The Young Turks - The Young Turks 01.17.18: Bread Crumbs, Stormy Daniels, HHS Overhaul, and Korean Olympic Team

Episode Date: January 18, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from January 17th, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Hour 1:  How different parts of US define fake news. The California Democrat said the tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump mostly benefited the wealthy while tossing “bread crumbs” to lower-income taxpayers. “For one thing, it’s a very, very big deal,” a Trump voter named Sue told Fox News about the $1,000 bonus she got from her employer, Walmart. “When you work for a company and they want to give you $1,000 just because our president gave them a tax break, to me it’s a big deal.” Fox News did not publish a story the network had on an alleged sexual relationship between President Trump and adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford during the 2016 presidential election, according to a new report. CNN reports that Fox News reporter Diana Falzone wrote a story a month before voters went to the polls in 2016 on the alleged relationship between Trump and Clifford, whose stage name is “Stormy Daniels." Hour 2:  The Trump administration is poised to overhaul the HHS civil rights office as part of a broader plan to protect health workers who don't want to perform abortions, treat transgender patients seeking to transition or provide other services for which they have religious or moral objections. Under a proposed rule — which has been closely guarded at HHS and is now under review by the White House — the civil rights office would be empowered to further shield these workers and punish organizations that don’t allow them to express their religious and moral objections, according to sources on and off the Hill. That would be a significant shift for the office, which currently focuses on enforcing federal civil rights and health care privacy laws. North and South Korea have had diplomatic talks and will have a unified team in a sport for the first time. 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. You're about to watch what we call an extended clip of the Young Turks, and the reality is somewhere in the middle. It's a little longer than our YouTube clips, but it's actually shorter than the whole two-hour show, which you can get if you're a member. You can get an ad-free and make sure you catch every new story we do that day. You're going to love it as a full show. So that's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join.

Thanks for watching. All right, back on a young turks. Let me read a couple tweets. Kelly Kerr writes in. I look forward to our time when Steve Bannon is no longer relevant. And we know if we don't have to talk about him or see his face. And as I said yesterday, I think we should boycott his book if he writes one. Well, that's going to be the easiest boycott in the world.

Okay, no, not buying it. Literally. Dr. Chaos MD writes in, after so many Benghazi hearings that produce nothing, Gaudi is probably desperate to have a hearing that results in any kind of win. And Enrique Arriga writes in, the very fact that Banna was looking for plausible deniability back then is in and of itself an indicator that shenanigans of the highest order were going on. I love shenanigans.

Or shenanes, as the kids would say. As the kid, Anikasperian, would say. Not a good, I guess. Yes, indeed. Okay, by the way, rebel headquarters tonight, we have old school, but we also have rebel headquarters. There is where we talk about progressive events and candidates. We've got an event that I want to tell you about in New York that's coming up for voting rights. But by popular demand, Daniel Biss running for governor in Illinois, super progressive.

He's kind of litting people on fire in the progressive world. And so come find out what everybody's talking about. We'll have Monrebel headquarters tonight at 8.05 p.m. Eastern. All right, what's next, John? You're going to get all up in his business? Yeah. Use that. That's good. Anyway, okay, let's jump back into it.

There was a time not too long ago when the term fake news had an actual definition that people seem to agree on that made a lot of sense. And that has since been completely destroyed, leaving us to wonder, what does that term now actually mean day to day to various groups of Americans? And we have a survey from Knight Gallup that gets into that and finds the dueling interpretations of what that term means, which we're going to turn to in just a second. But first of all, how important is this area of concern for Americans? Well, 73% of Americans say the spread of inaccurate information on the internet is a major problem with news coverage today, more than any other potential type of news bias, of which there are many.

I'm not 100% sure that that should actually be the largest one. I think that corporate consolidation and control of the media might be a bigger one. But it's not obviously a big one, and people care about it. Additionally, just 50% of the American surveyed feel confident people can cut through bias to sort out the facts in the news down from 66% to generation ago. And that's sort of what they feel generally. But apparently less than one out of three feel that they are, actually equipped on a day-to-day basis to sort out inaccurate from accurate news,

which is a huge concern. And so now let's talk about fake news, which if you weren't around, originally had a very simple, easy to understand explanation. It was news that was designed to look like real news, but was purposefully deceptive and false, intending to sort of hide in the cloak of news to convince people of things that are not true. And it became very large a couple of years ago online because the proliferation of websites that had the idea of news but not actually the content. Well, 42% of Republicans

