The Young Turks - Ro Khanna Talks Reconciliation

Episode Date: November 5, 2021

Rep. Ro Khanna Joins TYT Exclusively To Talk About The Dual Infrastructure Votes The House has Planned for Today. John Iadarola and Caroline Johnson join Cenk to Discuss These Stories: Media Tells Jayapal That Popular Policies Are Unpopular. Does she respond accordingly? An Ex-FDA Commissioner says the New Covid Pill from Pfizer Is The End Of The Pandemic. Stephen Crowder Reenacts Rittenhouse Shootings As A Game. The FEC is Letting Foreign Money Bankroll U.S. Ballot Initiatives. Hosts: John Idarola, Cenk Uygur, Caroline Johnson, and Rep. Ro Khanna 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. Bigotene. 3x3. 3rd. 3rd.

3rd. 3rd. 3rd. Drop. Drop. Power, power, power, power panel, Jake Huger, John, Idle, or Caroline Johnson. So you guys know Damage Report, Caroline's on Rebel headquarters. You guys are going to check that out, and you guys are going to love it.

That's what's going to happen. It is what it is, okay. So in a little bit, in we believe about 15 minutes, but they might be voting. They're certainly caucusing. They're having discussions. By the way, my collar is popping. We'll get to it. Okay.

But Roe Kana is going to join us in about 15 minutes here. He had a fascinating interview with Jake Tapper on CNN a little while back earlier today. There is huge shenanigans going on, which John's going to explain in the House right now as we speak. And having Congressman Kana talk about that from the Progressive Caucus is going to be very, very interesting. All right, stay right here. John. Okay, let's jump into it then. From the very moment that it was clear earlier this week that the Democrats weren't going to have a great election night, the mainstream media has been trying to blame the Democrats, saying that it's, sorry, the progressives specifically,

saying that it was their fault that the bipartisan bill hadn't passed, and that was what screwed over so-called moderates in their elections. Well, now Pramila Jayapal, head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is going to be asked about whether it's worth it to now pass it, even though now the buck has changed where that presumably would be the thing that caused the Democrats to lose next year in the midterms. Here's what she had to say. We're hoping and roll it. Here's what she had to say and forward. No, we don't have it, we don't have it.

I suppose she didn't have much to say in the end. No, okay. Well, I have a quote. I'll read the quote section. What's the alternative to do nothing? I mean, that's not going to get us anywhere. Part of what we have to do is really understand the economic frustration that people have right now. And I think that is really important for us. So I find that to be interesting in light of the conversation. I know you've been talking a lot about Prima Jaya Paul, her role as head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And the sometimes indications that she gives that the two tracks, the idea that the idea that that we're gonna do both bills at the same time, that wavering commitment to that. Now we have the framing of actually doing something as potentially being bad news for next year. So what do you think about what she had to say? Yeah, so guys, there's a lot of drama happening right now in the house. And they're about to make the deal with progressives even worse because they think progressives are pushovers. We can do anything we want to them and they'll fold.

And I have honestly put a lot of that blame on leadership of the Progressive Caucus, which happens to be Representative Jayapal. So it doesn't give me joy to do that because I think she's a good person and I think she's a real progressive. But her negotiation at this point has been, in my opinion, abysmal. And that's why they're getting steamrolled. Now, her answer in this case is perfectly good. She says, well, if you're giving me this choice of we lose political elections, but we pass policy that helps voters, yeah, I'll go with the voters.

That's a principled, excellent answer. So credit to jiupon that. By the way, we have more about her on a different issue later on the show where she did great in standing up to Republicans. So credit where credit is due, including in this answer. Now, the real issue is the question. Why would you lose the election for delivering for voters? But in Washington, reporters are conditioned to assume and project that assumption on to both the politicians and the audience that if you ever deliver for the voters, you give them anything

that they actually like, they'll hate you. And you'll obviously lose the election. My God, if you gave them paid family leave and they didn't have to be driven back into the minds the day after they delivered, well, they would hate you for letting them having four or 12 weeks of paid leave. They would hate you for lowering drug prices? What kind of an insane framing is that for the question? But guys, that's how they brainwash you.

The reason they ask that question that way is that so it gets stuck in your head. Oh, I guess if the Democrats pass this bill, they're going to lose the election. Oh, I guess the bill must be really unpopular. When in reality, provisions in that bill have 90% popularity. But look, the press doesn't do it in an evil way. They're generally sad tools of corporate America. So they're hired as news actors. They didn't know anything about the news.

So their editor tells them, hey, moron, go out there and talk about how bill to have this bill is terrible, terrible. And it could really hurt the Democrats. Now, I would have gone further than Representative Jai Bal. I mean, it's not a critique. Her answer is perfectly fine. I'm just telling you what I would have done is I would have said the premise of your question is insane. When we pass a really popular bill, we are more. more likely to win, not less likely to win.

I don't know why you would ask such a weird, weird question. But I'm happy to give you another shot, go ahead, try me, try another shot. And the real question you should be asking people is, you should be asking Manchin's cinema and the conservative Democrats, well, wouldn't you be more likely to lose an election if you spike provisions that have a 90% popularity, 75% popularity, which is exactly what Manchin of Cinema are doing. But yet somehow for reporters in Washington, they think, oh, figuring out what's actually popular is not part of my job, I'm not supposed to do the news, I'm not supposed to know what's real,

I'm just supposed to do propaganda. So corporations and Democratic leadership and Republican leadership could be super happy, and we'll have a bipartisan agreement in Washington to rob all of you. And the super sad part is guys, it's not a conspiracy, they don't know it, they're unwitting tools of a corporate machine, and that's just pathetic, Caroline. I don't think that it can be stated enough how the popularity of these policies is there. Honestly, that should really be the end of the conversation. And this framing, as you're saying, is so disingenuous.

And it's just so interesting the nature of these conversations as pushing a bipartisan agenda. Like at this point, you're not going to get a ton of, if any, Republican support. And now you have this like very wishy-washy support from progressives. So Democrats are holding on to this idea that, well, at least we can still legislate with bipartisanship at this moment in time. When what this moment in time calls for is for leaders to step up to the plate and do the, I don't know, radical brave thing and pushing for policies that 100 million Americans, are on board with or something like that.

