The Young Turks - No Ragrets - May 7, 2025

Episode Date: May 8, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Biden says he does not regret dropping out as late as he did and he made the right decision. House Republicans plan major SNAP food aid overhaul in Trump megabill. MAGA tries to sway pope vote with $100 bottles of wine and billion-dollar promises. IDF soldiers drop blue bomb in Gaza as part of gender reveal celebration. Pro-Trump Daily Wire host parses video of woman who called child the N-word. Hosts: Yasmin Khan & Wosny Lambre SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. Hello and welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Yasmin Alia Khan and I'm here with Wozny Lambray. He's a senior writer over at the ringer and the host of Woz speaks. But you all know Waz. How are you doing tonight, Was?

I'm doing fantastic. Super happy to be on with you guys again. Yeah, yeah. Jank and Anna are both out tonight, so this is what you get. But it's going to be a great show. I shouldn't say but it will be. It sounded like they were on punishment that we were putting the audience in the corner. I always feel like they have certain expectations coming to the show and then you're like,

oh, it's these guys, but it's still fun. You know, it's still a good time. I'm just trying to manage expectations now that we're already here together. So that's it. All right, but we do have a lot of stories to get to quite a newsfilled day today, actually. So let's get right into this first story. I can hear your passion. I can hear your anxiety that the world is changing the way it has.

And for a long time, you believed, you said, I'm the man who can stop Donald Trump. And you did once. And in the end, you withdrew from that election campaign at the last minute. It's a question you know, lots of people ask you, Mr. President. Did you leave it too late? Should you have withdrawn earlier, given someone else a bigger job? I don't think it would have mattered. That was former President Joe Biden, and he sat down for an interview with BBC host Nick Robinson,

in which Robinson asked him if he regretted his decision to drop out of the president. presidential race when he did and not sooner. The TLDR of it is that no, he doesn't. But before we discuss, let's hear more of his response. We left at a time when we were, we had a good candidate. She was fully funded. And what happened was I had become what we had set out to do. No one thought we could do.

and become so successful in our agenda. It was hard to say, now I'm going to stop now. I met what I said when I started, that I think I'm prepared to hand this to the next generation, the transition government. But things moved so quickly that it made it difficult to walk away to get. And it was a hard decision. But, regretting to say?

No, I think it was the right decision. I think that the, well, it was just a difficult decision. So it seems as though he has a lot of complicated feelings around it. And yeah, I imagine it was a very hard decision to come by. I have my own thoughts and feelings on it, as I'm sure most of you do. But let's just look back a little bit back to July of 2024 to get a reminder of where the country was at at the time. This is how the sentiment was following the June 2024 presidential debate and Joe Biden didn't perform as well as most people were we're hoping that he would.

So 56% of Democrats and 67% of all Americans believe Biden should withdraw given his performance in the debate. The Washington Post, ABC News, Ipsos poll found, while new highs of 85% of Americans say Biden is too old for a second term and 60% say the same of Trump. Both men receive 46% support among all registered voters nearly unchanged from the last edition of the poll in April. Another poll released by the Pew Research Center was not any better for Biden, finding that Trump leads the incumbent 50% to 47% in a head-to-head matchup among registered voters. Trump's lead has widened marginally from April when Pew reported that 49% favored him and 48 chose Biden. So after Biden finally decided to drop out of the race in July, he named Kamala Harris as the new candidate and he bypassed the entire primary process in doing so.

There was a lot of feelings around that as well at the time. But the New York Times published an article with this headline. Americans may not agree on much, but they agree Biden made the right choice. The president's decision to exit the race received overwhelming support. Only a few other things have drawn as much consensus in polling. The article also cites a New York Times-Syana College poll that found that 87% of registered voters approved of Biden's decision to drop out of the race. with only 9% disapproving. Was, I know that July of last year seems like forever ago, like a long time ago.

So much has happened since then. But it is, it is interesting to kind of get back into that headspace of where the entire country was at. It did feel very, very hopeless after that debate. I remember that feeling and it's just like what's going to happen. And I was of the impression that there's no way this guy is going to drop out of the race. It was way too close to November at the time. that we were even having these discussions.

Jank was very adamant that it was going to happen. He turned out to be right, and that's why he's jank. But now we're getting this interview with Joe Biden after we've been enduring over 100 days of the Trump administration, and it has not been an easy 100 days. And to hear him come out and say he wouldn't have done anything differently, for on, you know, on one hand, I feel like this doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter how he feels about it, really.

