The Young Turks - The Young Turks - December 16, 2020

Episode Date: December 17, 2020

Are direct Covid relief checks back on the table? Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola discuss on The Young Turks. 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off.

But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again.

Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Hey everybody. Welcome to TYT, Anna Casparian and John Ida Rolla with you. Everyone who's watching live, please smash that like or share button, share this show, because it's one of the easiest ways to help support TYT and its message. And we have quite a show ahead for you. We have some updates on the relief package

that's still being negotiated among congressional lawmakers. Later in the show, we'll talk about how the New York Post has decided to shame people living in poverty rather than actually address how serious poverty is for individuals who feel the need to turn to sex work in order to pay their bills. Later in the show, we'll also talk a little more about some of Joe Biden's latest cabinet picks and how some of them are certainly unqualified

for the job. And then of course, Donald Trump, Grifton as always, and taken money from his supporters under false pretenses. Insane story. So definitely looking forward to sharing the news with you guys today. And as always, please like and share the stream. Without further ado, Let's get to the relief package because we do have some updates for you all and this is something that many Americans desperately need. So nearly 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the summer. And of course the pandemic has quite a bit to do with that. Congress's failure to pass another relief package also has quite a bit to do with that.

But Congress apparently is expected to agree on a stimulus deal and I feel weird calling it stimulus because in reality at this point, it's a survival package for many Americans, millions of Americans, many of whom are either underemployed, unemployed, or have completely gone through their savings accounts as a result of this pandemic. Now, the latest updates on these negotiations seem to be going in the right direction, although as Bernie Sanders stated during a recent interview with Wolf Fletzer on CNN, he's still not where he wants to be with this legislation. So here's what we know so far. Senator Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat, and the co-author of a $9008 billion bipartisan package,

said leadership negotiations are close to agreement on a package that would extend direct payments of perhaps $600 to most Americans. The Washington Post and Bernie Sanders also stated that the one-time direct check to Americans could range anywhere between $600 and $700 for millions of Americans below a, certain income threshold. So they will be means tested. And it's still not the same amount that Americans received through the CARES Act, which was a direct payment of $1,200. The number two, Senate Republican John Thune of South Dakota, confirmed the likely addition of direct payments in that range, as well as $300 per week in the federal unemployment benefit to partially replace the $600 per week that was extended this summer. Initially, the negotiations indicated that the bill would extend unemployment for about 16 weeks. Now it looks like they've scaled that back to 14 weeks.

So there's a lot of give and take happening here. But the whole idea is let's just pass what we can for now until Biden gets elected. I'll get your thoughts on that in just a second, John, because I'm curious what you think. But even Mitch McConnell seems to agree with where negotiations are going, which makes me worry. But he says, we made major headway toward hammering out a bipartisan relief package. I should also note, and this is promising, the current version of the legislation did in fact cut out the liability shield for corporations, which I think is incredibly important. And I think that's probably one of the more positive updates to these negotiations taking place. But John, I wanted you to jump in and share your thoughts on where

congressional lawmakers stand right now on this issue. Really fast on the Mitch McConnell thing. I love that the sort of quote, the we've made major headway on this as if like I'm doing the hard work when it's basically just I stopped pushing for an insane corporate liability thing and I'm actually willing to have people actually get some sort of checks even if they're incredibly neutered checks. So basically I backed off of my insane demands and we're making real headway now. You know, I think we're really really accomplishing things, so that's great. Well, it's definitely talk in a minute about what could possibly happen after Biden gets elected, because that is obviously an interesting question. In terms of

what, from Monday till today, what's happened with the bill, obviously it's moving in a better direction. And I would say a lot of that is probably due to the pressure that the progressives in Congress have been putting on them. There were a lot of great statements yesterday from Representative Jayapal and others about they were not going to vote in favor of something that was masquerading as an aid bill but didn't actually help regular people. That said, the size of the checks is an insult. The mediocre enhanced unemployment. What I don't understand fundamentally is that we got the CARES Act, which was like a recognition by the government that this is a terrible time in America. People are dying. People need to be saved if they can't

can't afford to go to work and they can't afford to go to work because there's so many cases and there's so many deaths and it's just too dangerous. Well, it's worse now. Way more people are getting sick every day, more people are dying every day. But the aid is not only delayed by months and months and months, but even now it's less than what we were having then. It's worse today and we've already been through all of that. And yet the aid is lower. And what is the excuse? What is the reason for it? Only that they don't want to pay because for them, and this is mostly the Republicans, but quite a few of the Democrats as well, like they're not actually really experiencing this pandemic the way the rest of us are. They're not, they haven't lost their jobs, they haven't been unemployment. They're as insulated as anyone can be from getting sick. And the only ones of them who do are largely only doing that because they've exposed themselves willingly because they don't believe that the pandemic is a serious thing. The whole thing is just And maybe we've made some progress from a few days ago, but it's still largely an insult considering what every American citizen has had to go through so far in 2020.