I think the messaging is so important. And we just have to keep coming back to this idea that those numbers don't lie. And if you're worried about losing an election, like it was kind of earlier in the week. We kind of saw the whatever losses that are going to be painted by the right as tremendous failures for Democrats. So wouldn't you think that laid a bit more groundwork for us to actually go forward with these positive fault? of these incredibly positive policies, I'm definitely lost, but it's a, it's really interesting. As we said, this is, there's, I was trying to figure out what was going on right now and it's up in the air. So who knows? By the end of the day, it could, we could have some good or bad

news. No, I got to say something about what Caroline just said there. If you didn't grow up with mainstream media brainwashing, it would seem really strange. You'd be like, wait, every provision in the bill, every one of them pulls above 55%, which is really good. The great majority of them pull above 66%. Like two thirds of the country says, yes, some of them, as I told you, get up to nine out of ten Americans saying, I definitely want that, right? So if you're come to this country and you don't know anything about how corporations have taken over our media and use it to brainwash the electorate, you would be like, puzzled.

Like, why are the journalists telling you that it's an unpopular bill when every provision in the bill ranges from really popular to intensely must have popular? So why are they all lying in mass in unison? Well, guys like Professor Noam Chomsky figured this out decades ago. It's called manufacturing consent. They're not in the news business. They're in the corporate consent business. And a perfect example of that was Jake Tapper with Rokana just a little bit earlier today.

Jake Tapper browbeat him and was like, why don't you just sign on to what Democratic leadership wants, which is a vote for the bipartisan bill that's totally corporate laden pork. Okay, that actually adds to them. So why don't you sign on to that corporate bill right now without getting any assurances that we're ever going to vote for your bill? Why don't you sign him? It's your fault. You're the one blaming it. I mean, it was just pathetic demagoguery propaganda. And in Washington, they're like, he is a credible news anchor.

Yep. It's a joke. And the only thing, so saying all of these things that are wildly popular, doing them would obviously be bad for you. That's crazy. The only thing that makes it crazier is, like, couldn't you at least wait until a fresh week before saying that doing something will cause the progressives to be responsible for losing elections?

Because like three days ago, you said it was their fault for blocking it. We didn't do anything and so progressives are to blame. Now if you do something progressives will be to blame. The only like through line, the only logical through line that I can make is that no matter what happens, they're going to blame progressives. I gotta say something about that. After Virginia, Terry McCall, the most centrist corporate establishment Democrat of our lifetimes loses.

And they're like, you see they went too far left. But he's at the very other end of the political spectrum within the Democratic Party. He's the most right wing Democrat. Now if he had won, what would they have said? You see, you can't go too far left. So mainstream media is lying to you in mass. CNN, New York Times, they're all lying to you. No matter what you do, no matter what happens, they say the country's gone too far left.

You cannot go left. Everybody remember, give everything you own to the corporations and the dogs that they bought in the Republican and Democratic parties. It's disgusting that they've hijacked the label of journalism and now use it for propaganda. Yeah, and look, we saw headlines, Phil Murphy, he squeaked out a narrow wind, so he better go back to the center. They're not saying that about Yon, obviously. And I would say it's fairly predictable because they're not worried about a Republican going too far. Republicans get in office to block anything from happening.

That's what they want. That's like we had for over a decade, media matters and organizations like it did a great job of trying to bust through the myth that Fox News was fair and balance, that it wasn't pushing some sort of agenda. And we just need that for CNN and MSNBC. I know that we've been doing that to some extent. People need to understand that just because, like, we wear shirts that say progressive versus everybody, so we have a perspective, well, they don't wear those shirts. Jake Tapper never says the status quo and that's it.

So I guess he doesn't have a perspective. But no, he does. They very clearly want specific things. And what they want is nothing to ever change. I got to say one quick thing on that. I'm going to be way less compelling in the next block. Okay, hold on. But you've been incredibly compelling so far.

Look, I write about this in my book, justice coming book.com. You could have pre-order it. Prove it. I know, it's been a long time coming. But anyway, look, guys, the fact that they privilege their perspective and their bias, by calling it objective, makes it more deceptive, not less deceptive. By not wearing the shirt saying, I'm a corporate tool, and I love it, there's a. They're saying, oh no, me being a corporate tool is the objective position. Okay, now if you guys want to take a position that actually shows people what people actually

believe and you're actually doing the news and it's based on facts, you're radicals, and you're not really credible, okay? But if you do the pro-corporate position where we give everything to the corrupt politicians and what they want and that are donors who finance them and never, ever, ever talk about the donors, even though they're the number one factor in politics, well, then you are objective and credible. That makes them far bigger liars, far bigger than even the right wing. We're not lying to you. We tell you, we're progressive, this is our perspective.

But we're never going to play with the facts. We're going to give you the facts, and we've done it a thousand times where it is uncomfortable. We did it earlier in the story. I want Giant Paul to be an American hero. But she has not done a good job in negotiations, even though I'm rooting for her. even though I convinced her to join Justice Democrats, but she didn't do a good job. Facts matter. And honestly, the mainstream media at this point are just as bad as right-wing media and Donald Trump.

They have alternative facts, and they try to brainwash you with that nonsense propaganda. Caroline, we got to, unfortunately, we got to go. I'm so sorry. Hold that thought. When we come back, Congressman Rokane is going to join us. You don't want to miss that interview. All right, back on a young Turks. Joining me now, Representative Roe-Kana, he is in the middle of negotiations right now on the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation bill.

Representative Kana, welcome back to TYT. Jake, it's always a pleasure, thanks for having me. Thank you for making the time in the middle of this very hectic day. So I want to ask you first about the state of the negotiations. So in the beginning, as everybody knows, progressives had said that they had a red line, that the The Senate must vote for the build back better bill, the reconciliation bill first. Then the House would vote on the infrastructure bill, the bipartisan corporate backed bill. Now that line has moved and Representative Jayapal and yourself have said, no, the Senate

doesn't have to vote for it. The House will vote for both. That kind of defeats the point. But now today, the latest developments are that apparently Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House is asking you guys to not even vote for it in the House. To have a vague promise that you might vote on it later, the bill that progressives actually want, the one that President Biden pretended to want, that you're going to get a vague promise on that.

