The Young Turks - The Worst Sinema Ever!

Episode Date: June 23, 2021

Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster. President Obama spoke out in favor of passing a voting rights bill before the next election and took a shot or two at the filibuster. Missouri passed a law to penalize local authorities for enforcing federal gun laws, and the local areas are suing in response. The real problem with corporate landlords – tenants of large, unaccountable housing investors suffer in ways that don’t necessarily show up in data. California’s prison boom saved this town – now, plans to close a lockup are sparking anger and fear. Political commentator Steven Crowder exits a virtual debate with YouTuber Ethan Klein shortly after fellow commentator Sam Seder unexpectedly joins the call. Trump wanted his Justice Department to stop ‘SNL’ from teasing him. Trump denies admitting defeat in the 2020 election: ‘I have not conceded.’ An NFL player says he’d rather retire than get a COVID Vaccine. 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. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Welcome to the Young Turks, Jake Uratus, with you guys.

Lovely day in America, do we have bad news for you guys? Of course, it's the news. But we're gonna make it interesting and I would dare say fun sometimes. No, we're gonna have a lot of fun. No, speaking of fun. No, no. A lot of fun is gonna happen. No, it's gonna happen though.

It's gonna happen, okay? What's the hell? Okay, and I'll tell you why. Oh my God, cold feet Crowder. Did he run away? Did he run away? Where did he go? Nobody knows.

Are we being petty? Yes. Sure. Why not? But it's okay. It's okay to once in a while be petty, right? When the chickens come home to do what? Roost.

When they come home to roost, I think it's worth talking about. Yeah. Or when they run away to roost. Either way. Either way. Okay, so that's a super fun story. That's later in the show. But first, let's kick some Democrat ass.

Yes. beginning with Kirsten Cinema. So, Kirsten Cinema is in the news yet again. Conservative Democratic Senator Kirsten Cinema is more concerned with sucking up to the GOP and her corporate donors than doing what's right for her own constituents.

That means that it's time for another episode of the dumb and the feckless. One of my prayers is that the Republicans will take back their part of, Things keep dripping out, drip, drip, drip, drip, and the truth comes out. The truth did not come out in a recent op-ed that Cinema penned for the Washington Post. She tried to make the argument for maintaining the legislative filibuster in the Senate that requires 60 senators to vote in favor of a piece of legislation in order for it to pass into law. Now, her arguments here are hollow.

We're going to explain why. Let me give you a few excerpts of what she had to say. It's no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate's 60 vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same, whether in the minority or majority. And then she says this. Is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? What about health care? When can I retire? Is my community safe? Meanwhile, much of Washington's focus is on a Senate

rule requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation. But maybe, cinema, just maybe, the reason why the focus is on that legislative filibuster is because all of the issues that she listed there are issues that the Senate will never do anything about unless we do away with the legislative filibuster. The Senate is where legislation goes to die. She knows that, she knows that. So while she pretends to care about the issues that matter to her constituents, she simultaneously supports an arbitrary rule within the Senate that blocks all the legislation necessary to actually respond to the very real problems that Americans are having right now. Now she also writes,

Arizonaans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate to be independent, like Arizona, and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results. Lasting results rather than temporary victories destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America's families and employers depend on. So I figured maybe it's worth going back to watch her ads, her campaign ads, for the US House and also the US Senate. Let's start with the US House. These guys don't get it.

They're more focused on dictating women's personal health care decisions, like birth control, than getting our economy back on track. I'll bring people together and work with both parties without sacrificing my progressive values. Like I did when I took on Governor Brewer to stop cuts in local schools and protect children's health care.

I'm Kirsten Cinema. I sponsored this ad because the The only way to change Washington is to change the people we send there. Now, of course, she's willing to sacrifice her progressive values when she does a thumbs down vote on a $15 an hour minimum wage, which, by the way, she did after she tapped Senator Mitch McConnell's shoulder to get his attention so he watched the whole situation to go down, right? But she would never compromise her progressive values, Jane.

No, never. I've never seen her do it. Progressive values. Okay, I want to make just one quick comment on that ad. She said, these guys don't get it. And you saw Rush Limbaugh. Then you saw John McCain. Just last week, she wrote into Politico telling them, I want to be the next John McCain.

Yep. Literally, do you saw it in the ad? These guys don't get John McCain doesn't get it. Now she's bragging all over Washington. I'm gonna be the new John McCain. I'm gonna be the new Republican senator from Arizona, just like John McCain. And I'm gonna define my party all the time. She didn't say she wants to be the new Republican senator from Arizona.

Number one, it sounded awful a lot like that as she was bragging about how much she loves John McCain. Number two, best case scenario is she's saying, no, I will defy my party all the way through, which then makes you the other party, by the way. That's the whole point of defying your party nonstop, right? So, but in this case, I just want to point out the hypocrisy between the ad. Effective. Effective, please.

And who she actually is. He's actually one of the grossest politicians I've seen in my lifetime, and that's saying a lot, because she came in as super left and then has become literally the most right wing senator in the country, even more right wing than Joe Manchin. So she says that she will not sacrifice her progressive values. We've already seen how that has played out in real time. She certainly has sacrificed her progressive values. Then she runs for the Senate.

