The Young Turks - Serial Killer Eyes

Episode Date: July 25, 2024

Trump files FEC complaint over transfer of Biden cash to Harris. A clip resurfaces of Vance criticizing Harris for being ""childless."" Jim Cramer salivates at the possibility of Kamala Harris being more friendly to corporations." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Live from the Polymarker studio in L.A., the Young Turks, Jank Yugar, Anna Kasparan with you guys. So amazing day, as usual, every day is amazing these days. War criminal comes to Congress, gets a standing ovation. It's not even a punchline, it's real. So tons on that a little bit later in the show.

The Republicans instantly regretting J.D. Vance. That's an interesting development in the show. And Kamala Harris, a little bit on the war path, doing pretty good. Republicans on the retreat. So fascinating times. Casper, how you been? I mean, good. I'm glad I didn't miss anything while I was off.

No big news. No. Because that would have been awful if I wasn't here to share my thoughts on big news stories of the day. Like maybe the president dropping out of a campaign. Right. And then the vice president instantly winning the delegate count in about 24 hours. There wasn't even a debate about an open convention. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Like I said, real quick, like I said during coverage the last couple of days, Kamala Harris did one really savvy move, which is she's like, here's all my the top contenders. I'm considering them for a VP. And that caused like a panic. You're like,

Okay, yeah, I endorse Cabela Harris, right? Yeah, and also, look, others who are eyeing a presidential run probably want to do it in a way that maximizes their possibility of winning. So announcing your candidacy when you've got like a little over 100 days to run for president, not really great. So I think a lot of people are just eyeing 2028. I know. Look, I think that they're 100% wrong in not running against Joe Biden. I was right about that. I think they're wrong not to run against Kamala Harris.

They all have these grand visions of what they're going to do in 2028. I don't know if they know this. First of all, Kamala Harris might win. She has at least a 50% chance of winning, in which case you ain't got no 2028 because those are all establishment politicians that aren't going to run against an incumbent. And if you're waiting all the way to 2032, okay, the entire landscape is going to be different by 2032. So the good news is the establishment Democratic candidates aren't that bright. Okay.

Well, why don't we begin with the first major line of attack against Kamala Harris that isn't related to her gender or to how she got her started in her career. So let's begin with the Trump campaign and how they're attacking Kamala Harris' campaign funds. Here we have a situation in which a candidate is dropping out before they're the formal nominee. What should usually happen in that case under the law is that kind of first needs to give back all their general election money. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here. It seems like what instead the Democrats are going to do is, as you said, take the money and

run, give it to the Harris campaign, not bother to get any FEC guidance and just deal with any consequences on that after the election. The FEC has a process for just these kinds of situations. We have a process where you can come to the FEC, say you have a problem, you can get an expedited review in 20 days, get a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They decided not to do that. They just changed the paperwork on their committee, slapped a new name on it, called the Harris for President Committee. The Trump campaign has officially filed an FEC complaint, federal election commission complaint against Kamala Harris as their first major attack against the new Democratic nominee.

Now the argument that they're making is that the money that was rolled over from the Biden campaign to the now Harris campaign was done so illegally. violated campaign finance laws. And the gentleman you just heard from is actually the chairman of the FEC, who was appointed by Donald Trump. And while there's a 50-50 partisan split in the FEC, it's clear that the eventual decision on this matter that will be determined by the FEC, we'll have some individuals siding with the Trump campaign on it.

Now I wanna give you a few arguments that are being made by the Trump campaign in just a moment. But before I do, Cenk. Yeah, there's two reasons why they're not going to succeed. This is not a crazy argument, but it won't work because of a Democratic turn code at the FEC and what she has said, and it won't work because if it did, it would create even bigger problems for the Trump campaign. Interesting. I'll explain that in a minute.

Okay, so first let's get to the details of the complaint itself. Understand that this is different from a lawsuit. This is for now a complaint, they might pursue a lawsuit, but here's what the complaint alleges. Now, Trump campaign general counsel, David Warrington, filed this complaint. His complaint came after the Biden team amended the name of its committee on Sunday to Harris for president. They write that Kamala Harris is seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million highest of Joe Biden's leftover campaign cash, a brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest

excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the federal election campaign act of 1971 as amended. Now, Warrington, according to the New York Times, also accused the president, Kamala Harris, and the campaign treasurer of flagrantly violating the act by making and receiving an excessive contribution of nearly $100 million and for filing fraudulent forms with the commission purporting to repurpose one candidate's principal campaign committee for the use of another candidate. Now, that argument might make more sense if we're talking about Biden trying to roll over that money to, let's say, a Pete Buttigieg who didn't run on the ticket. But of course, Kamala Harris has always been on that ticket, just not as the top of the ticket.

She ran as Biden's VP. So one of the arguments is, no, this isn't just rolling over money to some random candidate. This is rolling over the money to Kamala Harris, who has served as Biden's VP. Yeah. So the FEC was usually deadlocked at 3-3. It's kind of an absurd organization. It's very important. You don't have to go to civil court to adjudicate this.

If the FEC says, no, you can't bring that money over, that would be pretty devastating for Kamala Harris's campaign. Look, at the end of the day, they're going to raise billions of dollars here. It's only about $100 million. I know it sounds so funny. Only 100 million in lobbyist money, but still that would suck, right? And but now, so in the past, you would have been like 3-3, it doesn't matter. Democrats are going to vote this way Republicans, and it's going to be irrelevant.

No, the deadlock has been broken because a Democrat has turned on the Republicans. It's a woman named Darrylindbaum. No one saw it coming. In fact, I think she might have been actually advocated for by some progressives. She gets on to the-disaster. I know. She gets on to the FEC. She's like, I don't see any corruption.