And he's obviously still processing his own feelings. feelings about it. At the same time, I feel, I don't want to say betrayed. I feel like that's too strong of a word. But I do feel like that seems like a personal thing that he was going through and he put the entire country in flux because of it and it feels a little irresponsible. It feels inconsiderate really. And maybe I'm just too in my feelings about it, but that's how it comes across to me. What do you think? I think Joe Biden has an ego that works in such way that he is just simply incapable of any level of public humility. This dude's own self-stated mission, we didn't put this on, and this is what Joe Biden claimed,

he's the guy that's saving the country from Trump. He's the guy that's giving us all of this stability, et cetera, et cetera. Never mind the fact that even in 2020, he was already cooked, And the fact of the pandemic made it so that he barely had the campaign. They had that built-in excuse to hide him from everybody because of COVID. It's like, oh, we got to avoid crowds, et cetera, et cetera. And he was basically able to run this basically shell campaign, shell of a campaign. And he won anyway, and good for him, the establishment wanted Joe Biden. They got what he wanted and he deserves the credit for beating Trump.

However, I don't see how he can see the results of one. of one the election and now two what Trump is actually doing in office and say he has no regrets whatsoever about how he handled his departure from the 2024 presidential campaign. That makes absolutely no sense and it just shows you the level of ego mania of this guy and deliriousness of this dude that he thinks what he did was right and just the idea that You know, stealing the opportunity for the Democratic base to have a primary where the actual voters got to decide on a candidate after a rigorous, you know, primary, uh, primary process where the strongest candidate would have emerged and been more better suited to beating Donald Trump and doing stuff like, I don't know, talking to a freaking podcaster for an hour and a half. Right? Like you would think that we would have been able to have a nice enough process that somebody who could stand up to that level of scrutiny, you know, would have emerged victorious. Instead, we get Joe. And also too, and I know you guys covered this on TYT. I forget if it was political or who recovered this. I'm sorry. I forgive the people who reported on this. But Joe Biden telling Kamala Harris before her first debate, quote unquote, no daylight kid, meaning run exactly as I. I would have, even though I was getting trounced in the polls and everybody should have been doing their best to run exactly far away as possible as they could.

I think if Joe Biden gave a damn about the country, gave a damn about his party, gave a damn about winning, he would have approached this interview with some humility and be like, look, we lost. How could I have no regrets about how I handled things? Maybe in the recesses of our mind, there's things I could have did different to balance the scales in favor of my party and ultimately the American people who I care about so much. He can't even bring himself to do that. I think it's quite pathetic and embarrassing. Yeah, you have to wonder why he even agreed to do this interview. He did do it with the BBC, not in, you know, an American network. Not that that really matters because he thinks people don't get BBC in America. Yeah, like we're obviously still watching it here, right?

talking about it over here. But you're right, you know, it does take a certain level of narcissism to even want to be the president, right? You look at this job that is the most difficult job in the world, the most visible job in the world. You're over, not just all of your American constituents, but the things that you do, the decisions that you make impact people around the world, and you look at that and you say, you know what, I'm the best person for that job. That's, you have to be a little crazy, if not a little bit narcissistic to even want that job, to think that you're capable of performing that job and to think that you're good enough to win. But, you know, yeah, I think I agree with you.

You know, like, I'm just, I'm not sympathetic anymore to their feelings and to their lack of insight into the American people and what we want and to their out of touchness with what we want. We were telling them, we were begging Joe Biden to step aside to not run for reelection for so long. And he just said, you know what? No, I'm going to do it. And now he's doing this interview and he's saying, yeah, it was hard for me to

to step away. And I can sympathize with that. But when you're in, again, such a public role and such a crucial role, right? Everything you do is affecting millions, billions of people. You don't get to have that luxury of like, oh, you know, like I'm a little bit in my feelings. My ego is a little hurt right now by all of this. And on top of that, we have so many elderly Congress people. And I'm speaking specifically about Democrats. Obviously, it's on the Republican side too. But the Democrats are the ones that I feel more like are letting me down. Nancy Pelosi will not leave. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rest in peace. She put us in quite a pickle by not stepping down. And I know she thought she was doing the right thing, but she really wasn't helping a lot of people in doing so. And then there was

another elderly congressperson. I can't remember his name right now, but he said that stepping down from from his seat right now and Congress would feel like giving up on his entire life. That's not really my problem, though. You know what I mean? Like, you need to deal with that on your own. Figure it out yourself, figure out your legacy, what it all means. And then, like, don't make it everyone's problems. So millions of people's problem. So any final thoughts before we move on to our next story? Um, you know, these older party establishment type of folks, they're not going to give a power voluntarily. We're going to have to pry it out of their cold, dead. hands as progressives. And there's just no other alternative, man. That's not how power works.