consider accurate news stories that cast a politician or political group in a negative light to always be defined as fake news. And for comparison, 17% of Democrats agree. Now understand, that doesn't mean that they think news that they don't believe is true, but turns out to be true, is still always fake news. It's news that they, in their response, say is true. But if it makes a politician look bad, it should always be considered fake news. That's 42% of Republicans. That's 42% of Republicans saying, I don't give a damn about the truth. Never cared about it. Don't care about it now. In fact, not only am I, it's not that I'm indifferent to it, I will actively call it fake even though I know it's real. Man, that is the power of

propaganda and brainwashing. So those guys are, I will now call it fake news even though I I know it is true. And by the way, is... We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-I-N-F-T-R. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies

that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about

some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional 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. We often talk about studies have shown that liberals and conservatives both have a confirmation bias and have several other biases. So you see 17% of Democrats there as well. And that is shameful. We should actually, progressive should actually care about the truth. And we shouldn't try to fit the facts around our opinions. We should try to fit our opinions around the facts. Now, having said that, as usual, don't give me that both sides do it stuff. when it's 17 to 42. That's a giant, giant difference.

Republicans do it a lot more. Yeah. Yeah. Now, thankfully, that isn't everybody. I mean, even for Republicans, it's 42%. So what about the actual definition? People knowingly portraying false information as true information. Well, between 40 and 50% of both Democrats and Republicans think that should be labeled as fake news.

So are they not merciful? Half the country largely still has their head on. right, but almost half of the other side just doesn't care, as you describe. It just does not matter to them anymore. And, what are you going to say? Yeah, just one quick note about the numbers. You know, I said 42% of Republicans don't care if it's true. They're going to call it fake anyway, 17% Democrats.

But, you know, I realize halfway through as you were explaining it, John, the Republicans will then turn around and go 42 is a higher number than 17? Fake news. Well, but it's clearly sure. Oh, I know it's true. Fake news. Well, God, it's true, but it makes me feel bad. Fake news. You know what?

Fake math. Fake numbers. Fake numbers. You know what? 239, that's a fake number. Look it up. Anyway, and then you have the sort of larger area, because obviously a lot of this is due to Donald Trump, not just him.

Other Republicans have sort of tried to do this same thing about everything is fake news that makes him look bad. But there's things that sort of are tied in with that. So Trump often will talk about fake sources. sources. The idea being that if he doesn't know exactly who it is that leaked something, it is by its very definition false, which is of course not true. And we know that all of the people surrounding him were competing with each other to leak as much information as possible. But a lot of people who don't know that will then hear the president over the course of a

year and then think, well, in the future, if I don't know the source for something, it's probably fake, which is of course not the actual, that's not the case. Real journalists who use multiple sources can't necessarily put those people on the record. But if the information is verified with other people, then it is still reliable information in most cases. But people are going to lose faith in that as well. So two things here. One, there's a great article about where a lot of the leaks from the White House were coming from. And so Trump would go around and be super frustrated. He's like, I don't know where the source is. So it's fake news, right? Turns out it was Trump. And he wasn't calling the papers. He was going around calling all of his buddies that he plays

golf with, et cetera. And those guys leak like a sieve. So he'd be like, oh yeah, then I called him, you know, a poop hole. And then they'd go tell the press. And then he'd be like, where are the sources from? Where are the sources from? It's fake. It's from you, you knucklehead. The sources are coming from inside the moron. Okay, and then finally, look, guys, I just feel like I need to clarify this one more time. Fake news is it's made up. That's where it originated from. It's a website you go to, and the website has completely incorrect information on purpose to try to deceive you.

It's not trying to be news. Then there's bias, which you can argue exist in a lot of different places, including, yes, definitely in the mainstream media, and I would argue that. You remember the Washington Post of the 16 headlines against Bernie Sanders in 16 hours. And it was unbelievable that God, they hate Bernie Sanders. Now, in that case, they don't know they hate Bernie Sanders. There was no conspiracy. They didn't get together in a room and be like, all right, let's bury the guy, right? Let's bury him.

They probably didn't. Yeah, some of you might you think, some of you might think that they did. But that is not really how it works. I've been there. It's just they truly believed that he had no chance of winning. They truly believed that he was a dangerous comment. I'm like these insane thoughts. And so it, but it colored their view of Sanders so much that they became like Trump supporters.

The press did. And you would show them polls of Sanders doing 12 points better than Hillary Clinton against Republicans, whether it was Cruz or Trump or a generic Republican. And they go, no, I don't believe those numbers. I don't believe those numbers. Bernie can't win. And even after the election, when I was talking about 2020, and I talked, it was off the record. I'm not going to say who or what publication, but a major publication, and the well-known reporter

almost screamed, Bernie will never be president. And that was only a little while after they had said that they don't do opinion. So there, of course, bias exists in the news. But the Washington Post and New York Times, et cetera, are not going out there writing fake stories that are not attached to the truth. And then finally, there's perspective journalism as well. But that's at least honest about their perspective. I think that's what we do here.