This is a newer political ad. Let's see what she claims she stood for. Arizona's can't afford their health care. Some people don't have it. Those who do have it are paying too much. Kirsten Cinema says end the partisan nonsense and protect Arizonans. It's why Kirsten Cinema voted to stop a new age tax on health care for Arizona's age 50 and over and protect coverage for 2.8 million Arizonans with preexisting conditions.

We've got to bring people together to do what's right. So what good is it to vote in favor of legislation that has no chance of actually passing into law when you also support the legislative filibuster that literally prevents it from passing into it. I don't care what your vote is if you know that your vote is nothing more than performative nonsense. It's not going to make a difference if the Senate maintains the Senate filibuster. But anyway, Jake, you were right about what you said on the show yesterday.

Jank mentioned how even if Joe Manchin is pressured, successfully pressured into agreeing to doing away with the filibuster, cinema is likely to be a problem. And you're right, she wrote this op-ed in the Washington Post, it was published today, she is not willing to do away at the filibuster. And I believe her on that. Yeah, I believe her way more than I believe Manchin, in an ironic twist, right? because she's so incredibly deceitful overall in politics. So let's just note the deceit in that last ad too.

She's like, I was protecting people above the age of 55 in their healthcare. Joe Biden says in his agenda, which I don't believe, but he claims that he would lower the Medicare eligibility age. So that would affect people, either 55 or 60, they'd be able to get Medicare quicker, right? So the same exact group that she's talking about in her ad, she's like, no, I won't end the filibuster, so you have no chance of being able to help those older Americans get healthcare. You have no chance, and because of me, because Manchin in the corrupt call that he had with the donors, the billionaire donors, even there, he's, look, he is real positions, he tells

the donors. Whatever he says publicly is total nonsense, okay? And he's telling the donors that he's actually could move a little bit on the filibuster. He's saying, I'm not going to get rid of it completely to the donors because the donors don't want him to get rid of it. Those donors are like, you better keep the filibuster. And why? Because they want to make sure $15 minimum wage doesn't pass. Progressive priorities don't pass, clean energy doesn't pass because they're all from those dirty sectors and they make literally billions of dollars from that. So buying off people like Mansion and Cinema is actually a great investment, it's super easy to bribe them, etc. But you see Manchin is at least willing to move a little bit on the filibuster.

Cinema now, knowing that, comes out with an op-ed saying, no, I'm not going to move at all. And at her, I believe more because she's made every signal that she's going to switch either to an independent or to a Republican, and that she's going to kill the entire Democratic agenda single-handedly by not moving on the filibuster. And so, and when I started warning about that, honestly, months ago, people are like, oh, Jang, you're overreacting, and cinema, she'll be a good Democrat at the end. And come on, voting rights, of course, every Democrat agrees with voting rights. And Chris's Cinema, there's this ridiculous kabuki theater where she's like, oh yeah, I'm for the

for the people act, but I'm going to kill it single-handedly by not getting rid of the filibuster. I'm for it. But the problem is, is as always the press, right? Because I was talking to a friend about this the other day. If the bulls and the pistons are playing to use an old school reference, and the pistons fouled a living crap out of Michael Jordan and all the bulls, is it really the piston's fault or the refs fault? Right? Because the, the competitors will do what they're going to do to try to get an advantage. It's supposed to be the refs who call it out. And honestly, guys, mainstream media, they never answer real questions, right? I mean, they have these shows that they're supposed to hold each other accountable,

their jokes, right? And so my question to you guys is, do you really think that the corporate donors of Mansion and Cinema have no effect on their votes? Or do you think they have little effect? No. Or do you think they have a ton of effect? Because the rest of the country think the donors, 93% of Americans believe donors, the politicians of their donors instead of their voters, okay?

But in the press, the mainstream press, they treat it even though we have the tape. We have the tape kissing the ass of the donors, Joe Manchin doing it, right? And we have all the records of all their checks, et cetera, let alone the dark money, right? And the corporate media in its entirety, you're like, no, I don't see it.

I don't see it. I think they're, oh, what is Chris's Cinema's principles? Zero, she has none. No, Jake, I mean, the intercept, as we had covered last week, obtained leaked audio of Joe Manchin's meeting with billionaire donors, a group of billionaire donors who refer to themselves as no labels, right? Because they don't care if it's Democrat or Republican in charge. What they care about is ensuring that their money talks. And their money

certainly talks to the likes of Joe Manchin and other corporate Democrats and Republicans, So the reason why we know that the bipartisan argument we're getting from lawmakers like Manchin and Cinema is nothing more than BS is because just listen to this audio. Manchin, just to give you context, I want to remind you all of what he said and what the context was. He's like, look, guys, the left is, they're right, they're right, we need to point to something that passed in a bipartisan way in the Senate so we can maintain the filibuster. he suggested that these billionaires buy off or entice Republican lawmakers. So they vote in favor of the January 6th commission to investigate what happened in the Capitol, right? And so he

specifically focused on Republican lawmakers who are not seeking re-election. And he suggested that billionaires offer something that's literally illegal. It's against the law. Listen. Right now what I'm asking for, I need to go back. I need to find three more Republican Republican senators that'll vote for the commission so the least we can tamping down the what people say Republicans won't even do the simple if common sense of basically voting to do a commission that was truly bipartisan you know so once that people and it really it just really emboldens the far left saying i show you like you know how's that bipartisan working for you now joe those are the hard things that's right