The Republicans can do anything you like, you can transfer money. get donors from there, donors from there. She's now agreeing with the Republicans on almost everything. So is she going to agree with the Trump campaign on the Biden-Harris money rollover situation? So that's why the first thing I looked for was, okay, which way is there a Linda bound we're going to go on this? Because that will definitely determine it. And she said, quote, it's quite clear, Vice President Harris can continue using the campaign committee and its funds. So since she's not on the Republican side this time,

they have almost no chance of succeeding. And they're not going to succeed in, either. But the other part of it is, you see a lot of Republicans going, not a good idea. Like Steve Roberts said, wishful thinking, who is he's general counsel for Vivek Ramoswami's campaign? Why are they saying that? Because if it's, if it's not a Biden-Harris team ticket that you could transfer the money to, then each candidate, presidential candidate can split it into a Biden ticket and a Harris ticket, a Trump ticket, an advance ticket, and then you could double dip. Okay. So, so. So the argument that Harris is making is, it's obviously a single ticket. If it's not, once I name a vice president, can I have that vice president raise the same

amount of money from the same donors? Because technically you're telling me the vice president can raise on their own, it has to raise on their own. In which case, I just go back to Jeffrey Katzenberg, big pharma, big oil, everyone else, and I get twice as much money. So that's, and the Democrats these days are better at raising money, and certainly Kamala Harris has raised a quarter of a million dollars in about 24 hours. She's doing way better than Trump in raising money.

So that's why the Republicans tried to just like, maybe not, maybe not on the double dipping. Maybe it's a bad idea. So I actually want to skip ahead a little bit to the video breaking down Kamala Harris's fundraising in just three days. She has raised an insane amount of money. In fact, the amount of money she raised in three days has far surpassed the $91 million that the Trump campaign is currently squabbling over.

And so that's really important because you are right, Jank. I mean, the funds that were rolled over from Biden to Harris, important resources for her to move forward with this campaign, but she's done pretty well on her own, raising money because there's been so much enthusiasm toward her after Biden dropped out of the race. So with that in mind, let's go to this breakdown, video A3 showing how much money Harris has raised, not only for the campaign committee, but also for Super PACs. Since Sunday, the campaign says it's raised more than $100 million, the largest one-day Hall in presidential history, plus $150 million donated to Super PAC Future Forward,

with more than half a million grassroots donors giving for the first time this cycle. Harris has also inherited $240 million that's been controlled by the Biden campaign. So if you consider the Super PAC money, that also increases the amount of money that we're talking about from Biden to Harris to the tune of about a quarter million dollars as well. Quarter of a billion. I'm sorry, quarter of a billion. That always amazes me. It amazes me how every election cycle, the numbers just get bigger and bigger.

And, Jang, to your point earlier about how Democrats have gotten better with raising, fundraising for their campaigns, I know that with the way the system works right now, that's considered a good thing, but that's also a double-edged sword. It's also a bad thing, because think about what that money really means. Now, an analysis of that money indicates that about 62% came from small dollar donors. The rest came from big corporate donors, big money donors, we're talking about the millionaires and billionaires. Obviously that money comes with strings attached, and we're gonna see how that money influences

the messaging on her campaign and what kind of policy she's going to purport to champion as the Democratic nominee. Yeah. So one of our members on Twitch, strange to wildfire, said this is stupid, but even if the The Biden donations had to be returned, couldn't those donors just take the money back and re-donated to Kamala Harris? Yes, they could. So this is stupid in 18 different ways. So for the reasons I explained earlier, for the reason that one of our members just explained, I love the members, hit the join button below, do the show with us.

But also because last election cycle, it was just midterms, right? not even a presidential race, and they raised the record $17 billion. Okay, so this election cycle with the presidential race, a very important one, is going to be way above that. So that's why that $100 million that we're fighting over is kind of a drop in the bucket. And I know it's absurd that it sounds that way, but it is. And lastly, as I've told you all along, because I didn't, I wanted an open convention not to annoy someone. And so I was never worried about that money because it could always be assigned to a super PAC who would then, spend it on whoever the candidate is anyway.

Yeah, that's exactly right. And so the final thing I'll say about this story is the reaction from the Trump campaign and Republicans overall to Kamala Harris now being the presumptive Democratic nominee has kind of shocked me because they should have been preparing for it and everything that they've done makes it appear as though they were caught flat-footed. 100%. And I did a video for the members from the floor of the convention at the RNC, which I rather enjoyed from the belly of the beast.

Check that out if you remember. And I picked up the placards that said fire Biden. And I was like, this is a giant waste of money. And that was of course before Biden dropped out. But I was positive that he was gonna drop out. And they didn't wave it much that day because towards the very end of the conference, the rumor mill was buzzing about how Biden was gonna drop out over the weekend. They finally caught on on like Thursday, the last day of the convention.

And I remember walking around the convention. Everybody's talking about Biden, I'm like, you guys don't know that he's not going to be the nominee. I mean, it's ironic because they have all these wild conspiracy theories about how Michelle Obama's going to replace him, but she's not really a woman and, and, you know, all these crazy, crazy things. But they couldn't see the most obvious thing coming. So, and that's why Trump, more than the $100 million we're talking about here, he's mostly heard that he's like, no, we were doing campaign against Biden.

It didn't change not like that. That's not fair. Brother, politics ain't fair. If anybody should know that, it's you. 100%. You don't get to cry about it afterwards. With Biden no longer in the race, there are certain attack lines that Republicans can no longer fall back on, right?