Once Fox News dropped their BS fair and balanced slogan, you know, to some degree, Hannity's honest about what he does. He might lie in his, the content, but he says, I'm a conservative, and this is my perspective, right? So those are the different kinds of news. So not everything you disagree with is fake news. Yeah. And, of course, even in the case of the Washington Post, understand that there is a distinction between the editorial side of something like the Washington Post and the news side,

which are totally different things with totally different staffs often in different parts of the building. So I understand that as well. Just one other thing I wanted to say about this, and this actually makes me kind of sad because I came up as blogs were getting big and podcasts were getting big, things like the young Turks were getting big. And there were so many new ways to get information. And it's, if you engage in that and if you're smart about it and you go to different sorts of sources, you can learn so much and much more than you could have in decades past.

But unfortunately, not just from fake news, but things like fake news, it's actually having the opposite effect on a lot of people. 58% of Americans say the increased number of news sources today makes it harder to be informed, which is a tragedy. Like we have so much access to information now, but people feel like it's actually making it more difficult to understand what's going on. That just underscores for me how much we need to deal with this problem. Anyway, why don't we jump into another story. We're running a little bit low on time, something very different. The Republican tax bill was a massive multi-trillion dollar giveaway to corporations and the 1%. But in the wake of its passage, a lot of corporations, including things like Comcast and Walmart and AT&T,

put out these big press releases about bonuses that they're giving to their workers, supposedly totally not because, or totally because of the tax bill. It doesn't matter if they'd been negotiating with the union for a year for these things. It doesn't matter if the factories they were announcing had actually been announced months before. It was so, so, because of the tax bill, they wanted you to believe. And one of the reasons they did that, all that PR, was because while they're giving out these $1,000 bonuses, in many cases, as we've broken down over the past few weeks, they were also cutting thousands of jobs, or they were limiting wage increases for their workers and things of that sort. And often with the fine print, the bonuses weren't what they appeared to be anyway.

They would say 100,000 workers getting $1,000 bonuses up to $1,000 if you'd been working for us for 20 years. So for the vast majority of people, they wouldn't be getting anything like that. But it all sounded good. And we've done what we can to fight back against that narrative. But now let's find out if it's actually working, at least in a test case, Fox News went to a cafe to find out what actual voters think about these bonuses being giving out by corporations in comparison to the huge. amounts of money the corporations are getting, here is what they found out. Nancy Pelosi said that breadcrumbs are what these $1,000 bonuses are. What does a $1,000 bonus mean to real people?

Well, for one thing, it's a very, very big deal. You know, when you've worked for a company and they want to give you $1,000 just because our president gave us a tax break, that's, to me, it's a big deal. We've been called deplorables and everything else, but this, Applorable appreciates those breadcrumbs. Very much. You also had something to say about respect of this president. He didn't say anything about deplorables.

I feel like they told her to say something like that because nothing about the proclables actually came up there. And so she said it's a big deal, which if you actually got $1,000 would be a big deal. Of course, if Walmart is then going to cut your job, not as big of a deal. And also not because of the tax cut president. Trump gave us. In many cases, these are the bonuses they get at the end of every year. Or again, unions have been negotiating it for a year. But at least for some voters, none of that matters. The message has gone through as intended. Well, look, in some ways, I understand

what she's saying. A thousand dollars is a big deal to a lot of workers. And so if she got a $1,000 check and she's happy about it, great, that makes sense. Now, it's a little bit like what Republicans have been charging Democrats with all these years, where they say, oh, they just hand out goodies to be able to get their voters to vote for them. Yeah. Kind of like a $1,000 check. They accuse Obama

handing out Obama phones. They say, oh, yeah, they're just giving away money to these people who don't want to work. And even in things like their earned income tax credit, where you literally have to work in order to receive it. So now when they give away goodies like Santa Claus, all of a sudden

they're like, yeah, well, I like those bread crumbs, they're yummy for my tummy. So it's, that's part of it. But the other thing is she, to be fair to her and unfair to Trump and the Republicans in Fox News, I like it so far. She didn't necessarily hear the story of all the Sam's clubs that closed. So she didn't get fired. Other people at Walmart got fired. At the same time, they closed down a lot of stores, thousands of people lost their jobs. But since she didn't lose her job and she got a check, She thinks, yeah, I like that. I'm going to vote for them again.