Power doesn't concede. Progressives have to build up a coalition, a funding base that's strong enough to scare the bejesus out of these people so that they could cooperate. House Republicans have altered a piece of Trump's mega bill with a plan to overhaul SNAP food aid benefits, and this would be one of the biggest overhauls to the food aid program in decades. The plan to overhaul SNAP, which of course is a supplemental nutrition assistance program, includes three things, limiting future increases to benefits, implementing new work requirements and pushing the costs to the states because in this government with in Republicans minds small government means almost no government just push it all to the state so like

what is even left for the federal government so these changes put millions of low income Americans at risk of being removed from the program snap currently helps to feed 40 million low income Americans 80 percent are in households with a child under 18 and adult age six 60 or over or an individual who is disabled. So Republicans are looking for ways to cut back on snap. Here is this from Politico. Agriculture Republicans will increase the age of recipients who need to complete work requirements to receive food aid, reaching so-called able-bodied adults with

children age seven and older for the first time. That move alone is expected to save at least $40 billion, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office. So I want to switch back and talk a little bit more about pushing all of these costs to the states. In March, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced a proposal, Snap Reform and Upward Mobility Act. That's his, and this is what it says. So Lee wants to overhaul the nation's largest federal food assistance program by requiring states to pay a bigger share, starting with 5% more a year until states take on 50% of the costs. That would shift billions of dollars in food stamp costs to states and likely lead to slashed benefits.

And here's the best part, Lee's own state would be hit particularly hard in that state is Utah. In Utah, $383 million in total SNAP benefits were issued in 2024, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In 2026, if the state were to be required to pay 5% of the cost, it would cost the state. about $19 million. At 10% Utah's share would be roughly $38 million, $25% would be $95 million, and at 50% Utah would need to pay an estimated $190 million. Was, this is, I mean, it's very sad because these people obviously don't care about the people who are going to be most directly affected by this.

But as far as pushing these costs from the federal government to the state governments, I don't really understand why a lot of these senators who are in charge of these, specifically in red states where you do have a lot of people who are on these programs, I don't know how they think that this is going to benefit their state. I think like they must just be banking on the fact that a lot of people aren't going to link these changes directly to them because like, of course they want to get reelected come re-election time, don't they? But overall too, I think whenever you start. taking things from the federal government and giving them to the states, Republicans think that there's this idea, oh, you know, like there's better representation there. There's more cohesiveness in the states, you know, there's more cultural assimilation within the states, right? So people, if you're voting on the state basis, you know, that feels more like home. Whereas if something comes from the federal government, that guarantees it anywhere you are in the country, right? I should be able to move from state to state with, you know,

You know, my general needs still being met the way that they're supposed to be guaranteed by the country, not just by the state that I'm living in. At this point, it may as well be like the European Union. I mean, it's obvious the whole point of this, this idea that they're going to shift the cost, meaning we're just going to end up sending half the money we send now. It's just a 50% cut in the benefit. That's it. That's all they're doing. They know that politically, these are some of the most disenfranchised people in the country. So it's not like they're organized to have a voice against this type of thing. And also, to be quite frank, you know, the Republican Party specifically for going on like 50 years now, has done everything that it could to demonize what they like to call the welfare state or quote unquote entitlements.

And, you know, basically they guilt people into thinking. that you should be ashamed that because you have a low paying job that you receive assistance from the government. It's quite insane, honestly, just the policy. But like, it's, I mean, it's crazy to me if you just take it in totality with this ridiculous budget and tax cut they're trying to pass where it's like, let's increase the military spending to over a trillion dollars, the military spending, over a trillion dollars. So let's, you know, fatten the bank, the bank books of Raytheon and all these other defense contractors. Let's take massive cuts to Medicaid. Again, health insurance for people of low income people. Let's also make sure we

give a tax cut to the Americans who are already doing the best. This is just the truth. They don't need tax cuts. They're already doing great. Their freaking stock portfolios are through the roof. They own multiple homes. Their families go on five vacations a year. They're already doing awesome. Their kids go to the best schools. So let's make sure they get even more. And the message being sent is if you're on SNAP, somehow you're a drain and you're a leech on the government and the greatness we're trying to achieve, it's the most hairbrained, deranged messaging to send to a voting group. But again, you know, it would take an opposition who aren't just an opposition just to be in opposition, but who could articulate an alternative

vision and program, an affirmative vision and program that isn't just Republicans bad, you know, to expose the ridiculousness of this entire, you know, policy. the agenda. Yeah. I mean, the tax cuts that you refer to you, I mean, they have to get paid for in one way or another, whether this is a direct way that they're doing that. I mean, the things that they're proposing are very, very unsettling, you know, like they're going to sell off public land to pay for, like you can't just come by trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts without cutting something else elsewhere. The books still have to be balanced. And I think a lot of people who still support these tax cuts that are coming for the rich, I don't know if they just don't

understand that or they don't care because it's not going to affect them or whatever, but it's going to change the landscape of this country in a lot of very real way, physically the landscape of the country. Also for Republicans, I feel like maybe all of these culture wars sort of protect their voting base, right? You can't vote in this country. We have two parties, right, in the country. So if you vote for, you know, I'm against abortion, then you're also voting and saying, you know what, I'm okay with you cutting SNAP benefits. So they are insulated in quite a bit in quite a few ways with just our two-party system and just the nature of it. So it is very sad.