So you just came out of a meeting on this issue. Will progressives fold again and vote the way that Pelosi wants them to without even getting an assurance it'll pass in the House? Well, John, let me share what our perspective is. I don't think the progressives ever had a red line. What we had were priorities. We wanted to make sure there was robust climate. We wanted to make sure universal preschool.

We wanted to make sure expansion of dental vision hearing. We wanted to make sure robust housing. We wanted to make sure childcare free community college paid family leave. Now, some of those priorities didn't make it in. the expansion of vision and hearing and dental. It's dubious, free community college and make it in, paid leave right now is on the bubble. But a lot of our priorities have made it in, the universal preschool, the child care, and actually a very, very robust climate bill. And it's in the framework. So our view is how do we get this through?

Now, no one is going to vote just on the infrastructure bill. What we're debating is whether a vote on the rule on Bill Beg better is enough or not and how do we move this forward. You have to understand there's six, you know, there are some people who don't want anything. Out of them, in my view. Out of them. Why don't they vote? Why don't they vote? So, Representative Kana, you're saying, I understand the proposal, the compromise, the compromise on top of a compromise that Pelosi has proposed, which is that you vote on some nonsense rule about how you will.

vote later, but let's be super, super clear. You would, if this goes through, you would vote for the one that Republicans and corporate Democrats want, that corporations love, and you would not vote for the bill back better bill today. That's just a fact. That's what Pelosi wants. So is that going to happen or is it not going to happen? We're pushing back. We want to have the bill both votes today. That's what we're saying. We're saying that the six house Democrats, the conservative Democrats, or moderate Democrats, whatever you want to call them, actually would vote yes if we have both bills. And that's actually the negotiation taking place today. I probably disagree with you a little bit on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. I think we need the bill back better on the

climate part. But there are parts of the bipartisan infrastructure bill that are good, like getting broadband to rural communities and urban communities, lead pipe funding that Rishita to leave got in. So I think overall, the bill is a good one, but my bigger concern is it's not sufficient. We have to have the entirety of the agenda for working class. And that's why we've been pushing so hard to have the vote on bill back better. Okay, so I'm just going to ask it bluntly. Are you guys going to fold or not? Because you said that it was, you needed the Senate vote. You have to acknowledge you did not get that. You have retracted your position that is clearly losing in negotiations, clearly. Now, it's.

they're saying, well, since you guys can be pressured into anything, we'll bully you further into this nonsense rule vote. You explain on CNN why it's nonsense. You explained it. You said, and you did a great job in explaining it. You said, why do we need the congressional budget office to rule on this? Several different entities have already ruled on what it would be. So it is clearly them saying to you guys, we don't think you'll ever stand up for anything. So are you progressives going to stand up and say, no, we will not listen to. leadership bully us into submission? Or are they going to say yes, we submit? Well, let me just say we stood up twice, right? Twice they tried to have a vote on the

infrastructure bill. And we didn't. We said, no, we wanted a framework. And the agreement we struck is when the president has a framework, we would support the framework. And I think it's important for progressives. I know there's disagreement out there, but you know, I'm a strike shooter. I think there are a lot of progressive things in the framework. I know people focus on what's not in there. But universal preschool, child care, the fact that we have huge climate, including a methane tax at $500 billion, are not, that's not spin. That's actually good policy. But, but you didn't, but you got it. Look, you can just let's just do one thing at a time. You guys said that you would not vote in the House until the Senate passed billed back

better. You're now saying, no, we withdraw our position. You have to say that's true. Because it is true, right? Well, there was a disagreement. There were different opinions, but certainly our chair, Perilla J. Paul said initially, I don't know how she framed it, that we want some ironclad. I can, I can read a New York Times court for you. Progressive Democrats warned the House leadership that a majority of their members, majority of their members will withhold their support for one trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill until the Senate passes a second far larger package containing their spending priorities. That's a fact. So. Yeah, but if, yeah, the challenge is If we really were to hold to that, then you'd have nothing.

I mean, you really would then, the president's agenda would not happen. And we'd move on to the next issue. No, no, but hold on, Representative Kana, that's of course not true, right? So you wouldn't have it yet, hold on, you wouldn't have it yet. And then what would happen next is pressure would then go back to Mansion and Cinema. And they would say, well, the progressives are holding the line. And they're doing the same exact thing that Mansion of Cinema are doing. Imagine a cinema are drawing red lines all over you guys.

They're saying, I'm not gonna do any of you. The difference is I think Manchin and cinema. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products.

Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. It would be perfectly fine if nothing happens. I think they'd be fine. Okay. Well, but is it, but Representative Connie, I understand what you're saying. Because they don't mind if these bills don't pass because they don't care about the country.

They don't care about their voters. I understand the voters of West Virginia and Arizona are super clear. They want both of these bills. Yeah, there's no, no, no, I'm going that far. I'm going that far. They definitely are against their own voters. And they're doing it for the donor money. Everybody knows this Representative Kana.

Are you guys ever going to say it? And the reason why I say that, Representative Kana, is because if you don't say it, then you're right. Then Mansion of Cinema have no downside. They could bury every bill that would help the voters of their states. And they can cash in on it. As cinema has, she's collected over about a million dollars from drug companies, because she's corrupt.

And so the only way that you guys can get leverage is to say, one, we're holding up the infrastructure bill, which now you guys say, you guys say you're not going to, so they will steam roll you. And number two, the second thing you could say is, okay, here's our leverage, you guys are corrupt. We're gonna call out every single one of your donors, we're gonna humiliate you, because you should be humiliated because you just destroyed the democratic agenda, and you did it for your donors. Now wouldn't that have an impact representative, kind of? Well, the question is, how are you going to get their their votes?