The attacks against Hunter Biden. Those are now completely irrelevant. Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, by the way, we have free hunter at shopt.com, but now the Republicans are free them because they won't care. To decommish. By the way, I don't know if you said this earlier today, Anna, but it was a good point about how, you know, now Kamala Harris is more free to attack on the convictions.

There's some chance that Joe Biden was holding back a little bit. Right. Because they were, they say, oh yeah, what about your son? And he loves his son so much. I didn't do the air quotes, but he really does, right? Of course he does, yeah. So attacking Trump's criminality was a little. more difficult for Joe Biden given the criminality of his own son. But Kamala Harris has actually

decided to lean into her former role as a prosecutor and has kind of positioned herself as a prosecutor going after, you know, the way that she's framing it, Trump who is a predator toward women, someone who has these convictions. And so it's an interesting tactful move. I think it's a smart move. I think it's actually going to bring. bring in some more moderates to the Kamala Harris campaign. And I say that because, you know, the left kind of pushed Kamala to a more progressive messaging area against prosecuting criminals and things like that. And I think that was a bad idea.

I think that she should tap into a prosecutor history as she positions herself to attack Donald Trump. Yeah, last couple of things here. One's a little off topic, but you know, to your point, Anna, I'm, there's four people that I'm interested in for VP. We'll talk about it in other parts of the show. But one of them is Gretchen Whitmer. And I'm growing to like that idea more and more as we go along. Because you like risky, huh? No, no, I don't think it's that risky at all. I think it doubles down on your strength. And I think it drives out women voters, especially when abortion is the top

issue in the last couple of elections. I think that it will present a target to the Republicans. They will not be able to resist. They will make endless sexist comments and misogynistic comments. and it could be a huge problem for them. She could deliver Michigan, et cetera. I'm not set yet, but I think that's an interesting strategy. And then the final thing I wanted to say is come back to your original point. It drives me crazy whenever any article mentions raising more money as like some amazing thing. Like I get it.

You need it to win the race. And we talk, we analyze it from that point of view as well. But it should always be noted for the record. These are all people who want favors. Exactly. So whether it's Democrats or Republicans, whoever that candidate is, And in this case, is both candidates raising record numbers saying, oh, I'll deliver for you and not the voters. I'll deliver for you and not the voters.

And you've got to be unbiased about that, no matter which side you're on. Now, when we come back from the break, I'll show you how Republicans are kind of struggling with how to attack Kamala Harris. Some video of an interview that J.D. Vance had with Tucker Carlson back in 2021 is now coming back to haunt him. And now all of a sudden, Republicans are questioning whether J.D. Vance was a good VP pick for Donald Trump. So we've got that story and more coming up. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Smurfs, only date is July 18th. All right, just became a member

through t-y-t.com slash team became our main John. Oh, I'd roll us out and all of a sudden you got a new main John. Anyway. Well, maybe he shouldn't have gotten COVID. Yeah, well, listen, those consequences. No, seriously, thank you to the YouTube members who just joined as well as Sean Marlin, Womble, Hufflepox X-Zero. These guys are super fun.

And Rai Russo and Progressive Moose and Kylo, thank you for gifting memberships. You guys are the best. Is it enough fun doing the show together? I love when you guys make great points and we put it into the show. All right, Anna. Well, there may be some buyer's remorse when it comes to Trump's VP pick, J.D. Vance. So why don't we get into it? We're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made. And so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. And it's just a basic fact.

You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it? That Tucker Carlson interview with GOP, vice presidential pick J.D. Vance, dating back to 2021, has now come back to bite J.D. Vance right in the ass. Because that kind of messaging doesn't really play so well when you're trying to attract independent voters at a time when not Joe Biden, but Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee to basically run against

Donald Trump in the general election. Now, after that video resurfaced, and And again, it dates back to July of 2021. A bunch of articles were written about it, obviously a lot of women were unhappy about him referring to childless women as miserable cat ladies. Harris, by the way, became a stepmother to two teenagers when she married entertainment lawyer Douglas Emhoff in 2014. And the attacks against Pete Buttigieg pretty gross as well. He announced that he and his husband adopted infant twins in September of 2021.

So a few months after J.D. Vance made those statements. And by the way, Buttigieg weighed in on that interview just last night while speaking on CNN. So let's take a look at that. The really sad thing is he said that after Chaston and I had been through a fairly heartbreaking setback in our adoption journey, he couldn't have known that. But maybe that's why you shouldn't be talking about other people's children. And it's not about his kids or my kids or the kids.

the vice president's family. It's about your family, people's families whose well-being will depend on whether we go into a future led by somebody like Kamala Harris, or do you want your children to grow up in a country defined by a return to the chaos and recrimination and cruelty that was the hallmark of the Trump era? So I like what Buttigieg had to say there because he's touching on something that is, in my opinion, a big problem with the GOP's messaging as it pertains to some of the culture war issues and the side that they like to take on those culture war issues.

They like to simplify incredibly nuanced and complicated matters. So when J.D. Vance makes that statement about women who don't have children, he doesn't understand that he's actually insulting various groups of people. His assumption is that, oh, well, couples who don't have kids or women who don't have kids, they're childless by choice, right? They're selfish, they've decided against it, they're miserable women. He's obviously tapping into a ridiculous stereotype, but you also have to consider the fact there are plenty of women out there who want to have families.

They haven't found the right partner for them yet. They want to ensure that they have a dependable partner to have children with. There are women who desperately want to conceive, but cannot conceive for whatever reason. And by the way, you have Republicans now attacking in vitro fertilization to make it more likely for women who are having difficulty conceiving to be able to have children, there are also women out there who are step parents, right? And that kind of messaging doesn't really appeal to those women as well. And so it's interesting, Jenk, because Kamala Harris is a complicated candidate, okay?