Yeah, I actually completely agree with you on your analysis on this, because look, we don't have the language of the bill in front of us, which is frustrating, you know, ever since the CARES Act passed, every time they engage in negotiations, it's all, you know, all we can depend on is what we're hearing, from the lawmakers themselves. And I'm just always concerned that there are all sorts of, you know, questionable provisions included that end up being incredibly counterproductive, which is certainly what we saw with, you know, the bulk of the stimulus package under the CARES Act helping massive corporations, even the money that was appropriated for small businesses ended up helping massive corporations

instead. And so I'm worried about the language of the bill. You know, you mentioned the spending bill and let me just clarify. that component of it. So Congress needs to pass a spending bill by the end of this week. And what they're planning on doing is attaching the appropriations for the relief bill to the spending bill. The spending bill itself is expected to be $1.4 billion. And so, you know, it's a must pass bill. And that's why they're continuing to negotiate not only that, but the stimulus, which again, they're going to attach to it. One thing that I'm also

concerned about is that they have cut out funding for state and local government. And that is an issue because people keep thinking that state and local government is just separate from the unemployment benefits that are being offered through this relief package. The truth is state and local government, state government, they're strapped for cash right now because understandably there's been an influx of people applying for unemployment on a state level. And so those funds need to be replenished. And the way that Republicans are, you know, framing this, and I have not seen a good rebuttal to it, an accurate rebuttal to it by Democrats, is that, oh, well, it's mismanagement by these blue states. No, no, no, this is not something that's simply impacting blue states. This is something that's impacting every single state in the U.S. right now because, again, their unemployment programs are being overwhelmed right now with people who have lost their jobs and desperately need money. There's also no talk about retroactive unemployment benefits.

There's also no talk about how they're going to, well, I don't think they are, provide any type of financial relief when it comes to the back rent that people owe. Now, the moratorium is important. No, they're not. I mean, it's insane, right? We're talking about, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars in back rent that landlords are going to be demanding the second the moratorium is lifted. And do you think those Americans are going to get any type of relief or any type of help? No. And so

look, Bernie Sanders is right in being against the bill as it's being proposed at this moment. One of our members, effectos writes in and actually makes an interesting point by saying Bernie's taking a big risk in the views of optics. If he withholds his vote for the budget and the government shuts down, MSNBC is going to have a field day blaming him. Well, MSNBC is going to have a field day with him no matter what he does. Let's just be clear on that. But I do think it's important to have a principled approach on this to ensure that this bill is written in a way that overwhelmingly helps ordinary Americans as opposed to corporations or people who are usually in a position of privilege even during a pandemic. And so we'll see what the outcome is. But then there's,

of course, the idea that, well, let's just do the bare minimum now. And hopefully once Biden's in charge, we can pass a package that's more robust. What do you think about that, John? I mean, look, I've just assumed for some time that considering how long it took for the pressure to build between the first pass and this, I've sort of assumed that this is going to be it. And you know, Senator Sanders said that that's not the case. I still find it very hard to believe. I really do. Like, there's so many, there's so many people, including people in incredibly important positions like Mitch McConnell that fundamentally don't care. And whether he signs on to something now or not is not some sort of representation of the fact that he's shifted

on that. He apparently thinks that it's necessary. A lot of people believe that the only reason he's pushing through anything right now and is willing to allow there to be direct payments is that in theory it might help in Georgia for the Republicans there to be able to say that they they got something done and that might be true. But then once that pressure is gone and and in theory passing anything would would reflect positively on the Biden administration, I just don't see it. And let's say that hypothetically, Georgia goes the way we want and the Democrats take over, we still have to assume that going forward there is going to be an automatic unstated and not needed to be actually performed filibuster on literally every piece of

legislation the Dems put forward. I don't understand why it would be any different than that. I don't know. Do you think that there's a chance? No, I actually agree with you. I think that Mitch McConnell is still going to serve as an obstacle. If he doesn't serve as an obstacle and somehow Democrats do win those two runoff races in Georgia, I mean, Joe Manchin has raised his hand and said on multiple occasions that he plans on being an obstacle to what Democrats to want to pass. And I think that's an issue. And when you look at what Joe Mansion has been very willing to accept in this relief package, it's certainly concerning because he seems to be in favor of the corporate liability shield, which is absolutely disgusting and disastrous.

I also want to correct a mistake I made earlier. I talked about the spending bill. The spending bill is $1.4 trillion, not billion dollars. However, in that spending bill, as it stands today, this is this is the thing that made me want to rip my hair out today. There's 1.4 billion dollars appropriated for Donald Trump's border wall. But why? But why? For in case COVID comes creeping over, I don't, for no reason. It's just incredibly frustrating. And look, I get that, you know, progressives might take, a hit in in terms of demanding more, but look, we got we got to decide what we want progressives to do. Do we want them to actually fight for better legislation? Or are we going to go after

them if they do fight for legislation and it looks bad optics wise? I don't know what the correct answer is. I know that I personally want them to fight for more. And look, they have been fighting for more and they've gotten some of the concessions, including the direct checks to Americans. And I think that's important. But there's also the issue of people needing relief right now, and they're not getting it. It's insane that it's taken so long to even get this far in another relief bill. And as the Washington Post reports, the poverty rate jumped 11.7% in November, up 2.4 percentage points since June. That's according to the new data that's been released by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Notre Dame.

I should note again, just to reiterate, 8 million Americans, nearly 8 million Americans have slipped into poverty since the past summer. So these numbers are stark. They're devastating. People are desperate. And what we're seeing right now by Congress, especially Republican lawmakers, is a level of cruelty that just absolutely blows my mind. It's incredible that some of these people keep getting reelected when they've turned their backs on their own constituents over and over again, especially during this time of crisis. Yeah, yeah, there's a lot more, I can say, I know that we have a lot of other news to get to though. Well, let's move on to how the New York Post has decided to talk about poverty in America at a time when so many Americans are desperate.

New research indicates that an additional 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the summer, and this of course is a result of the pandemic and the millions of the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of shutdowns. Now, one 23-year-old EMT worker who couldn't survive on her salary as a paramedic decided to join OnlyFans, which is primarily used by people who, you know, post some sultry pictures. They're scantily clad. It's subscription-based. And so she was doing this to make ends meet.

And the New York Post decided to shame her for it. So let's talk a little bit about what they did. Lauren Quay, who's 23 years old, a New York-based paramedic, turned to posting semi-racy content on the platform to supplement her income. She also reportedly worked as a hostess at a Korean restaurant, meaning that, like many Americans, she juggled multiple jobs in order to eke out a living. Now, that's the story. That's the story. That is the focus is why are we as a country that has a tremendous amount of productivity, tremendous amount of wealth, why do we have people living in these types of conditions where they have to take several jobs, where they have to do things like join only fans in order to

make ends meet? But that's not what the New York Post took away from this story. They decided instead, maybe it's a good idea to shame her for this decision that she's making. And so New York Post reporters Susan Edelman and Dean Balsamini decided to docks her essentially. They hit up her mother and her employer, okay, and asked about her, you know, her page on OnlyFans and informed them about the fact that she had a page on that website. The story was headlined, NYC Medic helped make ends meet with Racy OnlyFans side gig, states Quay, was not only secretive about her online exploits and had the audacity to include her last name in her social profile. So they're not only shaming her, they're basically saying like,

oh, look at what she's doing. And she's awful enough and dumb enough to include her real name. Like they're, this is what they got out of the story. Why are they even writing about her? Why is this, if they're going to write about her to make a point about people in desperate situation, and how we need to do something about a rigged economic system, that's one thing. But that wasn't the point here. John, I have more details. I hear your thoughts. So in theory, could there, like I can't come up with, could there have been a way to do

the story where you didn't outer to her employer and her family? Probably not. There probably would have been no way to just use it as a case study, but keep her privacy and all of that. That's probably impossible. No, really. So is this what the New York post it? Like, because I got news for them.

There's more than one person on Onlyfans. Are they just going to, what are they going to wreck one person's life each week? Is it going to be a daily feature? What exactly is the newsworthiness of this? No. Obviously, it's emblematic of the economic situation that many people have been thrust into. But in terms of focusing on her as an individual in this way, that's just madness. That is just trying to take her life and to titillate people with a headline.

And they've gotten pushback from this for the past couple of days, but I don't think it is nearly enough. They should have to answer for this and explain how this got through, not just the writer who's doing it, but the editor who okayed it. How is this a thing that actually made it to print? Well, I think that this story, among others, the New York Post got attention for this year makes it at least incredibly clear to me that this is not this is not some sort of like journalistic organization. You know, they've been referred to as a tabloid, but understand that tabloids typically like to write all sorts of ridiculous, salacious stuff about celebrities, people who are public figures, people who have wealth. And I'm not saying that, you know, they deserve

it and it's okay when tabloids do it to people in positions of power. But it's like they're worse. My point is, is this is worse than what tabloids do. Because this is punching down. This is going after a person who has no power and shaming her. And the story gets worse, believe it or not. So after she was contacted by the post, she deleted some photos on her only fans page, which she told the post she took down in the hopes. This is like the most depressing. She took down in the hopes that I won't lose my job in the middle of a pandemic and three weeks before Christmas, adding that her employer senior care had asked to meet with her after being contacted by the post. Now look, luckily, and to be honest with you, shockingly, her employer did not fire her.

I thought it was definitely going to happen. Employers get scared by things like this. I mean, I remember back in the day, early years of TYT, we would do these stories about teachers, for instance, who had a past in adult work, adult films, things like that, and they would end up getting fired, even though they've done nothing wrong. These are legal jobs. Why are they getting fired? Now they're educators, and they have the credentials to be educators. So I was surprised that she didn't get fired, but I'm incredibly happy that she didn't. The post, though, as I mentioned earlier, contacted her mother and her employer, and she told Rolling Stone this. Most of the quotes in that article are me defending myself to this reporter. He did not include that I begged

him to remain anonymous, which was never agreed to, and that I told him my safety and job were going to be at risk if he posted the article. He truly did not care. And he's, you know, she's specifically referring to Dean Balsamini here, who was one of the reporters on this hard-hitting story where they're smearing and attacking a young woman who's clearly in a desperate situation. And I wanted to read one more quote. She says, I did not. ask my parents for help because I'm adult and wanted to make my own money. I never once spoke of my pictures at work or use my job as a paramedic to solicit subscribers. I know I did nothing wrong and I have nothing to be ashamed of. And she's right, she has nothing to be

ashamed of. The people who have something to be ashamed of are our lawmakers who have have been complicit in a system that leads to these desperate situations. Yeah, and the reporter, the reporter. Like I, I've tried, like I, I like to play devil's advocate. And so I am trying to come up with some possible plausible explanation for why, even if you were going to continue to do the story when she doesn't want you to, if she asks you to not identify her personally, how you could as a human say, no, I'm doing it. I'm doing a story and I'm identifying you. And I'm going to go around and I'm going to talk to everyone you know. Like that is, is it hyperbolic to say that that is an act on a small scale of evil?

Like to not care at all about this. And for what stakes? Is the story better somehow? Because you have that person's name? What would have happened to him if he hadn't done the story at all? It's just, I cannot conceive of a person making that choice or that series of choices. If this story were assigned to me, and I mean, first of all, I'd say, no, I'm not, I'm not doing the story. And if it was going to be held against me, I'd quit. I'd rather quit than cover a story like this in the way that it was covered. If you're coming at me with an assignment regarding, you know, man, this economic situation is so bad for so many people that, you know, only fan, fans profiles like really exploded during the pandemic, which by the way is true.

Okay, that's an interesting story, right? Because you're specifically covering the economic realities of Americans, which is not just an interesting story. It's an important story. This, not an important story. This is just an effort to shame someone who's just trying to take care of herself, to pay her bills. And there are so many Americans who are in similarly desperate situations. And keep in mind, this is someone who's employed. This is someone who's a paramedic. The fact that EMTs don't make enough money to survive, and these are people who have special training and everything, it's shameful, beyond shameful. I can't say the words I want to say on this show about how that makes me feel. And that's what the story should be,

but the New York Post has decided, no, instead we're going to go ahead and shame someone who is powerless. Anyway, we have to take a break, but when we come back, we will share some highlights from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's interview with The Intercept. She has some pretty strong opinions about Democratic leadership. You don't want to miss it. Come right back. 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 UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher

Yoda once put it, you must have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training, or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. So, you know, I'm sorry. Hey everyone. So I wanted to make a few announcements and then read comments if time permits in this break. But I wanted to promote a new podcast by The Nation. The Nation is fantastic.

As you guys might know, one of our former colleagues, Ken Clippenstein, works at the Nation. And they have some podcasts that you should check out as well. So one of the podcasts is System Check. It's a weekly podcast where they focus on all sorts of of current events. And they also would like to break free from the oppressive malfunctioning political systems that can sometimes hold us back and hold us down. So please check that out wherever you get your podcast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcast. There's a number of different platforms. Also, if you are online, as many of us are these days, you should definitely protect yourself with a VPN. So please check out pure VPN. You can

You can find more details by going to t-y-t.com slash pure VPN. And you can get a discount if you go to that particular link. So again, that's t-y-t.com slash pure VPN and check it out. And finally, give the gift of TYT. Who wouldn't want to do that, okay? So this year, give the gift of TYT membership to your friends, your loved ones, maybe even that Trump supporting uncle, right? we can win over some hearts and minds. So to learn more details about how you can do that, go to

t-y-t.com slash gift. Again, that's t-y-t.com slash gift. All right, so now time for some comments. We have a few minutes for that. Mondo Libre says, tightening belts and pulling bootstraps, our elected officials leading us by their example to get a winter break, to get to a winter break. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I just, I don't know what else to add to that. It's just, it's beyond depressing that we have these people representing us because they're not representing us. And they they're so disconnected from the realities that Americans are facing right now. Lieutenant Mack McGee says, well, you know, poor people are poor because they angered God. Morality is rewarded with money. I roll. Yeah. Kid tested, writes in and says,

fair, guys, the New York Post works multiple jobs too, toilet paper, packing shreds, and litter box liner, although it fails at all those things too. I love it. I love it so much. All right, guys. How much more time do we have, Brett? Okay, so we have very little time. We got to get back. Remember, share and like the stream if you're watching live. We love you guys. We'll be right back with some more news. I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

I'm going to I'm going to think You know, I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to You know, I'm going to be.

I'm going to . So, you know, I'm going to be able to be. I'm sorry. Thank you. Hey everyone, welcome back to TYT, Anna and John with you. Everyone check out The Damage Report, that's John's daily show.

And John, you just interviewed Nina Turner, right? I did. She was on the show earlier today to talk about her race. And that is now up on YouTube.com slash the damage report if you want to see. Love it. Everyone check that out. All right. Rokana is going to be joining us.

So pretty big week in interviews. Damn, okay, I see you getting all the fiery guests. All right, okay, I love it. So everyone's check out tomorrow's show as well. But for now, why don't we talk a little bit about AOC? She's been in the news quite a bit lately. And recently she was on the Intercepts podcast. So Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

shared some pretty harsh realities regarding Democratic leadership during an interview with Jeremy Scahill for The Intercept. Let's take a quick look at her first statement. Are you ready to say Pelosi and Schumer need to go? I mean, I think so. I mean, the question is, like this year, for example, the hesitancy that I have is that I want to make sure that if we're pointing people in a direction,

that we have a plan. And my concern, and this I acknowledge as a failing, as something that we need to sort out, is that there isn't a plan. How do we fill that vacuum? Because if you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse. So what she's referring to is, well, first I should note, Nancy Pelosi is unchallenged when it comes to the speakership, right? Democrats aren't putting up anyone else to essentially run against her for the speaker role within the House. And the only other challenger is Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, who would be horrendous. So that's what she's specifically referring to, that, you know, let's have a plan.

The problem is there isn't a plan and that is a problem. That is a failure on behalf of Democrats who want new leadership. John, what do you think about that? Look, I'm gonna admit that at this point, this is clearly an area where there is knowledge that you gain in there that I'm not privy to. I have a hard time imagining what, look, look, if she's just saying, if we don't have her right now, it would be Kevin McCarthy, okay, then obviously we wouldn't want Kevin McCarthy, but the idea that there is nobody else who could fill that gap, I'm sure that

she's saying, you know, there's nobody that is going to get a critical mass of the Dems to turn on Nancy Pelosi for. I'm sure that that's what she means. But I mean, we've watched every day, we watch at least the outward facing portion of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's political strategy. And it doesn't seem like there's anything indispensable there. I'm sure they would argue that they've got a lot of context and they raise a lot of money and all of that. Okay, that's fine. I would argue it's also not necessary if you actually had a platform to run on, but I just don't see what is what is there that can't be replaced, that someone more junior wouldn't have been able to go for. And I'm fine with it being in two years or whatever, but they need to get on

it. They need to be developing someone. The next time around there can't be a nobody can fill this role situation. Yeah, I agree with you. And I want to share. my opinions in more detail. But let's go to the next clip and then I'll explain why I don't agree with her argument. Let's watch. Well, you know, I do think that we need new leadership

in the Democratic Party. I think one of the things that I have struggled with, I think that a lot of people struggle with, is the internal dynamics of the House has made it such that there's very little option for succession, if you will. And I think that one could just, I think it's easy for someone to say, oh, well, you know, why don't you run? But the house is extraordinarily complex. And I'm not ready. It can't be me. I know that I couldn't do that job. And so even conservative

members of the party who think Nancy Pelosi is far too liberal. for them don't necessarily have any viable alternatives, which is why whenever there's a challenge, it kind of collapses. And that is, I think, the result of just many years of power being concentrated in leadership with a lack of, you know, real grooming of a next generation of leadership. Nancy Pelosi is not going to groom the next generation, like the next generation of leadership. Like Nancy Pelosi clearly loves having that position of power is actually the most vicious in fighting back whenever she's challenged by progressives. And like, I don't, I will admit, possibly there's something that Nancy Pelosi does that I'm not privy to, but I doubt it. Okay,

so Nancy Pelosi raises money. That's all she does. Nancy Pelosi is good at raising money. And people have referred to her as a fantastic legislator in mainstream media, but I've yet to see that incredible, you know, her incredible legislative skills. Because she's not a good spokesperson for the party. Every time she's held a press conference, especially a press conference with Chuck Schumer, it's one of the most cringy things, you know, you'll see because she has difficulty even getting it out. Just like make your point and make it passionately be strong, have conviction. There's no conviction. There's sometimes a little bit of trolling toward Trump, but who cares, right? Does that actually get anything done? So are we just talking about

fundraising here? Because I know AOC is really good at fundraising. If we're talking about legislating, I think almost any other Democrat would be better at legislating than Nancy Pelosi. She's completely disconnected from the average American, so much so that she thinks it's a good idea to put out that a stupid ice cream video as people are losing their jobs and going hungry. How is it that Nancy Pelosi is far better and more prepared to be House Speaker than a whole host of other lawmakers who have proven that they're more than capable to do this? Mickey C. from our members section writes in and makes a good point. AOC says there says there's no one to replace Pelosi. Katie Porter, Rokana, Rashida Talib, Iona Presley,

Diana Presley, I mean, Mickey C also says, hell, even a centrist would be more productive than Queen Nancy. AOC has to drop the mama bear attitude. And look, I don't know how much of this is mama bear attitude. But I think that we're overestimating Nancy Pelosi's qualifications here. Yeah, possibly. Yeah, no, I don't, based on what she is saying, her willingness to say that she wants Nancy Pelosi to be replaced, although what she's saying, I don't think that this is mama bear attitude at all here. And look, everybody can be wrong. Even our favorite politicians can be wrong. But in general, unless there's good evidence that they're wrong, I'm going to defer to AOC on most matters of strategy, because I think that she knows what she's doing. That said,

I, the thing is like, yes, it is obviously an incredibly important position. But it isn't everything. It's not like you need to have experience in literally every part of coordinating and running the Democratic Party. It is a specific subset of that. And there are people who have been serving in the House for years or for decades. She's not the only one. And it's just incredibly frustrating that on both the House and the Senate side, we've been through so many cycles of what politics is focused on, cycles of cycles of democratic loss and then coming back. And to have effectively our entire leadership be locked into what feels like at least a 20 year old idea of what is possible, of who the opposition actually is, of how you get things done.

I feel like there hasn't been evolution in so many years. 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 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.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash TYT. Check it out today. And like the fact that they're not grooming replacements for them eventually is insult enough

when Nancy Pelosi knows that she's not going to be speaker for another 20 years. years, like you should be thinking ahead. But like the unwillingness to provide any acknowledgement that the party isn't always, isn't now it isn't always going to be what it was when you first got into the house. That it doesn't just belong to you and your generation. It's not to say that everybody hates Nancy Pelosi. I understand that we're on the left. There's lots of either centris out there or people who don't pay that much attention to politics and they see a little bit of her performative stuff and they kind of like that or they respect her struggle or whatever. There are people like that. Not everybody

views her the exact same way as we do, but she really does look at the Democratic Party from the point of view of a sense of entitlement and control and doesn't understand that the party has for a long time been, but is especially now much bigger than herself. And much bigger, by the way, than Chuck Schumer. We're focusing on Pelosi here, but Schumer is a whole other set of problems, in some ways possibly even worse. No, I agree. I agree. And, you know, you know, that's also my bad because a lot of the focus does tend to be on Pelosi because, you know, Democrats, it makes sense. She's in charge, exactly. So I get why a lot of the focus has been on Nancy Pelosi, but don't let Schumer off the hook. Remember, it was Chuck Schumer,

who made a deal with Mitch McConnell to fast track the confirmation of dozens of Donald Trump's federal judges. He can't be let off the hook for that. And so, and of course, in the context of this discussion with AOC, I mean, AOC is in the house. And so, you know, she can have her opinions about Schumer, but really where she could possibly do some negotiating and organizing is in the house. And look, cousin Vinnie writes in our member section and says, Anna, that's right, Pelosi isn't going to groom successors. That's the problem that AOC is identifying. No, no, I hear you. But I guess my point is, don't wait for Nancy Pelosi to groom, you know, the next slate of democratic leadership, right?

Yeah. Like, I guess my problem, my problem with how it's framed by AOC is that she seems to be unaware of how much influence and power she has, right? And so I think that she, to give her credit, she's definitely starting to like push the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable etiquette-wise, right? Because as soon as she starts criticizing or critiquing Nancy Pelosi, we know how that gets covered in the media. We saw what that was like after Pelosi had that interview with the New York Times a few years ago. And that back and forth got incredibly ugly. But people love

AOC. She represents what many Democrats in this country want, especially at a time when economic frustrations are very real. And people are desperate for actual reform and change. And so she needs to flex that muscle a little more, especially when it comes to holding Democratic leadership accountable. I like that she made the statements that she did during this interview. But I think, again, my only issue is she seems to be unaware of her own power. I think that's true in some ways. I think that in this area, I think that she understands that she, there isn't a path where she takes out Nancy Pelosi. Like she doesn't, like I want her to have that power, but she doesn't have that power,

or not yet, at least at this point. I would say that in terms of directly influencing future democratic leadership, I think that a case can be made that she has a better chance of doing that on the Senate side, thanks to the fact that Chuck Schumer is going to be reelected or not in two years. But we'll see. Yeah, well, for everyone who wrote in and shared their comments from our members section today, thank you so much. Your opinions on this story are important, and you can become a member by going to t.y.t.com

slash join. We got to take a quick break. But when we come back, we'll talk about more news, including Kelly Leffler, what happened with her real estate situation and how did she save so much money on her property taxes? That story is shady. You don't want to miss it. We'll be right back. Hey, Everybody, All right, I'm going to read. Lots of comments today. Jay Fergie says, skater dragon checking in. Really enjoyed my first viewing of Turks and Jerks last night. A needed reminder that there was some positivity this year. I caught a little bit of it and yeah, it was a really good conversation. Franklin

writes in and says, for the amount of six cartons of smokes, they think we don't get the joke. The uber wealthy, this might sound rude, forget it's us that provide their food do well. Star 74-34-Strefer. Yes. It was? Oh, yeah, that's awesome. He writes poems for us on TDR as well. Oh, okay, I was like, is this meant to be a poem and am I butchering it?

And I, yeah, I did. All right, star 74-34- says there's been some reporting under the radar. Real reasons Republicans are against funding states is pensions. Yes, definitely. I mean, that's what they're, that's like when they use that euphemism or when they try to like, you know, package it up as, oh, it was these states and they're mishandling their finance. No, they just want to get rid of people's pensions. Like, they're so, they're such bad people. Also, Joe Jackson writes in and says, can I use at at Twitter because I might say something to the times. I really want them to hear what you have to say. Yeah, sure. I mean, I don't know what that means, but that sounds good. Raja says, hello, Anna and John, Anna, love you, boo, but I'm going to need my, he's doing it on camera t-shirt? I don't know what that means. Oh, it's just, okay, okay, I know what you're talking about. I think it's a reference to something I said on the show recently, but I can't remember the context. But anyway, and then finally, I'm just going to read a few Twitch subs and give people some props for all the help that they've been giving us on.

our Twitch channel. Brandi Liu gifted five subs, thank you. Depressed Progressive, gifted 10 subs and 3,500 bits. John's Venn diagram of desire gifted two subs. Sama, Lynn gifted a sub, NDH 101, 2 months prime, high from Stormy Humboldt County, love TYT, we love you too, science train gifted a sub. Adam, the Michi, six months prime, 90% of subs are from Obie Mom Kenobi, 10% are from Prime on Bezos' dime. Yes, Zena, 5,000, two months prime. Let's play seven months prime with a comment, a yo, and then miss eviscerate. Two months prime. I love you, TYT. We love you guys. Thank you so much. And if you're not checking out our Twitch channel, you can by going to twitch.tv slash TYT. All right, let's get back to the news.

So, you know, I'm going to be able to be. Welcome back to TYiT, Anna Casparian, and John Ida Rolitan, and John Ida roll. with you. Now we switch gears to Republicans, particularly Republicans who are trying to win reelection, but seem to be pretty shady. So Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler's multi-million dollar home rapidly depreciated in value, resulting in a much lower property tax bill. Now, no one can explain why, especially at a time when all of her neighbors' property values went up. She and her husband had pumped money into remodeling this extravagant mansion. And usually when you do that, the property value goes up. But I'll give you the details and you decide for

yourselves if something shady is going on. Leffler and her husband, Jeffrey Spreecher, bought a 15,000 square foot Atlanta mansion known as Descante for $10.5 million in 2009. The value of the estate, as appraised by Fulton County government officials for the purpose of calculating annual property tax dues, remain the same for the next seven years. But then something weird happened in 2016, the praise value suddenly plunged to $4.15 million, a whopping 60% decline. So how does that translate to lower property tax? Well, property taxes, of course, are calculated based on the value of the home. And if the value of the home goes up, your property tax bill goes up. And if it goes down, of course, your property tax bill goes down. Now, originally they were paying, oh my God,

$200,000 annually to the city and county governments in property taxes. Then in 2016, after their home's value dropped, they paid $90,000. Since then, the appraised value of their home has risen to roughly $5 million, but they're still paying about $80,000 less a year than they did when they first bought their home. None of this makes sense. None of it, none of it. And so the Daily Beast is very careful to state that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, but even so no one can answer why there was this sudden depreciation in the home's value,

especially when property values have been going up. There's no reason to believe that the value actually depreciated. Did they like spill something that smelled really bad? Are they like breeding like exotic black fungus or something like that that got into the walls? Like trying to think of some explanation, underground dog fights or bull fights. I don't, you know, look, you know a lot more about real estate than me. It sounds like a cool little con to pay less money. But there were a couple of other things I thought about.

One that now, once it was depreciated, the fact that it was $4 million, I immediately thought, man, in L.A., you're not getting 15,000 square feet for those $4 million. That's like a small house, basically, for $4 million. Yeah, and then also- What do you need for $15,000 square feet? No, I need to know. Look, I love homes. I love architecture.

Like, and it's not because I'm like, oh, I want to be rich and I want to live in a giant house. Like, I'm genuinely fascinated by architecture and real estate and like all of that, right? But why? Why do you need a 15,000 square foot home? Like, how many kids do they have? Do they have a billion kids? I don't know. Like, why do you need that? Why do you need all of that? I don't understand. Is that actually from the home? I'm kind of into that pool. Like, I like the outdoor area. The outdoor area is fine. I'll take. But like that. Like, why do you need that? Why do you need that? I feel like, oh, like every time you get out of your car, it's like a five minute walk to get into your house. It's got me so annoying. This is why you got like, come on, get a car elevator, you poor bastard. Anyway, no, the better question. So a good question is why do you need a 15,000 square foot home?

The better question is, why do you need a 15,000 square foot home when I guarantee they own at least five other homes? Like, I doubt that's their only home. But yeah, and beside that, why do you know? need to save $100,000 in property tax is when you have $800 million to your name. That's so petty. God, the rich are, like they are really, like everybody's like scanning the stars for alien life. Just look at the nice neighborhoods. They are alien. They think in ways that don't make sense to actual humans. Like the pettiness. I know that this is a little bit of a tangent, but we have a two hour show and I'm going to indulge. No, you mentioned rich neighborhoods or even not fabulously rich neighborhoods, just like well-to-do neighborhoods.

I've noticed this trend. And maybe it's not the case across the country, but it annoys me a lot because I like to go running and I like to go running in nicer neighborhoods. Of course, who wouldn't want to go to a nicer neighborhood to go for a run? They don't like to have sidewalks. So they don't have sidewalks. And then I looked into that and it's because they don't want the riffraff. They don't want people like us. You know, it's just they. I mean, look, I get it. I don't want people like me around where I live, but they're doing okay. They're doing okay. They're behind gates. What do they care if there's sidewalks outside of their castle? It's not within the moat. What's the difference? Well, let me give you more details on the

types of renovations they did, because again, let me reiterate. Typically when you do renovations, that increases the value of your property, right? That's usually how people justify doing renovations that they can't even afford in a lot of cases. In this case, as you mentioned, Leffler and her husband are worth $800 million, so they can't afford it. In 2015, they spent nearly $90,000 to renovate the kitchen, $150,000 to construct a new greenhouse, and $125,000 on various outdoor improvements records filed with the city show. Well, at least they're getting the appropriate permits for these updates on their homes or on their home. Atlanta was also undergoing a real estate boom at the time that their property was randomly

depreciated by millions of dollars. So again, this doesn't make any sense. And I do want to give you a description of the home, even though you've seen some imagery. The seven bedroom home in Tuxedo Park, an exclusive subsection of the Tony Buckhead neighborhood features lush, spacious grounds, a garage portico imported from Spain, several Renaissance era European frescoes, and no fewer than nine antique fireplaces. But why? That's all, but why? There's like seven words in there I need to look up. I just looked up portico. They had to have that flown from one cotton into another. There weren't any good porticos in America. It has an airstrip. It has an air because of course, like, well, I mean, what are they going to do?

They're going to fly commercial? Come on. Yeah, no, honestly, but I don't want like a long air strip. I don't want the riffraff flying into my neighborhood. I just, I don't, God, when you talked about the renovations, I just, we don't eat enough rich people. We need to every once in a while just eat a few rich people because. Are you kidding me? They're eating us. We haven't eaten a single rich person.

They're eating us all day. Like, it's just. And look. I don't begrudge people for being successful. I don't think anyone needs to have that amount of wealth. But this isn't like, oh, we're angry just because people are rich. They're not paying their taxes, like this should be investigated, right? Maybe there was a mistake.

Maybe the appraisers made a mistake, right? Okay, let's look into this. Let's investigate it because clearly there's not paying the taxes that they should be paying on this property. So let's just let's just have them pay the appropriate taxes. And also let's do a real investigation into the accusations of insider trading by Kelly Leffler. Because I'm sorry, an ethics committee in the Senate is not an appropriate investigation into possible insider trading. We're talking about a group of her peers who possibly also engage in insider trading,

clearing her of any wrongdoing. Yeah, not buying it. Sorry. God damn. Yeah, and you know, like, I mean there's the possibility they paid off the appraiser or it's a possibility that if you try to talk to the local government and get them to look into it, they've probably donated to all of those politicians. And all of that added up is still gonna be cheaper for them than just paying their taxes and being a part of this society that is obviously given them so much. Portico.

That's it, I'm gonna- It was Spanish portico. Spanish portico. American porticos. I barely want a 15,000 square foot house if it's going to be adorned thusly. I also have an antique fireplace. It's only antique because it's never been renovated since this place was built in the 1970s. And you literally can't find parts for it. And so it's really hard to repair it when I want to repair it.

Anyway, but you know, antique, not a big deal. Let's talk about pocketing funds because that's what Donald Trump loves to do, especially when he's grifting off his own supporters. So Donald Trump is constantly tweeting fundraising messages pointing to Georgia's upcoming Senate elections, these runoff races that both Democrats and Republicans are pretty hyper focused on at the moment. But how much of the money that he's supposedly fundraising on behalf of Republicans running in these Senate races actually go to these Senate races. Well, if those fundraising emails regarding

election fraud are any indication, you would know that Trump likes to raise money under false pretenses, and that's the case here. So when donors, for instance, click on Trump's emails and texts, they're directed to a site that urges donations of anything from $5 to $2,800. But lower down on that page, it notes that 75% of each donation goes to Trump's political action committee, save America, up to the first $5,000 given, 25% then goes to the RNC. But regardless of the amount given, none goes directly to the Georgia Senate race. Now the RNC has committed giving $20 million to these two Senate races in Georgia. And that's it, right? So we don't know exactly how much of that money is really going to come from Donald Trump. But just looking at how irritated

Republicans have become with Trump and his fundraising schemes doesn't seem like it's going to be much. So by the way, in the meantime, the Biden camp has raised $10 million for the runoff races through direct appeals to his supporters and their donor network. And that money is actually going to go to the race, the two races in Georgia. Now, some Republicans are irritated by what Donald Trump is doing. Trump's fundraising ploy has rankled senior Republicans who worry small dollar donations are being redirected away from the runoffs. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has reached out to the White House and R&C to express its concern and to question the decision, according to two people familiar with the discussions. So Trump has really hurt, you know, David Perdue and Kelly Leffler in these runoff races

in Georgia. And I mean, I love it. He did so by basically antagonizing them and making them out to be the bad guys because he claims they didn't do enough to defend him and his ridiculous claims of widespread voter fraud. And so some Republican voters have turned on them as a result of that. And then you have this like fundraising scheme that he's engaged in, which actually doesn't direct the money that he's fundraising to the Senate races. It's just, it's an incredible story that I absolutely love because they created this monster. They made their bed. Now they get to lay in it. Sorry, yeah. Yeah, it really gets to me. So like, like, we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, the initial sort of recount. And I said that it doesn't

really bother me because I like I really I wonder if you were to take a hundred of the people who donated and you were to sit them down and go through the fine print with them and explain to them exactly where it's going to go and in what proportions I wonder what percent would change their mind because I really I really do think that they just want to give money to Donald Trump like I think it's it's like people giving to the prosperity you know minister or whatever you know people donating to their cult leader They think somehow that it's going to benefit them or that this person is so good that they deserve their money more than they themselves do. And so they are being deceived.

But man, he's really made it obvious that he's a con man and they haven't seen through that. So I don't think that they would necessarily regret it if they had more information. So I can't feel that bad about them. Outside of specifically what Trump is doing, the effect he's having on the race, though, This is really perfect because it should have been clear to the Republican Party for a very long time that Donald Trump doesn't care about them. He doesn't care about their other candidates. He, as many people have said, he demands loyalty and he never rewards it. And they have been loyal and he's not going to reward it.

He will burn it down because he doesn't, it's not like, God, I lost, but at least the Republican Party will be strong. He has no interest in anything outside of himself. So they can be frustrated, I guess, but it's it's annoying if they're surprised. Doesn't seem quite right. Yeah, you know, you made an interesting point about, you know, how would his supporters, like, why does he even try to fundraise under false pretenses? Why does he just sell them? Like, I'm trying to raise money for my, you know, my new political action committee,

Save America. Like, just do that. Give me money. Right. Just say give me money. Just give me money. Don't even tell them about the political action committee. Just do like a go fund me. So it's like, I think you should do a go fund me. Trump should have a Patreon. This guy is so sad. He's so sad. Like he steals from everyone. Like he, he just has no shame. I. Anyway, I just, I remember growing up and, you know, I, My parents telling me like work really hard and, you know, of course, my parents bought into like the whole notion of the American dream and everything where like, you know, it's a meritocracy. And if you work hard, you're going to be fine. Of course, that's not the case for a lot of people. But nonetheless, like, that was the message. And the whole idea was if you're financially independent, you know, you don't have to ask people or beg people for money. These people have allegedly have money. And yet they're still fundraising off of people at a time of deep,

economic frustrations, you know, all sorts of terrible things happening as a result of the pandemic, like no shame, no shame at all. None. Yeah, yeah. If you're, if you wouldn't have to beg for money, but don't rule it out, you still could beg for money because again, it's like the, it's like Thorin's dragon sickness. There is a level of money you can get that breaks your brain and they, Trump has it, Kelly Leffler has it. And what, as amazing as it would be, if both Purdue and Leffler lose, because it allows Biden to hopefully do something, because they were profiteers during the pandemic, because it would be sort of the culmination

of the Republican Party's attachment to Donald Trump, which is a 100% one-way thing. It would be delicious for all those reasons. On the other hand, Leffler is just going to go back to her 15,000 square foot house. So I guess the joke is to some extent on us, but I want the seat back at the very least. Right. I will leave it at this. This is a GOP strategist who spoke to Politico and gave his name. This is an anonymous person. His name is Doug Hay. He says this. The reality is Donald Trump does not care about the future of the Republican Party. So if he can raise money off of the Georgia runoffs, but keep the money for his own purposes, he will do it. And that's exactly what he is doing. All right, we got to take a break. And when we come back, Donald Trump forced people to give up their harm. in order to build a factory. It was supposed to create new jobs, but it didn't. We'll give you the details on that story and more when we return.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple. . . . . . . . . . I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.