I actually don't think that would get their vote. Oh, yeah, would. Yeah, you see. You know, I mean, imagine the state that Trump carried by 40%. But that state hates his position. That state loves paid family leave. It's in the polling. It's not disputable.

That state loves lowering drug prices. It's in the polling. It's not disputable. The only thing is nobody in the state knows that he's betraying them because you guys won't say it. The threat of saying it could get him to move. It's called hardball. If you say it's not going to move and they're going to kill it anyway,

kill it anyway, well, then say, okay, there's going to be consequences for you guys. Otherwise, do you see that you guys can never win if you don't actually play hardball with these guys? Because then they're going to steamroll. You're here. I'll ask you another question. If you say, even if you got the best case scenario, Roe, and you said, okay, look, let's let's believe Pelosi that we're going to vote later in the house and build back better. And by the way, we're pushing back on that. So this is an ongoing negotiation. I mean, we're put, but, you know, I'm just being. Okay. I hear you. I hear you for the two votes. So let's see how it But let's say, but let's say that she actually meant it, which I think it's, all right,

let's say she means it, okay? And you guys actually do pass it in the House. Then it goes over to the Senate. Now remember, Joe Manchin said that he gives you no promise at all that he's going to vote yes. So then he turns around and goes, well, I'm not going to vote for it. I didn't he promised you that I'd vote for it. So it's dead. You voted for my bill.

You're a sucker. I'm not voting for your bill. I told you I wasn't going to vote for your bill. What do you say that? I don't take that because the president has said. that he will deliver those 50 votes. And I don't think Mansion will tank the Biden president. Okay, just like you voted for the American people coming here.

I think a bigger risk is that they will dilute what we pass in the house and take stuff out. But I do think it will eventually pass. But I agree with you that the risk is how much further will the dilution be of that bill? So Representative Kahn, those are great points. Let's talk about those one at a time. Once you pass there, the bill that Mansion and Cinema want in the house. you have zero leverage. So now that you have zero leverage, especially because you guys are not willing to threaten their reputation.

I'm not convinced that mansion it's in order that that much let's get the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed. Certainly mentioned, I mean, I don't, I think part of them is just let's not spend money. So I'm not convinced we have that much leverage that he really, really wants the infrastructure bill. But that's a, okay. But whatever little leverage that is, would it instantly disappear? So if you have the vote today or you have it a week from now in the house, it doesn't really matter. because either way, your leverage is gone in the Senate. So that's point one.

And point two, you say, and every Democrat in the House, and the progressives, I'm, as everybody knows, I'm a progressive. I'm fans of the progressive legislators. You've been on our show many times. You've been incredibly generous with it. You've been honest. We appreciate all that. But since you guys are not willing to threaten outing their donors,

there goes the second piece of leverage. So you have absolutely no leverage, and you have no promise from Mansion. So I'm asking you if you're right. Wouldn't you be right that then Mansion could eviscerate the billed back better bill and go, well, I didn't tell you I wasn't going to eviscerate it. And you knew I was going to eviscerate it. So I did. I took out every popular provision there is because my donors didn't want it. I don't believe he will do that because he would then have made a commitment to the president that was false. Now you're saying theoretically, is it possible that he could eviscerated? Yes, I don't. I believe it would stay around. the 1.75 number where I'm most concerned is, is there going to be a dilution on the methane fee? Is there going to be a dilution on some of the climate provisions? And how much is the revenue going to tax the wealthy? Yes, we have to be vigilant. We have to continue to push. But I think we have to push through the White House. And the president has a huge interest in getting

billed back better because it's popular because he knows that he needs this for the midterms and for 2024. And if it's diluted, it's going to depress the base in 2022 and 2020. He doesn't care about that. He's not even a, he's barely a Democrat. So Representative Kana, look, you, this is an important news point in the question here. Because you're saying that Biden has some sort of implicit promise from Mansion and presumably cinema, that they're going to vote for this version of the bill with 1.75. The framework. The framework, whatever that means. And Manchin is saying, no, I'm not giving any promises. So what's actually happening here?

Does Biden have Manchin's promise or doesn't he? I think publicly Manchin doesn't want to make those commitments. But our belief is that the president has a private commitment from 50 senators that he could pass this. And that he didn't come to us for many, many months. And he only came to the progressives once he had that commitment. I personally believe that he will pass the bill back better agenda. And Mansion ultimately will be a yes vote. But I acknowledge that they're the most popular provision in this was the Bernie Sanders

increased dental vision hearing and you know, dental and vision are out. So I great you that the bill has lost popular provisions that it should have. It should have a much more robust prescription drug negotiation. It should tax the the billionaires and the corporations. It's not raising corporate tax rates because of Senator's cinema. So I'm not here to sort of sugarcoat things. What I'm saying is that we have a moderate president. We didn't win with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

In light of that, he's adopted a lot of progressive policies like child care, universal preschool, and most importantly, climate. And this is significant progress in light of the circumstances. And that's where the disagreement is. Yeah, no. Not just us, but amongst people who have been critical of the, of the, of the, of the, So Representative Kahn, we're not even talking about the disagreement. I think that what remains of the bill is, I think the negotiations went terribly, terribly. We lost on incredibly popular provisions.

What grade would you give the bill? What grade would you give the current president's framework on an A to F in terms of progressive goals? So Representative Kana, I grant you that there are parts of the bill that are positive. There's still $550 billion for climate change until mansion eviscerates it in the 7th. eviscerates it in the Senate and gets rid of it. But okay, for now, in the $1.75 trillion provision, yes, there are some good provisions, including universal pre-K, which by the way, corporations love because they want to get everybody back to work.

So everything that's currently in the bill has basically been approved by corporate donors. Now, that doesn't mean they're all bad. There's some things like universal pre-K that corporations have allowed us to have because it also benefits them. Are they not merciful? So it's not a hundred percent loss in terms of the bill. But in terms of the negotiations, would you then grant to me that if the negotiations were between 1.5 trillion and 3.5 trillion, and in our best case scenario, we're at 1.75 trillion. And we're not even guaranteed to get that that you guys have lost the negotiations.