I don't know who she really is. She tends to kind of go with the flow in what's popular or trendy at any given moment. But what I will say about her is that she has been attempting to appeal to corporate America a lot more and we're gonna talk about that later on in the show. I read about those things and it makes me dislike Kamala Harris as a candidate. And then that's immediately followed up by Republican attacks like this against women in general and I'm like, I don't like that either, I don't like that at all, right? Yeah.

Well look, the Republicans constantly disqualify themselves from huge sections of America. And remember, both the Republicans and the Democrats take corporate money. So that's kind of a tie. So then for the tiebreaker, you go to who can you stomach and let alone the Supreme Court, let alone other things that we care about. But you know, when you have Republicans that purposely insult the great majority of the country, it's the worst electoral strategy, you just can't help themselves. So let me break down a little further from based on what I know was saying.

First of all, Kamala Harris has two stepdaughters. That's from her, the second dude, Doug Emhoff's earlier marriage, right? Gentleman. Sorry, second gentleman, okay? And so what he's saying and is in calling her a cat lady is, kids don't count. Well, there goes millions of voters, right, who feel incredibly insulted by that. So then how about the women who can't have kids?

And now you're useless cat ladies? Oh my God, there goes millions of more votes, right? And then the woman who chose not to have kids, either they didn't get married or they got married, but they didn't want kids, there goes millions of more votes. I mean, because these are so directly personally insulting, you're insulting the identity of these people, you're making fun of them, you're making fun of the lifestyle choices that they made. And so that's where we get into both polling and the instincts of Republicans. Yeah, I have to add one more thing to that, Jen, because it's not just that he stereotypes

women who don't have children, he goes even further than that because he claims that those who don't have kids have no stake in America. That is so outrageous. Okay, by the way, as a woman who doesn't have children, of course I have a stake in America. I love this country, I want to protect this country. I want wonderful things for people who live in this country. And the idea that I have no stake in the country is one of the most insulting things to hear from a politician. Yeah, it's super dumb in every conceivable way, factually wrong, politically, strategically wrong. So, and one other absurd thing that he said within that quick 30 second bite there was he talked about how these,

childless cat ladies were running politics and the corporate oligarchy. What? Are there a lot of motherless women who are CEOs and executives of the giant corporations? I've never heard that. What an crazy out of left-wheeled attack. And by the way, this guy, he's always talking about, oh, I'm against the corporate oligarchy because he knows that that polls well, and hence he's a fake populace. But at the same time, he's like, now remember, if we get into office, more tax cuts for corporations.

and more deregulation so corporations can hurt you, can hurt the community, as long as they make infinite money. But I'm against the corporate oligarchy. Okay, now back to the women issue. The polling indicates that single women are much, much more likely to vote for Democrats. Women with no kids are more likely to vote for Democrats. But there's no causality there. I mean, there could be because of the policies of Democrats and Republicans, but you're not

going to fix that by just taking those women and forcing them into marriage. and forcing to now have kids. But these knuckleheads don't understand science at all. Yeah, actually, Jake, it's even worse than that, right? Because one might just look at this surface level and think, well, the Republican Party never really did well with women anyway. So who cares, right? They're not really hurting themselves with this messaging

because they're insulting a demographic that wasn't with them to begin with. But that's actually not true. What was really surprising, I did not know this, women voters turned out at higher rates than men in 2022, And that's essentially what prevented the so called red wave from happening. Also, Trump had far more support from women voters back in 2020 versus today. And Jady Vance has become a bit of a liability toward Trump when it comes to maintaining the support Trump had with women to begin with. And so I want to go to this next clip because there is some polling about how J.D. Vance might actually be dragging down the tip.

it overall. So let's take a look at that and I'll give you more details. We take a look at the net favorable rating for a J.D. Vance, that's a favorable minus unfavorable. It's a negative net territory. Look at that, negative six points. I will tell you, Aaron, I have gone all the way back since 1980. He is the first guy after immediately following a convention of VP pick who actually had a net negative favorable rating. That is underwater.

The average since 2000 is plus 19 points. J.D. Vance making history in the completely wrong way. And look, I remember when Trump had announced that J.D. Vance was his VP pick. You know, I follow conservative media. I want to know what they're saying. I want to understand their perspective. They weren't really happy with J.D. Vance. They couldn't really understand why Trump took the risk of going with Vance. And so now you're kind of starting to see it play out and the polling indicates that he might be actually dragging the ticket down altogether. But I have more details. Polls have consistently shown that the proportion of women planning to

vote for him this November is smaller, meaning vote for Trump, is smaller this November than those who did in 2020. That's what I was referring to earlier. And Vance has nothing to offer Trump on this score. Quite the reverse. He risks compounding his boss's problem. So two things about that, and then I want to get back to the so-called cat ladies. So you remember who made this pick for Donald Trump, who convinced him to pick him? Beavis and Butthead, his two dumb-ass sons, he was going to pick Doug Bergam and make the business community and the establishment a little bit more at home. Look, I don't necessarily think that any of those guys are good guys, and I don't care about the donor community feeling more at home with Trump. But at least there was some strategic sense and Beavis and Butthead came in and they're like,

no, daddy, no, let's double down on Maga. We're gonna win anyway, oops. So back then, of course, Joe Biden was in the race and they were gonna win. It was pretty much a lot, but they couldn't foresee that hey, Joe Biden might not be in the race a week later and now all of a sudden you're the underdogs. So very, very poorly played and guys, this is what I keep coming back to. They cannot get outside of their own perspective. So in their perspective, yeah, you make fun of single women without kids, what's their point?