that's where I need help, man, because I know that by part, nothing is going to pass in a bipartisan way. We literally have to buy off these politicians. So please do that. And so what did he suggest that these billionaires offer Roy Blunt, a Republican, a job after he's out of Congress, right? After he's out of the Senate, in order to entice him and basically bribe him to vote in favor of the January 6th Commission, to give the American people the illusion of successful bipartisan ship in the Senate. It's BS. It's BS. Mansion knows it. Cinema knows it. I know it. You know it. The American people know it. Everyone knows it. But the mainstream media didn't cover that story. And they keep talking about the infrastructure negotiations, the bipartisan infrastructure

negotiations as if like there's actual headway. Like they're there, these negotiations are actually leading to some sort of advancement in a bill that both parties can agree on. No, no. The only thing that they're likely going to agree on is not raising taxes on the wealthy. Yeah, honestly, the mainstream media is ruining this country because it's impossible to argue that that's not an interesting story. And corruption ranks in the top two of issues that Americans care most about in almost every poll. And yet, magically, the mainstream media just can't find a way to talk about it's on tape. It's on tape, him talking to the donors and saying all these incredibly corrupt things. Look, guys, Greg Sargent at the Washington Post had an interesting article about Chris and Cinema's op-ed.

And he said, cinema gives away the game and he's debating her ideas. And he makes a great point. You know, cinema said, well, look, we shouldn't do anything until we all agree. Both Republicans and the Democrats agree. And Sargent points out, too late. They've already passed 14 laws and 14 different states, let alone nearly 400 that were proposed in 48 different states. But the 14 have already passed limiting voting rights. So if you don't act, the Republicans already did.

So that totally destroys your argument. But even that misunderstands it because it's not a debate. She doesn't care about your arguments and she doesn't care how right you are. Notice mentioned in that call told the donors, hey listen, the far left is making this argument that is basically unassailable, right? They're definitely right. So what I need you to do is to give me a fig leaf. So he's saying, let's pretend to like, let's do the January 6th commission so that, so why? So we can actually do the January 6th commission?

No, he explains to the donors so that we can make sure that we preserve the filibuster so that you guys can preserve your tax breaks. It's right there. Disgusting. Okay, he doesn't give a damn about the January 6th commission. He doesn't care about your ideas or the debate or the principal. And at one point he tells him, look, you know, some of you could, you know, talk to Roy Blunt about his future job prospects, basically, right? And so Roy Blunt's retiring, he's a Republican, and he's basically saying, you guys are all billionaires.

Why don't you just hire him? Just bribe him. Just give him a million dollars afterwards. It makes him perfect sense. He doesn't say a million dollars, I'm paraphrasing, but please listen to the call or just read the exact quotes. They intercepted a brilliant job in exposing it, right? And so all of the mainstream media sees this and goes, nope, nope, they're having a principal debate, but we all heard it, we all heard it, right? Is that amazing? And then they wonder why

they get called fake news and why the right wing lost their minds thinking that a satanic cult is more likely than politicians being honest. Yeah, yeah, no, but look, and that's not to justify conspiracy theories and all that other stuff, but it does speak to why people believe the conspiracy theories they believe and why they refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, especially when it's coming from legacy media sources, the same legacy media sources that very clearly withhold important stories that would call out government corruption. Yeah, right? I'm gonna say last things here. So if you're wondering, wait, why?

Why did cinema bother running as very progressive? And at the time she would talk nonstop about how she was LGBTQ and all that stuff, right? And then she turns into this like mega right winger later. Because before she was running in the house where she was running in a blue district, and the blue or the district, the more you want to pretend to be progressive in cinema's case. But when you go to run statewide in Arizona, she wants to pretend to be purple, right? But I don't know how long she's going to stay in the Senate. Either she's going to, she, I don't think she can win a Democratic primary.

So she's going to have to switch parties, and she knows that. Or she's going to retire and cash those checks that Manchin is talking about. He's like, why don't you pay off Roy Blunt? Well, what do you think they're going to do with cinema when she retires? They're going to give her millions of dollars. Probably cinema thinks you run progressive in a blue district, you run purple in a purple state like Arizona. And then when you're about to leave to cash in for millions of bucks, you go full right wing so you can tell the donors, remember, you owe me big time.

I saved you billions of dollars in taxes and regulation and wages. So now give me a couple million bucks. I would be very surprised if she didn't do some version of that play. She's already in the middle of doing it, and we just showed it to you with receipts. Yes. Yet the mainstream media is like, I don't see it. Okay, last one goes to our audience. you see the Silver Hair Dragon is a member of ours. We do the show together. I love your comments,

t.com, slash join to become a member and be part of the show. He wrote, and let's not forget that this is probably not just cinema and mansion. I have no doubt that they're just following Bidens and a number of the other top corporate Democrats' wishes. If they both fell in line, I'm sure there are at least 10 others who could step up as the sacrificial lamps. I mean, you're definitely right about the 10 others. A lot of our focus has been on Mansion and Cinema because they go out of their way. Like they're, they're just vociferous, in their lies about bipartisanship. But are there other corporate Democrats in the Senate that would certainly step up to the plate

if Mansion and Cinema refused to? Yes, you're right about that. And they hide behind them, et cetera. But when we, by the way, and literally the Young Turks audience did this, when we expose them on the $15 minimum wage and we forced the vote on that, yes, we did that. Bernie Sanders didn't want to do it, and he wound up doing it. By the way, Bernie again caved on another issue. That's another story.