Well, no, because Mansion started out at zero. I mean, that. Okay, we started out at $6 trillion. Then, okay, then let's meet back at three. But we have, we have a case where we have a 50-50 Senate and 200. By the way, but Representative Kana, you have three House Democrats that could block any bill. So they're 50-50, you're nearly 50-50. Why won't- The difference is they have an advantage because the status quo is fine for them. If everything blows up, if Joe Biden doesn't accomplish a single thing, there are a lot of people will be fine with that. We want to move progress.

But that's- Representative Kana, that is true, that is true, that is true, okay? But that is why we say your only leverage is to shame them publicly. Look, here, let's take one example, and then you've been very generous with your time. Okay, so paid family leave has an 88% popular. I'm sorry, it has about a three-quarters popularity, lowering drug prices. The provision, the specific provision to lower drug prices, has an 88% popularity, nine out of 10 Americans, including about the same number in West Virginia and Arizona. Arizona, to be absolutely clear, okay? So what you could do is say, why isn't Mansion and Cinema in favor of lowering drug prices?

Why are they against 9 out of 10 Americans? And everybody knows the answer to that, it's because they're being bribed. It's legal bribes in the form of campaign donations, but it is bribes nonetheless. If you said that, of course they would catch feelings and you would be persona non grata on Capitol Hill, you've offended the elites, but it is absolutely true and it would get a lot to press attention to the fact that they are corrupt, and that would hurt their reputation, the only thing they care about. I don't think that's the way to make progress to get the road.

I mean, there's a reason Senator Sanders, who's worked with them, and no one can question his integrity, chooses to make it about ideas and doesn't choose to sort of make. No, you're giving away leverage. You're giving away leverage. Representative McConnell, it isn't about that we, like, hey, we're not issuing ideas. we are in favor of ideas. We're in favor of the idea of lower drug prices. The only people who are against lower drug prices are drug companies. They're giving millions of dollars to manage a cinema. Now I get your saying in the middle of negotiations, you don't want to blast them

with a nuclear level attack publicly. But if you're, but if you care about those ideas and you care about those policies and you know you have a winning hand, wouldn't you behind the scenes at least threaten that. And it's obvious that you guys are not threatening that because they're walking around free as a daisy. They don't have any concern at all. And progressives have never shamed corporate Democrats, have never challenged corporate Democrats. And that's why they steamroll us. Isn't all of that fairly obvious? Well, I, you know, I coach here, as you know, Bernie Sanders campaign, which every speech was about the, the hole that the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street, big corporations

have on American politics. He's spoken out. He may not personalize it, but he's spoken about the industry. But if you don't personalize it, you have no leverage. If you don't have, if you don't personalize it, you have no leverage at all. And Representative Kana, the mainstream press hates progressives. So every time an election is lost, things are changing. They're not as really? I just saw your interview with Jake Tapper. It was the most conservative hatchet job I've ever seen. He blamed you for not passing the bill when Mansion and Cinema are the ones who have have prevented us from passing it for months and months and months. And then they run McCalloff, the worst conservative Democrat in the party.

And then they blame their left for losing the election. That's insane. When are you guys going to fight back? I understand that the progressive movement that, you know, wants us to be tougher, wants the caucus to be bold. I get it. I read the Twitter threads out here or there. I mean, I see the criticism.

Here's what I would say to them. First, be proud of at least two times where we took a stand and stood up and didn't have the infrastructure vote and look at all of the progressive policies we've gotten in there. And then the second thing I'd say is keep building, keep building, you know, keep running, keep challenging incumbents, keep building seeds, keep building progressive power. If you want a progressive movement, it's not going to happen overnight and be critical of us where you think you keep pushing us. But the, there are, what we're trying to do is maximize what we can achieve in a system where we have a moderate Democratic president, self-described moderate, where we have a 50-50 Senate, and where we have fairly moderates in the House leadership. So help us continue to build. So let me be clear about the facts. Representative Kana is right that two different times progressive caucus did stand up and they and corporate Democrats had to retreat.

Now, unfortunately, at the end, when you give them what they want, they still want. That's also a fact. Those are both true. So, of course, the end is what matters most, but it is true. And I want you guys to understand, I'm not saying this because he's on. We don't care about access journalism. We don't care about it if no one comes out, okay? Representative Kana has been consistently the most honest and the bravest.

And he's the only one that will come on progressive media to discuss these issues and to have a frank conversation. We've asked everyone, you see Representative Kana, you don't see the others. So tremendous credit there, okay? But Representative Kana, I've got to say at the end, we need the progressive base and progressive media needs you guys in Congress to understand. It isn't that we're venting, it isn't about passion, it isn't about emotion, it's about strategy. And if you don't have leverage on the corporate Democrats, and you never will in appealing to their principles or their voters, they don't care about They don't care about their voters. This bill proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

These bills are incredibly popular in West Virginia, Arizona. And I challenge every corporate media hack out there that watches this interview. Do your math, do your job, look at the polling, report the polling. Report the polling. Report what the people of West Virginia and Arizona in the whole country actually believe. Stop lying about what the people of America want. They want this bill. Representative Kana's right that they want this bill.

So finally, Representative Kahn, do you get that if we were asking you to fight back against the corporate Democrats because of leverage, that's the only way that you can out the corruption and why they're voting no. It is so important if you put a spotlight on why they're voting no, then it gets people to ask Mansion and Cinema. Hey, we did a story. Mansion made $5 million from his coal company. That's a fact.

That's on t.yt.com, but you could go check it anywhere. And he has another $5 million in wealth in this coal company. How is that not relevant? And that's on top of the campaign contributions. Okay, so just the actual question was, do you get that that's leverage and its strategy? It's not just to vent that there is a purpose behind it. And we could use that purpose to actually pass the policy. I believe, Jenk, that there are different roles for different people in a democracy.

