The Young Turks - Progressives Cave

Episode Date: November 1, 2021

Justices will hear arguments in two challenges to Texas’s new abortion law. Elon Musk has offered to sell some of his Tesla stock "right now" if the UN can prove that $6 billion will solve world hunger. A billionaire, who hates the wealth tax, said 'there's no sympathy for billionaires' and the ultra-wealthy are being attacked 'for no reason.' Chris Wallace repeatedly pressed Senator Rick Scott over his supposed concerns about the national debt and deficit by asking the Florida lawmaker if he would support repealing the 2017 Trump tax cuts to help balance the budget. Texas police officers allegedly “laughed” and “joked'' as desperate Joe Biden campaign aides pleaded for protection from a “Trump Train” of cars and trucks swarming and even colliding with the campaign caravan on a freeway last year. Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. You know, I'm going to be able to be. All right, well, I'm the young Turks, Jake, you ran an experience on a very, very sad day. As you're about to see, we have lost. I love telling you guys good news.

Can't get enough of it. We love the days when we have good news. And we're honest about when we have good news and bad news. Some people are in the bad news business. Some people are in the good news business. We're in the news business. And today is a very bad news day. Progressives have lost.

Anna's going to explain. All right. Well, there was an unexpected press conference today. Conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin held an unexpected press conference today to discuss where he stands on the budget reconciliation bill. Now, Jank, there was another update to the story later on in the day. And then progressive leader, Representative Jayapal came out on television to respond to the press conference. Mansion laid down red lines and they are terrible red lines.

Anna's going to explain that in a second. How did Jayapal respond? Well, that's going to give you your answer as to what is going to happen in these bills. Quick tease, not well. We're gonna see how disastrous that response was in a little bit. But first you gotta find out what threats Mansion used so that you know what progressives responded to. So we have several short clips from Mansion's press conference.

I wanna start off with the first one where he keeps reiterating that he's been negotiating on good faith. I've worked in good faith for months with all of my colleagues to find a middle ground on a fiscally, and I repeat that, a fiscally responsible piece of legislation that fixes the flaws of the 2017 Trump tax bill that I thought was weighted far, far, too far for the high-end earners, and the needs of American families and children. However, as more of the real details outline the basic framework are released, what I see are shell games, budget gimmicks that make the real cost of the so-called one-pointed. $1.75 trillion dollar bill estimated to be almost twice that amount if the full time is run out. If you extended it permanently, and that we haven't even spoken about. So he's referring to the budget reconciliation bill, the bill that he received quite a few

concessions on. A lot of the important provisions in that bill were stripped out. The bill was pared down in order to appeal to Joe Manchin. And he's making it abundantly clear that he's still not committed to voting in favor of that budget reconciliation bill. Now, he claims that he's negotiating on good faith. Obviously, we do not agree with that. In fact, in that clip, he said that he wanted to reverse the damage that was being done by the Trump-era tax cuts. That is not the case. In fact, he had previously said, this is from the Associated Press on September 13th of 2021. I cannot support $3.5 trillion, Manchin said, citing, in particular, his opposition to raising the corporate tax rate above 25%.

A figure he says will keep the U.S. globally competitive. Now, the corporate tax rate before Trump implemented his tax cuts was 35%. Trump lowered it to 21%. And Manchin was like, I'm not going to raise the corporate tax rate anywhere above 25%. I'm giving you that context because he's a liar and he's not negotiating on good faith, Jank. Yeah, so look guys, this is a shell game that they use because they know there's no real reporters in the country. So one of them says, oh my God, the Trump tax cuts, we don't want those. We want the rates to go back up.

But I want that rate to go up, not this one. Then the second senator comes in and goes, oh, I'm against the Trump tax cuts too. But what an unlucky break. I'm the reverse. I don't want that one to go up. I want the other one to go up. And then two more senators come in until they've all vetoed any tax increase at all, at all. So Manchin originally said the corporate tax rate used to be at 35%.

They lowered it to 21, Biden said 28, Manchin seemed like he was gonna go to 28. Now he's like, nope, only 25, but it doesn't matter because cinema says I won't even do 25, I'll be at 21. And then cinema says, how about we do a billionaire's tax? I'm not sure, actually I'm not positive cinema said that, but certainly Wyden proposed that and it seemed like it was getting momentum. And then Manchin goes, no, no billionaires tax. So they say no on every single tax on the rich, no on every single tax on corporations. So what you saw there from Joe Manchin is an unmitigated lie. And also when Democratic leadership tells you they were against the Trump tax cuts, they're

lying. They're in charge now, 100% in charge. If they were against the Trump tax cuts, they would reverse them. It's not complicated, they're not going to reverse a dollar of it because they're actually in favor of it because they're also rich. Now, Manchin is adamant in getting a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the House that's already passed in the Senate. That is where his priorities are.

He wants to pass that corporate handout bill, and he's actually livid about the fact that progressives, in his words, have held that bill hostage. He says it's not going to work. Let's watch. For the sake of our country, again, and I am urging all of my colleagues in the House to vote and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, it's bipartisan. 69 votes. We worked on that for many, many months. As I've said before, holding that bill hostage is not going to work to get my support of what you want.