But anyways, and when you guys did that, if you guys didn't sign the petition, and send the videos. There's no way that vote would have happened. And when that happened, hey, we found that it wasn't just mansion in cinema. Eight corporate Democrats voted against higher wages. They were lying the whole time as a party pretending to be in favor of $15 minimum wage, and we exposed that they weren't. And so look, one of our members, actually almost all of our members, and that's why I read the comments, is smarter than the entirety of the people whose job is to cover politics. So nobody at the New York Times and Washington Bose figured that out. Nobody figured out cinema's strategy of running in the House and

the Senate. Nobody figured out any of this, even though the intercept has the tapes of it, etc. Nah, no. Corporate media supports corporate politicians and this is how we all get robbed. So an absolute final thing on this is that if cinema really holds on this and I think she probably will. Guys, you're, you're, I'm not sure anybody's getting it. It's Biden's term is over. Over. The whole thing is over. All he did was past COVID relief, which anyone would have passed. And then his term ended. FDR 2.0, hilarious. And, and, oh, Mickey talked about how, wait, you know, Biden is not in favor of getting rid of the football. That's right, his current position. We're yelling at Manchin's cinema. Joe Biden.

2.0, he's not in favor getting rid of filibuster. No, Jank, but don't worry. It's absurd. Don't worry, he doesn't need to get rid of it because he can convince Republicans in the Senate to work with him with his amazing persuasion skills. How could anybody be that stupid? No, that's not stupid. And I'm not talking about Joe Biden, although that's certainly fair. I'm talking about the media.

Like, you think that there's going to be 10 Republicans that will vote for voting rights? That is an absolute impossibility. If you think it's possible, you don't know anything about news and you should instantly resign your position. And these guys are, they lie to the country as a regular course. Politicians are not honest. They serve their donors 100%. When we come back from the break, we are going to compare two former U.S. presidents and their approach and weighing in on current events. I think it's an important lesson in how Democrats handle things versus how Republicans do.

We'll be right back. All right, back on T.I.D. Jankanaana with you guys. Also, Rhonda Stetson, Sandra Morris, Perk you later, Francisco Cruz and Kai Bishop, they just signed up. Are they American heroes? I guess. Hit the join button below, become an American hero, and get our bonus episode, etc. Membership has a lot of privileges because you guys make this show happen. Let's go do some truth, Casper. There's a lot on the line for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to voting rights.

And Obama, who doesn't usually weigh in on current events, has decided to finally weigh in on current events during a call with some grassroots Democrats. But it's important to juxtapose how Obama talks about current events and uses his platform versus how some. someone like let's say Donald Trump, another former president uses his platform to pressure the Republican Party to do what he thinks is right. Now of course we know what Trump thinks is right is usually things that are criminal. But nonetheless, let me give you this statement from Obama, who is very much concerned about various red states rolling back voting rights and rigging elections to the Republicans favor, which of course puts the Democratic Party in jeopardy.

He says, we can't wait until the next election, because if we have the same kinds of shenanigans that brought about January 6th, those were the Capitol Hill riots, we, if we have that for a couple more election cycles, we're going to have real problems in terms of our democracy long term. No, but I don't think he gets it. We have real problems with our democracy right now, right now, with the laws that were passed in Georgia, the suppression laws that are being proposed in many other states with Republican governors. No, we're in trouble right now. But he continues to write during

this call with supporters alongside former Attorney General Eric Holder. Since I left office, I've tried to make a policy not to weigh in on the day-to-day scrum in Washington. But what's happening this week is more than just a partisan bill coming up or not coming up to a vote. Obama said the filibuster is not in the Constitution, and it, quote, allows a determined minority of senators to block legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans, end quote. So where do Senate Democrats stand on this, Jay? Democrats, by the way, are still pushing the bill through in an effort to highlight Republican opposition, despite changes made to the bill at the request of Senator Joe Manchin, the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus.

So what Democrats are going to do is force a vote on this like pared down version of the for the People Act. Not a single Republican senator is going to vote in favor of it. We can already predict that. And then what are Democrats going to do? What are they going to do after that? Are they going to nuke the filibuster? Are they going to get rid of it? No, they're not.

So what's the point of this, you know, this exercise that they're going to engage in? And I mean, get a load of Obama's incredibly tame statements about something that literally puts our democratic process in further jeopardy. It's like, oh, you know, I don't usually comment on these things. And I'm too busy, you know, sailing away with the guy who started Virgin Airlines. I forget his name. Yeah. But, you know, this might be a little important for the future of the Democratic Party and democracy. Yeah.

So I've got a lot to say about Obama in a second. But as we were doing this story live, Anna's prediction came true. So she said, of course, they're not going to pass the bill. Just two minutes ago, they voted and they, of course, failed. How many Republicans voted in favor of it? It's so recent that they don't have the count yet. So it's happening as we speak right now. And so it's, oh, here we go.

They got it in now. 50-50. Of course. Of course. And by the way, that means that if there is no fail, filibuster, it would pass because Kamala Harris would come and break the tie. And right now, all Americans would have voting rights. And we would have ended gerrymandering.