I believe that the role of progressive legislators is to help mobilize, but then also to figure out how we get things done. I think that there's a role for independent media. I think there's a role for mobilization. I think there's a role, as you know, I've always supported primary challenges. And there's a role certainly in Arizona where you have a Democratic state and a senator who's voting differently than Mark Kelly for us to have mobilization. So I believe what I don't want to have happened. And let me end with this is this kind of sense. Well, it doesn't matter. We got these justice Democrats in there. We got AOC. We got Ilhan. We got

Rishita. We got Pramila. We got a bunch of folks in. Jamal Bowman and Corey Bush, and nothing is changing. And we had Bernie Sanders's energy and let's just leave. Look at how far we've come from 2016 to now. Look at the fact that what has become the center of the Democratic Party. Is it perfect? No. Is the progress fast enough? No. But if we can do this in five years, think about the next 10 and the worst thing, I rather people beat up on me, criticize me, just don't disengage. Keep winning races, keep building. I'm confident eventually we'll get a progressive president, progressive leaders. And that's what we'll allow for the real change.

All right, we'll leave it at that. And I'll give you one last piece of context for the audience that corporate media doesn't do. Representative Kana was the first person to say that he would join just Democrats when he knew that it would that it would involve primarying Democratic incumbents. That was an incredibly brave decision. And so that has defined him. And you should know that context here, even if you're frustrated with his positions today, if you are, right? And he just laid out a case for why you shouldn't be and you should be excited about the future.

So Representative Kana, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Always a pleasure. Thank you. Take care. All right. We got to take a break. We'll be right back.

All right, back on TYT, Jank, John, and Caroline with you guys. That was an interesting interview, and so we've got more news for you all, so John, take it away. Okay, let's do it. Pfizer has developed a course of pills that they say cuts the risk of being hospitalized or dying as a result of COVID if you become infected by about 90% according to their recent trials. They did a study of 1,200 COVID-19 patients who were selected for have. a higher risk of developing serious illness, and in their study, people who took Pfizer's pills were far less likely to end up in the hospital compared to those who got placebo pills. This is where it gets a little bit uncomfortable. None of the people who got the real pills

died, but 10 people who got placebo pills died, according to results summarized in a Pfizer press reliefs. And so bear in mind, this has not yet been adjudicated by the CDC. It will, they will eventually go over this data once Pfizer completes two more trials that are are currently ongoing, it's believed that by the end of the year, they'll submit this to the government to be looked at for possible sale, and if that were to happen, it would probably take until the beginning of next year. So all we have so far is a result of what they are saying based on their internal studies, but that said, the results seem pretty impressive. You take this course of pills inside of a couple of days of showing your first symptoms from COVID-19,

and it massively lowers the chance that you will get sick or die according to what they say. What do you think? All right, here's what I think. Oh, finally, finally, okay, guys, this is amazing news. And not only publicly in the science that we're seeing, but also there's a friend of mine who is one of the top experts in this field. He looked at the actual data set itself, it's true, it's real, and whether it's 89%, of course, that's just one test, right? But the overall idea that the pill is real and does mitigate the damage is true.

And understand there's two great pieces of news about this, which means this thing's almost done. Number one is this is not something you take ahead of time. This is something you take after you get sick. So this is all the Trump guys who are in the hospital saying, can I take the vaccine now before they die? No, you're going to be able to take the pill. So it's okay, we're going to save your life. You didn't really want it, but okay, we're going to save your life anyway. Okay, and I say we here, but in the general country, the rest of us, the same part of the planet, okay?

And number two, it totally works. It's, there's another pill that got to about 50% efficacy. If this is 89% efficacy, almost no one who takes it winds up hospitalized or dead. That means COVID is done. Who cares about getting normal sick, right? We've all been normal sick a thousand times in our lives. And so, by the way, conservatives, now to turn to politics for a second, now, Now you'll see, it won't matter because you don't care about facts, you just move to the next identity issue and the next cultural war issue, right?

But you'll see we're not going to make you wear mask and take vaccines if there's other ways of preventing it. Like if this pill was around from the beginning, yes, taking the vaccine is better because it prevents spreading the disease. But with the pill, since people are not going to die, I don't really care. And you'll see that we don't care. As soon as the pill is out, I don't care. you want, look, don't trust, listen to the scientists and the doctors, but my opinion is take your mask, go do whatever, I don't care about your life other than trying to preserve it. Your freedom, go nuts, man, no mask, just go hug and kiss and do, I mean, public and

tight, closed spaces indoors, we don't care. We're not trying to control your lives. We were trying to save it. And if the pill does that, then great, for God's sake, getting in the market and let's go. Caroline. Yeah, I mean, I think we all know that the effects of COVID, whether the physical, mental, emotional, like, those are never going to be over that it's just, it's so ingrained in our culture and society right now that, you know, saying like, it's over, hooray, is, we all know that this is going to be with us in, in many ways for a long time to come. I do, I agree,

that being said, that this is a really remarkable step forward, but I do appreciate John. your sort of emphasis on the fact that this is the, this is the research from the company producing the pill. So I likewise am excited for those other studies and for different companies to come up with similar results just because I think that a lot of what we see with the vaccine hesitancy, of course not in the far right sort of red pill kind of parts of the internet, is just this mistrust in the medical, in big pharma in general. And so I think, you know, I'm still crossing my fingers, but I think it'll be a warm, a warm welcome once we have just more,

less of a monopoly over these studies as they move into just broader recognition. But yeah, this is incredible. I didn't know something like this was possible. It feels like very well deserved for for humanity at the end of at the end of all this yeah I just want to clarify two things there number one is the the information is public do I trust drug companies period no of course it depends what are we trusting them on right and but are they likely to put out false information and ruin their stock when they're riding high it is very very unlikely right so and and people that experts have checked their public information and believe it's true. Again, you always want a second test, you always want more

verification, et cetera. But it's just excellent news for today. And the second reason why it's excellent news, guys, is because people are psychologically more adverse to a shot. And my theory, and this is fun speculation, is that because in the movies, the bad guys will always like inject you with something. And I'm totally serious. And why do you think we have racial bias in this Because local news told you put up pictures of black guys 24-7, my whole life growing up. You guys are younger than I am. But they told you all criminals, criminals, criminals, and that got into your head, right? And so in the movie's case, accidentally unwittingly, the bad guys always inject you with something.