We'll see how this all plays out in a little bit. So I mean, if this ever comes to pass. So with that, oh, before we go in the last story, I did reference a congressperson. I couldn't remember who it was. It was James Clyburn who said that, you know, him being asked to step away from his seat would be like him choosing death for himself, which is very dramatic, I thought. So on that note, we'll be right back. I don't know about you, but I'm going to go to bed.

I can hear your passion. Welcome back to the young Turks. You have Yaz and was in this first hour. A good, good first couple of stories to get started with, but now we have more for you. So in Rome today, it is the first day of the papal conclave when 133 cardinals from around the world will sequester themselves inside the Sistine Chapel until they choose the next pope. Typically, no one knows what goes on inside the chapel during this process and the process itself is supposed to be divinely guided, right? They're supposed to choose the next pope, and then they send out puffs of smoke to let you know when he's been chosen. However, despite the fact that this is such a secret conclave, right? Nobody knows what's going on in there.

Maga is still trying to infiltrate the process and trying to sway the Cardinals' decisions to pick the Pope that they want to pick. And they're using money and wine to do so. So the days leading up to the conclave are typically full of a lot of whining and dining, which feels a lot like political. lobbying where various wealthy donors and interest groups hope to convince the Cardinals to vote for their preferred Pope candidate. This year, the conclave happened to coincide with something called America Week. America Week happens once a year, and it's when wealthy Americans make a so-called pilgrimage to Rome, and they pledge their funds to the Vatican, of course, in exchange for absolutely nothing, right? Well, the organization behind America Week is the Papal Foundation. And you can

join the foundation for a small donation of just $1 million. The president of the foundation is Ward Fitzgerald the third. And he touts the foundations impressive history of donations to the Catholic Church. They gave $250 million in grants scholarships and humanitarian aid since 1998. Doesn't sound bad. at a dinner last week at the St. Regis in Rome, the foundation announced its very ambitious fundraising goals for the coming years, and members disclose who they would like to see as Pope. So I'm sure that neither of those two things are related. One guest did tell reporters, this room could raise a billion to help the church so long as we have the right Pope. There's more to this story, but wise, I don't say any quid pro quo, do you? I mean, look, the Catholic Church is one of the few very powerful remaining institutions, right? About a billion members of the Catholic Church, I believe. Last I checked, obviously super well-funded and well-resourced. It's understandable that people would want to lobby them to curry favor with them because they do have some level of influence. I'm just a little bit skeptical as far as the reach because I'm born and raised Catholic,

baptism, communion, freaking confirmation. The whole thing, my confirmation name was Peter for those Catholics out there wondering. I've never in my life heard a Catholic person say, I can't or won't or will do something because the Pope suggested I do it. Like never, it's never happened. I don't know Catholics who care about the Pope. So I don't get this like hang ringing about who the Pope is and what he does. Because even Catholics don't even care.

Yeah, that is interesting because, you know, I'm not Catholic, but I always wonder about something like that. But the truth is, even though this is a religious appointment or, you know, religious position, it's a very political role. And we'll get into that a little bit. So the politicking and the wealthy just buying power from this very ancient institution is even more entrenched in politics than it appears on the surface. So also in Rome last week was the Napa Institute with founder Tim Bush. So this institute is comprised of wealthy Catholics from the Napa, California area emphasis on wealthy Catholics, but more on that in a little bit. So about 20% of the Napa Institute's members are also affiliated with Opus Day and that is a conservative Catholic sect that is also affiliated with Project 2025. And there it is. And this makes sense because many conservatives have felt that Pope Francis was far too liberal for their liking and they want to push the Catholic Church in a much more conservative direction. And according to Tim Bush, the wealthy are just the people to do this. that. Here's what he actually said. It's the lay apostolets that are going to make a difference

because they have better funding, they have smarter money, they can be made more mobile. So Bush was also a supporter of the Red Hat Report, which was an effort led by former FBI and CIA agents. And they were going to dig up dirt on potential people candidates that they perceived to be too progressive for their liking. So this overarching effort to install a more. more conservative Pope has been going on for years. And that makes a lot of sense when you consider that, you know, not just with Project 2025, but the Republican agenda to push this entire country in a more, not just conservative direction, but also more religious direction.

They've been playing this game since at least the 80s in a, in a very organized and focused way. Also, just a quick fun fact that one of the dinners, Bush, who is of the Napa Institute, He served his own line of Trinidad seller's wine. And it was a part of his faith collection of wines with bottles retailing from $50 to $125. And really, honestly, no shade to Napa Valley. No shade to their wine. I love going to Napa. But like you're in Rome, you know, like they have wine.

