The Young Turks - Supreme Court Sides With Trump

Episode Date: June 28, 2019

The Supreme Court ruled on two hugely important topics, and one ruling went to Trump. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

Welcome back to the Young Turks, the big second night of the first round of Democratic debates. I'm John DeRola. Brooke is here and JR as well. So we've got the- Do we get last names? Do you want it? Yeah.

It's not in the contract. Okay, Jackson and Thomas in some orientation. But your household name now, Brooke. So it's already over-nexed. Like Oprah, that was always a goal. You're undercutting yourself. Like one name and to stop breaking my nails. We're like four seconds in and I'm done with you.

I was just kidding. I just want to spice it up. But we're not done with the news, I'm not done with you guys yet. We have a lot to get to big decisions by the Supreme Court, Donald Trump giving the middle finger to active duty troops when it comes to deportations, the planet's on fire, so that's pretty important. We're gonna give you some excerpts from a UN report that lays out and really start to tales how bad the situation is and how seriously we need to take it.

And also, along the way, this is after all our second night of debate coverage, which means that we're gonna be going to Miami in just about a half an hour or so. Jank and Anna are going to be joining us telling you about what's going to be going on through the course of the next couple of hours. And then later on tonight, we're not going to be doing live commentary of the debates. We unfortunately don't have the legal right to do that, but immediately following the debates, you can rejoin us. We will be commenting on what happened, showing you clips of the debate.

We're going to be joined by Anna Kasparian, Emma Viglund from Miami as well. Jank is going to once again be in the spin room. And so that all starts at 8 p.m. Pacific time, 11 p.m. Eastern time, and we'll go until 10 Pacific 1 a.m. Eastern, geez, that's late. And starting at 9.30 Pacific time, it will be for members only. So if you're not already a member, you can go to t.t.com slash John. That coverage, by the way, in studio will be myself and J.R. Jackson and David Dayan as well. That's going to be good stuff. I'm going to watch you all from home. Yeah, and so this is, look, this is a big night. I mean, I don't necessarily think it was

fair to call last night at the kitty table. Like, there were some serious candidates there. Elizabeth Warren was there and de Blasio. Well, there was a lot, there were a lot of people. I'm being so now. You're just named random names out. But tonight you do have both Biden and Bernie, as well as I think number four and five in the polling, which is Kamala Harris and Buttigieg as well. So, you know, another 10 candidates is going to be a big night.

They're not only going to be making the case for themselves, but also to some extent responding to what happened in yesterday's debate. So what are we going to learn about the candidates? What language is going to be spoken on stage? You have to tune in to find out. And with that, why don't we jump into the news? because there's a lot to get to. Today, the Supreme Court had two important rulings.

One of them kind of okay, although we'll see what the lower courts do now that it's been punted back to them. The other absolutely horrible for the future of American democracy. And we're going to start there with the absolutely horrible. And that has to do with partisan gerrymandering. Effectively, the Supreme Court has decided that they just don't want to get involved in that sort of thing. With Chief Justice John Roberts saying, we conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims

present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions. Now, some of that makes some sense. The issue, though, is that gerrymandering does not come about because of a close, careful reading of the Constitution. It's just partisan BS that's been developed over time to give an advantage to whoever was

already in charge, and thus you need someone other than those same elected officials to adjudicate whether a gerrymandered map is fair or not. And we know, and we're gonna give you lots of examples of horrible ones, and now the idea was always going to be in particular cases, hey, maybe it'll go to the Supreme Court. But say goodbye to that, apparently it's not gonna happen in the near future. This is upsetting. Obviously, gerrymandering on the basis of race is unconstitutional, and by all logic, part in gerrymandering, just by the way things are drawn, it's 100% about race.

They are, if you just like look at the different communities and you put pictures on a map, either would no one would not be able to see that it's about race. And so because they're not calling it, race gerrymandering, it gets to slide by, which is wild for me. Yeah. Well, they talk about how, you know, at least in their opinion, decision, how it's not, it wasn't written up in the Constitution originally, so we can't do anything that for federal judges may decide before.

Federal judges should they also not have a say either? The whole point is this, from the bottom to the top, the level of judges are supposed to make these decisions based off of what you think would make a fair democracy. I would think, I'm not a judge. I don't know. But if a federal judge can make these decisions, why is it suddenly the Supreme Court is out of this equation, at least in their mind, out of this equation to make that decision? And there's plenty of things in the original part of the Constitution that wouldn't have come

up. Yeah, Jerry Manning was not something that the founding fathers were thinking about, right? We also weren't thinking about civil rights. The fathers didn't have to gerrymander. The people that they're splitting up in these districts were actually owned by them. Yeah. Keeping it real. Why don't we go into some examples of how bad this can actually be in actual practice?

But first, in her dissent to Roberts' ruling, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that, quote, gerrymanders like the one here may irreparably damage our system of government. I want to give you the example of how this sort of process actually works and how it can be used in a state-specific basis to give it advantage. edge to a party, but also how significant that can be once you apply it across something like 50 states. So we have an assemblyman, David Lewis, a Republican of North Carolina who had previously said, I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.

I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. But understand that if he could draw a map that gave 13 Republicans and zero Democrats, that's the map that we would have. But instead, he thought the best I can do is 10 Republicans and three Democrats. And in fact, in 2016, Republican congressional candidates won 53% of the statewide vote, and they won 10 of the 13 congressional districts, or 77%. They won a very narrow majority of the overall vote, but they got almost all of the actual

political representation, which is certainly significant. And then let's go a little bit broader. Some more examples. If you look at in 2018 in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina, we're going to break up the chart, and you're going to see the difference between the percentage of the vote that the Democrats got in those states. In all of those cases, they got the majority of the vote. But in none of those cases, did they even get half of the actual seats in Congress?