You're not going to get my support for what you want. He's referring to the reconciliation bill, and he's demanding a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. In fact, Mansion is incredibly salty about the fact that progressives, at least for a brief period of time, decided to flex a little bit of their power. I want to go to the next video on that. The President of the United States has addressed the House Democratic Caucus twice recently to urge action on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which sometimes will refer to as the BIF bill. Last week, the Speaker urged, Speaker Pelosi urged the importance of voting and passing the BIF bill before the president took the world stage overseas and still no action. In my view, this is not how the United States Congress should operate or, in my view, has operated. in the past. The political games have to stop.

Twice now, the House has balked at the opportunity to send the BIF legislation to the President. As you've heard, there are some House Democrats who say they can't support this infrastructure package until they get my commitment on the reconciliation legislation. It is time to vote on the BIF bill, up or down, and then go home and explain to your constituents the decision you made. And I've always said, if I can't go home and explain that, can't vote for it. And if I can, I will. I've worked in good faith for three months. For the past three months with President Biden, Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and my colleagues on the reconciliation bill. And I will continue to do so. For the sake of the country, I urge the House to

vote and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Holding this bill hostage is not going to work in getting my support for reconciliation bill. So again, he is not committed to voting. in favor of the reconciliation bill. He's demanding a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill immediately. And the question that remains is, will progressives give in to his demands? We're gonna get to that in just the second, but first, Cenk. Yeah, so understand the hypocrisy of everything that he's saying. Remember again, there's two bills, a bipartisan infrastructure bill, that's the one,

that's a corporate backed one, it's got all sorts of goodies for corporations. That's why both corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans voted for it in the Senate. They love it because it gives your money to corporations. They love that. And they're saying, we only want that one passed. And he says, how dare you hold that bill hostage? But wait a minute, you're holding the other one hostage, build back better. That's the one that actually has money for actual Americans.

Well, I get to hold it hostage and you don't get to hold it hostage. And then he calls it political games. Well, how about the political games you're playing? You're holding the other bill hostage. And you're saying in this press conference, not only am I, not going to vote for it now, I'm not giving you any promises that I'm ever going to vote for it. And I'm not giving you any promises about what's going to be in the bill. That's an open-handed slap. And that says to progressives, you're going to get nothing and you're going to like it,

sign a goddamn bill, and do as we tell you, like, every single time. The corporate donors will win. We will not raise $1 taxes on corporations, not one on the rich, and you will not get paid family leave. You will not get lower drug prices. You will not get free community college. You'll not get climate change. You'll get nothing and like it. Now, if I was a progressive leader or Nina Turner was a progressive leader, we'd come out and we'd have a similar message for Joe Manchin. Is that what happened, Anna? Well, why don't we hear from Pramila Jayapal, who is the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I'm very happy to say that we are now awaiting negotiations among senators on prescription drug pricing and child care and some details

on immigration. But the Progressive Caucus, assuming good resolution of those issues from the Senate side, that we will be excited to vote for both bills. We now feel like we have what we need. We are taking the president's word at the fact that he believes he can get 50 votes in the Senate. And I hope that the two senators that we've been waiting on these months who have come to the table in good faith and negotiated, that they understand that this is a leap of faith. But assuming we get these final negotiations done, we're ready to pass both bills. And I think the caucus feels very good about the fact that we've been able to do what we said from the beginning, which has passed both bills at the same time, get the entirety of the president's agenda

to his desk for signature and ultimately deliver transformative change for people across this country. So understand that what she just said there was we're going to vote on both bills. The House is likely to pass both bills. And that's before we have a reconciliation bill passed and ready to go in the Senate. So she said that she's taking the president's word that he will have the 50 votes necessary in the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill. The pared down stripped reconciliation bill that does not include many of the provisions that Biden claimed was part of his agenda. But there's still no, there is no guarantee that there will be a reconciliation bill.

If the House passes the bipartisan bill, which is what all the corporate goons and all the Republicans, and by the way, Mansion wants, again, there's no guarantee that they're gonna get a reconciliation bill and progressives will have given up all. All of their leverage. She said that assuming that they're going to do this and we're going to take the president's word. No, don't take the president's word. Assuming that Mansion and Cinema are going to do the right thing.

And look, the pared down version already sucks and Manchin and cinema are still not happy with it. The original negotiations were supposed to be between one point, these are indisputed facts. You can look them up anywhere you want. They were supposed to be between $1.5 trillion, which is what Mansion and the Cinema were saying, and $3.5 trillion, which is what progressives were saying. Now we're at 1.75, and Mansion and Cinema go, no, that's not enough of a surrender. What, we went up, 0.25, you guys lost on everything.

It's not enough, it's not enough. And by the way, even if you come down to 1.5, we still might not pass it. Are you insane that you're gonna trust Mansion and cinema? You're gonna, what, take the president's word, what, Biden's gonna be tough on Manchin and cinema? Come on, that's preposterous, so look, I'll be very clear about this. and everybody in Washington catch all the feelings they like. And he's, oh, this is so rude to poor Jayapal, et cetera.

I'm not prejudging, I'm telling you my position and her position, let's see who's right, okay? So I'm saying if Jayapal is right and they come back with 1.75 trillion, which already sucks, but I'll give it to her, okay? It doesn't even have paid family leave, it's a disaster of a bill. But even that version, okay, the 1.75, it passes. I'll say, oh, you know what, my bad. It turns out you could take Biden at his word and he wasn't representing his donors, as we told you all along.