They have wine. I don't know if you're going to win them over with the line. Okay. So real quick, one last thing. Remember that AI generated image of Trump as the Pope that he shared on social media, well, he was asked about it recently at a press conference about the backlash. And he said, well, first of all, there was no backlash. Second of all, he said that Catholics loved it. And also, by the way, even though he shared it, he had nothing to do with any of it. So watch this. So Catholics were not so happy about the image of you looking like the Pope.

Oh, I see, you mean they can't take a joke. You don't mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news, media. Not the Catholics loved it. I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the Pope, and they put it out on the internet. That's not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it was AI, but I know nothing about it. I just saw it last evening. Actually, my wife thought it was cute. She said, isn't that nice? It's wives that thought it was cute. You know, I kind of don't believe that she said that, which is sad for him, I guess. But seriously, this is a very interesting story to me, because you know, as I said, I'm not Catholic, but I found the Catholic Church very interesting for

a long time, you know, even in history classes whenever you learn about it. It is a political institution. The papacy, the Vatican, it functions as a political entity. Yes, it's religious, but it's also very political. And, you know, the choosing of the new Pope is a very political thing. Did you see that movie Conclave was? Of course. I thought. it was excellent. One of my favorite movies last year. Yeah, I thought it was great. I didn't know what to expect when I watched it, but I told you, I was very interested in what goes on there. And, you know, as I said in the story, the conclave is so secretive. It was interesting to see what might be going on on the inside. But what are your thoughts as a Catholic especially?

Seeing all this happening, we kind of know that these things go on, but seeing it happen so blatantly, there's a thing called America Week, which feels very icky. There's a thing, They're not even trying to hide any of this stuff anymore. I think it is important. Like for instance, Papa Francis who did, who was, again, we got to keep this in context. For the Catholic Church, yes, this was, this guy was considered to be a very liberal or progressive guy when he's like, all right, we'll, we'll pray over gay marriages or, you know, he'll come out and, and, uh, stamp his approval or suggestion that countries take in refugees from war-torn areas in the Middle East, etc. He comes to a man, I think he came to San Francisco. I believe it was San Francisco. Could have been L.A. And he goes

and, like, has lunch at the homeless shelter, right? At the soup kitchen or whatever. Like, these are all political statements where, you know, the pope of, if the leader of this vast religious institution is signaling that, like, this is what he thinks is the right thing to do. It puts pressure on other religious institutions. And of course, politicians whose constituents happen to be Catholics oftentimes, right? From, you know, the little bit that I've been able to read about this, apparently Pope Francis kind of like all over the institution of the Vatican, he seated it with a bunch of his own homies, a bunch of progressive kind of homies. It seems like the cards are pretty much stacked against the old fogy kind of conservative wing of the Catholic Church.

And so that's why you see so much saber rattling from that side of the church. They know that the odds are stacked against them in terms of getting a less quote unquote progressive pope in there. But yeah, I do think on balance, you know, for people like us who want to see a little bit more justice and equality in our world, if the freaking Pope of the Catholic Church is somebody who is broadly in favor of a world that moves in that direction and doesn't demonize, you know, Muslims or Jews or, you know, people from downtrotted places of the world and suggest that we live in a more harmonious fashion as global citizens. I think that's an excellent thing that could happen. Yeah. Yeah. So we'll have to keep an eye on it. We'll see how long it takes before we have a new Pope. And to your point, yeah, about 80% of the electors right now were Pope Francis appointees. So it seems as though they would like for him to, you know, would like to further his legacy.

All right, so we got to move on to our next story. And this one is a rough one, so let's roll it. All right, in a video posted to social media on Monday, IDF soldiers can be heard as they watch as they level a building in Gaza as part of a gender reveal celebration. That's like, you can't make the stuff up. Besides the video and the apparent gender of the baby, not much is known about this incident. including if there were any injuries or casualties. But still, you know, it goes to show how the IDF.