And depending on which state, it's either 45%, 47%. Now, in any particular state, this might mean one or two or three seats that they don't get. But then you multiply that across the country and you have the difference between having the minority of the majority in the House of Representatives, which is obviously incredibly significant nationally. But they will still fight and talk about how, oh, our election system is the way it is, it's fine, or overwhelming. We heard Donald Trump talking earlier in the week, or maybe even late last week, about the popular

vote, it doesn't matter they didn't win it, oh, in fact, he did win it. Oh, well, our election system is the best wrong, because you keep messing with it in these terms. So, I mean, we've gotten to the point now where this particular state rep was talking about, you don't have to even hide it. I'm not sure if they ever began to. I was going to say hide it anymore. You probably never hit it. Just say straight up, I believe Republicans need to be elected.

So I'm going to do things to make sure Republicans get elected. What part of democracy is that? You don't have to be a Supreme Court justice to understand that equation that he just put forward. I believe this, I, one guy, along with seven to eight other guys, let's just do it this way because I feel that way. What if one of the two in the minority that you've created said, I don't feel that way? What do we call that? Overwhelming your democracy with unfair election systems.

Why would anyone want to applaud that? It should be talked about in every kind of, in every election, every campaign, when you're talking about replacing these people and see if people really are proud of this American best system in the world. Look, and best case scenario, hey, maybe in a particular case, a particular state Supreme Court might decide that a map had been gerrymandered in a partisan fashion and they might overturn it. Maybe.

That's what we're hoping for. But I understand that in some states, those positions on the courts are elected positions as well. Those are partisan positions. And in many cases, if it's a Republican Supreme Court at the state level, maybe they'll rule that it's fine, or maybe they'll just say, well, look, the Supreme Court said that it's not up to them. Maybe it's not up to us. So, you know, we take our hands off the whole process. The Republicans who control state government can determine it for themselves. And this, again,

is incredibly important. This isn't some philosophical debate, just some judicial debate. This is about power in America. Back in 2010, across all House seats, all House races, Democratic candidates received a nationwide plurality of more than 1.4 million votes more than the Republican. But the Republican Party won a 33 seat majority, thus retaining its House majority by 17 seats. So even though the Democrats got more votes, it didn't matter. Now we're used to this happening in Senate races, it happens all the time because of the way that you only have two spots so you can win a big state like California and it only has as much representation as a state that has like five people in it.

But it's happening in the House as well. We have to go broader because we know Donald Trump didn't win as many votes as Hillary Clinton did. That's becoming a constant thing across Republican presidential candidates. And still, they win it. Now they also get the Supreme Court too, because even when a Democrat's in the White House, they don't give them the seats that they deserve. And so whether it's at the state level, if it's in the House, if it's in the Senate, if it's in the White House, if it's in the Supreme Court, democracy doesn't mean anything.

Sure, it's on the papers, but in practice, you don't actually get the representation that you vote for. And this is not some accident, we're not finding a bunch of unrelated coincidences. This is part of a nationwide ongoing campaign of the Republican Party against democracy, because they have realized at long last that they simply cannot win national elections anymore. There are platforms, nobody actually supports them. Their conservative white minority is growing smaller with every passing day. They fear demographic change that they see happening all over the country, and so they

have decided that democracy is not for us. And that is why you're seeing things like Mitch McConnell denying a seat on the Supreme Court, and you're seeing voter ID. You're seeing all of this, including we're gonna talk about just a minute, the census question and gerrymandering. All of these things are designed to stop you from getting the government that you vote for. And it doesn't matter, really, because they can be against people voting. They can try to limit it as much as possible, and nobody says anything about it.

And it doesn't hurt them at all. They live in a representative democracy. They are violently opposed to representative democracy. And nobody really brings it up as an issue. Right, and you were talking about being proud, they are proud of this. This is the plan. point. They have gerrymandered the Supreme Court, our states, you know what I mean?

The federal election was kind of given to them in this weird system that we've outgrown. But yeah, they are proud of this, this is the point. Well, why don't we turn to the second- Nothing done fairly. Jared, did you want to say- Yeah, because this is the problem. We talk about grassroots. This is the grassroots version of Republicans getting what they want as far as the election system.

So we got tons of people, generally, I hate to generalize, but as a matter of people, but as a Americans, we think about, oh, the election matters is the presidency, and then something called that Senate and every once in a while of the House, and it gets lessened from that point on. You don't get a chance to know who your state representatives are, who your local councilmen are, councilmen members are, all these levels of government that then leads to the next thing up, as we just broke down, happens in a certain way to get to the highest point, and then get people like Supreme Court justice in, or get someone like Mitch McConnell to make

sure no other Supreme Court justice get in under a president that's still sitting. It's all connected. We have to understand how these things work. If you go out in the street and you ask folks in general, I mean, I don't like these men in the street things necessarily. Ask anyone, what is gerrymandering? No idea. Regular folks don't know.

And it's not, I've always said it's not necessarily their fault. They just got home from their nine to five. They're trying to have dinner. They don't have time to study about gerrymandering, which is why this is one of the most effective ways to break down our democracy. Yeah, you're not wrong. And look, I don't have the numbers here, but you can find it. When I talk about that they're turning away from democracy, I'm not just talking about the electoral strategy by the elected Republicans.