Now, again, and she doesn't know the context that most of those companies, Walmart, AT&T, etc., doing those checks, at most, it is 10% of only one year of their tax cuts. They're keeping the other 90% and then the rest of the years they're keeping 100%. So without that context, because she doesn't watch the young Turks, you could understand why she had the reaction that she did. If you know her, please link her to one of our videos because we're not. against her. Like, if it was, if these bonuses were what they seem to be, that would be awesome. We were exactly the people who'd be pushing for that and far more, which I'll get

into. But it's not. She is being deceived, unfortunately. We broke down for a number of these different companies. Their bonus packages amounted to something like 0.027% of the revenue for a year, even though they're going to be making billions off these tax cuts. And the execs at those companies will be making, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions of dollars every single year from these tax guts. So they are just breadcrumbs because they're intended to deceive you, to send you off a path where you never realize that huge quantities of money are being given to the people with all the real political and economic power in this country.

And I mentioned something about this like a week ago, that a tiny bit of money for regular workers, tons of money for the rich. And some conservative woman tweeted to me, man, you're just so mad that they're getting this $1,000. aren't you? I love your tears or something like that. And I didn't respond to her because she seemed kind of stupid. But if I had, I would have said, no, I'm not against the $1,000. Here's what I want. Let's see if you actually are in the corner for these people, like the people in that cafe, I don't want $1,000. I want a livable goddamn wage for her. I want consistent raises that

keep up with or exceed cost of living increases. I want her insurance to not skyrocket because 13 million people are going to be thrown off their insurance plans because of that tax bill. want experiments in basic income. I want her to get free access to health insurance. I want her kids to get free access to schooling and things like that. I want actual economic power to be put back in the pockets of the people who are doing the real work in America. I don't want one time, maybe $1,000 if you've been working there for 20 years. I want real substantive change to the entire goddamn economic system we have. Do you support that? No, you want breadcrumbs. Preach it, brother. Teach it. I didn't know I was on with Pastor John today.

Okay, and I like how the Republicans have outdone Marie Antoinette here. Oh, they don't have bread. Well, then give them bread crops. It's bread and circuses. The bread is $1,000 for some Walmart employees. The circuses, ice raids, and feuds with North Korea and other entertaining BS like that. And they're hoping that you will be so distracted by those sorts of things that you don't understand what is actually ongoing in this country. All right, let's do one more story. Okay, let's do one more story. I'm not mentally prepared.

Okay. Okay. Late last week, news broke that Donald Trump's lawyers allegedly paid off a former adult film star $130,000 so that she would not go public with an affair that she'd engaged in with Donald Trump. And by going public, we mean going public in the weeks leading up to the election. They apparently paid that huge amount of money, and she didn't come out with the story. So that was the first that most people heard of this entire thing. But not everybody, actually. Some people had heard about it earlier.

Some people, in fact, had heard about it before the actual election. So what I'm talking about is Fox News. One of the network's reporters, Diana Falzone, had filed a story in October of 2016 about an alleged sexual relationship between Clifford, that's the actual name of Stormy Daniels, the adult film star that we're talking about. People familiar with the matter said. Now, Falzone had an on the record statement from Clifford's manager at the time, Gina Rodriguez, confirming that her client had engaged in a sexual relationship with Trump. Three of these people said. And Falzone had even seen emails about a settlement, the settlement that we're talking about here. So according to the sources that know, she had the

story and Fox killed it. So that information could have come out. It was revealed before the actual election, but Fox News said, you know what? We've got other stuff that we want to cover in the run-up to this election, and so they actually killed it. Now, understand for full disclosure, Stormy Daniels says that this entire thing is not true, that the allegations about the being paid off are not true, that the sexual relationship is not true and never actually happened. But she is undercut by a couple of different sources, first and foremost, herself.

In a new issue of In Touch Magazine on Newsstands today, Stormy confirmed in her own words that she had sex with Donald Trump in his Lake Tahoe, Nevada hotel suite in 2006. That was originally what she said to the magazine back in 2011, which was supported by multiple other people, including her friend and ex-husband. And at the time, she took and passed a polygraph about that information. Also, Alana Evans, a friend of hers, said that at the time that she was having this encounter, she had received a phone call saying, come and hang out with us, come have fun, let's party. So full disclosure, she says now that it didn't happen after the alleged payment, which she also says didn't happen. But back in 2011, she said that it did. So here is my partial defense of Donald Trump.