They're useless without kids. Yeah, but women don't think that. They don't think that they're useless without kids. You Neanderthal think that. And they assume that everybody does. It's so unbelievably dumb. Yeah, and by the way, I mean, his messaging in the past has been so extreme and not just unpopular with women, but unpopular with a lot of men as well.

So for instance, in 2021, he suggested ending marriages that were maybe even violent as selfish. This is one of the great tricks that the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, he said, making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear. He essentially has advocated for women to remain in abusive relationships or for couples who are in unhappy marriages to remain together out of the sake of the children, for the sake of the children, I should say. He has taken aim at child care subsidies as class war against normal people, despite or maybe because such subsidies provide women with young kids, more opportunities to work

or go to school and be independent. By the way, in today's economy, most couples don't have the option of having the mother stay home. Even if they want that, it is incredibly difficult to make that work out given the fact that you need a dual income household just to make ends meet. So making it harder for women to find childcare, not really a popular position, even among some Republican voters, moderate Republican voters. And by the way, the final thing I'll say is, the thinking was that J.D. Vance would help

Trump secure Ohio for sure, right? And that he would help appeal to the Rust Belt voters. But it turns out that that's really not playing out in Ohio. So with that said, let's go to the polling on that. But if you look at Ohio, if you look, yeah, J.D. Vance wants. in 2022, but he only won by six points. That's worse than Donald Trump did in 2020. It's far worse than Mike DeWine did in 2022. He was the worst performing Republican candidate in 2022 up and down the ballot in the state of Ohio. He has nothing there. All right. So Trump does

very well with white working class voters. That's one of his superpowers. So what does Vance add? Yeah, what does Vance at? Look, he won white working class voters. He won white voters without a college degree in the state of Ohio, but pretty much every Republican wins white working class voters. And if you look here, again, the margin that Vance put up was the weakest performance of any major Republican. So look, I'm very curious to see how this plays out, Jank. Do you think that Trump might have some buyer's remorse? Yeah. Look, people are starting to talk about should they get rid of J.D. Vance. Can you even, can you, I mean, I'm sure you probably can do that, But is there precedent for that?

Yes, but that would be astounding in modern day politics. And it would be such an admission of failure, it would be devastating. And look at this guys, I just look, we had almost no chance of winning with Biden as the nominee. Now that Biden's not the nominee, what did we tell you? All of a sudden, we have all the chance of the world are winning. We're massive favorites all of a sudden. And these guys are spinning out of control. But don't you know, Jank, anyone who advocated for Biden to drop out of the race, secret Trump supporter.

Yeah, by the way, all the folks who wanted Biden to stay in the race, you were accidentally helping Trump. Sorry, and I'm not blaming you like you guys blame me, right? But that actually was what was happening. So the next time you go to make that charge, be a little bit careful. All right, I've got to tell you the last couple of things here. J.D. Vance is Trump without the charm, okay? Yes. Okay, now you say, hey, Trump's not at all charming.

I hear you, but for his voters and for some independence, they think he's funny. They think he, you know, they like his stupid stories. He has charisma and he's a showman. He's a showman, right? Yeah, he is, he's good at that. He's good at public speaking, he's good at captivating an audience. J.D. Vance, based on what we've seen from him so far on the campaign trail, not the case. Yeah, he's got serial eyes.

So like, so he's got huge issues. But last thing is to come back to our members here, because it gives you a really good insight into how people are receiving the comments about women that he made. And so I'll start out funny because you're mentioning guys and then I'll get to more serious ones. A YouTube member Handy Dandy said, speaking on behalf of single men, thank God for single women. Okay, so he's even losing that vote. Jesse said, I know women who desperately wanted children but couldn't. Imagine how angry those folks are when these people are basically insinuating that if you don't have kids, what's your point?

And that you don't have use. It's terrible, terrible count one and said, I love my stepmother and my parents who adopted me. They could F off with all this, okay? And that's huge. It's really bad messaging. It genuinely is. So those are YouTube members, by the way. Hit the join button below and become part of the show, become part of the Young Turks.

I'll do one last member from Twitch. Peachy Sherry wrote in, I was terribly insulted when they said the only valid family is a father and mother and kids. my husband died. Is my family invalid? Oh my gosh. You see, this is what I'm talking about. They have such a simplistic, stereotypical view of, you know, of what like the family needs to be. And if the family isn't perfectly set up the way that they envision, oh, well, all the insults start flying. And it's just, it's going to turn voters off. And remember, guys, the elections are not determined by the extremes on both sides. They're determined by the independent voters, the swing voters, and they tend to be a lot more moderate in their thinking. And so, again, if the Trump campaign moves forward with this kind of disgusting messaging, it's going to turn a lot of important voters for them off.

Finally, I do want to at least give Donald Trump an opportunity to express what he's feeling about J.D. Vance because he was asked, point blank, like, do you regret J.D. Vance is your VP pick. Let's hear what he had to say. You've made your vice presidential pick, but now that you know, Kamala Harris is going to be your opponent, would you have possibly gone in a different direction had you known that? No, I do the same pick. He's doing really well. He's really caught on. Okay, so for now, you know, Trump is putting on a brave face and defending J.D. Vance, but we'll see how it plays out moving forward. Okay, you can say that this is speculative and it's totally fine. But that Donald Trump did not seem excited. There was a lack of Riz in that reaction. Yeah, because normally when Trump's excited, he's like, he's the best vice presidential candidate, anybody's ever seen.