Oh my God, we would have passed a disclosed act, which means we could find out the dark money donors. We could do all of that right now if they end the filibuster. Instead, Mansion, Sinema, and others are like, nope, our votes are totally fake. And you guys gave us concessions, even though we were messing with you. And we were never going to actually give you the actual legislation because we're going to let the Republicans filibuster it, idiots. Now watch what happens after this, right? Because they knew, the Democratic Party knew that the vote would break down 50-50 because, I mean, when GOP lawmakers tell you who they are, believe them. I mean, how many of them came out?

Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, we're not going to vote in favor of it, regardless of how, you know, watered down the voting rights bill is. We don't want to. Why would they want to have free and fair elections? They're the beneficiaries of an undemocratic process. You think that they actually want to pass legislation that ensures that every eligible voter is able to vote? They don't want that. They've gone out of their way for years now to do away with people or make it incredibly difficult for people to vote. No, guys, it's beyond it. This is the whole thing is a joke, man. Republicans have proposed 389 bills in 48 different states to limit voting rights. Why would a party that introduced about 400 bills to limit voting rights turn around and vote in favor of expanding voting rights?

Who in their right mind would think that? No, everyone pretending that you're going to get a single Republican vote on this, let alone 10, is the most disingenuous person you've ever met in your life, which describes almost the entirety of watching. DC because every politician is pretending that and everybody in the media is pretending that. It's ridiculous. So let me also just note that these GOP lawmakers don't care how popular the voting rights bill is. In fact, one of the more recent polls, this is from Monmouth University, finds it 71% of Americans believe in person early voting should be easier to do while 69% of respondents

want national guidelines for voting by mail and for in person early voting in every state. These are issues that are addressed in the legislation. But do Senate lawmakers and GOP lawmakers care? Of course they don't. They don't because they know that Democrats wouldn't even use what they just did in this vote against them in campaigning. They're never held accountable. I mean, this weak argument, this weak statement from Barack Obama is an example of how they do their messaging. Now, when you look at Republicans, it's something completely different.

Donald Trump is so bitter at any Republican lawmaker who voted to impeach him after the January 6 riots that he's on the war path. Okay, so I'll give you a specific recent example. Trump is offering to back a primary challenger to Republican representative John Katko from New York. After Katko voted to impeach Trump, Trump has vowed to help oust any Republican he deems insufficiently loyal in 2022. especially the 10 who voted to impeach him. Many of those have gotten challengers who are major supporters of the former president. So he's like, I don't care who it is. I don't care who the primary challenger is.

I will back any primary challenger to GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach me. How dare you besmirch Donald Trump? I will come after you. Now, do I want Democrats to be similar? Yes, I do, I want Democrats to be similar. I want them to fight. And they don't, and it's embarrassing to support that part. that party.

Okay, so let me build on what I'm saying there, because why would we want Democrats to be in any way similar to Donald Trump? No, well, certainly we don't want them to be similar in terms of policy and the racism, all that stuff, right? Or intelligence, yeah. Right? Or being an idiot and in common, all that stuff, okay. But in this case, think about it, guys.

So number one, Donald Trump actually said, hey, find me a good candidate against them. meaning slight on scene, I don't give you damn who the other guy is. If you vote against, if you vote for my impeachment, I want you gone. Now, there's an excellent chance that's going to happen in other primaries where Donald Trump weighed in like Mark Sanford. Even slight critique or criticism of Donald Trump cost them the election. And they're totally gone. They're eliminated from politics now. Now, imagine if there was a progressive who didn't do that for their own ego, but did it based on policy.

Imagine if there was a progressive strong enough to say, hey, you vote against voting rights. I mean, there's a thousand reasons why you could make this threat, right? But one of those that is plenty good enough on its own is all these African Americans show up to vote for you. They make the difference in places like Georgia. Biden only won by 43,000 votes in three states. If it wasn't for African American voters, he definitely, definitely would have lost, right? It's not just the voters overall, but the intensity with which they showed up. He owes them everything.

And Republicans are taking away their voting rights, particularly targeting African-American voters. And if there was a progressive strong enough to say, hey, you touch those voting rights, and you don't vote with us and you vote with the Republicans on the filibuster, and I will end you. Period. Over, okay? I will primary you, I will find any candidate I like, and make sure your career is over. You go walk on Wall Street or MSNBC or wherever you like, but your career in politics is done. Do it, I dare you, right?

Now, what would happen? That would work, just like it's working with the Republicans. Why do you think every Republican? Mitch McConnell hates Donald Trump. He did a huge speech against Donald Trump. Now he's busy licking his boots. Why? Because Donald Trump is doing one thing right.

He is using his political power. He's using it for the wrong ends, but he is using it. Imagine if somebody use it for the right ends, right? But what does Obama do instead? Vague generalities. Oh, voting rights are kind of important and special, and we should kind of do it. And I guess we could reform the filibuster a little bit. You know what that is?

I'm honest. And so I know everybody in Washington, our heart's going to be broken because Obama's their demigod, right? You're not allowed to criticize them. Sorry, we'll break the rules here because we actually care about the truth. That is totally, what Obama's doing is totally and utterly useless. So if you don't name cinema and mansion and you don't support a primary against them, then they don't care at all what you think about the filibuster and what you think about voting rights. Your points are, they're really, they're total and utter waste of time.