They say that they're the most moral army in the world, but this is the level of inhumanity that we're seeing with this war. So according to Heidi Matthews, a law professor at York University in Toronto, we have reached the stage of genocidal fervor where new Israeli life is literally celebrated through the destruction of Palestinian life. The Council of American Islamic Relations, which is the U.S. largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, also condemned the event, saying in a statement, while the Israeli government slaughters and starves Palestinian babies in Gaza, with the full support of our own government, its occupation forces are now blowing up buildings to stage gender reveal events in celebration of the birth of their own children. The inhumanity of such acts clearly demonstrate.

once again, the brutal nature of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza and on the Palestinian people, the Israeli government must be stopped. So far, the Gaza Health Ministry has reported that the death toll in Gaza has gone past 52,000, and that number is probably much higher than what we know, and that includes at least 17,400 children, and since it broke the ceasefire agreement in March, more than 800 children have been killed. So this is from, okay, so five out of every 100 children in the enclave have been orphaned. And Israel's bombardment has left Gaza with the highest number of child amputees in the world and with dwindling capacity to care for them as repeated bombings and the blockade have led to a near total collapse of the health care system. But again, this is

the most moral army in the world, or that's what they keep telling us. But I feel like if you, they actually were, they wouldn't have to keep telling us. Also, what does that even mean a moral army? So, but remember when BB said this, but way back at the beginning of the war, he said the army is the most moral army in the world. Any civilian death is a tragedy and we shouldn't have any because what we're doing, because we're doing everything we can to get the civilians out of harm's way. That's what we're trying to do, minimize civilian casualties.

Well, they haven't been doing a great job of it. And, you know, but just the fact that they're so liberal, with these bombings, that they're using it as a gender reveal. Just the thought, how does one come to that idea? Who says, you know what? Let's do a gender reveal. First of all, the worst, right? Already the worst. Second of all, who, how does that even enter your thought? Let's do it by bombing Palestine. Let's do it by bombing the places where people live. Let's do it by potentially killing other people while celebrating this pregnancy that we're having here. And you know, like, congratulations on the pregnancy. I get, but like this is so how can you feel happy for somebody

when this is how they choose to bring that life into the world? Also, you mean, you talk about how many of these children have not only been killed, but they've been orphaned or they've been disabled and dismembered. This is a generation that is being destroyed, an entire generation of children who are going to grow up with all these disabilities, who are going to grow up with all of this instability, we're going to grow up without families, who may not even get to grow up. We'll see how things play out. But this is really, really upsetting. Was, what do you think?

So after the Hamas attacks on October 7th, I think, you know, with some credibility, the Israeli regime could be like, you know what, we're going in there, we're going to level the place, we're going to send ground troops, We're going to drive Hamas out of Palestine, victory is going to be hours, blah, blah, blah. They could say they could say that. After a year and change of nonstop, indiscriminate bombing, a complete siege, leveling the place, insane amounts of civilian casualties, the mission hasn't been accomplished. Hamas isn't going anywhere. or you bomb that it's not going to change that fact.

And so now, you know, after a ceasefire is negotiating, it's like, all right, listen, since we can't, we haven't been able to drive you out ourselves. All right, cool. Since you cannot do that via military tactics, the logical thing is to come to a peace agreement because you clearly don't have the capacity to do it any other way or else you would have

because that was your stated goal. You have not been able to do that. Now when you're bombing people, we know that there's no mission. There's no point to it. The point is the cruelty and the destruction in and of itself, which is so depraved, which is so dehumanizing. It's just manifest and obvious, okay? Like you can't point to like an accomplishment here.

And so that's why you get to the level of depravity where. It's like obviously we're not achieving any level of military or political aim. We're just trying to inflict pain on as many Palestinians as we can. And now we get to have fun with it or what we call fun by doing gender reveals with it. I mean, it's about as depraved and just awful as anything in our lifetimes, to be quite honest with you. I don't even know where a precedent comes. And, you know, a lot of times when you hear folks on the pro-Israel side of things talking about Hamas and their terrorists and they're depraised. Like, what is that besides an act of

terrorism? Like, what does the word terrorism even mean these days when you can basically indiscriminately kill 50,000, you know, political, I mean, excuse me, civilian people over the course of your war and never have to explain why that was worth what you did. Never have to show any level of, all right, disadvanced some claim or some cause. Like, I honestly really do want to ask these people, like when al-Qaeda and Osama was like, listen, the CIA who inflicted all kinds of pain and terror in our part of the world, were housed in the Twin Towers. We took down the Twin Towers on September 11th.

is justified. You know, the CIA is a military entity. We're at war with them. 9-11 is justified. Nobody would agree with that logic, except for only when it applies to the Israelis. It is, you know, it is interesting because, you know, like this government and this military, and we have to take responsibility here because the United States is still funding the Israeli army and we're still giving them weaponry. And we're still saying, everything you're doing is fine, right? At most, Joe Biden said, I asked him not to do this, right? Obviously, that's not enough, right?

If people are dying, but like, if you're going to tell someone who's dying from all this, say, oh, well, at least I told them this wasn't a good idea. That doesn't do any good, right? And we do have to accept responsibility that our government is funding all this stuff and it's behind all of it, but also there's a culture behind it too, right? And we did see it with 9-11. That's why October 7th drew so many comparisons. almost immediately to 9-11.