No one's ever seen a vice presidential candidate like this. We're winning with him. Okay, we're getting tired of winning with him. He'd be rambling on and on about how great J.D. Vances, you're correct. And in this case, he was like low energy Trump. Low energy, and he moved on to something else immediately after that short statement. Yeah, he's good. Yeah, whatever. Okay, back to me.

So again, we'll see how it plays out. We are going to take a break though, and when we come back, there are some potential issues with Kamala Harris, and it's important to know what those issues are. We're going to talk about that and more when we return. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it.

Shop now at IKEA.ca. Thank you. You guys in San Monaco, gifted five memberships on YouTube. You guys are awesome. Casper. Just wanna make a quick note that tonight we will be covering Joe Biden's Oval Office address. We'll be doing so live, so definitely stick around for that. It's supposed to start around 5 o'clock, Pacific, 8 p.m. Eastern.

We'll see how that plays out because he tends to be a little late with these addresses, but we will be covering that. So stick around for our coverage later on on the show. For now though, let's talk a little bit about something I'm genuinely. concerned about when it comes to Kamala Harris. And while I'm concerned, Jim Kramer over at CNBC is super excited. These are very different people. Biden has been and remains unsophisticated about the way business works, unsophisticated about the stock market by nature. Picks people who have been historically bad for Wall Street, Lena Kahn, Jonathan Canter, antitrust. This whole idea

that she's a clone of his, it's completely wrong. She was much more moderate than him. So you think it's a net positive for the markets? Absolutely. And for American business. Absolutely. There's no doubt about it. Kamala Harris, as the Democratic nominee, a positive for the markets.

These are some of the distinctions that are being drawn between Kamala Harris and former Democratic nominee Joe Biden by the president. pro-business, pro-corporate community, and it is worth delving into this because, look, Kamala Harris is kind of an enigma when it comes to what her genuine principles are. She just kind of goes with the flow in whatever tends to be trendy at any given moment. But she has taken some steps that make it clear to me that she's going to be far friendlier to corporate America than Joe Biden has been. And so I want to break that down.

Now, Jim Kramer is the person you just heard from over at CNBC, and he's giving us a sense of how Harris is considered more corporate than Biden in a number of important ways. Before we get to that, though, before I show you those clips, I'm just curious what you think, Jank, you know, on surface level, do you think Kamala Harris is going to play patty cakes with corporate executives? Of course. So look, I want to dissuade you of two things that I keep seeing in the press that have no validity at all.

One is they keep calling her a progressive. And I'm like, based on what? She ran to the, like when she was running in the Democratic primary in 2020, to be fair, she did position herself as further to the left compared to Biden, right? But only compared to Biden, and Biden was almost the most right-wing candidate in the race. I agree. So I'll give you a specific example. Biden ran on, I will raise corporate taxes to 28%. Remember, Trump lowered them to 21%. Kamala Harris says, I will raise corporate taxes to 35%, which was the original tax rate prior to the Trump tax cuts for corporations.

I mean, just to be clear, neither one of them intended to raise it a dollar. Agreed. I agree. 100% on that. It was just theatrics. And at the time, progressives were a little bit more ascendant in 2020. So she was trying to lean towards that part of the party. But no, historically, she donors and her have a terrific relationship. And I've never seen her do anything progressive. And so she doesn't fight for it. Look, I'm happy to have a turn in direction. And if she starts doing progressive things or advocating for progressive things, I'm super happy to do it. But there is no evidence of that. And then they keep saying, well, oh, younger

voters like her. No, they don't. That's not based on any poll at all. And I'm like, what is this like, why do people keep saying things that are just demonstrably, empirically wrong? And then thank you to Harry Enton at CNN, who broke the gaslighting. He did a He's like, that's not true at all. Yeah, exactly. He did break down the smaller percentage of the youth vote that support Harris in this race. So far, I mean, things can change, obviously. But with that in mind, why don't we get to some of these clips?

Here's what Jim Kramer has to say about Harris and how she differs from Biden in regard to regulating the tech sector. You've got a person who's from California. I'm regarding this actually as mega versus maga. Megatech does better with someone who's sophisticated, who understands California, who is not against tech. Her brother-in-law is Tony West, who is a former general counsel of PepsiCo, then was with the Justice Department, is now the general counsel Uber. And you tell me if there's someone who's more sophisticated and knows more about business and the West Coast than her brother-in-law, who would be an amazing advice. They're close. So Kramer isn't wrong about that.

In fact, there's an excellent piece in the New York Times out today that kind of goes over what Kamala Harris has been doing behind the scenes in terms of, you know, luring in corporate America attempting to appeal to them. They write that she's been meeting with groups of corporate executives roughly every two months at her residence in Washington. And that's according to two executives who have met with her. She very clearly wants to kind of pivot away from some of the regulatory efforts that Biden was pushing for. And in particular, it seems like she's ready to kind of purge the executive branch of some of Biden's more popular and, you know, you know, basically Lena Khan, who heads the Federal Trade Commission, who's been fighting against mergers and monopolies. it seems like she's more willing to kind of do away with Lena Khan, which is concerning. Yeah, but so now nuance. Okay, so there's different industries that are affected by the different candidates.

And it's kind of sick because it depends on who they raise more money from. And so since Kamala Harris is from California and she has better connections to the tech companies, she raises more money from the tech companies, so she might be less interested in antitrust against tech companies. Although that one's also complicated because there's tons of tech companies that want Google and Meta broken up so that they can compete better against them. And a lot of those guys are actually supporting J.D. Vance. That's true. And so, and that's why he has the, oh, I like Lena Khan and antitrust stance that was surprising

to so many people, right? She's also not going to pursue changes to basically the protections to these platforms, like Facebook, for instance, meta, for instance, or X. Section 230 is something that Republicans and some Democrats have been targeting, which would essentially penalize the tech companies or the platforms that have certain content published on their platforms, right? Yeah, it would destroy the internet. It's the dumbest thing in the world.