And Mansion and Cinema were reasonable and they actually passed some tax increases, etc. We'll say we were wrong and we'll say Jayapal should remain leader of the House progressives. If she is wrong and it turns out they shouldn't have taken Mansion and Sinema's word, they shouldn't have taken Biden and Pelosi's word. Well then there has to be consequences and accountability. So we're not like the toxic left. Accountability just simply means, means you obviously shouldn't be leader because you were wrong. And you got us nothing.

So who's here? Or you got us a terrible bill. Is there going to be accountability? No, my guess is progressives are going to go, but Cenk, that's not fair. You heard her feelings and we care a lot about her feelings. I care about the feelings of the voters. Did you guys forget about the voters? We're not asking for anything other than did you pass a goddamn bill or didn't you?

And so if you didn't, you can tell me about trust of corporate Democrats is not remotely interesting. This is, there is no way to characterize this as anything but a complete surrender. The original negotiating position was we will not pass this bill until you pass the reconciliation bill. Now they're saying, sorry, we apologize, we give you everything, forget our earlier negotiating position, we will pass your bill first, and then hope for the best on the second bill. And by the way, that also destroys your leverage.

You will have no leverage at all. Now that you gave them what they wanted, now they're gonna say, why would I give you anything in negotiations, you schmucks? Why would I give you anything? You've lost all leverage, we're done for. And now when a progressive leader says something in Congress, the rest of the Democrats and Republicans and media will laugh their ass off. Remember when they drew a red line and then we easily got them to surrender?

Ha ha ha, their word doesn't mean anything. That's what's gonna happen, it's a guarantee. I mean, I feel the same way about progressives in Congress right now. It's not just about Jayapal. I mean, Jayapal might be the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but does that mean that every progressive within that caucus needs to follow her lead? You still have progressives, you have enough Justice Democrats to block both bills until they get what they want, are they willing to do it?

And you talk about accountability, who carries out the accountability? I think that's the missing piece of the puzzle, right? We can elect progressives into Congress, clearly if they're not fearful of the electorate, or if they're not fearful of the very people who put them in that position of power in the first place, they're not going to carry out what they can carry out with the leverage that they have. This is a perfect example of them literally having the leverage necessary to get important provisions included. They were willing to flex that muscle before. I don't know why they're willing to give it up now.

Now it's the gaslighting and it's honestly the feelings. The feelings of Jayapal will be heard. The feelings of Pelosi will be heard, we will have broken etiquette. The most important thing in Washington, etiquette, okay? No, no, no, no. And I wanna be super clear. There's a toxic lift that has ruined everything by going nuclear on even the smallest little issues. So it has given progressive legislators an out going, oh, anyone who criticizes us is a lunatic.

So that's okay. We're the furthest left that anybody can go. We're the hardest, toughest negotiators that anybody could do. They didn't win anything. They haven't accomplished a damn thing. So we're telling you as the show that has by far the biggest following in progressive media, by far. It's not to brag, it's to tell you, there's a reason why five million people said, hey, we like those guys. Those are the guys that speak for us. If we were seeing things that weren't true that weren't progressive, they wouldn't follow us overall for the network. It's over 20 million. When are you gonna get it through your head?

The base does not like surrender. This is surrender, it is obvious. Now later, I will tell you guys, because it's true, that I will tell you, hey, listen, we got a primary corporate Democrats, and a lot of you will not listen to me. Why? Because you'll say, what difference does it make? Anna's already there. I'm already there.

What difference does it make, you're gonna say? We elected the people who we thought were the most progressive, they were clean and uncorrupted, And they gave up anyway. And I'm gonna have an incredibly hard time getting you to give money even to an awesome progressive or to volunteer for an awesome progressive. Because whenever we send progressives to DC, they go in there and they listen to the stupid, stupid etiquette. We're not, when we say fearful, we just mean to the voters, we're not crazy right wingers, we're not crazy toxic left. We just mean for God's sake, if you don't listen to your own voters, then there's no accountability for you. So I don't give a damn about anybody's feelings.

So I'm telling you right now, you guys give up like this. You all are accountable too. Anna's right. You guys made Jayapal the leader. We haven't voted yet. You could vote no. You could vote no. And if you say, hey, Jake, I am now offended.

Are you saying that I'm not making the right decision? Correct. Yes, that's what I'm saying. And if you want to be offended, that's on you brothers and sisters, okay? But we're telling you the reality, we've got millions. are people who constantly send in comments. They're the progressive base. They're weight, they're to the left of us saying push them harder, push them harder.

Jesus Christ, are we ever going to get a win? Are we ever going to get a win? And the answer is no, I'm at a point where I'm nearly retracting all of the excitement that I had for any of these electoral victories. How am I going to tell people with a straight face, hey, they can make a difference? No, they're going to surrender. going to surrender. And then they're going to say they're surprised later that Biden did not keep his word. Mansion and Cinema did not keep their word. And what did we tell you? Anna and I

told you, I need no one else in progressive media believe this either. We said they're never going to do a billionaire's tax. Other people are reporting, oh, they're going to do it. My ass, they're going to do it. Don't you know anything about American politics? The rich control everything. Why they give campaign contributions? Those are bribes. God, they've learned nothing. I'm gonna get to that last part. That's so important in a second. And then still in the bill, though, was the corporate minimum tax? That's a good tax. At least corporations have to pay 15%. And we said, everybody says this in the final deal, but the only people skeptical were Anna and I. We said, I don't think they're gonna do it because they never

