The Young Turks - The Hateful Eight

Episode Date: March 6, 2021

Eight Democrats joined the Republicans in blocking Bernie’s $15 minimum wage amendment to the COVID relief bill. 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. Free Marteen, Dreamy, Dreamy, Dreamy, Dreamy, Dreamy, Dreamy, Dreamy! Drop it! All right, one of the young Turks. That's how you start a show by looking down. All right, Jake Uger, John Airola, Ko, I'm back.

All right, let me explain. First of all, Koah's former editor-in-chief of Jezebel, and you know that, and she's the author of a new book, White Feminism from the Suffragettes to Influencers and who they leave behind. Fascinating, but you also know that because obviously she was interviewed on the damage report. You all watched it. And you've already ordered this book. But in case you've made the mistake of not ordering the book, I would go ahead and address that mistake now. All right. So obviously an exciting show for you guys. If you're a longtime young journalist viewer, you know I come in happy just because I'm generally happy in life. And then the rage will build throughout the show. Okay. But the first story will get it started off. Nice and easy here, or nice and hard here, because you'll see, you'll see the title we're calling

the eight Democratic senators that voted against us. All right, with that weird introduction, John Irola, take it away. Okay, I think that's probably for the best. As we here at TYT have been pushing for, Bernie Sanders did try to get the minimum wage increase, the $15 an hour minimum wage increase, added as an amendment to the COVID aid package. And And so there was a vote. And every one of the senators had to go on record. And so they did. And they voted 58 to 42 to block it from being added to the COVID aid bill, which, wait a second, 58. That's not how many Republicans there are. And of course, that means that a number of Democrats also voted against it. And here are those Democrats and one independent. Joe Manchin, Kristen Sinema, Angus King, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, John Tester, Jean Sheen, And Maggie Hassan, all voting against adding the minimum wage increase to that bill. And look, I guess we expected that there would be some, but it's quite a few actually, Jenkoa, more than I probably would have predicted would vote against it.

No, I'm not surprised by the number. And some thought that that was a reason or excuse not to force a vote on this because well then those eight Democrats would be on the record. And the thinking there was that, well, then it'll make it harder for the $15 minimum wage to get passed because they all went on the record as being opposed to it and it's going to make it harder to turn them around. No, I do not believe that that is the case at all. I'm thrilled that by the way, a huge part of this, no joke, no exaggeration was the TYT audience demanding accountability, demanding it and getting it. Now, what we would have preferred is to actually have the bill passed, but we did get something very important accomplished here. Now we know who

they eight are, okay? So now they're not hiding in the bushes anymore, because that's the game that Democrats always play. Oh, it wasn't Schumer, it was Pelosi, it wasn't Pelosi, it was Schumer, it was Biden, it wasn't Biden, it was the parliamentarian, but we're never going We're never ever going to vote, so you can't actually pin it on someone. Well, now we know who the aid are, we know who to pin it on, and instantly we have a petition. Okay, so there they are, okay? Joe Manchin, surprisingly, Chris is Sinema, who turns out to be the worst of the worst, giving Joe Manchin a run for his money on most despicable Democratic Senator and probably

winning, Angus King, Tom, Carper, Chris Coons, those two are relevant. They're from Delaware, that's basically Joe Biden saying, I never wanted the $15 minimum wage. Those are the two biggest allies that Joe Biden has in the Senate. That was Biden doing a Christmas cinema like dance as they vote no. John Tester, and we'll show you the cinema stuff in a minute. John Tester, Gene Shaheen, Maggie Hassan. Hey, Maggie Hassan, you got an election in 2022. Good luck, good luck raising money from it because as you're about to see.

I don't think a single progressor should ever volunteer for you, donate for you. Not a single dollar. You got your corporate friends. You got it. You just told us, you got it. I'm just going to rely on corporations. Have at it, Haas. Okay. And then, and I don't think they should even be voted for. I got a petition on that. I'm curious what you guys think, because I know that's the controversial part. Oh, but what if a Republican wins? So they could vote the same way? Okay. And so the petition is t-y-t.com slash petitions slash the hateful eight. And yes, it's a play on the movie. Okay, but it's also because of the cinema dance and the purse and the cake and rubbing our faces in it and Manchin saying, I will kill all of COVID relief just to make sure you have lower wages and profiting off of it. All the money that they all collectively make off of our lower wages. So if you're going to hate on us, okay, then you're the hateful hate and we're never going to vote for you. We're never going to give you a single dollar. Go kiss more corporate ass and see how that turns out for you. That's my take on it.

Koa, I'm curious what your take on it is. I know we're going right into the story and there's so much more that John's going to tell us about this, but obviously saying not even voting for them, for some will be a bridge too far. But what's your take on all of this? I'm disappointed by it, but like you, I'm not surprised. I think this is what centrist politics often look like, especially when you're looking along you know, how people vote.

I think especially given that this bill was tried and presented, you know, during COVID relief, I think is really pertinent. So we're talking about a very specific moment in a lot of people's consciousness with the economy and labor and all these. I mean, I consider them more so trend pieces than like labor pieces, but specifically about, you know, how women are taking on so much labor with a COVID and taking on, you know, all of this care work that they're not being compensated for and then effectively having to, you know, homeschool children in the event that they have any and then, you know, clean the entire kitchen and the dishwasher and do all the laundry and everything. But on top of that, just making sure ends are met and making sure that, you know, people are food secure and that housing is sustained.