And that's what Obama's doing to make himself feel better. 100%. I mean, his whispers are not a match for... Billionaire corporate donors who certainly have, like, they're yelling into Mansion and Cinema's ears, right? And corporate Democrats overall, you play by our rules or you're going to miss out on this money. You think that Obama's whispers are in any way a competition to that? No, it's not. And look, it's not like Obama doesn't know how to use this political power. He certainly used it during the Democratic primaries when he convinced all Democratic candidates to drop out of the race to ensure that Biden wins against Bernie Sanders.

He knows. He knows how to use strategy. He knows how to fight specifically for what he wants. But when it comes to the good of the American people for Democratic voters, and yes, black voters who turned out and got not just Biden elected, but two senators in the state of Georgia elected, to turn your back on them, I mean, it's just shameful. And there's really no other word for it. Yeah, Anna, that's such a great point. I'd forgotten that. So we know Obama knows hardball when he had it set in his mind that Bernie Sanders, of all people, must be defeated. Progressives must be defeated.

Man, he'd move mountains, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, all of them. I mean, people who'd already dropped out, Beto O'Rourke, who was pretending to be progressive, etc. He called them all and they all said, yes, yes, yes, what do you need? What do you need? But when it comes to fighting Republicans, whispers, whispers, voting rights, who cares? And so let's talk about how incredibly selfish Barack Obama is. Because all he cares about is his own reputation. He's like, normally, you know, I don't get involved in day-to-day muck.

Oh, well, must be so nice for you up on the mountaintop, okay, where you don't care about anything but your own legacy. So why doesn't he get involved in day-to-day? Oh, well, that's ugly business, you know. And I must protect my legacy. My legacy is so important. And my legacy dictates that former presidents don't talk about other presidents. Look at what Trump's doing, right? Yeah.

Oh, but he's so rebe goes. He won't have a good legacy. You must be so proud. Okay, now here's, well, but guys, he's a former president. To be fair, is there anything he can do? Well, Hannah just told you what he could do inside the Democratic Party. But I'll go further, okay? Okay, we know what he could do?

Cinema. If you vote to keep the filibuster and that kills voting rights, I'm going to move to Arizona and run against you, okay? Okay, that's a nuclear level threat. And I know, I know, everybody in Washington will laugh. Well, but Obama would never do that, no, he might risk losing it. That would tarnish his legacy, and that would be threatening a fellow Democrat. You mean, you can't do that unless it's Bernie Sanders.

Right, okay, so thank you, thank you for proving our point. Obama doesn't wanna lift a finger to help anyone. So he can keep his sweet nothing whispers to himself. No one is interested. And finally, if you're wondering about this vote, it comes down 50-50. Part of the reason, ostensible reason that Schumer held the vote is so that he can say,

hey, listen, you know, what we told you guys, right? It turns out we could pass it if we get rid of the filibuster. And so you'll see a lot of talk of that now, right? But there's a second reason why he held the vote that you won't see. So that cinema and mansion can say, well, we voted for the Four of the People Act.

We voted for it. And so you can't say we didn't vote for it. No, we can. You guys are liars. You know that that vote is completely and utterly meaningless without getting into the filibuster. And Schumer, while pretending to fight against you, in a sense, just delivered you a gift. We got to take a break.

When we come back, though, an insane story regarding gun laws in the state of Missouri and how the so-called law and order party, the Republican Party, not care about law and order at all. Come right back. Back on TYT, my name is Jenk. Her name is Anna. Go. Let's talk about gun laws because the state of Missouri just made a pretty awful decision. The state of Missouri has just passed a bill that will literally penalize local authorities if they follow through on enforcing. federal gun laws. I'm not even kidding.

In fact, Missouri isn't even the first state to do this, but Missouri is the first state that will financially, like, penalize a law enforcement if they follow through on federal laws. So Missouri's new law bars state and local authorities from enforcing federal gun laws, saying the law would increase the risk of gun violence in a state already drowning in it. The law, which Republican Governor Mike Parson signed this month, would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce any federal gun laws to a fine of about 50,000 per violating officer.

Okay, I want to ask a quick question first. Actually, two questions. One is, what happened to the party of law and order? Never existed. Right. Really. That's absolutely true. In fact, if you go back to the civil rights era, people, you know, it was called

civil disobedience. So people thought Martin Luther King and the civil rights leaders were breaking the laws down in the south. They actually weren't. The federal law supersedes state law. The civil rights leaders were actually following the law. It was the local sheriff's governors, etc. They were actively breaking the law. That's why they had to send in the National Guard to enforce the law. And here we are again. Now Republicans at the state level in Missouri saying, do not follow federal law. If you want to commit massacres, Go ahead and do it, grab these guns, fire them away. Who cares?

I don't want any stinking laws around guns. I don't care how many mass shootings there are. Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot. Who cares? And if I ever catch a cop enforcing the law, you're going to get fined $50,000. They passed that law in Missouri, finding cops. It's amazing. It's amazing.

It's amazing. Okay, so. No, but thin blue line. Support the cops. So that goes to my second point. Okay, first point is they do not believe in the rule of law at all. In our country, federal law supersedes state law. There's no question about it, especially in a circumstance like this.

Okay, but the second point is, remember when Cory Bush and other progressives said, we should get rid of qualified immunity for the cops? So when they kill someone, like shoot them in the back, etc., the family members should be able to sue the cops individually, because that would give them a significant disincentive from actually killing people. beating up people for no reason, et cetera, right? And everyone, including the entirety of the Republican Party, pushed back and said, no way! To hold cops personally responsible and that they might be losing their own money, that is unconscionable. And what did Missouri just do?