So it creates the psychological feeling of like, oh, no, don't inject me, right? A pill, I take a pill when I have a headache. That's totally fine. So my guess, and by the way, conservatives don't want to die, but they got weirdly decided to die on this hill because Tucker Carlson and others told him to, right? And so now they're gonna be kind of relieved to not have to die. Maybe. Maybe.

Well, I wanna throw this out here. I wanna possibly finally after more than a year and a half go too far. It's been impossible from the beginning of this pandemic. There was no prediction for how pro-COVID the right could be that you could make that they wouldn't eventually surpass. And by the way, I wanna remind people, now it seems like the most obvious thing in the world. But before the vaccine was public, I said on the show, Tucker Carlson is going to turn against the vaccine.

And everyone was like, that's crazy. Why would they do that? It's Trump's vaccine. They want to go back to normal. And now literally every single right winger still to this day is against it. And Jimmy Dorr. And other people as well. Why are we assuming that this would be different?

Just because it's a pill? It's still Pfizer. It's still suspicious. No, but they, like they, it's not just the injections. the injections, they won't wear masks. The simplest thing. It doesn't even go in your body unless you like chew on it or something. Why would they, this is

too good. This would solve the problem. There is going to be some knee-jerk need because it's not just the individuals. It's the grifters. The grifters are feeding a desire to not be a part of the solution. An identity designed in opposition to what Biden and the country are trying to do.

And so why would they give up on this? No, but John, that's- They should have marketed it is for like when your ferret has like a sore stomach or something, then maybe they would have taken it. I don't buy that they're going to take this thing. No, but John, that's the beauty of the pill is that we don't need the right wing anymore to be safe. Because what were we worried about? We weren't like we were partly worried about them losing their lives because we're decent human beings, right? But we were mainly worried that they were going to spread the disease. And when the delta variant hit, that's exactly what happened. And they spread it. And good people who had

already been vaccinated got killed anyway. Colom Powell. immunocompromise and he got killed because of reckless people. But when you have the pill, you not only can get vaccinated if you're a responsible person, but even if you get sick, you could take the pill afterwards. You would be double protected and very unlikely to die, very unlikely. If that's the case, then the Republicans can be as reckless as they want. That's why even though your prediction is rock solid normally, there isn't anything that they wouldn't do that's, like there's no crazy enough, right? But in this case, John, I think that they'll, since we won't care,

They won't care because their whole thing is to own the libs and now the libs will say if they're rational, do whatever the hell you want, man. I can take the, I can take the vaccine and I can take the pill afterwards. So I'm fine, as long as I'm fine, I don't give a rat's ass what you do. You see what I'm saying? That's interesting, yeah. Yeah, Caroline, any final thoughts on this? I mean, I think the marketing in some weird animal focused way couldn't hurt. That's why not, couldn't do both.

It's like, no, it's technically it's a fedra for monkeys, so it's totally cool. You should try it out. Yeah. Well, one other thing I would ask, though, does this severely cut the chance and severity of long COVID symptoms? Because there are still long term. I got you, but John, at some point, we got to let it go, right? No, I need this.

My life has been so great over the past few years. Yeah, I know. That's the other thing, guys. I mean, put aside the politics again, we can travel again. We can go to the movies with peace of mind again. And by the way, John, you say there's no harm in the mask. I hear you. There's absolutely no harm.

I've done it throughout the entire thing. It's been no big deal. And it's a human decency to care about other people's lives, right? Having said that, I hate it. Okay, I do. I do it because I'm a decent person who cares about their well-being, even after I got vaccinated, right? But I don't like the feeling on my face. I don't like sunglasses because they obstruct my face.

And I definitely don't like the mask. So I'm going to be relieved to take it off, right? And don't worry, Tucker, we're not going to make you drink Starbucks coffee every day. And we're not going to make you wear the mask past the pill. We weren't making you anyway. The government never said, you must do it, right? They pass other things that you pretended were a national mandate. Yes.

Okay, well, this is going to have to be a slimmed out version, but let's at least quickly comment on another important story. the campaign finance system here in the U.S. is very loosey-goosey, but one thing that generally has been difficult to do fully out in the open and legally is to have foreign money directly influencing American politics. It happens from time to time, let's be clear, but there are regulations against it. Well, we're about to lose one of those, and that is because the FEC has now cleared the way for foreign donations to go towards ballot initiatives, which depending on the state you live in might be a very significant part of how things get done.

We're here in California where there are constant, massive ballot initiatives, and they raise massive amounts of money. Well, now more and more of that money might be coming from other countries. So foreign nationals are currently barred from donating to U.S. political candidates or committees. But with this change, they will be able to directly influence both our voters, as well as domestic policy, and we will have to see how this is eventually adjudicated later on by the Supreme Court, which as we know is awesome. Some of these ballot initiatives have to do with the nature and function of our democracy. And so how much of this will foreign money eventually get to influence?

We don't know for sure, but this is definitely sending us down a very different road. Okay, so this is disastrous news. Now, bribery is international, different companies, this is flat out, like, so let me explain. In this case, it's not going to politician, so bribery is a little bit of a misnomer. But corruption is definitely the correct umbrella. It's under the umbrella of corruption. And in this case, they're buying elections as opposed to politicians, which is actually more efficient.

Why bother giving money to a politician, hope he does the right thing? And then he's going to have pressure, and he's going to have to worry about his voters, and he's going to have to do all that lying. But no, no, just buy the election. So ballot measures, and now here's a hilarious part of this story. The degree to which America has become corrupt is immeasurable. The FEC said ballot measures are not elections. That's why foreign governments and foreign companies can buy them, can put unlimited money in them.

What do you mean they're not elections? Of course they're elections. We go to a voting booth. we vote on the ballot measure in an election. No, no, it's Orwellian, guys, but it's not right wing or left wing. By the way, one of the Democratic commissioners voted for this corruption. Okay, so that's why it was four to two. The Democrats, corporate Democrats are just as corrupt as corporate Republicans, just as corrupt.