I was reading late last year from the National Domestic Workers Alliance in the US that specifically since COVID has happened, you're talking about cleaners specifically in this country, many of them who are mothers to small children who haven't been able to pay their mortgage or rent in six months because of lost work. And so in some ways, I think that has the capacity to overlap with like service industries and all these other places that clearly have, you know, a more like standardized minimum wage as opposed to, in some ways, just like low income labor. But I think it's very revealing in terms of who, you know, certain Democrats are often trying to play to when there are opportunities like this because they are rare. I mean, votes like this to at least like reconsider the. minimum wage don't come along, you know, all the time. So it's really disappointing, but not unexpected. Yeah. Well, of the eight that voted no, it's been, like I've been doing research to try to figure out since most of them haven't yet really explained it. This is American politics, so they won't have to explain why they voted in a way that went against

the interests of their constituents, both objective and stated. But I've been doing research on each of them. The interesting thing is that almost all of them say that they're in support of raising the minimum wage. I found one article is from 2014. Maine senators won't back down on minimum wage bill. They're going to fight to make it happen, even though the Republicans had voted against it. And they've both voted against it now. It's been seven years. They're still voting against it. Maggie Hassan, she was asked by Mana Raju. He tweeted, she wouldn't answer when I asked her why she voted against an effort to raise wage to 15. quote, I have long been supportive of increasing the minimum wage.

I asked her what was wrong with this one, and her aid interjected and said she's late for a meeting. Now, he later added to that thread with a statement that her office had sent to him that just said how much she's in support of raising the wage and she looks forward to an opportunity to do it. That's an interesting tactic. Just say that you're for the thing that you just killed. Like I was like trying to come up with like an analogy. And I think it's like, if somebody were to scream at me, why are you stabbing me? And I were to say, I'm just interested in you keeping all of your blood. I look forward to future opportunities to maintain the integrity of your arteries.

That doesn't help you as you're bleeding out. And all of them, like so many of them have said it and have promised that they're in support of this. But now they had an opportunity and they're not so interested. But really fast, let me throw one extra fact out, Jank. And maybe this will help to explain it. Ken Clippenstein was very helpful, the legendary Ken Clippenstein, for tweeting out the net worth of the eight Democrats who voted it down. And what do you know? They're not like you or I at all.

They're actually quite wealthy, except perhaps Kristen Sinema, we don't know for sure. But the others, especially Chris Coons, these are multi-millionaires who are perfectly willing to vote down a minimum wage increase during this devastating pandemic. Yeah, so first on that point, yesterday we showed you a story that our own TYT investigative unit broke about how Joe Manchin is invested in potentially several companies that have lower wages, one as low as $8.81 on average for all their workers. And that's because West Virginia's minimum wage is $8.75. So Mansion, being the generous guy that he is, I paid a whole six cents more than the minimum wage in West Virginia. So now he'd have to pay $15 out of his own businesses. So funny enough, Joe Manchin decided I'd rather keep the money in my profits than pay my workers. So, oh, lucky me. I'm a senator. So I get the vote on it and I'll kill it so that I can make more money, although he apparently has plenty. You could see from that list. This is among the reasons

why we call them the hatefully. So now on the Monoraju point, I'm thrilled, and I want to give him credit for the follow-up, because for 40 straight years in this country, corporate Democrats have said, oh, can we look forward to doing X, right? And then they'll vote against X, or they'll secretly kill X, or they'll never bring it up for a vote. And then reporters go dutifully report this Democrat in favor of X, right? And this is a perfect example. And they're still doing it. Joe Biden is in favor of the $15 minute wage. No, he isn't. He just had his vice president vote no on including it in reconciliation. He had his two biggest allies in the Senate vote no as a sign of don't get me wrong. I, Joe Biden, from the state of

Delaware had my two top allies from the state of Delaware vote, no, because I'm not actually in favor of it. I don't, like, the only way that it could be any clearer is if Joe Biden flew a plane over the Capitol with that, you know, with the big banner that said, I hate $15 minute wage. I'm lying. I never meant it. Okay. So if any reporter writes that Joe Biden's in favor of $15 men in wage, they have a hilarious view of facts. That's, in fact, alternative facts. And so, and now the quote that John read you is, but all of them are over the top. We're going to see in the next story, the Krista Cinema story. She has a quote from 2014, unconscionable not to pay $15 minimum wage. Unconscionable. She just did the unconscionable.

And every reporter in the past, now they're getting better. That's why I'm giving credit to the CNN reporter did a great job. Every reporter would write, Democrats are awesome. They want the extra minimum wage. Kamala Harris wants a $15 minimum wage. She just voted against it. But they don't even point that out. Parliamentarian, don't, you don't work for Democrats. You don't work for Republicans. You don't work for politicians. If you're a reporter, do your job. It's called journalism. And the headlines should be Democrats kill higher minimum wage. Because the Republicans have no control. They couldn't have killed it if they wanted to. It was Democrats who chose to kill it. Just that's the reality. I wish the guy it wasn't, but it is. And by the way, I want to read