They would find cops $50,000 of their own money if they dare follow the law. No, it's insane. And- Amazing. And honestly, just think about how weak federal gun laws are. It's not like the federal gun laws are like draconian and make it suit. It's not like we're living in, I don't know, Japan where it's incredibly difficult to get your hands on a gun.

No, federal regulations pertaining to weapons like guns are super lax. That's part of the reason why we're drowning in guns. So what exactly do they have an issue with? So the lawmakers in Missouri are saying, no, no, no, we're, you know, we're preempting what we're likely to see from the Biden administration. Because, you know, Biden has been very tough and very strong on gun regulation. In fact, he suggested forming a commission to study gun violence in America. Whoa, you're going to study it? I didn't know he was going to be that tough.

And a commission to study it, that is doubly tough. Geez, wow. I mean, tough regulations. So you know, these lawmakers in Missouri are very worried about it. And you're right, federal law supersedes state law. It is kind of interesting to see that Republicans will claim that states' rights happens to be the most important thing in the world. We need to support states' rights. And then when it comes to issues they don't like, like let's say abortion, right?

They want the federal or the Supreme Court, I should say, to strike down or reverse Roe v. Wade to ensure that, that every single state bans abortion. So their state's rights argument is nonsense. The fact that they think they need this unconstitutional law that will get struck down in the courts is ridiculous. And of course, St. Louis, both the city and the county, are suing in response to this. And they're likely to win in court because federal law supersedes state law, will repeat it again. And what's also interesting is that one of the police chiefs has stepped down as a result of this law. The state law prompted the resignation of the police chief of O'Fallon, a St. Louis suburb that is home to about 89,000 people, and is the state's seventh largest city.

The outgoing chief, Philip Du Puis, said in a statement that this month that the law would quote, decrease public safety and increase frivolous lawsuits designed to harass and and penalize good, hardworking law enforcement agencies. And by the way, I mean, it's worth noting that even though federal laws are laxed, one of the most important federal laws, which is background checks, not universal yet, but still, has actually prevented quite a few bad people from obtaining weapons. So just last year alone in 2020, background checks blocked a record high of 300,000 gun sales. By the way, why do they block those gun sales?

Because a lot of those people are felons. Some of them have restraining orders against them. And some of them have already committed violence. Some are worried they're gonna commit violence against their domestic partners, et cetera, et cetera. Because you don't get blocked for no reason, you get blocked for, there's gotta be a high bar, right? To get blocked because if the gun manufacturers want everybody to have weapons. We can't even block terrorists from getting weapons.

So if you're on that list, there's a very good reason you're on that list. And it's 300,000 of them that got blocked. By the way, there's almost no penalties. So people go and lie on those forms all the time. So imagine all the people who didn't get blocked, who should have gotten blocked, because they prosecute 0.01% of those cases. In other words, lie all you want, you're going to get away with it. And so even in this incredibly relaxed situation, Missouri says, no, you guys are limiting

guns too much. We have all these nonstop shootings in St. Louis and other places, a record shooting sprees. Not enough, we want more massacres. And so I'm going to go to our audience here, YouTube super chat. Graham Henry says, I don't get it. This placing legal restriction on police departments mean we don't back the blue? Apparently not in Missouri. They don't give a damn about police in Missouri. Our stone, or at least Republicans don't. Our stone says, oh great, so Missouri is trying to audition for a real live version of the purge. It certainly looks like it, but finally, Matthias Giovanni wrote in before we even said it, how does this bypass police immunity? Can we piggyback to go after the cops on top of it

who break the law? Well, that's the amazing part, right? So the Republicans in Missouri say, if a cop wrongly shoots and kills an unarmed black man, we don't want him to be held responsible. But if a cop enforces federal law on gun restrictions, we want to hold them responsible up to $50,000. Look at those priorities. And then Republicans wonder, why are we called racist? I don't get it. We don't mind black people being killed at all, or having them beat up black protesters

and Ferguson and St. Louis over and over and over again. No problem, we will never hold the police accountable to that. But the police didn't let criminals get guns? No, that's it. That's it. Give me $50,000. So all that stuff. Blue Lives Matter. They don't believe any of it. All they care about is being able to basically use their power over us. And that's what they proved in Missouri. All right. One more story before we wrap up our first hour. Because I think this is a perfect example of how we definitely need a federal jobs guarantee. A rural town in northern California is reeling regarding the closure of a prison in the area which essentially serves as the main place where people in the community are employed. And so when we have discussions about the necessity of a federal jobs guarantee, it's not just about ensuring that unemployed people, currently unemployed people have access to well-paying jobs.