raised taxes. Not even a dollar on corporations. And what happened? Manches checked with his donors over the weekend. He comes out on Monday and he says, oh, I'm willing to vote no on everything. If you're going to raise taxes a dollar on my beloved corporations and they're my beloved donors, then I vote no on everything. We told you. I'm sick of being right. I'm sick of it. Can anyone in Washington prove us wrong? It's all the money, you idiots, it's all the money. If you don't take the money out of politics first, you're going to get surprised every time. Oh my God, the donors won again. I'm so surprised. Let's try this first. Let's try this. that first. No, get the goddamn money out first. Jesus Christ, you guys have no sense at

all. And when we push for a wolf pack and we push for amendments to get, oh, not yet, not yet, not yet, when, when, finally, look at the poor planning. Look at the horrific planning. We also told you, hey guys, this is a big build, the build back better bill, the reconciliation bill. It's gonna take a long time to craft. How are you gonna get both of them at the same time? You gotta go earlier, you gotta go earlier. You're gonna run out of time and then they're gonna use time to put pressure on you. Remember how we told you they're gonna run out the clock and then say you've got to vote for it. That's exactly what happened, exactly what happened.

So, and now progressives will pretend to be surprised. So good luck brothers and sisters, but there's not gonna be any love out here for you guys. And so, but hey, enjoy the love you'll get in Washington. All right, we're gonna take a break and we'll show you the difference between the way we share the news with you versus the way political playbook shares the news with you. Some mansion whitewashing when we return. but justified anger towards Washington as we proceed. Well, why don't we now turn to reporters out of Washington. CNN recently had a political playbook co-author on by the name of Rachel Bade to explain

why conservative Democrats like senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema are voting against the budget reconciliation bill or at least serving as an obstacle to its passage. Now this is the exact type of lazy and inaccurate analysis you can expect from DC reporters. Get a load of this inaccurate conventional wisdom. There's also a divide amongst Democrats about what would what will it take to be successful in 2020? You have progressives who say, look, we campaigned on things like, you know, free child care, universal pre-K, you know, free college. If we don't deliver on these, the base isn't going to show up. But then you have moderates who are in these swing districts who are vulnerable and say,

look, if we pass a huge package like that, then I'm definitely going to lose my seat. And so there's just a fundamental disagreement and a very diverse party about what it takes, what they should pass to protect themselves in 2022. So the conventional wisdom is that if it's a Democrat who's running for reelection in a purple state, he or she needs to be really careful when it comes to funding social safety. Net programs and the budget reconciliation bill is the example that she's specifically talking about here. But why don't we take a look at what the data indicates?

Because while people will have you believe, especially the media, corporate media would have you believe that there's just this massive divide among Democrats and Republicans, in reality on bread and butter issues, there's a lot of agreement. So let's look at West Virginia first, then we'll look at Arizona. In West Virginia, if you look at the number of voters who support the build back better plan, that's the budget reconciliation bill, there's actually widespread support. So when it comes to West Virginia voters overall, there's 68% who do support the bill. Among Democrats, of course, the number is much higher, 90% among independents, 64%.

And wow, would you look at that? Even among Republicans, 56% support. to support Biden's build back better plan. I have more data that backs this up, including support for specific provisions in the bill. But Jake, why don't you jump in? Yeah, so when you look at the policy provisions that Anna is going to read for you guys in a second. You see that it's actually stronger than what even the overall numbers indicate. Because when you say it's Biden's plan, a bunch of Republicans just out of gut instincts saying, no, I don't want it, right?

But when you break down the specific proposals, they're like, oh my God, I love it. They definitely want it, right? So, but here's the most important thing here. There they are on CNN, you got a political reporter, this is epicenter or mainstream media, and they're telling you, well, progressives say that this doesn't play well in their districts, but the moderates say they're definitely gonna lose because this size of this package would not be popular in their states. But wait a minute, don't you have an obligation to check the polls before you declare that it is unpopular in their states?

We showed you in West Virginia, we'll show you in Arizona too, they are wrong. Look, I don't know if they're wrong because they don't know politics, that's totally possible that they're lazy and they just never looked at a poll, they have no idea what the people of West Virginia or Arizona think, or they're lying to you on purpose. But neither one of those scenarios is good. There is, but these are incredibly popular bills and provisions in West Virginia. And does it never occur to you that, hey, maybe it's actually, the donors, and since they got the money, they're voting no based on that instead of their

honest assessment of where their voters are in West Virginia, which you didn't check and took their word on instead of being an actual journalist. All right, so let's look at individual provisions. And again, we're focusing on West Virginia. We'll look at Arizona in just a moment. So everything seems to be incredibly popular among West Virginia voters, including investments in long-term care. 86% of West Virginia voters are in favor of that.

When it comes to expanding Medicare coverage, 82% of voters in West Virginia support that. Same with child care investments, you have 73% of voters in favor when it comes to extended tax credits for families, 70% are in favor, paid family and medical leave, 69% of West Virginia voters are in favor of that. Universal pre-k, 67% of West Virginia voters are in favor. Extended Affordable Care Act subsidies, 65% are in favor. And then when it comes to clean energy investments, a little lower, but still the majority of voters in West Virginia at 60% are in favor.