Okay. And so in this case, they said, oh, any country wants to come in and buy a ballot measure. And so wrap your mind around it. This originally came from Montana, the case did. So there is a foreign government, a foreign company that is taking public land of Montana and drilling on it. The people in Montana don't want it, but they do a ballot measure. And the foreign company spends unlimited money lying and pretending that it's actually for the people of Montana and it helps them with their public land. And you say, well, the voters should know better.

How the hell would they know better? Who knows the intricate details of that ballot measure? And no, they unfortunately get their information in that case from the ads because the news almost never covers stories like that. So they almost have no way of getting that information. In fact, credit to Axios for covering this story, I've seen it in no cable news, no coverage at all. Did you know that foreign companies can now buy our elections? No, because the corporate media didn't tell you. Why?

Because they're also corporations. And by the way, it's a slippery slope. And the reason why corporate media is super hush, hush on this is because, remember, a lot of their shareholders are not Americans, we call them American corporations, but are they? And a lot of them then go and do like, oh yeah, my real headquarters and that Cayman Islands. So they want international corporations to be able to buy every election in America. So the corporate media is thrilled with this. They're like, oh my God, corporations have more power. Now we can just do ballot measures saying, you know what, we're gonna ban all online

programming. Why not? There are competition. It's annoying us. Remember, look, I'm no fan of Elon Musk now, but remember when local car dealerships were just bribing officials in places like New Jersey and saying to them, just don't let Tesla have dealerships. And they literally passed the law saying Tesla cannot have dealerships. Or can't sell unless they have dealerships. Yes, and they don't have dealerships. So they couldn't sell. It's unbelievable what you could bribe American officials into. And now you could buy elections. And guys, one last thing, and I'm going to come to Caroline, any government can do it. China can do it.

Saudi Arabia can do it. Of course Israel can do it. But of course Canada can do it. Of course, UK could do it. And guys, it isn't about the country so much. These are new rulers are multinational corporations. So what difference does it make if corporations based in Israel or Australia or Denmark? It doesn't make any difference at all.

They're coming here to rob you. And the FHC just said, like rolled out the welcome hat and said, Come on in, most corrupt country in the world, you're welcome. Caroline. Yeah, this is truly jaw-dropping. It's an absolute disgrace to voter transparency. I mean, ballot measures are notorious. In California, at least, we often joke about how they are the most boring but important parts of the election process.

And because of that, very few people actually know what they're voting on and have to, have a photographic memory of like, yes, no, yes, no, going into the polling station. We need to be making voting easier and more accessible and able to be understood by more people. And this is the exact opposite of that. And I'm sure this is something that happens nationwide. But, you know, every election when we have the specifically regarding like kidney dialysis and the commercials and the messaging, it's impossible to understand. And and having this type of foreign donations is just going to make already insanely complicated messaging, even more complicated. And yeah, as you said, this is going to quite literally allow corporations to take over at the municipal, state, federal level.

And it just flies in the face of everything that, you know, the Democrats and everyone has been talking about with regards to voting rights. And it's incredibly sneaky that taking these ballot measure propositions and making something that is already so archaic and so hard to understand and just making it more so more corrupt. It's a disgrace, quite frankly. Yeah, and I want to clarify one other thing. It's not just foreign companies. It's any foreign national. So any Saudi prince can buy any ballot measure in America now.

And for right wingers, America first. Are you kidding me? They just sold America out. Iran can buy elections, Venezuela can buy elections. Maduro can come in and spend unlimited money on all these ballot measures, and you might never even find out. I mean, look, you're hoping the corporate press is on your side, because on economic issues, you think, oh, they're so liberal, but you know on economic issues, they're super conservative, right? They're not on your right-wing side anyway, they're on the corporate side, you knuckleheads, they're robbing you blind.

Anyway, so you're thinking, oh, well, they would out Maduro and they would out Iran if they were in these. First of all, they don't out anybody. They don't out corporate Republicans, but they also don't out corporate Democrats. They've been protecting Mansion and Cinema for months straight here. So you think they're going to out other corporations or foreign nationals? And second of all, maybe they out the guys you think you don't like. Are you sure they're going to out a guy from Tajikistan? Well, what if he's really, really rich?

And he's also buying ads on CNN and MSNBC and Fox News. So the reality is where this means there is almost no limit to anyone across the world engaging in the open auction that is American elections. I'm sorry, I said elections, but I'm going to quote Axio so you know that I'm not exaggerating. In a 4-2 vote in July, the FEC ruled ballot initiatives are not elections under existing federal law. Isn't that amazing? Ballot initiatives are not elections. You vote in them? I mean, the only time you ever hear of them is when you're in a polling station.

Yeah, and by the way, corporations are human beings. My friend. These are- These are actual decisions made by the American system. It's a joke, the whole world laughs at us. Look at how corrupt America as they call other countries corrupt. They legalize corruption. Hey guys, anybody can go buy an election in America.

So that's where we are now, where the rich will have everything, and they don't even have to be American. Unless the Supreme Court saves us. One last joke to end in the week. Supreme Court's going to be like, corruption, what name so? Yes. Say no more. Yeah, the Supreme Court is poured.

led corporations pour unlimited money into politics, and that's how we lost our democracy in the first place. The Supreme Court's going to be salivating over this case. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That's what's going to happen to the Supreme Court. And then feckless Democrats who are actually corrupt and pretending to be feckless will come and go, oh, there was nothing we could do. Well, you could pass an amendment. Oh, no, an amendment's really scary and dangerous. Don't have a convention. No, no. That would be real. That could upset the status quo. Exactly. All right, it is what it is. This country's totally screwed. It's now nearly 100% corrupt. Okay, so that's the reality. That's the news.

It's not a good day for it, but it is what it is. All right, everybody check out damage report. It's an excellent, excellent show. We have our days. One o'clock Eastern, every day Monday through Friday. Check out Caroline on Rebel headquarters, wonderful videos, super popular. So when we come back, Francesca Fiorentina, J.R. Jackson, and amazing, infuriating stories about the right wing. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content,

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