It also deals with issues in the periphery like criminal justice, because in this case, the community does not want the closure of the prison. They want the prison to remain open because it's their only source of employment. So as one Susanville employee, or Susanville resident, I should say, says they came in and they promised to buy everything local. It was all about economic benefit to the community, meaning the prison and what it was providing to the community, they got it built, and we became a pretty happy little prison town, right? So they don't want the closure because of how this prison not only provided

jobs, but it also provided, you know, a benefit to other businesses in the community. So the opening of the prison has actually helped businesses in the town get back on their feet. For instance, in April, the state announced that it would close the California Correctional Center, which provides nearly 1,100 jobs and among the highest wages in this impoverished sinking town, or shrinking town, I should say, of 8,000 residents. So, yeah, and also residents of Susanville are bracing for the worst as it's going to shut down, right? Because it's not just about the prison shutting down, it's about the business that's provided to small businesses in the area. Scores of for sale signs, for instance, have popped up on

on front lawns, owners of restaurants and hotels which rely on inmates, visitors, fear business could plummet. School leaders are bracing for families with children leaving, which could lead to a cut in the school's funding. So it has this domino effect. And it's not that the community is in favor of how the justice system is playing out right now, or how, you know, we imprison more people than, you know, most other developed countries. They just don't know what they're gonna do economically once it shuts down, which again is why I think Biden needs to make a stronger case for a federal jobs guarantee. Yeah, of course he's not gonna do any of that.

Yeah. So look, I'm a little split on the story because I get the desire to protect that small town and at the same time, and yes, and that's by the way when you close a prison like that down, you should have a specific plan for what are you gonna do with that community. You can't solve all the problems, you just can't, right? But you should at least have some sort of backup plan for, well, some sort of relief in the short term, midterm, et cetera, right? And provide some access to jobs somehow, right? And if you say, hey, Jink, well, what do you mean somehow?

I don't know, I'm not the governor, okay? They have thousands of people working for them, and they should put some effort into it. Look, I like to be constructive, so, but I don't know how to solve that particular problem, okay? Now, having said that, I don't shed too big a tear for this. I mean, they should close that prison down. I'm thrilled that they close the prison down. I'm really happy that California is stopping the, you know, ridiculous over-incarceration that we had because of the drug war in this country, and in California specific.

The prison population has gone way down in California, that's a great thing overall. And so I get it. Some towns used to do horse and buggies, and now that we don't have horse and buggies so they're gonna have to get new jobs, right? And I don't want to be too callous about it, but we can't keep doing horse and buggies, we gotta figure out a new path forward, right? And this one's even worse, I mean, what if your town was run out of a torture factory? And oh well look, man, they're doing torture in there, but it's just 120 good jobs in there. When working around the clock, sometimes they get overtime, yeah, I'm gonna vote to close

the torture factory. So- No, I mean, look, I think, I think we both, agree on, first of all, I actually have a lot to say about shutting down prisons and allow, like in California, it is true. There's now this trend of releasing nonviolent offenders. But I don't want to give Democrats in this state too much credit because what they do is they set people up for failure. It's like, oh, we imprisoned you for nonviolent offenses and you're now a convicted felon as a result. We're gonna release you, but we're going to set you up for failure. We're not going to provide any way of transitioning back into society. We're not going to provide jobs. We're not going to provide housing. We're not going to

provide anything, which is, by the way, part of the reason, not the full reason, but part of the reason why the homeless population has certainly exploded in California during the pandemic as more and more nonviolent offenders were released, right? So I'm not saying that you shouldn't release them. I'm just saying, sure, a little bit of credit for doing what's right and releasing them, but there isn't a program to transition people into society, and they're left on the streets defend for themselves, and they get no credit for that, right? The other thing is, yes, I agree, shut down the prison, but the problem with the Democratic Party is they'll advocate for prison closures, but they don't make a case for a federal jobs guarantee. They don't talk about the

need to invest, like the infrastructure proposal from Biden. That can provide so many jobs. If you invest, in renewable energies, maybe build a factory in this community to build wind turbines and, you know, solar panels, whatever it is. There are actually solutions, but we're not having conversations about the solutions. We're having conversations about we're going to shut it down, and then we're going to move on with our lives. And there are 8,000 people in this community who don't know what to do. You know, they deserve a solution, not just we're going to shut down the prison, go F yourselves, you know? Yeah, I hear you. But meanwhile, by the way, the solutions that you're proposed, of course, we saw Joe mentioned on tape talk to the billionaire donors

as a story that Intercept broke, where he said, no, no, I'm very much against the clean energy portions of the infrastructure bill. For example, building stations where you could recharge your electric cars. That would be a huge part of getting more electric cars in the country and the infrastructure that you need for that. And they were joking around on the call like, hey, Henry Ford didn't need gas stations. set up by the government, ha, ha, ha, ha, and they're having a good belly laugh. They're not going to create any of those jobs.

They're not going to get those. By the way, that county is 75% Trump voters. But you think Republicans are going to help them? No, they're not going to get them any infrastructure jobs. So, and the infrastructure plan that they have, not only doesn't create very many jobs, gutted three quarters of the funding, but on top of that, when you'll read it, of course, it mainly privatizes roads and other infrastructures so you have to pay tolls the rest of your life. So, these are, they're all crooks and they're, and they do everything for their donors.

So whether they're Trump fans or they're not, it doesn't matter at all. But they're going to leave those poor people behind. Of course they are, yeah. And that's just the reality. Listen, when we come back for the second hour, are we going to get louder with Crowder? I think we are. I think we are going to get a little louder with Crowder, but not in the way that he likes. Yeah, well, he wasn't very loud at all when he ran.

Okay, so you guys are going to love that story. So stay right here. Oh, by the way, like and share the stream. It makes a big difference. All right, we'll be back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple. Dot co-slash TYT.

I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.