I'm just going to give the quickest little context there, 60% is a golden number in politics. You'd be so lucky to get 60% of the public on your side in any issue. The least popular provision in the bill is at 60%. And that's the one that's about clean energy, the one they tell you on tell you on television all the time that the people of West Virginia do not want. They only want dirty call, they don't want clean energy. We just showed you, no, that's not remotely true. 60% of the people in West Virginia do want that investment.

So it is an indisputable fact that Manson is lying to you. The question is, are CNN in Politico lying to you on purpose, or are they the world's worst journalists? So when it comes to pay for us, right? increases famously happen to be like the most sticky issue for Democrats running for reelection in purple districts. But if you look at how West Virginians feel in regard to the pay for's that were initially included in the reconciliation bill, seems like they were incredibly popular. They want tax hikes on the rich. In fact, they want to limit deductions for wealthy

business owners. Seventy four percent of West Virginians want that. 72% of West Virginians are in favor of higher income taxes for the wealthy. 69% of them are in favor of increased capital gains tax for the wealthy. 68% are in favor of IRS enforcement just to ensure that wealthy people are not dodging their taxes or evading their taxes. And 65% of West Virginians are in favor of increased corporate tax rates. And when you look at Arizona, you see similar support, which is why again, what you hear from that political reporter in that CNN interview is complete and utter nonsense. So let's take a look at Arizona.

Voters overwhelmingly do support Biden's build back better agenda. And I'm talking about the build back better agenda before it was stripped down as a result of Mansion and Cinema's opposition. So 65% of likely Arizona voters are in favor of it. Among Democrats, that number jumps up to 95%. Among independents, 58%. And even among Republicans, 43%. are in favor of the build back better agenda.

You look at specific provisions and again, very similar to what we experienced in West Virginia. 85% of people in Arizona do want to expand Medicare coverage. 85% want an investment in long-term care. 71% want childcare investments. 69% want clean energy investments. 68% extend tax cuts for families. 67% paid family and medical leave in favor of. in favor of, 66% are in favor of universal pre-K and 64% are in favor of extended Affordable

Care Act subsidies. And the pay for is, I mean, just take a look at this chart. Again, you see overwhelming support for tax increases at the very top. 75% of people in Arizona want higher income taxes for the wealthy. The lowest number you see here is 66%, which is still incredibly high, 66% of Arizona people in Arizona want increased corporate tax rates. Okay, so both in West Virginia and in Arizona, you have a nearly identical number on increasing the corporate tax rate. It's near the bottom of the priorities, everything else is even higher, okay? But you just take that minimum number, it's 65 and 66, so two thirds, two thirds of the voters

in a very red state like West Virginia, and in a purple sightly like Arizona, say, no, you, we definitely want higher taxes on the rich, and we definitely want higher taxes on corporations. Mansion comes out and says, and cinema, they both say, oh, no, in our states, since they're red and purple, nobody wants higher taxes on the rich or on corporations. And every reporter like an idiot in a best case scenario, because the other scenario is they're lying to you on purpose, and they're not manufacturing news, they're manufacturing consent and they're the lowest workers in the corporate rule totem pole, which is really sad and pathetic that you spent your life doing marketing for corporations when you thought you were

a journalist. But let's assume they don't have bad intent. Well, then they don't know anything about their own jobs. They don't know anything about the news. They don't know anything about the people in West Virginia or Arizona want. And worse yet, like fools, they go talk to senators, politicians. And they go, oh, what are the people of your state want? Oh, they want lower taxes on the wealthy? They want lower taxes on big business. They love big business, and they don't want anything for themselves. Child care, no, they don't want that. Paid family leave, no, Medicare expansion, dental vision. They don't want teeth. Who needs teeth? To see things when they're older, they don't need any of that. No, we'll write it down and

we'll say it on television. Why? To trick the rest of the voters into things. thinking that you're a good person and you're acting honorably and that just that we don't live under corporate rule and that you didn't do all this because the bribes you received from those industries. Well then you're not in news, you're not in news and they all say that. You've seen them say that a thousand times on television. Did you know these numbers? One part of the reason some of you don't know the numbers is because all the mainstream

media are liars and they don't tell you, they know these numbers. And New York Times will say, I have plausible deniability, I once printed these numbers, on page 827 in a tiny little paragraph and I never came back to it. But in every other article, I said that the people of West Virginia and Arizona don't want this bill when they definitely, definitely want it. They don't want to tax the rich when they definitely, definitely want to tax the rich. Look, the mainstream media, they're part of corporate rule. So when you see crap like that on air, don't believe what they're saying.

Yeah, I mean, they're just stenographers. They'll get interviews with these senators or members of the house and they'll just regurgitate what they're told. But they never look at the actual influences behind the scenes. They never look at the personal investments of these members of Congress. They never look at the conflicts of interest. They just regurgitate what people in positions of power say. That's all they do.

And that's not journalism. Journalism means that you actually go out there and you first of all assume that people in positions of power are lying to you. That should be number one. Maybe that's, maybe people might think that's a little pessimistic, but that's what politicians do. That's what people in positions of power do. They want to maintain their power.