And up until the very last article I read, and I needlessly read a lot about that. this. I was going to do a full defense of him. But at the end, they did come up with real reasons why this story is a little bit relevant. But my defense of Trump is, one, I don't care that he had an affair. Like, some people are like, well, that shows that he had an affair. And, I mean, here's the guy who's had, and besides which he's, you don't know that Donald Trump's had affairs. You don't realize that. He seemed like kind of a nice guy. Respectful women. Go, go, go, go. Of course, he's had affairs. Okay.

Then the second thing they said that it proves this, you know, there's all these allegations from women about sexual assault, harassment, et cetera. This proves that he is willing to lie about sex. Go, go, go, go, go. No, of course. Seems like a straightforward guy. Right. Trustworthy. Yeah, first of all, I got news for you.

A lot of guys are willing to lie about sex, including Bill Clinton. And second of all, Donald Trump lies about everything. He lies about the weather, right? There isn't anything he he won't lie about. If that's a revelation to you, you're being wildly disingen. genuous or you're not that bright. And then she goes in the 2011 interview with InTouch, she describes how the sex with Trump was.

Don't do that. I don't care. I don't want to know how sex with Trump is or Obama or Chuck Schumer. She, to be fair, she only slept with Trump. As far as we know. Chuck Schumer is in the clear. And look, if you want to give a context, that's fair in that if we heard a story about how Obama had sex with a porn star,

and paid her $130,000 to cover it up, that would have been by far the largest scandal in Obama's eight years, and the Republicans would have lost their minds. Oh, my God, I can't believe. Disgraced the office, right? Now, but we're progressives. We don't care about your private sex libraries between you and that person. So why is it in any way relevant? One is that in the same tournament that Stormy Daniels met, let's acknowledge, by the way, that's a fun name, met Donald Trump and slept with him in 2006. Another adult film actor, Jessica Drake, said that Trump had invited them up to his,

her up to his hotel room, and she went with a couple of friends because she was a little afraid of Trump, and she was right. She said, Trump just grabbed me and kiss me without asking for permission. And now this in some ways corroborates that same hotel room, same golf tournament, other adult film stars there. So, okay, so that's relevant. It gets into illegal behavior. Yes.

And then the only other way that it is relevant is they say, look, in the dossier, in the famous dossier, they say the Russians had information about Trump's sex life and that Trump wants to cover that up. Well, here's a story where he pays $130,000 to cover up a story about his sex life. That makes you go, hmm, okay, if he was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to cover it up in one instance, is it possible that he would do it in another. So it's a data point, it's not overwhelming, it's not an open and a shut case, it's not like Mueller's going to look at that and be like, we're done with this. Okay, guilty, right? But it is a data point that he is very concerned about covering up these sexual affairs and that if the Russians had one on him that was far worse, what wouldn't he do to cover it up?

It's an interesting question. And that is the only reason that it is on the show, or especially in the first hour, is that what had been a hypothetical that he could be blackmailed for his personal sexual activity and that it could theoretically influence him later on is not a hypothetical. I mean, if you believe those sources, it is an established fact. He can and has been blackmailed for his sexual activity. That's a great way of putting it. And finally, if you're wondering, well, is it really true? I mean, first of all, she gave an interview in 2011 saying it's true. with corroborating witnesses at a polygraph. Which I don't think is admissible in court. Yeah, that's okay. It's definitely true.

But second of all, you know that Stormy Daniels hasn't actually come out in public and said anything about this. Michael Cohen, the same lawyer alleged to have paid her off, said he has a letter from Stormy Daniels that she signed. And he said to the press. And that's the letter that says, oh, it's definitely not true. I never slept with Trump. And it's, but in part of the letter, it says, trust me, if I had slept with Trump. And I'm like, uh-oh, uh-oh. She didn't write it.

So she might have signed it as part of it some sort of payoff, but she didn't write that letter. And can I just say one thing because I understand that some of this, while we believe that there is a non-salacious reason to cover this, gets into sexual activity where like the quotes about what he was like in bed. We don't care about that. But I want to be fair to him and cover the good stuff too. He did say something very sweet to her. He said to her, and this is what she said to In Touch Magazine, Trump said I was, quote, just like his daughter.

Oh, that's nice. He loves his daughter. And he thinks that she's just like one of the people he loves the most in the world. John, I hadn't seen that. I really wish you hadn't told me that. I'm just trying to be fair. I'm just trying to be fair. Anyway, yes, the personal stuff doesn't matter.

but when it can be used to manipulate you and you have the power over life and death for tens of millions of people, that's where it becomes our concern, possibly. Yes, all right, guys, we're out of time here. Back into the Azizansari story a little bit, have we received criticism for it? Sure. We'll address that a little bit. So did Ashley Banfield. We'll also address that a little bit.