You can look at the actual polls. Their base, when asked, is democracy the best way to run a government, they are turning against it. Those numbers are changing over time, and that should not be a surprise. The historic, the traditional attachment to representative democracy was contingent on those democratic results, delivering power to consensual. conservative white individuals. If it's not gonna do that anymore, then they're not interested in it and they will turn to some other system. We see Donald Trump, someone who wants to emulate strongman autocrats from around the globe.

There's not a coincidence that they're turning to someone like that. If they think that that is how they will maintain political and economic power, then that's the future. Democracy is simply the past. Now let's turn to the one at least presently good decision by the Supreme Court. Oh, by the way, one other just interesting note, because we were talking about examples of this, Wisconsin Democrats won every statewide election in 2018, but did not win majorities in either chamber of the state legislature. So they won all of the state, but they could not actually get control of the state legislature because of the sort of process. And also, one more thing we were talking about earlier, how this is so blatantly about race.

And I couldn't remember the name of the college, but it's an HBCU, not only that, it's the nation's largest, North Carolina, A&T, university. They, the districts, it's literally split through the college. The HBCU is split in half. To minimize its power. That's wild, right. Yeah, and they have sophisticated computer programs that allow them to do this down to the block level. Okay, so there was also a ruling on the addition of a citizenship question to the census, which is something that Republicans have been pushing for for fairly obvious reasons.

It's only become obvious to people in power and in the media recently because of a hard drive showing the sort of racial reason behind it. But thankfully, the Supreme Court did decide that at least for right now, that cannot be added to the census, although we're not done with this topic. The Trump administration claimed that the question is necessary because it would help with enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which deals with voting practices that discriminate based on race. The idea behind this is that having this data would help prevent the drawing of congressional

maps in ways that discriminate against minority citizens of voting age. On that question, Chief Justice John Roberts said, the court cannot ignore. the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given. Neither respondents nor my colleagues have been able to identify any relevant, judicially manageable limits on the secretary's decision to put a core demographic question back on the census. And in case this needs to be clarified, again, even though we've done it over and over and over again, Republicans keep saying that the census is designed to count the number of citizens,

it's not, and it's specifically cited the Constitution that it's not, where it says representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states, which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, persons, persons, not citizens, persons, including those bound to service for a term of years and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. So a couple of other national stains there listed as well, but they're trying to add in a new one into the census, and thankfully at least for now they've been stopped.

Were you surprised when you saw the news this morning? When I saw this particular one, yes. You were, yeah. Yeah, we have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. And in general, over the past year and a half or so, it has delivered constant wins for conservatives for Donald Trump. Yeah. I mean, on the gerrymandering, like, I know that people who watch this don't need another

reminder, but this is why the Supreme Court is so important. And the Supreme Court is one of the reasons that presidential elections are so important. Because when you hand over power to someone like Donald Trump, this is the sort of news that you wake up to for literally years, if not decades. And they're gonna use that conservative majority, whether this next election is a re-election for Donald Trump, whether we get some centrist Democrat, whether we get a progressive, they're gonna be able to count on their conservative majority in the Supreme Court to protect them from the boldest legislation and to continue to give them wins in areas of workers' rights,

the environment, and voting rights as well. I was surprised too, I think these two cases are similar in the way that they are, it's obvious, it's obvious to everybody. But luckily in the census question, there was just blatant proof, just laid out word for word on what they were doing. But regardless of that, the Trump administration was willing to say, no, no, no, no, we need to know where every Hispanic person lives so that we can protect them because we are not the administration that ever discriminates.

Absolutely not. They're willing to like run on that argument, go with it, all the way to the Supreme Court. It's every level they can think of. By the way, don't let the smooth taste fool you. I don't care how many times Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are going to accidentally stumble themselves across the right way to adjudicate things like this. I never trust. That's all.

That's just my approach to these things. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, well, this is such a surprise. Yeah, it is a surprise because it's not going to happen very often. Yeah. Yeah, enjoy it while you can. And enjoy this while you can because, again, as I've been saying, this is not over.

They say in their decision that there's really not much time. A few months, I think, until the census needs to be submitted. And as of right now, they're saying if the Trump administration wants to do a little bit more research and then come back with another explanation as to why they need a citizenship question, then they're free to do that. Or they can potentially, I guess, try to postpone the census, even though it's very specifically listed in the Constitution that that needs to happen on this periodic basis. I don't know how they would do that when the process so far has taken literally years.

But right now they have been given the opportunity to try once again to cover up the obvious racist motivations for this addition to the census, and it might end up getting added in the end. With that, we should probably take our first break. We come back more to get to, as I alluded to earlier on, the Trump administration is targeting active duty members of the military's families. Pretty significant insult there. We're going to give you the details after this. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fing the Republic, or UNFTR.

As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media. and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times

described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Welcome back to the Young Turks, everybody. I'm John. This is Brooke Thomas. Jared Jackson, we'll get the middle names for the next block, but you guys have been sending

us both members' comments and also messages at hashtag TYT Live on Twitter, and I want to read some of those. Gabby and Marita said, this SCOTIS gerrymandering ruling is the entire reason the GOP is putting up with Trump. He got them two Supreme Court justices with a huge assist from Mitch McConnell and the first, who ensured the voice of the people won't matter for generations. Justin said, damn, that may be the finest discussion of gerrymandering that I've ever seen. G-G everyone.

Well, thank you. But it's not G-G. We still have the fight because they actually won on that one. Let's see. Is it G-J everyone? G-G. What's that? I read it as good game.