They will do anything and everything necessary to do so. So assume they're lying to you and investigate what their claims are, but they don't do that. They just regurgitate what these lawmakers say, instead of actually looking at the money that influences them, the personal financial investments. that motivate them and other narcissistic, self-interested factors that lead to the decisions that they make. That's really what's going on. One last thing, guys, it's not like these reporters are just angelic people who just naturally support everyone and believe everyone and trust them.

They go, well, if you're seeing something, I'm gonna write it down like it's true. No, if you're an outsider, they say you're not credible. By the way, all voters by definition are outsiders, okay? So you guys are not credible. If you say something, we're not gonna take it seriously. No way, and we'll look at a super, we'll write it skeptically, et cetera. But if someone in power, like a senator says it, well, then I just write it down. I have no skepticism.

No, journalists are supposed to do the exact opposite. You're supposed to look at people in power with skepticism. They're gonna want to maintain their power. The people who are giving money to politicians are likely to give money because they want to make more money. They want to maintain their wealth. That's obvious to any rational human being. That would be the very first step of journalism. David Serod on CNN over the weekend and give credit to Brian Stelter for having him on reliable sources.

When Stelter asked him, what's the one thing that you think the mainstream press is doing wrong? Sorota had an excellent answer. He said, you're not following the money. You never talk about the corporate contributions. And Brian's face in the beginning was like this. Like he didn't expect that answer. What are you guys doing? What are you doing?

Do journalism or just clean up and go home, not challenging the powerful, instead challenging the powerless, it's disgusting, it's the exact opposite of what real reporters are supposed to do. All right, when we come back, Chris Wallace of all people shows you what a good line of questioning looks like as he grills Republican Senator Rick Scott over his support for fiscally irresponsible moves. We've got that story and more when we return. All right, back on TYT, Cenk and Anna with you guys, we've got more news.

Rick Scott, a conservative senator from Florida, was on Fox News where he was grilled by Chris Wallace over his decision to support policies that have not been fiscally received. Now, this conversation had to do with Rick Scott's refusal to vote in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, even though the bipartisan infrastructure bill is in fact a massive corporate handout. But nonetheless, Wallace wanted to know why is it that Rick Scott is not in favor of voting for this? Let's watch. You also voted against money in the infrastructure bill to help your home state of Florida

deal with extreme weather, which you have plenty of in Florida. Why'd you oppose the infrastructure bill when 19 Republican senators supported it? Chris, I believe in spending money on real infrastructure, roads, bridges, but that's what this bill has in it, sir. I spent, I spent $85 billion in my eight years as governor, right? Let's look at the bill that they passed the Senate. It's in one, it's not paid for, I paid for my infrastructure, I actually paid down debt. I balanced the budget.

This bill, they said it was going to be paid for. It wasn't paid for. This bill said it was infrastructure. Less than half of that bill was roads, bridges, airports, and seaports. You put a bill in front of me that's going to be roads, bridges, airports, and seaports paid for. I'm very interested in doing something like that. I am not going to bankrupt this country. This country has almost $30 trillion with the debt.

That bill by itself was a quarter of a trillion dollars of debt. This has got to end. So, the second video that we're gonna get to is the good one, okay? And I think it really showcases what Chris Wallace, even though he is a conservative, is good at. He asks the right questions. But before we get to that, I do have an important question for you, Jake, because I want to make sure I'm correct in noting that Rick Scott is so fiscally responsible that he engaged

in Medicare fraud, right? Yeah, it was actually the largest Medicare fraud in American history. That's right, yeah, interesting. Yeah, yeah. So bankrupting the country seems to be really something that he's an expert at. His company that he was CEO of was held criminally liable for robbing the American taxpayers. As CEO, he said, oh, I had no idea that we did the largest robbery of American taxpayers in history. Really, then you're the most incompetent CEO that has ever existed.

And this loathsome guy won three major elections against Democrats, because Democrats are losers. Chris Wallace challenges Rick Scott better than any Democrat did, and he's on Fox News. But I can't help but say one quick thing about a lie he just told you. He said this would add $2 trillion to the debt. That's not true. It's all paid for, and it was paid for by raising corporate taxes, among other things. And Rick Scott is the one that said, no, don't pay for it, don't pay for it, that no, I don't want you raising taxes on corporations, those are my donors. So he's a got, he's a total and

utter liar. And of course, the Trump tax cuts that he voted for, or that he supports now, not paid for at all. Of course not. Actually added to the debt. They're unbelievable liars. I give tons of credit to Chris Walls for being a rare journalist on television. And he's on Fox News. Well, what's your excuse if you're on CNN or MSNBC? Well, in fact, Jank, in his follow-up questioning. He did reference the Trump-era tax cuts, which Rick Scott did support. So let's watch. You talk about living within your means. You talk about the debt. You talk about deficits. The Trump tax cuts, which were passed in 2017, the year before you were elected to the Senate, is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that it is going to increase the deficit by

over $2 trillion over 11 years. So should the Trump tax cuts be repeated? appealed? My experiences, I cut taxes and fees a hundred times over $10 billion, and I actually balanced a budget and paid off a third of the state debt. You can do both. When Donald Trump was president, you had this tax cut, which added $2 trillion to the deficit according to the CBO, and you didn't have the commensurate spending cuts. So the question is, if you're not going to have the spending cuts, should you repeal the tax cuts? If the The debt and deficit are so vital. Well, I'm first of, I am not raising anybody's taxes.

