, woman, woman, same thing, who cares, let's bury them. Yeah. possible that from D.C. hugging a Wall Street banker and putting one in a headlock looks similar.

I don't know. Now, to be fair, the author is a woman. Are you mollified by the fact that the first few paragraphs are all criticisms? Here are all of the things Trump will say about her later today. And then the second half is, and here are the responses from people that like her. And where they talk to some of her former advisors and, you know, aides and things like that. And they say, here is how we're going to respond. to it, because some people will say that is how it is a balanced article.

Yeah, no, so where do you get the idea that she's unlikable? You just said it. You just said it. You didn't get it out of anywhere. So you assume she's unlikable. That's an outrageous assumption. Then look at the headline that you think people are going to read in the paragraph 17 to find your so-called balance.

So by, hey, I talked to a couple people like Elizabeth Warren. No, they're not going to read the page to article paragraph 17. First thing they're going to read is the headline, which, by the way, is usually done by the editor, it's not the reporter. And so the editor probably assigned this and said, who should we assign this attack piece on a progressive woman? Oh, we should have assigned it to a woman. Yeah, that'll be cute.

Oh, it turns out you watch Fox News, congratulations. Okay, so, and then the headline is Warren battles the ghosts of Hillary. No establishment Democrats might battle the ghost of Hillary Clinton, and that would be an interesting article. Hey, here's where they agree, no, but really, here's where they agree with Hillary Clinton's policy positions and why they come off across as elitist. That would be a substantive article. That would be an interesting article.

Instead, I mean, the jujitsu of blaming Elizabeth Warren for Hillary Clinton's positions is unbelievable. It's unbelievable. At a bare minimum, like I said, worst reporters I've ever seen. Never once checked a policy position. I remember in sixth grade we learned, maybe it was even before that, fifth grade. You write five paragraph essays. You have your overall thought, then each paragraph, you intro, then you have your meat,

where you talk about what it actually is. So every time you have your header of the paragraph, you have to have something to back it up. And it's the same thing we have with Mitt Romney and his op-ed. He just said things like, oh, yeah, that the tax cuts we had and then the conservative judges and deregulations are all great. Based on what? Tell me your information. Tell me why you believe that.

Are you just saying it, and I'm supposed to believe it? Now, they say, hey, Elizabeth Warren is fighting the ghosts of Hillary Clinton based on what? As you're saying, what are you supposed? What's the next thing? Because she believes in this, because she supports that, what are the things that she's like Hillary Clinton? We don't have to say it. And then people who don't read the political article, but instead watch CNN and watch the political expert, Henry, Harry, Inton? Yeah, Harry.

Then he comes on and says the same thing. And they go with the same constant rotation of things. Oh, well, she's like Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. And also, she lost that whole DNA test. All that's going to get her. I kept hearing about how that's going to get her. What does that DNA test have anything to do with her policies and how she would potentially act in the White House?

And we all forgot where the stupid DNA test came from. Because the president of the United States, who we continue to let off the hook for it, continued to call her a racial slur. And then she responded with the circus of, of a DNA test to get it to calm down. Yeah, I think she should have done it too. She should have maybe kept ignoring him.

But he kept saying and people kept going, yeah, maybe she is a liar. Maybe she is untrustworthy because of a slur. But that guy's let off the hook for it. He's still in office. I mean, why is there two different rules? And it's not, look, in the case of how Trump uses Pocahontas against her, right? It's both a racial slur and he belittles every woman who challenges him, right? Even more aggressively than it does with men, it appears to be personal.

When you put Elizabeth Warren in the position of, well, then how do you respond to that? What do you mean, how do I respond to that? If he had called a black representative the N-word, would you then go around and ask him, well, are you the N-word or are you not? That's insane, that's insane. Why don't you take a DNA test to prove what you are? Are you insane, right? And now, but the ultimate coup here is, the coup de grace here is, now they say, well,

Because Trump's attacking here too much, maybe that disqualifies her. Are you- Absolutely. You're gonna let Trump decide who our candidate is? Well, Politico would. Politico CNN would. They would, they would, of course, they immediately go on their attack. No, no deal, no deal. I don't give a goddamn what Donald Trump thinks.

I want someone who doesn't, who invites Donald Trump's attacks because they're strong. Do you think Donald Trump attacks irrelevant Democrats? You think he just picks people who are sitting on their ass and attacks them? No, he attacks people who attack him, who fight for us. So I love that Elizabeth Warren has been in a battle with Donald Trump. I don't care about the particulars of the tweets, okay? I care about policy. I know it's called Politico, so apparently they don't care about policy at all.

Yeah, I think you're short-sighted, and we could be dodging a bullet because he clearly does like attacking her. and if we just push her to the side, he won't have anything on anybody else. He'll be nice. He'll be very nice to them. No, but think about that, guys. Think about that. Look at the alternative facts of the Washington media lives in. Like, John, in that quick joke, just devastated your entire argument.

What do you think? Donald Trump's not going to attack the Democratic candidate? Is that what you think? Who in the right mind could possibly believe that? And why is there no articles about, well, you know, he would attack Kamala Harris? He's gonna, he would on multiple grounds, terrible grounds, right? He would attack Cory Booker, he would attack Beto O'Rourke, he would attack whoever, whatever other establishment hack you got, okay?

Or whatever progressive. Or what, he's gonna attack Bernie. Yeah, of course he is. And I love that we have a fighter there. And so that does not disqualify her. If anything, it moves her up the list. And if Politico and CNN's disdained for her. also moves are up the list.

So thank you, mainstream media. You are accidentally going to make a progressive president because you're going to piss all of us off so much that we're definitely going to support a progressive. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, are another one along those lines because you can't help yourself. Your disdain and hatred for them

screams through in every article and every story that you do. And you are the establishment. You are the status quo. And we have no goddamn interest in you. Okay. Did we get the memberships? No, we didn't, so they can go ahead and pit. They need it.

They need it. They can take a old-timey one. They can take a long walk off a short talk. Okay. Swim. We're way past time. But we're not done yet. Now, Brooks is going to come in, and Fox News goes after Elizabeth Warren.

Now, the political piece was enraging. The Fox News one is. hilarious we're back to the obama days what did she eat what did she drink okay what did she wear here we go all right we'll be right back 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 podcast at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon