The Young Turks - The Young Turks 11.28.17: Dems vs Trump, Navajo Nation President, North Korea, and Immigration Cops

Episode Date: November 29, 2017

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from November 28th, 2017. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Hour 1: Ben Mankiewicz, Brett Erlich, & Amberia Allen. Schumer & Pelosi vs. Trump and GOPers on tax bill. GOP senators doubting magic of growth in tax plan. Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye on Pocahontas slur. North Korea launches another ballistic missile over South Korea. Police seeking more power to request immigration status.  Hour 2: Ben Mankiewicz, Brett Erlich, & Nando Vila. GOP poll on sexual harassment. Macron to intro fines for gender-based insults in France. No white men nominated for Grammy Album of the Year. Melania watching ballet. 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. This TYT clip is brought to you by Squarespace. Start your own free trial today and build your own website. You can do it at Squarespace.com slash TYT and you get 10% off your first trial. America and people who aren't in America, welcome to the show.

Young Turks, everybody. What kind of start I was looking for. Ben Mankowitz, Ambry, Alan, Brett Erlick, our one of the Young Turks. Jank and Anna are off today or otherwise preoccupied. Thank God. Brett, of course, you know him from... Well, you probably don't know, Brett.

Most people don't. That's fine. No, Brett is part of the... Is this your full-time job now? It's classified on my tax returns as a full-time job. Now, who knows how those tax returns are. Yeah, exactly. My tax return will eventually fit on this index card. Unfortunately, it'll be an enormous index card. It'll be a room size index card. But yeah, this is my full-time job. Catch

me on Pop Trigger when not on this show. Ambrie Allen, a TV host comedian, she's been here before. I mean, I've been here on four or five shows with you. You probably don't only come in when I'm here. You've probably been on more. But thank you both for being here. So we'll begin with the story, the kind of story that the kind of story that I hate which I think is also a good way to start off a show by telling you that the story that we're about to do is loathsome

it's because this is when people say they hate politics mostly that's a cop-out to not understand what politics is about because if you're interested in sort of exciting debate about things that affect the world that has the

that has aspects of a horse race sometimes that has a competitive nature, which I think most people like, you would love politics, right? But here, we're about to get into just sort of nonsense that we know will ultimately resolve itself in some way with a meeting or not a meeting. But here's a story about a non-meeting with both sides trying to spin it. And in this case, although I object to the way Trump spins it more, I don't know that we're going to throw our arms around Chuck Schumer and say, this is the way to do it. So what we're looking at here is a possibility. that the government will shut down,

I think by the end of next week. Is that correct? Everybody's understanding? It's coming up. So we need a meeting, an agreement we need to come up with at least a temporary funding mechanism to keep the government going

on the theory that we're not going to get a big budget passed and a big funding mechanism. But something that will keep the government going is shut down a government, which almost invariably, I think every single time has hurt Republicans politically. Maybe I'm forgetting one,

but every time the government is shut down, basically because that's the part that likes shutting the government down. They like it when things don't work. That suits them well. But in this case, Trump tweeted this morning the following. This would be the Trump tweet, a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, which he put in quotes as if to suggest that their names are not Chuck and Nancy, but those are their names. Normally, when you credit someone together, you have to use an ampersand. Is that right? That is for the SAG rules and the WGA rules. It's weird that Trump not following union rules.

Meeting with Chuck and Nancy, otherwise known as Chuck and Nancy, today about keeping government open and working. Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our country, unchecked, or weak on crime, and want a substantially super loud raise taxes. I'm sorry, raise taxes. Right, you must emphasize raise more for it is in all that. But don't under-emphasize. raise taxes. I don't share a deal. So, again, I mean, if this were the first tweet that he had sent in this manner, that would be shocking.

I mean, it's so, it's wrong, it is insulting, it's degrading, it is wildly misleading, as if government, as if Pelosi and Schumer are advocating a new policy of allowing illegal immigrants to flood into the country. They don't want to raise taxes. I wish they did. I wish they were advocating, advocating. advocated a plan to raise taxes, at least at a bare minimum restore taxes to the thriving 90s level of the Clinton administration. But no, what they want to do is prevent you from cutting taxes, which is the problem always when one party advocates cutting taxes, is that then if you're against it,

you're against something that in general, without attaching it to anything, every American wants. Everybody wants their taxes lower. You were talking about people being able to wrap their mind around politics, and saying, like, I hate politicians as a cop-out for that. There are things when I look at this interaction between the two that I can wrap my mind around. I can wrap my mind around Trump wanting to go into a meeting with Chuck and Nancy. After his previous meeting with Chuck and Nancy, which seemed like he was abandoning the Republicans.

Right. And he's now in this weird position. He's managed to alienate his base at times by endorsing Luther Strange. and, you know, he's been able to alienate the establishment Republicans by going into a meeting with Chuck and Nancy. It seems like he probably was most recently in a room with someone from the Republican establishment and wanted to alienate these two. The other thing I can think of is he's trying to find any and all reason to paint this well if his tax proposal doesn't go through. That's right. That's right. He wants to blame them.

Yeah, agreed. I think this is kind of postured as a corrective to their previous meeting, which, you know, he received a lot of backlash from his base. And kind of also contributing to this narrative that they're obstructionist, right? So then we move away from this meeting, which is about the budget, right, to all of these other issues about raising taxes and being tough on crime, right? So it's a complete distraction that, you know, panders to the base and, again, paints the picture that Dems are being obstructionists. The Dems being obstructionist is a great notion because, of course,

I would remind the president that he has a majority in both houses. So the fact that he has passed zero pieces of legislation is on the obstructionist Republicans, who are actually obstructionists. In many cases, stuff didn't pass for the right reasons. But in general, that is a party caused by people who want to not pass legislation because they don't think government should do much. They want a small, limited government. So painting the Democrats' obstructionist is rich.

What's also interesting about, well, not interesting about it. What is typical about it is that it's Trump at his most Trumpy, like what he thinks is. This is what he, I imagine, this is the sort of thing pre-Twitter and pre-presidency that he would do when he, because he fancies himself a skilled negotiator, right? So you sort of belittle the other side, so they come in defensive and have to give you what you want. again, reason 1,186 of how he does not understand the job that he has. So anyway, the response, you know, I've now talked myself into approving of Chuck Schumer's response a little bit. It's still lame. It's still lame. But I get it. If somebody's going to send a tweet about that in the morning, not going to the meeting is the right thing to do.

Here is Chuck Schumer's response to Donald Trump's tweet. We had hoped to make progress with the administration on these issues in a meeting this afternoon. afternoon. Unfortunately this morning, instead of leading, the president tweeted a blatantly inaccurate statement and then concluded, I don't see a deal. The president said, I don't see a deal three hours before our meeting, before he heard anything we had to say. Given that the president doesn't see a deal between Democrats in the White House, Leader Pelosi and I believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead. Rather than going to the White House for a show meeting that won't result in an agreement from a president who doesn't see a deal,

we've asked Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan to meet with us this afternoon. If the president, who already earlier this year said, quote, our country needs a good shutdown, If the president isn't interested in addressing the difficult year agenda and wants to make the government shutdown, we'll work with those Republicans who are interested in funding the government as we did in April. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTRTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew of a bit.

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 unlearn 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. That was great. I don't know, man, I wanted to get out of my chair and just cheer. You did want to get out of your chair and cheer a cadence. But it's more than just the cadence. you did want to get out of your chair

and cheer a cadence you don't have to look down every word like you've got it and so the problem is is that you know he says Trump's lying and Trump of course is not they're all they are both lying because they're all just for show so you want a little

you want moments that at least seem like reality and that maybe even give you reality which would be Schumer saying and I don't understand why politics doesn't quite work this way why Schumer goes did you see the Trump's tweet meeting with Chuck and Nancy today about keeping government open working problem is that they want illegal immigrants flooding our country unchecked weak on crimes substantially raised taxes why would I meet with a clown who said that why would I

why would I listen to that and then go into a meeting with him if the president wants a serious meeting he knows where we are we can have a meeting but I'm not going in like that and I wouldn't let Nancy Pelosi go I wouldn't I would advise Nancy Pelosi not to go in either it's this sort of it's this stock response about going for a show meeting well it's a show meeting and you're also giving a show statement about the show meeting. It's all for show. You disagree. Yeah, well, I think that Trump has a way of setting up issues in a way that it's almost impossible to have the right response because I think that response would similarly look ridiculous.

Why would that look ridiculous? It's so honest. Why would I go to a meeting with a guy? We're prepared to go into this meeting and he sends a tweet saying there's no deal done and he mischaracterizes what we believe. F that guy. Okay. Well, that is what he says. He says he says he says he says, he says, out this tweet. It's ridiculous. Therefore, it's a waste of time. Some of this is real quick, Brad, I'm sorry. Some of this is style over substance. I think that

little speech by Chuck Schumer sends a message of inauthenticity to America and makes it very easy for people to say the thing that bothers me most that bothered me from the left in the previous election that we had, it was in November of last year. That, hey man, they're

just the same. I hate that stuff. I hate it with a passion and I want And I think that people who have an audience are duty bound to inform and not sort of and not encourage that manner of thinking. But it's hard to do to me, when Chuck Schumer gives you that. Chuck Schumer is also a grandfather. And I think he has handled a tantrum before. And I would like to see him channel that easily thing that's easy to wrap your head around, which is a grandfather handling a child who's having a tantrum, which is if Chuck Schumer just says, are you done? You wanted me to come in and I thought we were going to have a conversation.

What was that? Like, are you done? Maybe that's better. But like, but they're both like the clown things want. But it feels with Chuck Schumer, like, and all of these clowns is that they have, it feels like you're designing a superhero, like your character in like a Dungeons and Dragons type game where you have only so many points to assign skill wise. And you have like, with Trump, his communication skill is like through the roof, his ability.

ability to get his message through the din, is through the roof, but his intelligence is way down here. Chuck Schumer, it's like he needs to dial up that communication lever to sign some of his points. I don't know where all his points are. Maybe he's a master behind the scenes tactician, but he definitely cannot communicate in an authentic way that the way that everyone not only wants him to, but needs him to at this moment. I guess what we have to remember is that these statements, at least Trump's is for America. Trumps is for America. his base and Trump's is an excellent point by both of you guys to remind everybody that this was an effort to get past the last beating he took from Republicans for making a deal with Chuck

and Nancy were and he was and he initially was like hey this was great they came in we got something done right so there's that but their response is not really for us their response is for Washington right Chuck is talking to other Democrats and Chuck is talking to the media and Chuck is setting up a manner of how this is going to play out and of not backing down to Trump. So I get that. It is just frustrating to me continually not get. It seems to me the very thing that caused a candidate, not like Bernie Sanders, but Bernie Sanders, to break through. A degree of, and Trump, a degree of plain spoken authenticity, which I would take advantage of again and again and again.

in these situations, which these guys, first of all, stop seeing the words leader Pelosi. It does sound super communist to me. Every time I hear it, I hate it. It does, like Star Wars and Communists at the same time. Leader Pelosi met with Chancellor Valoran this morning. Hilarious. So, but they're not capable of it. They're not suddenly going to start being, it's not their thing.

I also want part of the authentic response should be to point out something else about Trump's tweet, which is, yes, obviously he's like going, I'm going to shake you up before our meeting today to put you on the back foot. But I want them to not only say, like, are you done? It's not only ridiculous that you're throwing a tantrum before we come meet you. But like everything you're saying is ludicrous. And as you referred to earlier, go through three things in a row. Like, what, we want, no one wants, no one wants to flood the streets with anything.

Like, no one wants to do that. No one likes the flood. No one wants to raise your taxes. We don't, we especially don't like the, I mean, we're trying to. get you to stop doing the things you're doing with taxes, which is raising taxes and then identify the people, but that are going to have to end up paying an

effectively higher tax rate in the near and far term. So the response, Nancy Pelosi said essentially the same thing that Chuck Schumer said. We'll leave that out. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to this as she is so capable of. Here's what Sarah Huckabee

Sanders, the president's spokesman said. The president's invitation to the Democratic leaders still stands and he encourages them to put aside their pettiness, stop the political grandstanding, show up and get to work. Stop the political grandstanding. You open the day with a tweet with a bunch of capital letters. You were the ultimate political grandstander. Yeah, and then the meeting that followed, right, with the empty seats, that's political pettiness.

Like, the theatrics, all of that is ridiculous. And if anything, it shows his complete inability to take something that he presents as so serious, not seriously. But then, but you made a great point in that, so they have the meeting and they have the empty seats in the meeting. And this is where you got to be careful. Like you, like I'm not 100% sure that that, that the Democrats are going to win that battle with those empty seats. So far, every shutdown they've won. They are standing on a much more significant principle here, a tax plan that has been pretty accurately portrayed as as being massively top heavy and not just top heavy in that it will. or reduce the inflow of cash into the government

while giving a tax break to the richest Americans, but it will actually put a tax burden on the poorest Americans and middle class Americans. But, you know, again, those things aren't set in stone yet as far as the message that people are getting. And so we are in a world of theatrics, which is why I began this was saying this is, ultimately they're either going to make a deal or not.

The story is going to be, did they make a deal or not? And what does that mean? Here we're in the part about who's going to look best if no deal is made. And this is the only thing politicians have to do anymore. The only thing you have to do is fund the government. Oh, right, fund the government. That's it. Can we identify one more thing that you absolutely have to do? Because everything else can be a punt down the road. Now we're getting into with the tax bill, this weird feeling that we need to do something, don't we? but they don't really have to pass this tax bill. There's people who are holding out. But the only thing you have to do is pass the continuing resolution to fund the government.

And it always gets this dramatic, this close to it. And it's super frustrating. And even if you feel like you're winning certain points along the way in this discussion, like some people think this is exactly the tax bill discussion. And it's really difficult to later on down on line figure out what the hell this meeting was. You know, to take this into why the, you know, the details of the tax bill, that's what matters, not this stuff, right?

The detail, it doesn't matter that Trump called, Donald Trump's a racist or at a bare minimum a race baiter, right? That's the, that's the, any reasonable person has to, at a minimum, except that, that he panders to racist. And so when he calls Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas in front of, you know, what? literally the people who... Her dad, he thinks. He thinks that's her dad.

Right. He thinks that's Pocahontas' father. In front of people whose sacrifice, we should all be amazed by and ashamed that we asked them to make that sacrifice, right? Of the members of the Navajo Nation, who had every right to say, we're not going to fight in your war. You have any idea what you've done to us, right? We're not in many states allowed to vote.

So, but I'm falling into it, too. That's exciting to talk about. What matters is that Elizabeth Warren and her intellectual brainchild, the Consumer Protection Board, right? Consumer Financial Protection Board, that matters. That might be the strongest piece of legislation, strongest act that we have come up with that followed the financial crisis. That might mean more to regular Americans than Dodd-Frank, right, which was, depending on who you asked on the left significantly. watered down or crazy people on the right, too tough, right? Nobody reasonable thinks it was too tough. But the Consumer Financial Protection Board, that matters. And instead of having a legitimate,

big debate about that board, about the consumer financial protection to board, we get into a debate that Donald Trump is comfortable having. Am I racist? Yeah. He's comfortable with that. And we lose out talking about the meaty stuff, as always. All right, we have completed our first story. Give us a B, B plus. Speak for yourself. We'll be back. Well, I'm giving myself a C. You guys raised the great.

We'll be right back. So sweet. 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, so turning to the GOP tax bill, which they're looking for a vote Thursday or Friday, end of this week on the GOP tax bill. One of the senators who may be against it, it's hard to tell. It's hard to pin him down is a Republican senator Bob Corker. Bob Corker, of course, now a outspoken critic of the Trump administration.

He is not running for re-election in Tennessee. And he is the architect, the not sole architect, of a new bill, excuse me, of a new bill. that would, what is the word they're using? It's a backstop. They're trying to do the backstop thing. Would be a backstop if the current tax bill does not meet the exaggerated magical growth that they say it will. So it's funny. But again, it's more theatrics.

It's an acknowledgment to me from Bob Corker, although he won't just say it. Hey, man, you know it's not going to, right? Because you've made it clear to us that while you're wrong, on every issue. You're not a moron. Right? And so he knows. And so now he has come up with this plan. He says with this backstop, that way you're in a situation where you're not creating deficits should the projections laid out not turn out to be real. I'll take that first graphic for here for more of Bob Corker. The change, no, this is from Alice Olstein from talking points about the change that they're seeking would create a backstop or trigger mechanism to

undo some of the deepest tax cuts in the bill after several years. If that magic economic growth doesn't materialize, but again, a reminder there that it's several years down the road that they would still let this play out before this would kick in. And they haven't said what day, what year, how much is it in 0.4% growth, you know, every year after year, year, year over year compounded, or is it like, well, in 10 years, if, you know, we reach the expiration date of some of these tax cuts and it doesn't work, well, then we'll let the tax cuts expire. Right? Or they'll raise taxes, right? Which? Yeah. Yeah. So there's a lot you can put in there, depending on how you think the government's going to go. If you're going to put in there and be like, all right, it's going to take us at least 12 years to rebuild the Republican Party. Or five, six years. We're going to put it on the Democrats. If they do end up winning the House, we'll put triggers in there so that suddenly it's on them and they're going to have to raise taxes to give us a reason and something to rally around in any midterm election that could happen along the way. Yeah. So then they should, again, and so then when that time comes, just raise taxes. Say it, mean it, explain why. Let's get, here's what Corker says. This is Graphic 5. We've been working throughout the entire Thanksgiving break. I'm certain that's not true. Working closely with the administration and some members of the Finance Committee to design a trigger our backstop in the event the revenues are not there. There's a way to recoup them, as we were saying. So then we go back to Talking Points Memo and Alice Olstein, who says Corker wouldn't say, as Brett was getting at, corker wouldn't say,

exactly what tax cuts the trigger would undo or when it would kick in. Both of those seem like significant parts of, I don't know, a piece of congressional legislation that maybe you'd want to get to, though he did suggest there could be multiple triggers in the 10 years after the bill becomes law. So a decade from now, when the magical growth hasn't occurred in any of the 10 years, there might be something there. Let's get the final little bit here from Alice Olstein. Reports by independent groups, including the tax policy center, have found that even with the predicted economic growth, the tax bill would still balloon the deficit by more than 1.2

trillion dollars enough to trigger deep automatic cuts to Medicare and other federal programs if Congress doesn't vote to waive its own budget rules. Again, a reminder of to the Republicans, this is a win-win. Either they get the magical growth

and they're heroes, they cut taxes. It's never done that. It won't do it here. Right? Or that happens. And then it triggers automatic cuts to Medicare. and other federal programs that they're very comfortable cutting and always want to cut but don't are most of them uncomfortable except for a few members of the Tea Party coming out and saying

no no we'd like to cut this we don't want this we either want to privatize we don't want any part of it we don't think this is the government's this is the federal government's job this is always what they want this is why this whole debate is so dishonest yeah and it they also get to paint the Democrats as people who are really hoping the economy doesn't grow you know You guys are really hoping so we can repeal these taxes so we can raise taxes on people and you guys are just chomping at the bit that the economy doesn't grow. Another way to characterize these backstops also is it's a timer. It's a timer on trickle-down economics and I hate to break it to these guys, but that timer's been running since the 80s and when is enough enough? And that I feel like a broken record on, but that's what they're getting at.

Yeah, again, I'm struck by the dishonesty and ultimately because the Republicans have figured out how to play the media in the difficulty that the mainstream press always has in calling lies, lies and calling deceit or calling what we know. This is what they want. They're not interested if those government programs fail. They want deep cuts in Medicare. For a while, they made it clear, but that backfired. So, Brett, I agree that they'd like to paint the Democrats as anti-growth, but mostly what they want to paint the Democrats as, as not interested in the things that you, not you, but the voters that they're talking to are interested in.

That these are a lot of people who want to live off the government teat. These are minorities. These are poor people. These are people who are draining us, who are dragging us down slowly. And that ultimately, you know, you're either going to stand with them. That's who the Democrats want. They just want to arm, you know, well, actually the Republicans would like the army. But they want to let illegals flood into the country.

And then that's why I think that's in this tweet, too. They want to let illegals flood into this country and drain our system. And that's who Democratic voters are. And that's who their constituents are. I think the growth number is too general a number because the Republicans, when they pitch this new economic plan, they're saying that certain things will happen to trigger growth. Why don't we make the triggers, you know, the backstop dependent on those things they say will happen? Like they say the corporate tax rate is too high in America.

Let's lower the corporate tax rate, which will bring in all this money that's being offshort. Why don't we put a repatriation mandate trigger? Why don't we mandate that these companies come back? And if that's their logic, if that doesn't happen over a certain time, why is that not the trigger? as opposed to this idea of GDP growth or whatever they're looking at, which can be dependent on so many different factors. I mean, one of the main arguments against this is that you're trying to lower the corporate tax rate. And that will cause, you know, since companies have so much more money that they'll pour it back into the economy.

But if you look at those giant corporations, small businesses I've seen, a small business is more likely to take a penny saved and move it into, and. And invest it back in the company. Every dollar the young Turks have made, they put it back in. Put it right back in. Yeah, which is why I am terrified for its financial solvency every single day. So there's a couple of other things with Senator John Kennedy. There shouldn't, there should be a rule.

You can't have a senator named John Kennedy. Yeah, that's true. Senator John Kennedy. It's like number 40, Jackie Robinson's number 42. It's been retired across Major League Baseball. John Kennedy has been retired in the Senate. You have a middle name, probably. Let's say his middle name is, uh, is Bobby.

Kyle. Bobby, it would be, um, I just can't figure. But I, but that's, yeah, go ahead. So he says, uh, it will pay for itself. I would not vote for this bill if I thought it was going to increase the deficit. I mean, so again, that gets the, right? What do we think that is, Amber? Is that deceit or ignorance?

We don't, I don't, we don't believe you. And I think that's what a lot of these Republican senators have, have said, like, well, you know, if I didn't believe in this, I wouldn't do it. Give us a CBO score. Let's go through some hearings. Let's let the professionals tell us what this bill is about and you're rushing it. And we don't care that you're working through Thanksgiving. You wouldn't have to if you weren't trying to rush this bill, this crappy bill to get it to pass.

So I don't care about your personal feelings. I'd like some evidence to prove that this bill really is as bad as we know it is. Another thing along to that point, both James Langford, Republican of Oklahoma and Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas, they've both brought up the fiscal disaster in Kansas, led by Governor Sam Brown back there, that resulted from a silly had massive tax cuts. And it's weird that what happened in Kansas is they cut taxes by all this money. And then the government of Kansas, it didn't have any money. Right?

You see. Yeah, no one could have seen that. In a similar move, I stopped putting gas in my car. And then all of a sudden I was trying to get somewhere. It wouldn't go. It would not go. So they both say that the result from a slew of massive tax cuts is a cautionary tale that should not be repeated on the federal level. Well, then dudes, then don't repeat it.

Yeah. Then don't repeat it. That's exactly what this is. It will pay for itself. You're not bad. And those aren't backed up by any numbers. And the same people who were concerned about the threat of the debt crisis all of a sudden don't care about it. So that consumer financial protection bureau thing is drives me crazy.

Well, we're going to touch now on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but in the context of the story that triggered the latest conversation about it. So Donald Trump yesterday appeared before, was at an event to honor Navajo war veterans. These are the code talkers who invented an entirely, who were fluent in Navajo and fluent in English, and then invented an entirely new language to be able to send codes to say things. There was an obit at Charles Pierce, Great Peace, and Esquire, a quoting from an obit from a couple years ago of a Navajo code talker who died at 93 in 2015. And the codes, like, so just you're clear about what these codes were.

His code was... At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address. making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers.

ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.

And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. Japanese enemy machine gun to your right, take it out, destroy. Right? And so you know what they did? They heard that.

The Japanese couldn't break that code. And then they took it out and destroyed it and won a battle. Like, that's what these guys did. That's what they did. This guy, the New York Times obit that Charles Pierce was quoting from, was not allowed to vote when he went to get his identity card that Native Americans in New Mexico were required to carry with him. They had to have identification with him and show identification,

told him that he was not a full of American citizen. Again, couldn't vote for years. And even though, as he thought to sign up for the Marines, when a recruiter came, he thought, why am I, you know, why would I do this after the way the government's treated my people? And they thought, no, you know what, this might be the last meaningful chance I have to serve my country. So he did. So Donald Trump takes that opportunity to make his Pocahontas joke at an event to honor the Navajo War veterans at the White House. The reaction was pretty much universal. They were dumbfounded that Trump would use this event to take a political jab at Elizabeth Warren. The reason that he's taking these political jabs at Elizabeth Warren is because I think very clearly the White House sees Elizabeth Warren as a threat, and they want to undo her significant contribution to rebounding from the financial crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Board. That's hers. It's worked. Many people consider it the strongest federal action taken after the financial crisis, as I mentioned before, stronger than Dodd Frank. And they want to kill her significant piece of legislation.

the battle very quickly that has been set up there is the director resigned and he named a career employee there to take over. And Donald Trump, because there was a vacancy at a federal agency or a federal staffing position named Mick Mulvaney, his budget director. First of all, the guy has a job, right? So his job would be do nothing, protect nothing. That's what they'll do. So that's in court right now of which guy's going to lead that. So, but anyway, the reaction to that was, I believe, Trump's motivation for making the Pocahontas joke at Elizabeth Warren's. By the way, the joke that

has no resonance whatsoever. So here was the reaction around town to that. First of all, from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Let's take graphic 8 here. Whiteout spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders

asked about criticism of Trump's remarks, said a racial slur was certainly not the president's intent. She said, going on here, I think what most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career. That's not what's happened. That's what that story has been debunked a thousand times. Megan McCain, for example, who should really not be carrying the administration's water on anything.

She went on the view this morning and said that Senator Warren used her Native American heritage, which she'd been told about all her life, that she used it. to get into Harvard Law School. She taught in Harvard Law School. Do you know where Senator Warren went to law school? Where did she go to law school? She went to Rutgers, the Newark campus. Oh, wow.

So, and I'm not trying to make fun of the Rutgers. I am a little. The Rutgers Newark campus. No, but I'm saying. She's not trying to make fun of Newark, New Jersey, but it sucks there. Right, but she was going to get in there. And she didn't, by the way, use it there. It was merely listed in her Harvard professorial

bio. That's it. She's already at Harvard, right? Success. Can't really succeed anymore. That's it. So, and so, but of course, Megan McCain got the information wrong. And Senator and Sarah Hugabee Sanders suggesting that what most people find offensive is Warren lying about her heritage. No, what most people find offensive is that is the president calling Senator Warren Pocahontas, period, and then augmented by the fact that he did it in front of these Navajo Nation War veterans. So

to continue the story a little bit, ABC got involved in the person of Jonathan Carl, ABC News White House correspondent, he said why did he, meaning the president, feel the need to say something that is offensive to many people while honoring the Navajo Code Talkers, these genuine

American heroes? A couple of things. Let me put that back up for one second. I just I mean, I got it. I know these guys are there and we've seen some great journalism, but it should be offensive to everyone, and it doesn't matter whether it's offensive. What matters is that it's hideous and it's inappropriate and it's unpresidential and it's cruel and it's petty. And of course you, by using and by referring to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas, of course

that's going to be offensive to these guys. Not that, even the way Jonathan Carle, and I don't mean to single him out, I really don't. But even that has a way of making it seem like, boy, those Navajo Code Talkers, those guys sure are touchy. But get over it, fellas. Right. I feel with stories like that when people say and write those, it's, you are caught in a very difficult position between the president tearing down every line of formality that's ever been set forth, and then your respect for the kind of way that a journalist who is a ABC News

correspondent writes. And it's just, this is how I write it. I agree. I don't mean to Carl, Jonathan, Carl. They're in an impossible situation. But it, And again, it has the effect of, to me, I read that. And I'm like, oh, these, you know, like, toughen up Navajo Code Talkers when literally the history has proven, they're the toughest matter. It's just such a transparent was like, dad's an Indian, she said an Indian thing, I'm going to do the Indian thing. And then do this, reach out, put my hand on like, but I love you, guy. Am I right?

Prop? Yeah. Yeah. It's a window into his mind. And again, his inability to understand the gravity or seriousness of any moment ever. Ever, ever, ever, ever. And I think to your point about the statement, it's just stupid, right? So we don't even have to go down the line of the racial slur argument to talk about the inappropriateness of even mentioning it, of even using the moment to insult another senator, right?

I think it's just ridiculous because then we get into the issue with Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying, well, no, it's not a racial slur, right? We have that argument. We have the argument about what other people find offensive. And now it's a debate about what people find offensive. Right, that's right. That's really what I use. Everybody says things better than I do. Thank you. So now we get a response to Jonathan Carles, a tweet from Eric Trump, who is the other son. The irony, says Eric Trump in a tweet of an ABC reporter, parentheses, whose parent company Disney has profited nearly half a billion dollars on the movie. Pocahontas, nailed it.

inferring that the name is quote-unquote offensive is truly staggering to me. I saw a tweet today. I can't remember who was from, and I'm sorry not to give them credit, that it's becoming really hard to tell who the dumbest Trump sunners. That the competition between Eric and Donald Jr. is really, really intense. And I think it's going to go down to the wire. I think Pocahontas is a bad movie.

I tried to rewatch Pocahontas. And, like, Disney should kind of be ashamed. It was a very, like, dances with wolves era. Native Americans are magic people. And grandmother Willow can, like, magically touch you. And now you, like, speak the same language. It is a paint with all the colors of the wind. It's very touchy, feeling weird, mid-90s feel-goodery.

But, um... Okay, just bear in mind. I don't, I neither agree nor disagree. But it's a reasonable point. But it is from an industry that, you know, for... The first 40 years that it was in serious business in a big profitable money-making business portrayed just 97% of every Native American as a dangerous warrior looking to slink your throat. So, yeah, maybe there's a little too much simplification and overcompensation. I feel like they've come a long way.

That's the thing is that they are not caught in the same place. There is a video circulating right now of Donald Trump asking why that certain people are given licenses by the government to have Native American gaming casinos. And his quote is, they don't look like Indians to me. They don't look like Indians to me. There's video. And then there's video of that. And then there's video of this where he's like, you have a feather, they have a feather. We're native Indians.

He hasn't come. He hasn't gone anywhere. He's still stuck in. He stuck in 1940 movies. And this tweet doesn't make any sense. Like, it's non-sequitur. Like, why are we talking about the movie Pocahontas? Because Pocahontas is a real person.

Like, why are we talking about the movie Pocahontas? And Pocahontas can be a shitty movie, and this can be a shitty statement. Like, both things can be true. It's still inappropriate. Yeah, you know who was called Pocahontas in the movie Pocahontas? Pocahontas. Yeah. You know what I'll get him with, though?

The parent company joke. Yeah. The corporate structure joke will really get them. And coming from you, it's like, I tweet it back at him like, it's all about usage. Like, you can use the word Pocahontas as like the name of a person and as a slur. And like the usage and content is what matters. Like I could say love Trump's hate and that's not a slur.

But I could say you're acting like a real Trump and that is a slur. Very nice. That's right. Yeah. So I also, I feel like that, which one's his wife? His wife is, I think Barbie. Barbie or which one? Sorry I asked.

Skipper, which one? Is it Barbie or Skipper? I don't remember. That was mean and I feel bad about it instantly. Was that a black version of Skipper? Yeah, there was. I think it was Skipper. I think it was Skipper.

I feel like Eric Trump thinks he learned the definition of irony and wanted to use it in a tweet. Right. And then it's going to be like that anchor man moment that where, you know, where, where, where Will Ferrell doesn't quite get, you know, the one in Rome. You know, they're in bed together. He goes, well, one in Rome. And she's like, who's the, who's the, why am I like in it? Christina Applegate says, no, you still don't, you don't quite have it.

Yeah. I also want to say that he came up with this idea to use the ironic while just blasting Alanis Morissette in the shower, like in his green marble shower. Like, it's like, Ray, it's an ironic. You know what else is ironic. Yeah. I'm going to get him. brings his phone into the shower, it short circuits, opens a drawer full of like a hundred other phones.

A hundred other new phones. This happens every day, I got to stop. All right. I hate that these gaffs always happen in front of people of color too, right? So even if he's not racist, right, the fact that he continues to do these things and can't comport himself in a way that is just regular shows that he's uncomfortable around people. Right? Like, if you're uncomfortable around people of color, you can't do regular.

kinds of interactions, that kind of shows you might be racist, right? Like, you might have racial biases that prevent you from being normal, right? And that's problematic. He might also have a, I have Indian friends, you know, like this is my Indian friend here. I'm with them. We're giving them an award. So I'm obviously not, you know. Yeah, even the word special.

You're special to me. It's like, this is, this is an, like, just talk. Just talk normal. Like, use a vocabulary word that's better than, like, special. I'm a warrior. Like, I'm a hero. Like, use another word. These Native American warriors made the ultimate sacrifice.

They could have stayed home with bone spurs if they wanted. Like so many, who did that? All right, we'll be back here on the Young Turks. North Korea has apparently fired a ballistic missile, indicating that maybe Trump didn't have that magic Kvorka touch to get them to stop. Go figure, Young Turks. 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 to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at Apple.

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