you, YT pre-new just did a YouTube super chat in the middle of the show, and I wanted to share it with you, because it's such a good point by our audience. He wrote, could pledging not to vote for them, pressure the Democrats into throwing them under the bus and running candidates other than them in 2022? That's part of the reason to do the petition now. If you do it right before the election, well, it's pointless because it has no chance of success. Then at that point, it only helps Republicans, right? But right now, we're two years out from an election. We have a thousand choices who could run for these Senate seats. They say, oh, no, don't be ridiculous. The incumbent has to run. Why? That's not a rule. No, these incumbents don't. Do you know what

percentage Democratic voters want a $15 minimum wage? Not 14, not 12, $15 minimum wage, not generally in favor? No, $15. 82%. Well, if you're against 82% of your voters, then you should not be the Democratic candidate, so don't ever vote for them. If they're not going to do, look, guys, this is the bare minimum. We're not talking about Medicare for all, Green New Deal. Those are great things that we want to get to those. They're saying, no, we were all lying. We're not even going to do the smallest progressive proposal. So take them at their word, they're liars, and they're never going to do anything that they told you. I mean, they're rubbing your face in it. Mono Raju asked that, well, didn't you just say you, I mean, this is your quote about

how you want to increase it. She's like, oh, yeah, I want to increase it. That's why I vote to make sure that we don't increase it. Oh, go, go find someone, some other suckers. TYT.com slash petitions slash the hateful eight. Never vote for them, never make the mistake of giving them a dollar. Coe, any final thoughts for a move on? I think those numbers that Clipsdeen tweeted out are pretty revealing, and I think they really speak for themselves.

I don't think there's anything more to say after you've seen that. Yeah. Okay, well, I have one more thing for you to see, though, some video that I think rightfully has been making the rounds online. While a number of Democratic senators voted against including the minimum wage increase, one decided to have a little bit of fun with it. And so here is Senator Kristen Sinema during the vote. Miss Cinema, Miss Cinema. There's just so much there in that couple of

a second. Now, look, realistically, her no vote is basically exactly as bad as all of the other no votes. They all had the same effect of contributing to it not being included. But if what you're doing is telling, I think in her state, I think there's like close to 900,000 people working below that wage, that like, why are you having fun with it? Why are you doing like a parody of John McCain, who as despicable as he generally was, when he did the thumbs down, it was to maintain the ACA at the very least. Why do that? Why do the little squad and have your bag as if you're just, oh God, I got to do this before I leave. I don't understand why doing the fun performative thing on this of all votes. Yeah. So first, let's also point out that she brought chocolate

cake in case we were unclear about the analogy. So she's the Marie Antoinette of the establishment. Let them have cake instead of higher wages. Well, we appreciate it, Senator Sinema. That's very, very clear. And John is exactly right in the word that he used. What you're seeing there is performative. Now you're thinking, well, who's she performing for? She claimed to be in favor of the $15 million wage before. Now she's making a giant showing of like, ha ha, I'm for lower wages. and rubbing your face in it. But she's not like Marie Antoinette because Marie Antoinette was genuinely clueless. Cinema knows the positions earlier touted the other position and knows that she's going to get a lot of

attention for rubbing our faces in her not being a real Democrat. Well, and that's your answer. So this entire performance is virtue signaling, or perhaps the opposite of virtue signaling, for corporations. This is to raise her hand and say, I have no virtue, just like Joe Manchin, just like the other six, but I'm going to do a whole big show and tell over it. And so this is what judges do, if they're right wingers and they're trying to get on the Supreme Court, they will rule that corporations can literally kill you. Cabinot ruled that and Gorsuch ruled that. And corporations make note of that. And so the Chamber of Commerce looks at that through the Federalist Society in the case

of the courts and goes, oh, these are vicious, vicious anti-worker pro-corporate people. Let's put them on the court. This is cinema raising our hand going, I will do anything for corporate donors, anything at all. And I'll have fun doing it. And so I'll be your Huckleberry. And corporate donors notice that and go, that's it, out of girl, okay? Move her up the list. So maybe we'll run her for president or something.

Because corporate donors ruled all of Washington. So that explains the mystery of why kick us when we're down? Because she's signaling to corporations, I'm the worst of the worst. So make sure you back me for my higher ambitions. I only have two points to add. One being that if we're working in Marie Antoinette analogies, I think it's important to note that there is not a clean opinion. among historians as to whether Maria Antoinette actually said, let them eat cake. And I think the record should reflect that. She had a lot of very pronounced enemies, both in court and outside. And while she was an extremely privileged young woman who existed in court and was married off as effectively property in a political pawn, I don't agree that she was necessarily clueless while she was definitely not a class conscious person, for sure. Having said that, With regards to the performance on the floor, I can't even put myself in that position.

I would listen to, you know, any sort of like statement she eventually gives after the fact. But I think mostly what that speaks to is just kind of like the insulation and entitlement that can often come from roles like this and this belief that, you know, even when you're being watched, you're not necessarily being watched in the way that other people are being watched. And so you have footage like that. Well, I don't, I'm sure she will make some kind of statement. I will say that she tweeted earlier today saying that she understands the hard choices that people have had to make during this pandemic. Well, maybe this is a hard choice for her, I don't know. And so one of the things that's really confusing about this is, you know, she's tweeted,

like first of all, her own political history, she presented herself not that many years ago as like a radical progressive or whatever, and that apparently is a long way way now. But just like look at this tweet. A full-time minimum wage earner makes less than 16K a year. This one's a no-brainer. Tell Congress to raise the wage. That was seven years ago. And now she's in a position to actually do it.