Some curious sources for that, for some of the criticism and some legitimate sources as well. So we'll talk about that when we return. Thanks for listening to this podcast. You're only halfway through. So hold, hold, stay right here. Just want to remind you if you want to get all five segments of the Young Turks commercial free. These are just two of them. Every day we do it.

So go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join, and you'll get the whole five segments, two hours. Add free. Do it now. All right, back on Young Turks. Jankana with you guys. Christopher Corali writes, and they never said, Trump's blood to gravy level was. That's a fair point.

Miss Us Data says that email is petty, immature and shallow. And super last thing says that attack was very, and I assume they wrote this before I said it on air, that attack was very Trump-like. I don't think that's a feminist way of talking. I mean, if you saw it, like I told you

a little bit later after that tweet came in, it capitalizes things in the same way Trump does, does exclamation points, it's full of itself, and it attacks other people based on a peer. I mean, it was just like textbook. Anyways, guys, if you want to get the full show, two-hour show, also old school tonight, aggressive, progressive, the post game we're going to do tonight. Always remember you can do that at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. All right, what's next, Anna?

Remember when Trump and his administration claim that they want smaller government, less government employees? Well, turns out that they want to create a new division in health and human services that will specifically and solely focus on protecting healthcare professionals who wish to discriminate against individuals that have certain lifestyles that they don't like. Now, they are claiming that this is a religious liberty type thing. They want to make sure that if a doctor or a health care provider has a moral dilemma and doesn't want to treat certain people like transgender people or LGBT people, they should be protected. Let me give you the details. According to Politico, Trump is poised to overhaul the Health and Human Services Civil Rights Office as part of a broader plan to protect health workers who don't want to perform abortions, treat transgender patients seeking to transition, or provide other services. for which they have religious or moral objections. Now, the civil rights office would be empowered to further shield these workers and punish

organizations that don't allow them to express their religious and moral objections. Now, I want to be clear about something. It's not like if you're trying to be a heart surgeon, you're going to be confronted with the dilemma of providing abortions. That just doesn't happen, right? that's essentially what you sign up for if you end up doing abortions. So that's strange. But to me, the heart of this issue really has to do with the LGBT community because there

are certain services that they need to get and oftentimes they will get rejected based on religious objections. So for instance, if you have a lesbian couple that wishes to conceive and they need fertility treatments or they need to do artificial insemination, if they go to a certain doctor and that doctor tells them, no, you guys are gay. I'm not interested in helping you. There's a discriminatory issue there. So the real question is, what is our government comfortable with?

What are the American people comfortable with? Discriminating against certain groups of people or, you know, maybe creating a system where people who sign up for a certain job are asked to do their jobs. Okay. So I want to start with that. Do your job. So I remember the story we often go back to. There was a Muslim guy in, I think it was in Minnesota, where he said, well, yeah, I'm the checkout guy at a grocery store, but I don't want to touch ham or bacon.

So he wanted other people to come in and scan the ham and the bacon. No, no, no, no, no. Then don't take that job. You either do your job or you don't do your job. So if you're not going to scan items at a grocery store, go get another job, okay? So I have religious objections to it. Yeah, but I don't. That's why I bought the bacon.

And so if you don't want to be a doctor that has to treat everyone equally and you say, well, I have moral objections to you. You're a lesbian, so I don't like you. And so I want to judge you. So when you come into the emergency room, I don't want to treat you. No, no, no, do your job or get the hell out. Go get another job, okay? And it's actually nearly that bad.

First of all, it allows for that completely, completely, any religious or moral objection on any issue. So, okay, oh, you have HPV. Oh, but I notice you don't have a ring. You're not married. I'm going to judge you. I'm going to judge you. I have a moral objection to your sex life that, therefore, I am protected by the government

in basically denying you the health care that you need. Look, it creates a dangerous precedent, if you ask me, right? And so you could have the issue of pharmacists denying people birth control pills or plan B, whatever it is, right, based on their moral objections. And the fact of the matter is, if you sign up to be a health care professional, I feel like you have an ethical duty to provide that health care to any and all patients, regardless of what their political practices are, what their religious beliefs are, what their lifestyle choices are.

At the end of the day, there's still people, right? And so I just, I find it strange that in any other line of work, you're expected to do your job. But under this scenario, based on what the government is telling us right now, if you're religious and you're a health care provider, if you're a doctor, a health care professional, you can go ahead and deny care to people just based on the fact that you don't like their lifestyle. So let's also recognize a couple other things this is. This is a religious test. So, I mean, what am I going to get a pop quiz from my doctor before he treats me?

or if I'm in an emergency room or an ambulance, they're like, well, what are you? I'm agnostic. Then you deny that Lord Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, whatever the hell they believe, right? Yeah, I do deny. No, that's it. Get out of the ambulance. Are you insane? No, you get the fuck out of the ambulance.