And I was actually personally surprised to see that because, you know, a lot of Americans still don't talk about why we were attacked on September 11th the way that we were. They don't talk about how on that day in 2001, so many Americans genuinely were heartbroken, of course, but we're also just confused as to why any of this happened. Nobody knew why any of this happened because we had no idea what our government was doing and what our military was doing in the Middle East at the time, so much so that, you know, all the things that we were doing over there that would upset them so much that they would

want to attack us the way that they did. But the president just said, you know what? They hate us for our freedom. They're jealous of us basically is what he told us and we bought it because we didn't know any better. But now 20 years later, we're seeing kind of the same playbook rolled out and people are falling for it again. And to your earlier point was, you know, maybe right after October seven, they could have used that excuse that, you know what, we have to defend ourselves, we have to retaliate, we have to do something, blah, blah, blah. And, you know, however you feel about that argument is how you feel about it. But that was only positive, like there's no way they can stand by something like that now, right? After we've seen everything, but now we're seeing

that they really are just frivolously bombing places and historical places and entire families and schools and hospitals, it's getting really, really hard for them to hide behind that facade of, you know what, this is just self-defense. We have to get these people out. No, you're doing gender reveals with like money and bombs and weaponry that you got from the American people. So it's, I hated covering this story. I'll say that. So this was a hard one. Anyway, we got to take our next break. We'll be right back. I can hear your passion. Welcome back to the Young Turks. You've got Yaz and Woz tonight. And we have one more story for you before we hand it over to the next hour. Who's on the next hour? I think you have John and Schuster. Is that right? That's right. So that'll be fun. All right. So next story, let's roll the tape.

Do you call him a child? Did you call the child the n-word? It is my own business. You call him a-off? Okay, why don't you have the boss to say it right now again? Okay. All right. That's what you say. We don't actually know for sure that the boy is five years old. That's coming from the man filming who is apparently not related to the child. In the video, we appear to get a glimpse of the kid. And from the glimpse anyway, he definitely looks older than five.

Well, earlier this week, we talked about a Minnesota mom who decided to hurl racial slurs at a five-year-old after he apparently got too close to her child's diaper bag. And to no one's surprise, Matt Walsh decided to come to this mom's defense while making the strangest excuses and dissecting different aspects of the video. But let's watch the full video. It was filmed by Shamarke Omar, who shares a Somali background with the boy again after he decided to intervene. Do you call him a child? Did you call the child the n-word? It is my own business.

You call him? Okay, why don't you have the boss to say it right now again? Okay. All right, that's what you say. Nobody digging through people. Nobody dig into your shit. A little kid just diggy dog That little kid, you call him a

The little child? What if he acts like? One is going to... Are you about to hear him? You chase him here? He took my son's stuff. So that gives you the right to call the child 5 year old and n-word?

If that's what he's going to act like... That's what you're going to call him. That's what he's going to act like. You know, that's a hate speech. And you can be a... I don't give a shit. Okay, we'll see about that what the internet has to say about you. So that story seems pretty cut and dry. It's very obvious what was going on there.

It's also very obvious which parts of the video have upset people. But Matt Walsh, you need to clear up some things that were apparently inconsistent in the video. Take a look at this. Now, before we continue with the story, which takes several more twists and turns, we should note a few things. First of all, we don't actually know for sure that the boy is five years old. That's coming from the man filming who is apparently not related to the child. In the video, we appear to get a glimpse of the kid, and from the glimpse anyway, he definitely looks older than five. Omar has additionally claimed that the boy is autistic, which we also have

no proof of, and we have no footage of the actual encounter between the kid and this woman. Did she scream the N-word in his face? Did she moderate under her breath? Did she say it about the child after he'd already run away? We don't know. And as far as I've seen, we haven't heard anything from the boy's parents. We don't know where they were in all of this if they were even there, which is very strange. So in the original video, as well as in an interview with NBC News, here's what Omar had to say. Omar said the child had autism spectrum disorder. He said that he knows the boy's parents, who he said are also from Somalia, and that they were also supervising their three other children at the park.

The parents, he said, have expressed support for prosecuting the woman, if possible. The Rochester NAACP says the child's family had asked for privacy, and they will make an official statement later today. And there's another point that we want to make about this, because Walsh says that from the little bit that we see of the boy, he looks older than five. And the kid was on screen for two seconds. So I don't know. So yeah, like clearly over five years old, whatever, but regardless, it's still a child and that's obviously not the point. That's obviously not the thing that has people upset about the story. It's ridiculous. So Walsh continued on his defense for over 24 minutes on his show on Monday and praise the mom for her insanely popular give son go and what she's doing for, of course, it's always about free speech.