And I get why Trump's a dumb ass and talk, I don't like meta, let's get rid of 230. It would also destroy true social, you dumb, dumb person, okay? But Democrats who go along with that drive me nuts. So anyways, but it doesn't, but Kamala Harris might be tougher on other industries, like banking. Most importantly, although I doubt that. But oil and gas, she would be a little tougher on oil and gas. And so the fact that it's like donor tributes like in the hunger games that determine all the policy, you're not going to hear that anywhere else.

But they do hint at it. Like political had a really interesting piece that explained which law. are happy and unhappy with Kamala Harris. They never ever mentioned that it was corruption. They just like with a straight face, they're like, well, since she takes money from here and doesn't take money from there, the lobbyists here are concerned and the other ones are not.

This is like the most brazen corruption. And if you're a Republican, you're like, oh my God, you see what we told you about the Democrats. Brother, the Republicans are the same exact thing and even a little bit more. Historically, although these days the Democrats take more money. So we're gonna have to see how it shakes out. Is she going to be a revolutionary that shakes the system and goes, you know what, I'm not

going to listen to the lobbyist, and I'm here for the people, there's a 0% chance of that. Okay, so with that in mind, let's talk a little bit more about the tech sector, and Biden's appointments that Jim Kramer very clearly is not in favor of, corporate America not in favor of, and Kamala Harris might do away with, let's watch. Biden's attorney general, their attorney general was antagonistic to the point of like making fun of Apple saying, look, their phone is so good, we gotta stop that. I don't have to go into Lena Conn anymore. I don't, because everyone knows my views, so there's no need to reiterate.

But I will say Jonathan Canter in the end, Attorney General, he goes, Khan goes, these people go. Super excited about these people going, right? And look, what's amazing to me, Jank, is people like Jim Kramer are only concerned with how the stock market is performing. The stock market has been performing really well. Yeah, he actually even mentioned that. Even though he was like taking pot shots at Biden for the only good things that he's done, like putting Lena Khan and canter into place, et cetera.

But even in the middle of that, he had to acknowledge, well, the market has done great under Biden. Okay, then what are you bitching about? What's the issue? Because you know why, of course I know why. The reason is they want maximum greed. They do. They're like, oh, the market's at 110% of what we expected. I wanted it at 120. I wanted it at 200%, give everything to corporations.

And honestly, that's the whole point of CNBC, is to represent corporate interests. the most worried about when it comes to Kamala Harris and honestly the way that the Republican party has been marketing themselves and positioning themselves, okay? And it has to do with this political realignment, at least that's what it appears to be on a surface level. I'm not sure I'm buying the rhetoric on the right. But in terms of optics, this does not look good for Democrats and Harris in particular. So take a look. This is going to be globalist versus nativist, not nationalist, nativist. Yes. Populist in terms of the Republican Party versus pro business versus the Democrat, international

business. You're not going to get someone who is as negative about tech as the people, except for Vance, who's incredibly negative about tech. I mean, Vance wants to, you know, he wants to, I don't know what he wants to do other than the fact that he favors the worker. And she favors lower prices. That's what globalism is. It's lower prices for people. With the Trump vance ticket, there can be no doubt. The old free market Republicans have been obliterated.

In their place is an American first withdrawal from the rest of the world where all the money in the industry is left here. Tariffs go up and the government makes it much harder for businesses to move their operations overseas. The days when other countries threw up tariffs and all sorts of other trade barriers to American goods, then we open our factories there, government does nothing to retaliate. They're done. They're done with Trump. This is, that is not good. Like, look, everyone has their own priorities, okay?

So this is my bias, and it's important for people to know what my bias is. My bias is in favor of the American worker, period. So the protectionism that kind of started understanding. under Trump and continued under Biden, I'm actually in favor of. I want more manufacturing in America. I want us to build things, to create things, to export things, and not rely so heavily on importing products that were basically created and made and manufactured by cheap labor that was exploited abroad.

And so the idea that this is now being framed as Kamala Harris is pro, I guess, consumer, because it would like lead to cheap prices to exploit cheap labor abroad, while Vance is pro worker, that is not good. That is not a good look for Democrats, if you ask me. Yeah, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that, because I don't think that Jim Kramer is correct, and that's not a controversial opinion, he's almost never correct. But when he frames it as Vance is the populist, and he said vans is for the workers, the average worker, and Kamala Harris is the globalist. Disaster. Yeah, that's not helpful at all, right? I mean, it's not helpful to Kamala Harris, but the question is, is it true?

And the New York Times piece that I was referring to earlier specifically laid out how Kamala Harris is meeting with corporate executives to talk to them about opening up manufacturing possibilities in other countries. Yeah, look, I'm less protectionist than you are, but I am for the average worker. I just, I want to get there in a slightly different way. And I think that the tariffs, et cetera, do drive up prices. And I don't think that's a great idea. But there are different ways to protect the average worker. Don't let the corporations write the trade deals. That makes, it drives me crazy that they just hand it off and go,

oh yeah, write it in your own interests instead of the workers' interests and the average America's interest. Now, okay, having said all that, when he frames it that way, it's both very bad news for Kyle Myers. He thinks he's doing her a favor, but he's painting her as the pro establishment candidate that Americans are don't want at all. The pro corporate stooge. That's the way that he is. And he's bragging about it. I'm like, oh, she's a pro-corporate. Because that's what he wants.