But, I mean, going back even further, Journalism. Long-Bandie Twizzler's Candy keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going. Twizzlers, keep the fun going. Just Ida Chavez, she re-uped this 2002 letter that Kristen Sinema published in the Arizona Republic that says, until the average American realizes that capitalism damages her livelihood while augmenting the livelihoods of the wealthy, the almighty dollar will continue to rule.

It certainly is not ruling in our favor, which kind of gives me like vibes of Pete Buttigieg writing that thing about Bernie Sanders a billion years ago. And then, oh, well, then once you're in power, it's slightly different. I guess. The one thing that I'll say that kind of loses me, and I only sort of kind of touch base with this on Twitter a little bit, is people who are like focusing on her bag, which we talked about it. And it's not a bag that, you know, lots of minimum wage people are going to have. But it's not a $10,000 bag. Supposedly her bag is like $150. Every guy in that room is wearing a $900,000 to $3,000 suit. So I wouldn't want to focus too much on that. Like a good silk tie is 85 bucks and it's not practical in any way. So there's plenty that's

obvious to focus on without focusing on her bag choice, I think. Yeah, I actually disagree. I wanted to address her the tweeted statement that went out with regard to, you know, individually I support this. I think especially coming off the research of doing this book, I think that her use of the individualized narrative to talk about what she would or would not support and decisions she's made in her own life when confronted, you know, with these kinds of choices or these, they're not even choices, but like, these exact realities, I think is very telling when you're talking about implementing

systemic changes, like everybody having a $15 minimum wage and what that would do in terms of redistribution or rebalancing, you know, any sort of dynamics that are there. The fact that she's invoking a very personalized story to essentially eclipse that, I think, is very telling as opposed with regard to, you know, her politics, but also like how she is conceiving of this potential systemic change and what should be implemented to effectively eclipse it. And that is like this very, these very personal choices, this very personal anecdotes, which should be a huge red flag when there are decisions like this that are coming up. Yeah. So I want to comment on what John said there. Also,

What Coa said, I'm going to come back to that in a second. So, no, I actually think the bag and everything that's part of that performance is relevant, only because I think she intended it to be relevant. So the size of the bag is almost more important than the price of the bag. It's so if it was not part of a performance, I'd say get off her ass, who cares what she's wearing or what bag she has, who cares, who cares, who cares. But she's with the curtsy, with the cake, she's obviously making a giant point. And the point is change on the outs, and this Kristen Cinema 101, she's perfected this,

change on the outside, continuity on the inside. And she knows the media generally looks at the superficial. They're obsessed with the superficial. So the media will almost never criticize any of her votes, because they'll say, well, that's not objective. people have lower wages, they have higher wages, I'm a reporter, I don't care at all. And so if you want to crush those, have the powerful crush the powerless, I'm neutral to that. So that's the ethos of journalism that I don't agree with, right? So called journalism. So but she knows that. So she goes, now let me give you something else to talk about. I'm hip, I'm young, I'm bold. Remember, because she was going for the radical thing. And to be fair to her,

not immorally, but intellectually, she gets into Washington and she got there by being pitching herself as a radical progressive. That's smart because the majority of voters are progressive, and cinema knows that. Once she gets into power, she realizes, oh, no, it's the donors that make all the decisions and have all of the power. And if I want to remain as a senator and protect my incumbency, I have to serve corporations. And she correctly adapts, this is removed from all morality, right? She adapts to the environment that she's in. And in that bubble, too, here's the thing you might not know, but I have interactions with people inside that bubble. The bubble is super thick. And that bubble says progressives are irrelevant.

They have no power at all. In fact, you will have more. more power if you kick a progressive on your way, just gratuitously. So cinema is, is correctly assessing the situation and going, if I make a giant show out of being young and hip, they will tell all of their viewers and all of their readers, the media will, that I'm progressive. So that way I can get there, trick them into their votes. And then I'll tell the donors, look at my votes. I voted with you guys and against my voters every time and I'll get their money. So in a sense, don't blame the player, blame the game. And that goes back to what Coe was saying about Marie Antoinette. At the end, it was not her power. It was the king's power,

Louis the 16th. And then in this case, you could argue his mansion, but I would argue it's Joe Biden. And I would go beyond Joe Biden and say, no, it's actually the donors that control Biden, Mansion and Cinema. They're King Louis the 16th. They're the ones rewarding Christmas Cinema for rubbing it in our face. And that's what she's reacting to. I will add that I think that I don't mean this specifically to cinema, but I think that progressive politics, quote unquote, however you're interpreting that across the spectrum of realities and issues, has in some ways been flattened into a brand. brand, you know, for politicians, for celebrities, for famous people of all

ilks, for Instagram influencers. And so this ability, you know, kind of like what was said earlier, that you can signal these, you know, certain affiliations while clearly voting them down, you know, in the same reality or, you know, not extending any sort of legislative support or funding or, you know, depending on what we're talking about abstractly. I think that an unfortunate development that's happened, probably in the last, like, eight, seven-ish years, depending on which part of the country that you're looking at and then like what parts of our culture is that, you know, some progressive tenants have become very trendy and, and they're trendy in such a way that they're not substantiated with votes. It's more so about, you know, optics and how you appear. And then like, kind of like what, you know, was just being said about being. able to signal to certain newsrooms that like you represent these values. And I don't think it's isolated to politics, unfortunately.

I think it's leaked out to a bunch of other industries as well, as branding has become very pertinent. Yeah, and you know, I'm going to say one couple of last things about that, because that's such a great point by car. So basically cinema is saying, I think the media is stupid and will help me, okay? Because if I go with the trendy brand of progressive, and they never tell anyone that I'm not actually progressive, and I act the right way, I'm trendy in both directions, and the media basically works for corporate Democrats than are dupes. So there's going to be no consequences.

And my voters are never going to find out. And it's a tremendous insult to the media, who usually just sits there and takes it. And one of our members just wrote in. We do the show with you guys. I love being interactive with you guys. Gene Jeanne wrote in, it's all about publicity. Cinema like the others thrive on any attention. And so you're, Gene, you're right, she's clearly trying to get attention here. That's why I talked about the size of the bag. It's like when Matt Gates came in with that ridiculous suit, right? And look like some sort of mafia capo, right? And so it was a way of saying, look at me, look at me, look at me. So why would she want to draw attention to this terrible vote? Because she thinks there are

no downsides. She's drawing attention to her being a moderate, which the media rewards, and to corporate donors saying, I'll definitely do whatever you tell me to do, which by the way, Again, let's just be clear. She's just being more ostentatious about it. It's true for 90% of politicians. And so the ones that made it clear here today, that's why we got the petition, tyt.com slash petitions slash the hateful eight. That's the eight Democrats that voted against the minimum wage increase and then rubbed it in our face and basically mocked us as cinema did and hence the title. Plus, it was a good movie. I haven't seen it yet.

Why don't we take our first break? All right, let's do that. A lot more, both fun and rage, when we return. Shame. Shame. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-E-NF-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 On 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 wisdom and upend the historical

narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must not learn 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. Shame!

Thank you. You know, All right, back during the break, that's when we read your comments on YouTube and Twitch and try to get it as much as we can in. And I want to thank everybody who just joined. Rachel Marie, Arthur Knox, Robin McLean, Jessica Mai. Robin McLean also upgraded to premium. You hit the join button below. Okay, we got a post game for you guys today. You're gonna love it,

et cetera. But more importantly, guys, we do the show together. Look at the change that we've created. We would have never gotten to see who the eight were if it wasn't for you guys. So we can't do this alone, and I love that we do it together. Okay, so a little Mac G wrote in, happy Friday all, seems like we have a list of Dems who need to be primary at ASAP, example of ASAP being used in a perfectly appropriate way, reference to the last old school. And if by the way, if you remember, at the premium level on YouTube or t yt.com slash join anywhere else, you would get that last episode of the old school anytime you want. All right. And Jim says MSNBC is already starting that Bernie is a bad man stuff for getting those little people's hope so. Now MSNBC is the worst. They're way

worse to CNN. They rival Fox News maybe surprise. No, I think they surpass Fox News for how much they hate progressives. They're on a 24-7 war path against progressives. Not. stop propaganda. So why are they blaming Bernie for this vote? Because they're so mad that their corporate Democratic senator friends got exposed. So instead of holding them accountable and saying, oh, can you believe they voted for lower wages? MSNBC has turned around and said, can you believe that Bernie exposed them for voting for lower wages? Classic MSNBC. All right, John. Okay, so accidentally at the end of the damage report this morning, I forgot to read the community garbage person of the week. And because more than 21,000 of you voted,

here are the top three. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only date is July 18th. At 6% of the vote. Number three, you have got, let's see, Madison Cawthorne for being a sexual predator, compulsive liar. very good reasons. At number two this week, you have CPAC for trying to kick off the end times with a golden idol. That's 21% of the vote. And number one with 61% of the vote, your garbage person of the week, Greg Abbott for putting Texans lives at risk again and doing it so he'd look cool to Republicans. Thanks to everyone who voted. Okay, we have a little bit more time.

So first of all, I love how many people voted on that. Keep going, Dragon Squad. I'm just going to to read one from Twitch, Jaden Thorne says, The Righteous Anger of Anger of Jank is coming. I'm here for it. All right, back on the Young Turks, Jank, John and Coal with you guys today. John, you got more news for us. I do, let's jump right into it. their voters, all the promises they made, and there's still enough Democrats who will not support overriding it to actually do that. But maybe steadily, slowly, slowly, some might be changing their minds. Today, Senator Tina Smith tweeted, I've made up my mind, we need to move this country

forward, and that's why I've decided to come out in support of eliminating the filibuster. She went on to say in a Facebook post, we're just going to read a bit of it, but the entire thing is available. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and to be honest, I started out believing we should keep the filibuster. Without it, I reasoned, what would stop a conservative president in Congress from doing terrible damage to women's health care, voting rights, and civil rights? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the filibuster has long been the enemy of progress. In fact, it's been a highly effective tool to thwart the will of the voters. What the filibuster does is allow a minority of senators to just say no to any

idea they don't like. They don't have to negotiate because they can stop anything. And that is, I I think so seemingly obviously true that I understand some Democrats who want to keep it just because then they don't have to ever vote on anything controversial and they don't have to actually deliver for their promises in ways that might infuriate their donors. But there are two in particular, Joe Manchin, Chris and Cinema, that say, no, it's a longstanding tradition, it leads to bipartisanship, it's just a part of our institution. And I just think that is at best an old-timey, myth-ridden misconception. of what it ever was, but certainly what it is now.

And it's good to see some people willing to admit that they have changed their mind. Yeah, I agree with certain pieces of that statement in terms of how filibusters have been used versus how maybe they were originally envisioned. But filibusters in general, I mean, I'm for revisiting any kind of filibuster reform. But as far as I know, I mean, this has been. talked about for a while. I mean, maybe not as like publicly and directly as this, but if even just in the last 10, 15 years, like what filibusters have effectively thwarted in terms of like gun control legislation, you know, through all of the many different platforms that were cited in that statement,

I think that's accurate. And, and I think it's long overdue to be revisited in terms of how filibusters are actually used in political discourse versus how they were designed. So a couple of things about this. Number one, I'm happy about the development, great, we'll take it, okay? And I love to give credit where credit is due, and if she votes the right way in time, it'll make a big difference. So I'm moving past her because mission accomplished on that, okay? Now let's talk about the filibuster in general.

So number one, I told you on the show yesterday what I think the Democrats are going to do. Half of HR1 is almost a must pass for the Democratic Party. It encourages more voting, it's great policy, it's true, it's wonderful, it's progressive, it's pro-democratic, not Democratic Party, but democracy itself. Republicans can outvote us if they've got more access to voting as well. It doesn't discriminate, but generally when more people vote, Democrats tend to win. That's why Republicans are in a panic over it. So when Joe Biden says he's going to reach out to Republicans to tinker with it, that makes

no sense at all. All the Republicans are 100% opposed to it. So but the Democrats need half of that bill. The other half is wonderful anti- 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 cyber criminals. 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-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. The corruption measures, and there's no way the Democratic Party is going to pass them. No way. Most of the Democratic Party agrees completely with the Republican Party on the corruption part. They love the money in politics. They can't wait to work as lobbyists themselves. They're not gonna, so the trick they're gonna do is they're gonna say, oh, we gotta negotiate with the Republicans and Joe Manchin, wink, so we're gonna take out all the anti-corruption

measures and leave the voting rights part in. Now don't get me wrong, again, the voting rights part is great, okay? I want them to pass that, but yes, it's also a democratic trick. And then since they need to pass it in, there's no way they can pass it through reconciliation, Because it doesn't have anything to do with the budget. They're forced to kill the filibuster. So that way they go, okay, good, I got rid of the anti-corruption stuff I never believed in. We got past the $15 minimum wage, which we didn't want to do. This doesn't hurt corporations at all. So they've given us a green light to do it. And so we'll kill the filibuster and pass half of H.R.

Okay, so that is my best guess as to how they're going to do it. But they're going to drag out this melodrama so that it is nearly the last thing they do. So that they cannot pass any progressive priorities. And I'm telling you all this ahead of time. I'm laying out two years of what's going to happen ahead of time, okay? If progressives don't step in and somehow alter the timeline, okay? Which is definitely possible. But this is their plan.

And so then that way, they'll have passed no progressive priorities. and then they'll lose the Senate, and the Republicans will be handed the gift of having no filibuster. And why do I say that? Why do I make that prediction? These are all based in facts and history. Harry Reid killed a portion of the filibuster right before the Democrats lost their majority in the Senate. And I remember screaming on air, why didn't you do it earlier to confirm all the judges? Now that you can't confirm all those judges, you're doing it the last. second, when the Republicans are favored to win in the next election. Why to hell would you give them that gift? Because the point is to help the Republicans because they're more pro corporations.

Now look, you'll think that last part you might find to be conspiratorial. But the bottom line is it doesn't matter. They all work for corporations. That is what explains what otherwise seems inexplicable. Because I just, I know I've gone on too long and I want to go to jump in. But the bottom line is, if you wanted to pass these bills, the ones that the Democratic Party said they were in favor, the one that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ran on, all those policies, you would get rid of the filibuster immediately. You would not wait until it's too late to pass any of them. And my guess is that is exactly the plan of the Democratic Party.

My only piece to add there would be in thinking about certain pieces of what Jench just said and then, you know, just coming off of talking about cinema is that I find a pattern that is very dangerous in like exactly these conversations that we're having is when corporations try and tell us our history or try and tell us like origin stories of, you know, rights or politics or history or marginal. people or anything and that kind of like just how jank pointed out like they have such different deeply different interests you know built by profit and so they have to build you know it's marketing they just have to build like narratives with like a protagonist you know that's very like you know binary good and bad and then you know that is sort of shepherded in an effort to like sell things or you know lobbies or you know campaigns or whatever and so A general piece that I have found to be, you know, helpful in like not just realms like this, but also like broadly in culture is just deciding very early in my life that corporations

would not tell me history. Because they're always going to have like a vested interest in a certain narrative to be able to sell something. Yeah. Jenk, you want to take her? Yeah, I think we probably need to take our second break. But when we come back, we do have some video of Charlotte Bennett, who's been talking about her experiences, unfortunate experiences with Governor Cuomo. So we'll have that after this. You know, you know, So, I'm going to be able to be.