that some people on my side feel, to put it scientifically, icky about this whole thing. I understand why they feel icky. I understand why they don't want to condone saying racial slurs to children. I don't want to condone it either, and I don't. And nobody really does. But I think they're missing the point. You know, I don't think they understand what's actually happening here or why. It is, in the end, a net positive that this is,

positive that this woman has raised half a million dollars. I'm glad she has. I hope she raises a million. I will not be joining with some of my conservative friends in wagging my finger at her donors. And I'll explain why. First of all, she does have a legitimate need for the money. The mob is truly trying to get her killed. I don't believe that a woman should have her life threatened for saying a word, even a bad one. And you could say freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences for your speech all you want. But if losing your livelihood and having your house burn down is a consequence of your speech, then you do not have free speech. All right. Well, the campaign has raised more than what he said. It's currently raised $739,124. And in the

description, this is what it says. It says, my name is Shiloh, and I have been put into a very dire situation. I recently had a kid steal from my 18-month-old son's diaper bag at a park. I called the kid out for what he was. Another man who we recently found out has had a history with law enforcement proceeded to record me and follow me to my car. He then posted these videos online, which has caused my family and myself great turmoil. My social security number has been leaked. My address and phone number have been given out freely. My family members are being attacked. My eldest child may not be going back to school. Even where I exercise has been exposed. I am asking for your help to assist in protecting my family. I fear that we must relocate.

I have two small children who do not deserve this. We have been threatened to the extreme by people online. She ended by saying that she cannot and will not live in fear. The give son go has raised over half of what the NWACP Rochester's branch has raised for the child and his family. And all of this is apparently one big win for Matt Walsh in his fight against cancel culture. You know, this is the part that I really need everyone to stop and think about. This is the most devastating attack on cancel culture that we have seen, possibly ever. Shiloh Hendricks has, without really trying, effectively ended cancel culture. As Mark Dice said in his video about the incident, Shiloh is the final boss of cancel culture,

or maybe rather the final boss that cancel culture has to fight. And I think that's right. Yeah, this isn't about cancel culture. It's about racism. Like, just that's all it is. They do all of this talking just to avoid saying the one thing that it is. And it's so obvious. And he hates cancel culture so much.

Like I have problems with cancel culture and I'm, you know, very, very much on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Matt Walsh. But he hates cancel culture so much that he is willing to overlook and even excuse racist behavior when he sees it. It doesn't make any sense. Also, I thought it was interesting whenever he just casually spoke about the mob as if that's a thing, that's a term that his audience is used to hearing about. It's such a nebulous, scary sounding thing. It's out there, you know, like he doesn't have to pinpoint or point to any mob, because there is no mob, but the mob is the ones, you know, that that's the big scary thing that is coming to get all of his listeners. Yeah, I think my feelings on this are a bit nuanced. Like, obviously this lady did something despicable. Like the idea that, oh, was the kid really five as if when you're seven, you graduate into eligibility to be called an N-word?

Like, it's kind of ridiculous at the same time. I'm deeply opposed to the idea that we would follow this chick to her gym, you know, or like, docks this lady. Like, I don't think that's some kind of answer or restitution for the kid who was verbally abused at that park. I just don't believe in that sort of, quote unquote, justice to somebody who for all intents and purposes is just an anonymous citizen. who has no power wields no influence in any way that is meaningful. Now, if this is a powerful public figure, like, if this is somebody who actually wields power over, you know, masses of people, I'd be like, all right, cool, like, this is fair game. You should have to pay for something this despicable.

A random person at a park who blurts out racial slurs while I find them to be contemptible, I don't think they should be attacked and killed for the rest of their lives. I don't even know that they should lose their jobs, to be quite honest, because it's so damn hard to pay your own rent. Like, I don't know, just saying something at a park, even in anger or out of hate, should have somebody losing their livelihood. I think we take this thing a little bit too overboard. Matt Walsh is a clown. I mean, he's just doing something for obviously for clicks. He's not forwarding some kind of, you know, moral project for free speech.

He's a seizing on an opportunity to seem like he's edgy and anti-woke. He's corny. At the same time, I don't know that, you know, like directing the hate and the anger of the mob online towards this crazy white lady, does anybody any real good? I know it feels cathartic in the moment. Like, we're getting her, but nobody's life is actually made better. The cause of, you know, equality and diversity is not actually furthered by attacking this lady online and leaking her address. Yeah, yeah. And I think that is a good distinction that you made, that this isn't any woman of consequence.

I think, you know, the story itself was one thing. But then, like, all of the conversation that came out around it really became its own entity onto itself, you know, all of the people who were sending her. her money. People who were not being so thoughtful, I guess, in their reasoning behind why they were sending her money. They were sending it to her because she was racist and they liked that about her. So then that's another aspect of the story. But yeah, I know we have to wrap up this first hour. So I will leave it there. But thank you very much, Was for being here with me tonight. And we're going to hand it over to John and Schuster. See ya. Thank you.