That's what he wants. Remember, Jim Kramer's number one priority is profitability, increased profitability for these corporations, which usually translates to what, Jank, corporate stock buybacks, which artificially inflates the value of, you know, shares that he might be invested in himself. That's all he cares about. Yeah, so look, they would love Trump on CNBC if it wasn't for two things, because he gives away trillions of dollars to corporations. So the Kramer's of the world probably pleasure themselves to the bills that Trump has passed.

But it's the protectionist stuff that drives them crazy. But more importantly, he's so unstable. They're like, I don't know, this lunatic can do anything. And then that'll disturb them their beloved markets, right? And in a bad way, for all of us, right? But when he's bragging about what a pro-corporate globalist Kamala Harris is, there is one silver lining and it's kind of important. So for the rest of the country, that's a terrible message to send out about Kamala.

Harris. But for the CNBC viewer, it might not be so bad because I realized literally in the middle of watching that clip, I'm like, oh, these are the Nikki Haley voters. The people who watch CNBC, I'm going to call them to CNBC Republicans from now on. They're the ones who are not for Trump because they're like, I don't want the stock market to go down. I don't want protectionist measures. I don't want business limited in any way. And so Trump gives us all the tax cuts and deregulation, but he does limit us on these tariffs, et cetera, and he's such a wild man. So those CNBC Republicans might flip to Kamala Harris. No, that is happening. That's already happening. A story we'll do later on the show today.

The Nikki Haley supporters have now formed a group Haley voters for Harris. And look, in my opinion, part of this political realignment that's happening is a result of Donald Trump entering the political space leading to a like Republican voters feeling repulsed by him and essentially joining this already giant tent of Democrats. Okay, we're talking about Bush era Republicans now joining the Democratic Party. And I don't want their influence in the Democratic Party. I can't stand those people. I'm gonna say it with my full chest. I can't stand those people. The neocons, okay, the globalists, no, never like them. And they were coming up at a time when I became politicized.

I've always found those people repulsive. Now they're part of the Democratic Party, and they have a lot of weight in the Democratic Party. That is a problem. No, what you're seeing is the shift that the Republicans keep pointing out that the Democrats are now becoming the party of big money, corporations, the establishment. The elite. Right, and the Republicans are pretending to be populace. But the transition hasn't actually happened in policy, so the Republicans are still giving corporations way more than Democrats are the biggest tax cut in U.S. history, the giant deregulation, go drill everywhere.

We don't care about any laws or rules like corporations run wild. So, but the bottom line and the most important thing to keep in mind, if you're just a voter trying to figure out who to go for here, guys, you've got to decide it on other grounds because the bottom line is both Democrats and Republicans these days are run by corporate donors. And so both sides will do 98% of what corporate donors want. So it's kind of a tie. I mean, and if you're a Democrat, I know that that breaks your heart and you think, no, our side is angels. No. Not even angels. The Democratic Party that looked out for blue collar workers, for ordinary Americans,

ensuring that they've got money in their pockets and they're not being exploited by their employers, ensuring that their jobs are protected. That party, in my opinion, no longer exists. There are some politicians within that party who still believe those things. But their influence has been fading increasingly every election cycle. Few other things that I want to just get the audience to know about. So this political piece was also fantastic. It kind of broke down what members of the corporate community are saying about Kamala Harris.

So let's go to the first graphic where they write that corporate Democrats and financiers on Wall Street are optimistic that Kamala Harris would govern as a centrist, said Jeffrey Sondonfeld, a professor of management at the Yale School of Management who regularly consults with top U.S. CEOs, quote, the business community, especially the tech slash, VC community are exhilarated over this choice, he told Politico. Now, in contrast to Trump, she's not an isolationist on foreign policy, something many in the corporate world care deeply about, and they believe that she is less likely to pursue trade policies that are as protectionist as Donald Trump's proposals. And so that's, in my opinion, concerning, right? That's the neocon influence within the Democratic Party, if you ask me. And finally, in an email to Politico, here's what Mark.

Cuban, a billionaire investor had to say about Kamala Harris. The feedback I'm getting, but certainly not confirmed by the VP, is that she will be far more open to business, artificial intelligence, crypto, and government as a service, changing the policies, changes the message, and lets everyone know that Kamala Harris is in charge and open literally for business. Not a great statement either. All right, super last thing for me is, if I was gonna vote just on this issue, I'd still vote for the Democrats.

And it's not because of bias, it's because of this stone cold reality. Trump took the corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. And then also cut many other taxes that help billionaires, including the repatriation tax, which allowed, for example, his top donor Sheldon Aedelson to bring back billions of dollars and pay only eight and a half percent instead of 35%. So they save billions of dollars corporate interested because of Donald Trump. And Biden, yes, he was pressured by international forces, et cetera, but he did it, and I don't think Trump would have passed a 15% minimum tax on all corporations. So that's a world of difference.

And if you're a Democrat and you're naive and you think, oh, no, no, Democrats are, you know, challenged corporate power. No, generally speaking, they don't challenge corporate power at all. But on that tax issue alone that is worth billions to trillions of dollars, that's enormous. and score one for the Democrats on that. I know it's a low bar, but they cleared it and Trump and the Republicans didn't. All right, we're gonna take a break when we come back for the second hour, lots more to get to, including, well, a group of Nikki Haley supporters now backing Harris. Nikki Haley, not happy about it.

In fact, she sent them a cease and desist letter. What does this all mean? Well, you're gonna have to come back to find out. We'll see you in a few.