You're in the wrong fucking job. Let someone who wants to do that job. By the way, this is not theoretical. One of the cases is an ambulance driver did not want to drive a woman to get an abortion. I don't know what kind of situation she was in it because she needed an ambulance. I don't know if she was bleeding. I don't know what was going on. But you don't want to drive an ambulance, someone to the hospital who needs an ambulance.

Because, no, first I'm going to do a pop quiz on your religion, which, by the way, is unconstitutional. Then if I don't like your morality, I don't like your morals, then I'm going to leave you on the side of the road to bleed to death. So, no, no, no, no. You guys just own it, man. Say it. Conservatives, you love big government. and you love Sharia law. I mean, they're creating a separate division within HHS that would deal with this

very issue, right? And this is something that really upset right-wing Americans during Obama's administration because when Obama came into office, he essentially undid some of the protections that the Bush administration had in place for these religious health care providers. Because the Obama administration realized, okay, look, we have health. care providers throughout the country who are denying people access to, you know, certain types of medications that they need, birth control that they need. And so they wanted to ensure that that wouldn't happen anymore, that medical professionals do the jobs that they signed up

for. And of course, now we have Roger Severino, who is the head of HHS. And he's been very open and transparent about the fact that, yes, he is a right winger. And he wants to make sure that he protects people's religious beliefs before anything else. You know what, I'm tired of unilateral disarmament. So the Republicans are constantly judging our morality. Okay, I'm going to judge your morality. I think that if you're a sick and depraved person who's going to do a religious test before you treat someone who needs health care, I think you are deeply immoral.

If you're going to go, hey, I'm doing Sharia law here, and so I'm going to apply my religion onto you. You know what that reminds me of Muslims who say you're not allowed to draw the Prophet Muhammad? No, no, no, you're not allowed to draw the Prophet Muhammad. I can draw anything I like, okay? Oh, you're not allowed to do an abortion. You're not allowed to be gay. You're not allowed to do this or that.

And hence, I'm not going to give you perhaps life-saving treatment. No, you're deeply immoral, judging who we are and how we live and who we love because of some ancient texts that you're an idiot enough to believe and go, oh, yeah, Yahweh told me that I'm supposed to hate gay people and shrimp, but I really like shrimp, okay? And I'm not supposed to get divorced, but I got divorced three times. I'm not supposed to have premarital sex, but I had premarital sex really, really young and often. But I judge you for being gay or for doing whatever you're doing. No, no, no, no.

I judge you. You are immoral. You are immoral for going around and telling people that they're not good enough based on who they are. And then denying them medical treatment. You're the most immoral people in the country. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online love. 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. Express VPN 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 C-N-Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's

E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Let's move on to some international news. North and South Korea have engaged in diplomatic talks following some threats of potential nuclear war due to Trump and his provocative tweets. Now, the Olympics are set to take place in South Korea. And interestingly enough, North Korea will have a role in the Olympics. And I'll give you the details on what they've agreed to so far. The two Koreas will actually compete in a unified team in the Olympics for the first.

time, though they have joined forces at other international sports before. Now, they haven't really decided which sport they will join in on as one unified team. There's some speculation that it could be the hockey team. And South Korea's hockey team is not amused by that. And I'll tell you what they think in just a minute. North Korea will also send a delegation of more than 400, including 230 cheerleaders, 140 artists and 30 Taekwondo fighters for a demonstration. Now, here's what South Korean athletes have to say about all of this.

Our players are really nervous. We can only take 23 players to the Olympics. This is someone who represents the South Korea women's hockey team. And they thought the North Koreans are going to come in and take our spots. So there's a little bit of pushback. But understand that a lot of this really has to do with easing tensions among both countries and also trying to possibly enter negotiations regarding nuclear disarmament. I don't know how likely that is to happen.