All right, back during the break. First of all, I want to tell you about common room tonight. That's on Twitch.tv slash TYT. Again, if you've got Amazon Prime, it's free for you, but we get the revenue. So take Bezos's money and ironically spend it on progressives. So you're calling it hashtag Bezos bucks. I'm not saying you should, I'm just saying. Okay, anyways, and for if you're, you don't need to be a member to watch any of these shows

live on Twitch, but if you're a member, you can watch them any time you want. So anyway, common rooms tonight at 9 o'clock Eastern. Look at this, we've got a co-creator of the Daily show and it's not even Liz Winstead, who comes on the show all the time, it's Madela Smithburg. We're filled with co-creators of the Daily Show. Writer Mark Gineck from the show Archer, how cool is that? Journalist Daniel Freed and And some other dude in a hat. Oh, right, that's Fred Ehrlich. Okay, so check that out.

So now I'm going to go to- randomly, I'm actually going to be speaking to Liz Winstead again very soon. So yeah, just we're always in contact with them. Yeah, see, John Stewart was a great host and Trevor Noah was good, but nobody remembers that actually the two creators of the daily show were women.

So, typical. So anyways, Anyways, now we do your comments. REF writes in on YouTube super chat, these eight are actually infiltrators. They are Republicans that claim, and he spells it in a funny way, that claim to Dems while holding Republican beliefs, replace these people with Justice Dembs. So that's part of why I don't mind telling you to not vote for them. Number one, there's primaries, and they're gonna cry two years before a primary, oh no, you'll

help the Republican win, no, wait, who said you were gonna be the candidate? We don't agree to that at all. Second of all, they give this a bipartisan veneer. So if you're going to help corporations in the same exact way that Republicans are, you might as well be a Republican so that there's truth in advertising. And we know what we're dealing with, and you can't hide your Republican opinions in a democratic veneer. And so that's why it's super important to out them. There's so many comments. Okay.

We're out of time. I love you guys. All right, t.y.com, let's join your comments. They're so smart as usual. We'll be right back. You know, I'm going to be able to be.

I'm going to be. All right. All right. All right. All right, on a young Turks, Jake John and Cole with you guys. you guys. So more important stories, John, forward. Let's get into it.

Governor Cuomo said that he has never propositioned anybody. Do you believe that he was propositioning you? Yes. For what? Sex. That was Charlotte Bennett. Charlotte Bennett was formerly Governor Cuomo's executive assistant and a health policy advisor, which considering other Governor Cuomo related scandals in the news is an amazing bit of political symmetry there. She did a sit-down interview with Nora O'Donnell. Now, we've known quite a bit about the accusations against Governor Cuomo, but there is always something powerful about seeing someone speak about their experiences. And so we want to show you a bit from that interview.

You think all this national attention may have emboldened him? Absolutely. I think he felt like he was untouchable in a lot of ways. Bennett says their professional relationship took a turn on May 15th, when she alleges the governor started asking her about her love life and then became fixated, repeating over and over again her history as a sexual assault survivor. So he goes, you were raped, you were raped, you were raped, and abused and assaulted. Another key encounter happened on June 5th, when Bennett says she was called into Cuomo's office to take dictation,

and he told her to turn off the tape recorder. And then he explains at that, point that he is looking for a girlfriend. He's lonely. He's tired. You've just finished dictation and the governor is telling you he's lonely and looking for a relationship. Yes. He asked if I had trouble enjoying being with someone because of my drama. This seems highly inappropriate. Yeah. The governor asked me if I was sensitive to intimacy in his office

yes during the work day you have been quoted as saying that he also asked you about if you'd ever been with an older man yeah he asked me if age difference mattered he also explained that he was fine

with anyone over 22 and how old are you 25. Wow. So similar in some ways to some of the other allegations against him, but also going very hard into that, focusing on her past traumatic experiences while producing a new one. What are your thoughts?

I think that what is very revealing, at least what we know so far about these allegations and the various women who have come forward with, you know, very similar circumstances is that, you know, with the exception of one detail that I've read, this doesn't seem to be about violating touch. And I feel like certain spaces, you know, specifically with like Me Too literacy and like understandings of, you know, power dynamics and harassment and violation. I watched, especially when I was EIC at Jazz, you know, this, I don't like this phrase, so I'm quoting, but like this Me Too moment, sort of landing in this, you know, hypersensitive terrain of like not touching, not hugging, not leaning, this very, like, thin protective measure by which, you know, very powerful people, mostly powerful men can, like, secure their positions and their money. without like young women coming forward to say that, you know, somebody leaned in too close to them. But I think that with Cuomo and what Bennett has shared about her experiences, this is very tactful in the sense that you're talking about taking down somebody's boundaries

who is considerably less powerful than you, trying to gauge, you know, where there are openings by which you can manipulate them in professional settings. And, you know, more specifically, I think, that there's a lot of tact there. I think that a frustration that myself and a number of other journalists who I've worked with throughout my career have felt specifically around new cycles of sexual harassment and assault and violation is that in

some ways, powerful organizations, powerful people, they're able to sort of adapt with the times in terms of the rhetoric they use and then also fun measures like NDAs that make sure that they can't like talk about anything that happened. And yet, you know, the actual power dynamics at the core by which like your boss can call you in to do dictation and then ask you in this roundabout way to like potentially be his mistress. And if that's like appealing to you while you're sitting there with your work, the dynamics that are at the core of that have not necessarily

changed. What I'm often hearing when there are cases like this is that we've built in a sort of like cultural framework by which you can skirt those same dynamics and perhaps you know, pray on a young woman or a young man who, you know, doesn't have as much power as you in an organization and yet still be able to say that you didn't touch them, that you didn't break any rules, that you were just mentoring them, which we've heard Cuomo say in this case. And so I think that's really pertinent that when it comes to, you know, Bennett, and I think a few other women, we're not necessarily talking about violating touch. And I think that should really be top of mind for people as they're interpreting this story.