Oh, I was thinking like, good job. So I was thinking maybe you misread it and said G-J. Or good going? I think it's good game. But I'm a gamer. Somebody just a good game, right? Okay. Cody says I've been watching TYT for three years on YouTube and now I'm glad to say that last

night I officially became a TYT member, Cody. Thank you so much. If you'd like to be like Cody, and you should be like Cody, t-y-t.com slash John. Let's see. Zappahart said, Brooke on Air has been a household name in Philly for years. We love Brooke on the show. Oh, thank you. I'm really glad to be here.

I hear that you're such a big name there that you even have weird YouTube stalkers there. I did have a stalker sitch, yes. Exactly. It was a commercial that a politician there had used a clip where I mentioned his name, and they played it over and over and over and over again. And it got fixated and it got, it just got, it went off the rails. It got a little bit weird. It got a little bit weird.

And Aerodynamic 88 says, why does it feel like the people have little to no power in the US? I do disagree, I think that the war is an attempt to stop us from having power, but I mean, we had some good wins in 2018, you know, Tiffany, Timothy, Timothy Kaban winning just a couple of days ago is another example of that. Like the fight is hard, these races are very close, but when we fight we can win. And it's gonna take a long time, but I have no intention of simply quitting just because it's gonna take a few more cycles to get to where we need to be. I agree.

So we have the power we take for ourselves. I agree with your positivity there, John, but I didn't remember the person's handled. They're right. Americans don't have much power in this country. It's just the way it is, now we're fighting it, but the truth reality right now is we don't have much power at all. Yeah, the bad thing about surrendering is that after you surrender, you still don't have power.

So why not fight? Hey, go down swinging. Or don't go down at all. Okay, with that, why don't we turn to, I wish that I could transition. to something positive, but it's going to take a bit, something negative first. The Trump administration is planning to scale back a program that protects undocumented family members of active duty soldiers from being deported, according to attorneys who work with those individuals.

So previously, let's give you the details from the attorneys first, and we'll give you the history of this program and why it is so reprehensible that the Trump administration is making the change that they are. Attorneys for military families with an undocumented relative say their clients have been told the parole in place program is being terminated, prompting them to scramble to apply for its protections before it comes to an end. One government lawyer had a message obtained by NPR that said, I would advise clients that if they're eligible for parole in place to submit it ASAP, wish there was better news to share

big takeaways that no group is safe any longer. So what is this program? Parole in place is designed to offer temporary relief from deportation from military families where a spouse or loved one came to the country illegally in order to allow troops to serve without fear that their families can be sent home while the service member is deployed. It specifically allows military family members who have come to the country illegally and can't adjust their immigration status to stay in the U.S. temporarily. A spouse who overstayed a visa, for example, would not be protected under the program.

So it does not provide protections in all cases, but the idea there is that if you are serving in the military, in active duty, the last thing you need on top of all the stress of serving in our forever wars around the globe is the idea that while you're abroad, your family member is going to be deported. And so, and I believe this program actually, oddly, was set up under George W. Bush. It didn't provide protection for everybody. But it was a good move. These people are serving, they're serving their country, maybe we could cut their family

a little bit of a break. And Donald Trump, as much as he loves to talk about how much he loves the military, he hates immigrants more, and so this change is happening right now. And you ever see those videos, they're the biggest tear jerkers, I feel like on social media, it'll be a mom who's on active duty, and she'll come to the school and surprise her kid. And it's obvious how big of a pain this is on this family. You know, they're without a major member of the family for so long, and they're over and they're fighting for the country, and you could actually come home and your husband be deported.

What? Yeah, yeah, we're making this massive sacrifice, right. Yeah. So this terms, family values, what about the children? Support the troops, hey, thank you for your service. But don't kneel during the anthem. We throw these terms around and call ourselves the best country in the world. Donald Trump likes to talk about how he's rebuilding the military with dollars.

But when they're overseas serving, they come home and then maybe their spouse isn't there anymore, what do we care about that anymore? These are all empty terms, it's empty rhetoric. The number of people, even when we send people off to fight, you know what else we say? When we're talking about, we don't want to send our troops into harm's way over your monetary, what you want to make for your companies that paid you off. They said, well, they signed up for it. The degree of heartlessness and dismissal that a lot of these politicians have towards

our troops when they talk about how much they love them is astronomical. We'll keep going through the whole thing over and over again. Hey, you know, as long as you're married to some dirty illegal immigrant, we don't care anymore. When is this going to become a sticking point? When are we going to talk about this enough over and over and over again? To the point where someone says, hey, let's not go into that war and someone says, how dare you hate America? It's written in our DNA now, but it's not written in our DNA to treat people right. It's so bizarre that we allow, in most cases, the Republican Party, have this reputation as supposedly supporting these different institutions, even though it is so.

So contingent, like they say they support the cops, for instance, okay, but if you're a cop and you were like serving, you know, after 9-11 and you got cancer as a result of it, like Mitch McConnell is actively spinning in your face every single day. They don't support cops, they support cops who just killed it on an armed person. So in that limited case, they do support you. In the military, they say they support the military, they don't support the active members of the military, they support spending more money on the military. Let me sketch a future of what being in the military is going to be like.

like, you're gonna return from serving in Afghanistan, you're gonna return to the home where you used to have a family, they're all gone now, they've been deported, but you can consult yourself with the fact that we have the F-35. Let's see if that makes your life any better. That is how they support the military. They support the dollars spent on the military because that money goes to military contractors. The actual people, they don't care about you at all. How many people in the military fly F-35 fighter jets?

I mean, it's not gonna be a ton. How many of them use the most high-tech equipment? A percentage of our military that he likes to talk about, all the fun things and toys that he wants to buy for them, actually goes to what they need and what they're doing. I'm sure a significant amount for things that they need to do other things. But what he likes to talk about is those things that like to pop up and make him look better. We remember when he first came in office, this president wanted to have a military parade because it's really cool.

And I can put my face on the side of a tank and make everyone march with locked knees and put one arm up and have the bayonets over their shoulders. That's the picture that was in his head. And we'll see what happens on the 4th because he's planning something like that already. That's the fun part. That's rebuilding the military in his own image because he has this God complex. Yeah. Well, I've actually just gotten word that our representatives over in Miami awaiting the second

night of the debates are ready to join us. So I believe at the rally right now, Jank Yugar, can you hear me? D-Y-T. Hold on, not yet, not yet, hold on. No, they can do it now. Hold on, hold on, hold on. How's it going, Jake? How's it going, Anna?

Okay, hey guys. They were chanting early. I couldn't hear you. Okay, so we're in Miami again, obviously. Second day. First, all my rowdy friends are here. All right, fine, go for it. Tri-T, T-Y-T, T-Y-T, T-Y-T, T-Y-T, T-Y-T, T-YT, T-YT, T-Y-T, all right.

Okay, that's what we want to see. Okay, okay. All right, guys, so now time for our summary of what's happening in Miami. Tonight it was supposed to be arguably a bigger night. We've got Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. That's the top two contenders so far. And we've got Kamala Harris, Buttigieg. We have the top four out of five in tonight's debate.

But what's happening on the ground, other than the TYT Army, it's strangely quiet and empty here. Yesterday it was filled with madness and chaos and lots of folks. And today, I think we might have scared him off. And so the battlefield is ours. No, seriously, we're going to do what we do again. We're going to have a just Democratic candidate come and speak. And we're going to speak to you guys at 8 o'clock live right after the show. And we're going to go in the spin room, of course, and they're going to do a watch party as well.

But right now, calm before the storm. And by the way, in Miami, maybe quite literally, because it just started raining. Well, you know, we're certainly excited here to cover the second night, so the night of the debate. I do have a theory, actually, about what might have scared them off. I think it might have been Anna's fiery response to Eric Bowling earlier today. I think that might have scared a few people away. Well, that experience actually happened yesterday. And so it kind of goes to the point that Jank was making about the kids.

chaos yesterday. There were some agitators here. Bowling happened to be one of them. And, you know, he was doing the typical right-wing media trick of interviewing rallygoers to take them out of context, mash them up into a video and make them seem like they don't know what they're fighting for or talking about. And so at that point, I jumped in because I was like, all right, if you want to ask some questions, you could ask me questions. And, you know, Mediite has covered it. You guys are talking about on the show today. He had no interest in hearing someone answer his questions. He kept taking the mic away from me, kept interrupting.

Mm-hmm. I want to show people a section or two of this video. So we're gonna play a short section and then hopefully we can get a response from you about a little bit more about what was going on. Here's my question. He can send in the mic away because he knows I have answers to this question. He can send in the mic away because he knows, I know the answers to these questions. This economy is excited.

Just give me one. Norway, Sweden, Sweden, they're not. Venezuela, hold on stop for a second, they are social democracy. They are social democracy. Let me be clear about one thing. Venezuela is an interesting case that you guys never give the details about. Venezuela was a petrol state that put all of its resources, all of its energy, everything, all of its eggs in that basket.

Oil prices go down, Venezuela is in trouble. Why is this? No, that is not a socialism. That is about socialism. They stopped manufacturing. Someone else's money. They stopped manufacturing. They stopped exporting.

Okay. Now that seemed like a really good explanation of the situation. Has he switched over to our side? Yeah, I mean, he's not interested in like a good faith argument or debate. He's just coming here to try to smear people. And look, it was, I'm actually shocked that I was able to get any point across because, you know, we were in the middle of. a lot of chaos. And so I couldn't even hear myself speaking. And I was really worried that we

would be taken out of context. And luckily, you know, we have our own film crew here. We had our own video. So the Blaze is planning on doing some coverage on that tonight. But luckily we have the context out there for everyone to see. Yeah, I was amused because he's like, all right, name one socialist country that's worked. We're like Norway. He's like, fine, another one. Sweden. Fine, another one, Denmark. And by the, so of course, those are actually considers themselves some form of socialism, right? But he wasn't saying fine. He was like, no, it doesn't count.

Doesn't count. Like, wait. I mean, you can say it doesn't count, but it does. They're a form of socialism in those countries. And by the way, we have a form of socialism here. It's called Social Security, Medicare, cops, firefighters, military, et cetera. And so when I explain that, again, they're not looking for an answer. They're not looking for the correct answer.

They were hoping that people didn't have the answer. And when they did, they're like, well, I was giving you the mic so you wouldn't answer it. If you are, I'm taking the mic away. So, you know, I'm actually, I'm curious about that because the brand, the schick of these sorts of people, of which I would say him and Crowder and Ben Shapiro is always that they like to debate, okay? The idea of debate is that someone could conceivably change their mind, either one of the people in the debate or someone watching it. I've noticed that nobody ever does change their mind.

So when you engage in that sort of conversation with them, understanding that Eric Bowling is never going to be like, you know what? Damn my paycheck. I'm a progressive now. What are you hoping to achieve in that? Well, okay, good question, John. So earlier today, I went on newsmax, which is a very conservative. organization and they're run by

one of Donald Trump's best friends but believe it or not they're actually a little bit more sane than the rest I know it's a really low bar okay but but we did have

a normal rational conversation and you know what the host told me afterwards he said you know thank God you guys didn't pick Bernie last time because he would have beat Trump

so that is a really conservative host saying that and in that conversation overall when we were on air, I kept going to things, I'm like, you know, your voters are against corruption. And they're like, well, that's true, right? And you know, you guys don't want Soros's money, right?

And, well, we don't want Koch brothers money. Now Tucker Carlson doesn't want Koch brother money in it. Well, that's true. So why don't we get all the money out? Huh? I don't know anything, right? And so, and by the way, there is some surprising agreement. These days, not in the old days,

but these days, a lot of them do not want to go to war. So they're growing to realize. that the money that the Republican politicians are getting is in fact corrupting them, and they are in fact corrupt, and they're beginning to realize that wars haven't worked out for us. Next thing you know, they'll think, hey, wait a minute, why don't I have higher wages? They might soon realize we're actually fighting not just for us, but for all of us, including them.

Yeah, I just wanted to add one other thing. Look, for me, it's not about Eric Bowling, right? Eric Bowling is a lost cause, and I recognize that. But it is about planting a seed when it comes to people who watch his show. So if you put the full context of that whole interaction out there and some of his viewers see it, I mean, not all of them are gonna, you know, actually listen to an argument and consider it, but some of them might. And even if they don't buy into it immediately, it still plants a seed.

And I think, you know, what I try to think about now is that New York Times story about the young man who became, you know, radicalized by the right wing on YouTube. and how he became de-radicalized by shows like ours and Sam Cedars. And so I just think that, you know, there are people out there who are not lost causes. And we need to make good arguments, reasonable arguments that are based in evidence and fact. And eventually, I think some people are going to be persuaded by that. One last quick thing on that. To Anna's point, when he says, name one socialist country and we say Norway,

some percentage of his viewers might go, Oh, yeah, right. No way to, I'm sure Bowling's right. Norway doesn't count. And then they Google Norway, and they're like, oh, my God, it is socialist, right? And they're like, wait a minute, it sounds pretty good. They get childcare and health care, and it's not what Bowling and Blaze and Fox News describe it to be. It's not communism.

They're talking about largely about communism. Eric Bowling kept saying, but wait, in Norway, they let me make money. I know. They let you make money in socialist countries. He's talking about communism where no one is allowed to have any job they want and they're not allowed to set up businesses. He's just flat out wrong about the definition of those two different things. Well, I know you've got big plans there for the rally.

Anything else we should expect from your end? And if you wanted to say anything in advance of the tonight's debate, this would be a good time. Yeah, real quick, let's talk about the debate tonight. Look, I think that there are two big storylines to look after. There's a lot of interesting folks in the debate, and some uninteresting ones. But one is obviously Biden versus Sanders. How aggressive is Sanders going to be and going after Biden? We're all rooting for as progressives for him to be more aggressive.

Last night, Warren and de Blasio were very aggressive, and it worked great, and we were all energized by him. We thought it was terrific, and the country was energized by it, and they stood out. So we're hoping he does that. Of course, we don't know if he will. You know what Biden's going to say. He's going to say, oh, the status quo is wonderful, et cetera. Even though I don't really believe it, I'm a progressive. So he's got to be challenged on that.

The second storyline is Kamala Harris versus Buttigieg, because they're competitors for that establishment leader if Biden goes down. So will Kamala take on Buttigieg and challenge him? Maybe on some of the racial issues that he's had problems with. So, or is she going to be soft? Buttigieg is unlikely to attack I mean as Elizabeth Warren says

I've got a plan for that Buttigieg lately not lately for the entire campaign has been no no I really don't have a plan for that and so if he keeps going like that in the debate he might Beto himself yeah I just I want to you know just add a little bit more to that

I think Jank is absolutely right I think what we saw last night with Beto O'Rourke is if Buttigieg hasn't thought through specific policy proposals. I think he's going to suffer the same type of loss in this debate because think about it. I mean, you're dealing with heavy hitters who have policy proposals out there already. And so if you come at, you know, at that debate stage with, I don't know, whatever, some weird tactic

or some skill that you're going to showcase like speaking Spanish, it's just not going to resonate with voters the same way that it would if it were like 2008 or 2012. Yeah, so last thing on that, guys, is I'm amused by the idea that Buttigieg would come out and instead of speaking Spanish, he's going to go straight to Norwegian. Maybe that'll be his defense of democratic socialism. So one last quick question, this is not yes or no, I guess it's just a name. Last night, there were a few people who sort of had nice moments that weren't necessarily expected. They're not polling very well, but they did a pretty good job.

Who's your guest for a person who might, you know, get in a good line, have a good moment, and spike a little bit of search interest in themselves? Oh, I've been clear about this from Daywell. Andrew Yang. And so I don't know that Andrew is very aggressive. I haven't seen that at all. But the only person in the race who might have more policies than Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is Andrew Yang. I mean, I went through a quarter of his policies and it took us half hour, right?

I mean, he has pages and pages of policies. And so I'm intensely curious to see what he's going to do because he's an interesting outsider. And the country is not familiar with him yet. And so when they hear about him and they hear from him, they might go, whoa, I didn't see that coming. And remember, we know what the establishment media doesn't know, which is the country is thirsty for outsiders. And not just in Miami because it's hot, but all over the country. You agree? Yeah, what he said.

What I'm looking forward to, what I'm looking forward to is the unexpected and the memeable moments. I'm just going to keep it real. Like the Cory Booker, you know, GIF that came out of that whole Beto O'Rourke-speaking Spanish moment was wonderful. Like, this is what makes these debates so great.

You never know what's going to happen. So, yes, we're going to focus on the substance, but I always love those little morsels of fun that happen unexpectedly. Okay. All right. You guys want one last chance? Yeah, let's hear it.

All right, let's do it. TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, TYT, all right to you. Okay, thank you, Jay Canana and everyone who came out. It's great to see you guys actually showing up and, you know, making clear to these politicians, you know, how big the TYT audience is and the list of priorities that we want to see in effect if they actually end win. It's really odd how they put together that whole group of diverse individuals from young to old and different racial backgrounds.

And, you know, we set things up for political purposes all the time. You know, they do that at those, when there's rallies, like when Trump has a rally, they place people on the camera, you know. Yeah, those. And it's disgusting. But that's an organic group of folks that have a common approach to politics and what they want for the country. Yeah.

We do have to take our second break, though. When we come back, I want to give you excerpts from a report by the UN on how obviously climate breakdown is an issue, but in a particular way, in terms of inequality, it's going to be even harder on certain populations. We'll give you the details after this. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

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

So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to expressvpn.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free series. So in just a minute, I want to read some of these messages that you guys sent to us over the internet, but did you know that the internet isn't always secure?

And although many of you are probably already using a VPN for a variety of different reasons, if you're not, you definitely should. And you need the only VPN to receive a perfect score from PCMag. You can help secure your web traffic and protect you from all sorts of different snooping and spying on your online activity, people who might be, you know, interested in stealing your data, monetizing your data. You can get NordVPN for 75% off at NordvPN.com slash TYT. You guys had a lot to say about that last segment from Miami.

I saw Beckdew 71 said Anna put the smack down on bowling. So good. Tamara 517 said our TYT army looks so happy to be there. I'm so proud of being a part of this movement. We are on the right side of history. That is 100% true. Jomo says, if someone is looking for a form of socialism that works, then rejects it, give them a form of capitalism that has also failed.

One example is Rwanda, then explain to them how saying Venezuela is proof that socialism doesn't work, is like saying Rwanda is proof that capitalism doesn't work, then explain to them that every country actually uses degrees of both to help keep the economy float. The only issue with that example is that you're assuming you're talking with a rational person who doesn't have a direct financial reason to deny the truth that's being given to them. The war on Gryft continues. Okay, with that, why don't we turn to an incredibly important story? Here?

Oh, no, I think we're doing that a little bit later on. But that's important, too. I'm not going to tell you what it is. You can stick around and find out. You get it's tuned. But anyway, this is important. Yeah, spoiler alert, it's more proof that American citizens don't have any rights in this country. Anyway, go ahead.

Exactly, as if we needed more proof of that. Okay, new report by the UN making clear how terrible the climate crisis actually is and how horrible it's going to be for everyone, but especially for certain populations, populations who have the least financial ability to actually withstand the effects of climate breakdown. This is coming from Philip Alston, UN's special reporter on extreme poverty, who previously had toured parts of America and described the extreme poverty that he found there. That's a fascinating report from, I believe, early last year, which you should definitely look for.

Here on climate change, this is what he said. climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction. It could push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030, and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work. Proversely, while people in poverty are responsible for just a fraction of global emissions, they will bear the brunt of climate change and have the least capacity to protect themselves. We risk a climate apartheid scenario where the wealthy pay to escape over here.

hunger and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer. And so that is an amazing turn of phrase there and very apt considering that, yes, it's, you know, we're the ones who are producing the emissions in the US, places like now on the rise of it in China and India, Europe, but it's going to be places in, like for the most part, I would say Africa, but some parts of Asia as well that are going to be decimated by the effects of this, even though they were not the ones causing it in the first place. That's how power dynamics work. You know, the people in power that have the money, that have the positions to do things

about it, and when they decide not to because it doesn't benefit a couple of dollars if theirs, they're allowed to let these things slide. And then when someone actually wants to represent more than just those few people, they call them fear-mongering, they say you're making up these numbers. When AOC was talking about the Green New Deal and said the, I think it was a 12-year window when things will significantly change. Oh, now she's saying 12 years, oh, look at this, how dare you say 12 years? Well, because you can look into the futures, I'm all.

You're having your lack of acceptance of the facts based off of just because I said so. But when scientists and people who study the topic try to school you on it, and you just back and say, oh, can you believe that? That sounds crazy. Yeah, it does sound crazy. Maybe you should pay attention since you don't know what you're talking about. It's, there's no incentive for the folks in power to do anything about people that aren't in power. There's devastating things that happen across the world already, but, hey, we live in the United States of America, and we say, oh, if I can't see it, it doesn't really happen.

Oh, then we say there's devastating parts of the United States of America that look like a war zone. Oh, well, I don't live there, it doesn't really happen. And those areas get larger and larger, and then the areas where they can put themselves over a wall and drop down a moat and drop a bridge over a moat to let only there's certain few people in, that becomes the reality. But until it becomes that point, no one will believe it. Just that first graphic there, that it threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress. Just putting all of that in perspective and you're talking about numbers. And we always talk, we talk about that 12 year number and what the irreparable damage that will have occurred at that mark.

And then also at that point, you know, going back 50 years. Yeah. Yeah, the thing, and by the way, we're at 11 years now because that number's from last year. And it depends on you talk to, but the thing is, if you think that it's crazy, like, oh my God, we only have 12 years. If there are any climate deniers or anyone who's just hearing about this now, I know most of you have been paying attention to this topic, you know that people didn't just start talking about this in October of last year.

Right, yeah. People have been sounding warnings for decades and decades and nobody, listen, barely anyone is listening now. And if it sounds like what we need to do now to avert, not the consequences of climate breakdown, that ship has sailed, but the worst consequences, the apocalyptic visions of what the future could be, that's because we try. chose not to act when moderate or even light changes to our behaviors, electricity generation, and transportation would have been enough to solve the problem.

We didn't listen in the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s, and so now, yeah, things have gotten a little bit extreme, and so our solutions have to be extreme as well. The actual issues are fascinating. I want to give you a little bit more from this because what this is going to cause, the climate apartheid that he's talking about is not just overall heating, it actually impacts the function of governments as well, with this section saying the rights to life, food, housing, and water will be dramatically affected, but equally importantly will be the impact on democracy as governments struggle to cope with the consequences and to persuade their people to accept

the major social and economic transformations required. In such a setting, civil and political rights will be highly vulnerable. Now there, they might well be talking about some states, for instance, in Asia and Africa that are going to be, as we pointed out, more affected by these sorts of changes. So when you have a country where their ability to produce crops dries up, their literal water sources literally dry up, we were talking about there's glaciers, I think near Nepal, that provide drinking water for a billion people. That's a significant chunk of the entire human population. That is rapidly receding right now. You cannot remove drinking water for a billion people without expecting mass chaos. And perhaps we can build our walls high enough. Perhaps we have enough guns to avert all of those problems. But we do live in an interconnected society, we cannot simply wall off America from the rest of the world and imagine that as we create a smoldering hell outside of our borders, that that's not going to come home to roost inside of them as well. It's building right now, as you just said, building a wall along our borders to keep

the undesirables out. We're already there. So these doubters about the reality are some of the supporters for that same reality. You're building a wall to keep those other people out because they're leaving in the instances and countries that are in such turmoil because of things we've done to push distrust around the world, now a lot of people fleeing to other places already. And it's not like it's anything new either, as you said, this is something that's gone on so long.

Mike Pompeo was talking about the rising waters before. His reason for saying that's a good thing was, hey, that's good for our waterways. That's a good way to travel and have trade come through. And that was accepted as an answer. For some reason, that isn't met with, how dare you? I don't do anything on the waterways. Why isn't it taken personally then? It's only taken personally when it comes to the rich and powerful saying, that doesn't affect

me. Move along now, and we're supposed to accept that. And the fact that we all keep talking about walls and the people here in this country, a lot of the lawmakers in charge don't seem to care. It's not even that they don't even believe it. They don't seem to care. They keep talking about needing more research or, oh, it doesn't have to be this, we can have a moderate plan, we can do this.

These walls, this is one thing that America's not going to be exempt from, you know. And of course, we already have pockets of people that, one could say, our lawmakers already consider undesirable, people that don't deserve protection and help. Yeah. It's getting worse. That's why we're building up the military too. The military makes sure that we have, if not the physical wall, then the wall of intimidation and death.

You cross this line, we will kill you. We're saying all these things right now. So 2019, we're pointing out how we're saying it. Literally the chant of your president was build that wall. That's true. Yeah, and look, I mean, we have an obligation to talk about what is going to happen in the future, but don't let that lull you in a false sense that the consequences are coming. We're dwelling in the consequences right now.

California hasn't been on fire for the last few years because someday climate change is going to be an issue. The hurricanes that have destroyed portions of the U.S., the flooding in the Midwest, these These aren't hypotheticals in the 2030s or 40s or 50s. They're the reality we're living with right now, and they are wreaking a horrible toll, not just in terms of the people that have died in the cases of these extreme weather events, but the economic toll as well has been significant. And we get into this habit of asking, how are you going to pay for certain things?

Certain things, not other things, like how are you going to pay for the horrific economic cost of climate breakdown as it continues? I want to read, I know we're just going to be a little bit over, I want to read two more because they're amazing. I'm actually considering doing a special event where I sit down and read the entire UN event on a live stream, just because it's so important and literally no one is paying attention to it. But here's two more quotes from Philip Allison who says, states have marched past every scientific warning and threshold, and what was once considered catastrophic warming now seems like a best case scenario. Even today, too many countries are taking

short-sighted steps in the wrong direction. And he goes on to say, maintaining the current course is a recipe for economic catastrophe. Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fully compatible, but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions. And so there are responsible people in the UN scientists, some politicians who are taking this threat seriously, but unfortunately right now they don't sit in the White House. They don't hold the levers of power. We need to put responsible people who understand and accept science in a position to do what

is necessary to stop the worst effects that are being sketched out in reports like this. And I just pray to God that that does happen in this next election. Unfortunately, we don't have any more time in the first hour, but in the second hour, Burke is going to be taking over. Jarrah's going to be mosing down that old dusty trail. Yeah, I'm going to go and the walls being built around me right now. Exactly. We would never.

We could never actually. But we will have you out of the door. If you're ever curious on how the show works. A little bit later on, you're going to be rejoining us for debate coverage, though. Is that mean I'll be going down the dusty world? Eventually, yeah. Everybody heads down eventually. And thanks to climate change, it's getting dusty or faster.

Okay, we do have to take a break. We come back. The second hour is going to be here. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to 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.

Thank you.