But there is historical precedent when it comes to this very issue involving South Korea and the United States. Back in 1987, about a year before the Olympics were set to take place in Seoul, there was a pretty terrible act of violence on the part of North Koreans. Two North Korean agents bombed a flight that mostly had South Korean workers on it. And you would think after that, I mean, relations are done. No one's interested in having any diplomatic talks. But Ronald Reagan, surprisingly, approached North Korea and said, look, I know you guys want to, you know, open up negotiations, have some diplomatic talks. You want to maybe possibly have some role in the Olympics in Seoul. Why don't

we have those discussions as long as you promise that you will not carry out an act of terror during the 1988 Olympics? So in the past, their acts of violence have been met with diplomatic talks. And so the only bargaining chip that they've always really had was bad behavior. Well, Reagan incurs a lot of terrorists. He negotiated with terrorists all the time. He's sold in weapons. Go look it up. So, okay, but putting that aside, I generally really like this. I get the concern of those very specific people, the female ice hockey team. Yeah, the North Koreans might take some of their spots if they were going to be on a 23-person team

and they could only have 23 people and half of them are now North Koreans. Well, there goes, you know, 11 or 12 people off that team, potentially maybe, right? So the second thing that that's a concern is apparently they were a pretty good team. North Koreans are not nearly as good in ice hockey, so there goes their chance of meddling, probably, but you never know. I've seen miracles on ice before, but come on,

the issue of peace is so much larger than one hockey team. So I love the idea of bringing them together, and I know it's a small step, and, you know, the right wingers always scream, appease, man, right? You don't have to appease North Korea. You don't have to ease the

sanctions. You don't have to say, hey, you know what, guys? Everybody take a load off, don't worry about North Korea and their bombs. No, you could be as vigilant as you were the day before. To me, the most important part is they're going to fly, they're going to appear under one flag. That's a big step. And these steps matter. The closer you get to peace, the better off you are. The further away you are from peace, well, the worse off the whole world is. So I welcome this completely. Yeah, look, I ultimately agree with you, but I definitely understand the other perspective, right? Which is, you know, they have been carrying out missile tests

and nuclear tests and all of that stuff. It's been incredibly provocative and all that stuff. And, you know, to be met with kindness, it goes against what human instincts are. But I think that when it comes to international relations, you have to overcome whatever human instincts you have. Because human instincts will lead to terrible outcomes. You have to tuck tail and do what's right in the name of peace. But at the same time, I don't know how this all ends. Okay, so the Olympics happen and then what? They're not willing to stop their missile tests.

They're not willing to stop with their provocative language about destroying the United States, you know, destroying potentially South Korea, although those conversations have subsided a little bit. I mean, there needs to be a long-term solution. I'm not sure what that solution is. Let me say the last two things about that. One is, yeah, you don't get to make peace with your allies. You're already at peace with them. You make peace with your enemies.

That's why it's really, really hard. So when Jimmy Carter did one of the greatest things the U.S. President has ever done, he brought peace to the Middle East between Egypt and Israel. Egypt was the top enemy of Israel at the time and the strongest one. And what do you do? He put their two leaders at Camp David together. And they didn't want to be there. They tried to take helicopter rides out of there over and over again.

And it was really difficult. And Began and Sadat didn't like each other. Their countries didn't like each other. That's why they were at war. And they didn't want to do the deal. And in the deal, they gave up things they didn't want to give up. And it was super hard. But the first step was an important step, maybe the most important step.

He brought them to Camp David. They began to talk. And that's how things go. So here we are, taking a first step. And the second point I want to make is, what's the alternative? We say, no, we're not going to let you into the Olympics with South Korea. We're not going to let you on the ice hockey team. Well, you made the situation even more hostile, driving them to even more provocative talk and more missile tests.

That's what I mean when I say that, you know, their bad behavior happens to be like the one bargaining chip that they have. And it sucks that it's working out that way. But again, ultimately, I agree with you. I mean, this is the best way to handle it, especially considering the fact that, you know, you don't want any type of threat during the winter. or Olympics. And if North Korea is playing a role, there isn't going to be a threat. And look, I'm less concerned about that as I am, although I'm very concerned about it, as overall peace in the region. And so, look, I don't want anyone to think that anyone should be naive about the North Koreans. It's like, oh, Kim Jong-un says he'll play hockey with you,

then I'm sure they're fine. No, they still have concentration camps in North Korea. They're still, you know, treating their population in the most grotesque ways possible, let alone threatening South Korea at Japan. And Japan is very skeptical and very rightfully so. Remain skeptical, okay, but at the same time, take that first step towards peace. Okay, we're out of time, guys. I got Rebel Headquarters. Daniel Biss, a great progressive running for governor in Illinois that everybody's talking about

is going to be on the show next at Rebel Headquarters, and then Anna and I will do a postgame and then Old School. Great time to be a member. TYT Network.com slash join. All right. Bye, bye. Thanks for watching what I hope was a lovely edition of The Young Turks. Now, you know that that is two of the five segments that we do, because that's free.

We want to have you support independent media and come watch the whole show that we do every day. That's five segments overall. No ads at all. That's at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. Come become a member. Thanks for watching either way. 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. podcast at apple.com at apple.com slash t yt. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.