Yeah. So a couple of things here. First of all, Cuomo is not denied any of the specifics. So he has said a generic statement about if he defended people with joking around, then he's sorry for that. But this is not joking around. It's in the most advantageous framing for Cuomo, which I don't agree with, it was flirting, right? And I know that a lot of guys out there, especially from the old school, are like, okay, he asked and it didn't work out, right? No, guys, no, you can't do that in a work environment. So it's one thing if you think you're flirting, although none of that sounded like flirting to me. I mean, asking you about our sexual assaults, Jesus Christ, what is, what are you doing, right? And so,

So, but you certainly cannot do it in an office context. And when you're the boss and he's making it so clear, I will have sex with anyone over the age of 22. Oh, how old are you? You're over 22. Golly G. Right? I mean, it's so obvious.

And again, he hasn't denied it. And so look, all of this is bad enough. It's all layered on top of one another, right? So one of them is the that shocks me is the abruptness of it. To me that signals arrogance. And what I'm worried about is it signals how many, I'm worried how many times has he done this? What results has it produced? Because when you come into a person you barely know, and she just started working there.

So I've read the whole story, we've covered it in the past, and you just come in with like basically, I'm your boss, I just told you to turn off the tape, I barely know you. And do you want to, and I want to talk to you about sex, sex, sex, and are you willing to have sex with older men? Wow, like, people do that. That's unbelievable to me. And look, it's just every part of it is wrong. If you've got somebody working for you who's a sexual assault survivor,

you don't bring that up in a way, in a way that is massively uncomfortable, right? If they want, if you've known each other for a long time and that person brings it up and wants to talk about it, you could do that in a in a respectful way, but this ain't it. And she didn't bring it up. You brought it up in the context of sex, not in the context of abuse. It's just, I don't know, every part of it is really bad. Yeah. Well, I think, Jank, a good point that you bring up with this is when I hear these questions and what, you know, Bennett has recalled, to me, it sounds like he's trying to extract consent from her. Have you ever thought about text with an older man? Have you ever thought about like he's trying to, at least is what it sounds like to me, like make her an active participant in this predatory behavior. And to me, that signals a kind of awareness for what he's doing. You know, he's not. trying to be physically forceful with her, at least not in that instance that she's decided to share publicly. So I think, again, like the, it's the power dynamic that is really grotesque here in that clearly that's being sanitized in that, you know, he's calling her into his office and asking.

But truthfully, you know, if you're a junior woman and a powerful man calls you into his office and like, you know, will, your consent for something, is it actually consensual? And I think that's an important takeaway from the story. Yeah. Yeah, and sometimes I explain it from the context of different groups, conservatives, older generations, instead, because there's different cultural contexts, and I want to be able to communicate to everyone, not just the progressives. So guys, you know, A lot of people react to this with like, hey, we're not allowed to have an office romance. No, actually, you are allowed to have an office romance, but yet there are very understandable guidelines for it, very, very understandable.

Like, you should be able to get that pretty easily, right? And so when, let's say, Joe Scarborough, Mika Bresenski, eventually got married, right? And they had some sort of relationship, and it was perfectly consensual. and they did it all the right way. So don't let people trick you into false analogies, okay? That is not this. This is a very senior person who's the boss of everyone in the building with a very junior employee, they barely know each other, and he blunders into a sex conversation,

which now there's two women who accuse him of that at the office, one at a wedding. The third accuser does not work with him, but he put her hands on her face in a way that made her super uncomfortable. The first employee says that he did try to kiss her. So it's like, like Koa said, it feels like he's trying to figure out what his sense of the boundaries are and get right up to the edge of it. And so, yeah, and look, it's not cute. And that kind of boundary, playing with the boundaries like that isn't working. Your intent seems clear. Yeah. I was going to say, I think another good point coming off of what Jenk said is that if you are

working in analogies, I mean, as far as I know, Mika and Joe are peers. I mean, they are both, you know, household names and have immediate recognition. And so that's, that seems to bring about to me on the outside, like very different interpersonal dynamics than, you know, again, a very junior employee being summoned into a boss's office. That is a very specific predatory dynamic versus a actual colleague who you collaborate with and who is a peer, you know, at least as far as we can tell from the outside. Yeah, I think that's all the time we got, Jank. Oh, we're out of time. Okay, Co-Oback, A, you're awesome. B, the only thing, well, let me just frame it this way.

The book was awesome. So everybody rush out, white feminism. I love the old school rush out, like you're actually going to go to the store. Okay. I mean, if you're in Texas, maybe you are. Yeah. Rush out to the tab closest to you, click on it, type in any, you know, bookstore and go get white feminism. All right, Coa, thank you. John, thank you. Everybody check out damage report. But apparently you all already do. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. We've got a lot more news for you guys, including, yes, more rage. And David Schuster joins us on the program.

Fun for everybody. We'll be right back. 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, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon. Thank you.