I want lower taxes. So Chris Wallace keeps asking, all right, well, I mean, you say you're in favor of being fiscally responsible, so, and you're worried about the debt and the deficit and all that. So do you want to repeal the Trump era tax cuts? And he just kept saying, I'm in favor of tax cuts, that's it, I'm in favor of tax cuts, period. So that whole fiscal responsibility line, whether you're talking to a Republican or corporate Democrat, it is a lie, it is a lie.

They are not fiscally responsible, they don't care about fiscal responsibility. Because whenever it comes to increasing taxes on their donors, or let's keep it real, a lot of them are wealthy on themselves, they're unwilling to do it. They're just unwilling to do it. So the points that Chris Wallace is making is actually really elementary. Everyone in politics knows that the Trump tax cuts were not paid for and did put $2 trillion on to the deficit, right? And everyone knows that this billed back better bill attempted to pay for the $2 trillion.

And so, but the reason why Chris Wallace looks like a hero for saying the obvious is because he's the exception that proves the rule. The rest of the media never tells you the truth. They all know it, but they just never share it with you. They'd let politicians come on their shows, lie through their teeth. If he was on Meet the Press on NBC, Rick Scott would have gotten away with every one of those lies. There's no way Chuck Todd would have challenged them. So the rest of the media goes along with corporate politicians in perpetuating lies to you guys.

That whenever the money goes to you guys, the voters, are not paid for even what it is, right? When the money goes to the wealthy into corporations, you don't need to pay for it. The deficit's irrelevant. That's irrelevant. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. No, no, no, no. They never even talk about it. God, if, again, if they're not corrupt, the people on television, with a couple of exceptions like Chris Wallace, are the worst journalist in America. You know, and I think what's interesting about Chris Wallace is how he demonstrates that regardless of what his own political views are, I mean, we very likely disagree with him on most political issues. He's a conservative. But he shows that even being like up front, not about what your personal political views are, it doesn't stop you from being a decent reporter or journalist. You just have to ask the right questions and ask follow up questions. You got

to be willing to grill people in positions of power. And he's shown us on multiple occasions that he's willing to do it. And it's important for him to do it, especially considering he's on Fox News. Does any other reporter or anchor on Fox News share that perspective or ask that line of questioning? But honestly, other than many Hassan, does any other person in any way associated with cable news ever asked questions like that? Not really, no. Corrupt corporate politicians.

The answer is no, they never do. Yeah, all right, well, let's move on to some other news, because there are some federal lawsuits I wanted to tell you guys about pertaining to the election, and no, it's not about the election being stolen from Trump. So cops in Texas refused to help Biden aides as they were pleading for help while Trump supporters were swarming them on the highway and essentially putting their lives in danger. Now this has to do with campaign stops that a Biden bus was doing in Texas. As they were on the highway in late October, they were swarmed by Trump supporters in vehicles

who were trying to drive them off the road. There was a minor collision as a result. And so the Biden aides were calling 911 begging for help. And now, thanks to a federal lawsuit against the police department and also the Trump supporters, we're learning what the cops were saying, what the conversations were like between the 911 dispatcher and the very police that they were asking for help from. So in one transcribed recording, Matthew Danzer, a San Marcos police corporal on duty the day of the incident, refused to provide an escort when recommended by another jurisdiction. No, we're not going to do it, he told a 911 dispatcher, according to an amended filing for this lawsuit.

He also said, we will close patrol, but we're not going to escort a bus. The amended filing also states that in those audio recordings, law enforcement officers privately laughed and joked about the victims and their distress. He quipped that the Biden bus should, quote, drive defensively, and it'll be great, end quote. So he's not the only bad cop in this story. There are other police within the San Marcos Police Department who are named in this lawsuit. San Marcos assistant police chief Brandon Winkerwurter also did not order an escort or assistance, the complaint alleges.

Instead, he told officers to close patrol the, I'm sorry, close patrol the area near the university. Also an unidentified person referred to the Democrats as a derogatory slang term for someone who was mentally disabled in a group text among San Marcos officers, including Brandon Winkerwerder. All right, I'm gonna read you guys graphic A to show you how dangerous this is, okay? So it wasn't like, hey, they're overly worried, what's the big deal? You know, it's they're driving 25 in a tiny little road, there's nobody in actual danger. And there's a couple of Trump guys next to him, so what, right? No, they were in actual danger.

Well, number one, you saw the video and you see the trucks swerving, et cetera, right? The pickup trucks. And they're clear, and then they get in front of them. When they get in front of them, well, then they can slam on the brakes at any time. It gets super dangerous. So but I'm gonna read you here from Huffposts. In one collision, a Biden campaign car was videotaped being forced out of a lane by a pro Trump trucker as surrounding vehicles were traveling some 70 miles per hour.

A man who identified himself as a driver in that crash boasted about slamming that effort on Facebook. So the cops know how incredibly dangerous it is, and they just say we're not going to do our job because you guys are liberals and we're right wing nuts. And so we only protect right wingers, we don't protect any of the other citizens. In fact, we enjoy you being targeted and assaulted and intimidated and terrorized. We enjoy that. Well, every cop involves should obviously be fired because they told you they don't want

to protect all the citizens. If they're not fired, which almost certainly they won't, that tells you, well, in that in San Marcos, if you're not a right winger, be really, really careful. The cops sympathize with terrorists. In other words, if you happen to be someone living in this area who has political views that are different from these cops from this police department, well, you're gonna have to pay, your tax money is gonna help pay for the salaries for these people, but they're not gonna protect you. And look, this isn't just a problem in San Marcos. This is a problem

throughout the country. What do you do when police openly, transparently say that they will not enforce the law, right? We've seen that happen in regard to vaccine mandates. We've seen that happen. I mean, it's so many different contexts, not just in regard to Biden staffers who need help. But you have cops saying, no, I'm not going to enforce this law because I disagree with it. And there are no consequences that come along with that. They just say it, knowing that there won't be any consequences. And that leads to just a complete breakdown in society. Because you don't have law enforcement. You don't have people who are protecting or serving. You have people who get to decide they're the judge, jury, and in many cases, the executioner.

That is a problem. Society can't function under that kind of system. And the real question is, I mean, you have Democrats in power right now, right? What is the Department of Justice doing to investigate these cases? Nothing, nothing, right? We have a special panel looking into what happened on January 6th, and all they're focusing on is, oh, well, what did Trump do and what kind of conversation did Mark Meadows have? Look, that stuff is important, but there is obviously an issue with law enforcement in America.

But they're not really looking into that, are they? It happens all across the country. In New York, the cops kept saying that they're not going to do their jobs. Oh my God, if we can't beat up black people and stop and frisk and do all this stuff, well, then we're going to do, they would basically, they stopped arresting people for a while, these de facto movements. Look, if you're a Democratic mayor of a large city and the cops say that they won't do their job, It is super simple, you fire them, grow a pair, grow a pair.

Did we elect you or didn't we? Fire them, replace them with other cops who actually are willing to do the job that they have, and does all, well, their union is going to sue us. Well, great, I'll see you in court. We got lawyers. And if you're in the city in New York, you're in any of these cities, be willing to pay that bill. Okay, we'll go through the whole litigation and you'll come and say,

oh, no, no, as a cop, I don't have to do my job. my job. Okay, go ahead, make that case. I don't care. But get him out. You get him out. It's like the clan is the cops. And we're not going to stand for it. Guys, and don't let them hide under this stupid idea of, oh, yeah, we're just protecting freedom. Remember how they had the Trump parade with the boats? They didn't interfere with any other boats. They made these huge waves, which then sunk a couple of their own boats. But while we don't care, have all the boat parades you want, have all the truck parades you want. No one cares. You think we care about micromanaging your life, hey, right winger, idiots, we don't care about you at all.

Other than actually we want to help you. We want to give you better health care, better wages, et cetera. But you can do all your protests that you want. We don't care. But when you run people off the road, that actually endangers our lives. And that is when the cops need to do something. And if they don't, they're saying, no, you live in a right wing terror state. And we will not protect you.

Democrats, when you're in charge, if you don't take action, just not to oppress right wingers. Nobody wants to, that's insane. If you start oppressing based on political opinions, the left wing is going to get oppressed the most. I don't want that. I just want you to protect the citizens, the bare, bare minimum. Can we also just note that the right wing in America keeps claiming that they're the ones who get censored by the left, that they're the ones who have to deal with the intolerant left who don't allow. them to engage in their freedom of expression and their political activity as a result

of how intolerant they are, that they're constantly censored. Really, I haven't seen the left try to drive campaign buses off the road violently. I haven't seen left wing police refuse to help right wingers in their moment of need, right? The Biden campaign canceled three different political events, three different political stops, or campaign stops, I should say, in Texas as a result of this incident, right? But I mean, all of the individuals out there who have made careers out of pretending like they've been, you know, somehow discriminated against because of their political views, they're not upset about this.

They're not raising concern about this at all. This isn't a problem at all. And by the way, politically motivated conspiracies to disrupt a campaign or intimidated supporters is a violation of the law. Do you know which law it violates? The Ku Klux Klan Act. And were they intimidated? Absolutely.

They were driven off the road. Did they cancel campaign events because they were worried their lives were in danger? Yes, absolutely. They violated the KKK Act. And the cops still did nothing because they empathize with the people doing the intimidating. They empathize with the people who are being violent on their watch. There is no rule of law when you have a situation like this. If the Republicans win again, guys, at the national level, good night, Irene.

They activate all their vigilantes, the cops stand by, the Democrats are the weakest party in the history of America, they're going to steamroll us. Right now, poll out, we're going to talk about it later in the show. 30% are Republicans say it's time for violence. And the cops aren't going to stop them. And now Democrats are scared of their own shadow, they don't stop them. No, no, Jane, don't worry. And when the Republicans get in charge, they're going to give them a green light.

Don't worry, corporate Democrats are doing a real good job in ensuring that everything you just outlined will in fact happen. I'm telling you, complete failures. That's what corporate Democrats are. Right now, I got it at 50% chance that we lose democracy, period, if a Republican wins another national presidential election. They're going to run roughshod and they're going to intimidate the hell out of everybody. We've got another story later in the show, local school boards, they're all residing because they're getting death threats nonstop. That's terrorism. It's like putting a burning cross on their lawn.

And what are the cops doing about it? Generally speaking, anywhere from nothing to not much. All right, that does it for our first hour. When we come back, we'll give you that story about a woman going on an insane anti-Semitic rant during a school board meeting. But what's particularly interesting about that story is the organizing that's taking place behind that incident. We've got that story and more when we return. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more

by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.