The Young Turks - Trump Gets Triggered

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

America’s largest meat producers are reportedly fixing prices. Tyson, Hormel, and Cargill are using a little-known technology (Agri Stats) to share secret data and make your groceries more expensive. Andy Beshear says JD Vance should experience a family member going through a pregnancy from rape in shocking remark. Tim Walz’s wife Gwen: We didn’t conceive through IVF like he said. " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. All right, welcome the Young Turks. We're live at the DNC. Jake, you're granite and despair with you guys. We are not at the Polymarket Studio in L.A., but I think I am going to meet with the Polymarket guys tonight after the show because why not party after we do seven hours? hours on air. Okay, who's speaking tonight? Who's speaking tonight? I don't know if you can

help. Oh, no. So yeah, I brought it back, Anna, t-shirt and Blazer. Okay. So am I saying shop t-y-t.com? I don't even have to say they dropped the link in the description immediately when that happens. Okay, seriously, great show ahead for you guys, of course, tons of interviews, tons of speeches tonight. Yeah, Josh Spiro and obviously Bill Clinton and Tim Walts, among many others. So with that being said, take it away, Maestro. You know what? Why don't you guys take it away? Oh, yeah. It might have been Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps we should ask him.

Now, he was very nasty last night. I try and be nice to people, you know, but it's a little tough when they get personal. Please, again, remember? Please, sir, don't get personal. Talk about policy. personal? Should I not get personal? I don't know my advisors are fired. Now, we'd rather keep it on policy, but sometimes it's hard when you're attacked from all ends. Former President Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, clearly not under Donald Trump's skin, but he actually surprisingly managed to keep it together and not engage in personal attacks against Obama, even though you can tell he was tempted to.

He did attack Democrats on policies. Of course, there was a lot of dishonesty in some of those attacks. However, I do want to give you a snippet of what Obama had to say about Trump during that electrifying DNC speech. Let's take a look. It has been a constant stream of gripes and grievances that that's actually been getting worse now that he's afraid of losing to Kamala. There's the childish nicknames, the crazy conspiracy theories, this weird obsession with crowd sizes. Weird obsession with crowd sizes. And now look, when you compare, Obama's personal attacks against Trump to Trump's personal attacks against Obama, obviously

that seems pretty measured, right? But for Obama, those attacks were a big deal, you know, because we're talking about a party that up until right now tried really, really hard to rise above it. And hearing Obama attack Trump in the way that he did in that speech was, you know, it was rare. Let's just put it that way. But what's more interesting to me in this story, Jank, is the fact that clearly Trump is trying really hard to listen to his advisors. Before Obama gave his speech yesterday, Trump actually spoke to CNN and get a load of this. What he said, almost a complete turnaround of what we have heard him say about former President Obama before. I like him. I think he's a nice gentleman, but he was very, very weak on trade.

If you take a look at what happened to our country trade-wise, it was a disaster. Take a look at Japan, take a look at China, take a look at what happened with some of these countries, what they did. But I happen to like them. I respect him and I respect his wife. You heard that correctly. Trump says that he likes Obama and that he respects Obama and his wife, Michelle, who, by the way, she gave my favorite speech of this entire event. She was incredible. We just wanted to get that out of the way. Jane, go ahead. Okay, so a lot of told you is here, but I, but one mistake that I want to point out from our coverage last night, I did not see, as we were doing the play-by-play, that Obama went like this and this after saying crowd sizes.

And that's a reference to size matter. Right. And so to me, that's huge because it doubles down on what we notice, which is that the old line that actually came from Michelle Obama herself, when they go low, we go high. Uh-uh. Now they're going low. Obama's doing this. Okay, that doesn't get any lower than that. Okay. So, and both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama hit him and hit him hard. And so they were like they're the golden couple. So they were super classy as they did it somehow anyway. Everything they do looks classy. But they were not shy about. about hitting him and on a personal level too. And so now the couple of told you is, one, he can't resist.

Although, and by the way, I'll come back and triple down on that, told you, when we see him ignore that this, that interview part that you just saw there for a second. So let me break it down chronologically. So they tell him, hey, now remember, they're going to attack you, but the Obamas are super popular. If you attack them, and especially in a crass way, that'll hurt you and not them. They're not even running, right? So any political consultant worth is, you know, worth anything would tell you that. So that's why Trump's like, oh, yeah, I'm going to show you discipline. He goes out there and goes, he's a nice gentleman. He called him a gentleman. I know. I was like, okay. And obviously, this is with the backdrop of

all of the allegations that Trump threw at Obama when he won his election in 2008, I want to see the birth certificate. He wasn't born here in the United States. Like, that stuff doesn't just go away because Trump says he respects him and called him a gentleman one time, right? But it does show that he is getting advice behind the scenes and he's trying to follow that advice. Right. He's trying to do what they call message discipline, right? It will not work. And I have to say, I don't hope the interview happened before after the rally, but there he is at the rally. Before, before. Yeah. Yes, it happened yesterday before Obama even spoke. Right. You get what I'm saying? So. Oh, of course. Yeah. So he has a conversation with CNN. Nice gentleman. In the day, Obama gives his speech. And then, you know, and then Trump's rally, the video we showed you at the top of this story happened today. Yeah. Yeah. So already message discipline breaking down. Okay. And then.

It's just going to devolve from here because he can't much, but not by much. Okay, yeah, so that one wasn't too bad, right? But that goes to a second told you. He loves the crowd reaction. And yesterday we talked a lot about this in the coverage, about how he can't help but react to the crowd. So when the crowd, he says Kamala Harris is beautiful, they're like, uh, I grumble, grumble.

Then he goes, oh yeah, I'm pretty. I'm like, yeah, right? And so, so that's why when he said, uh, should I, I attack him and the crowd goes nuts and wants him to attack Obama. Yeah. And then he's like, huh, can you see that? And my consultant told me or whatever he said that you wouldn't have that reaction. No, knucklehead.

They're not telling you that MAGA isn't going to have that reaction. Maga is going to love your attacks. They're telling you the general population isn't going to like it. The swing voters. Yes. And he can't help himself because a minute the crowd applauds, he's like, be like attention. Be like love.

Please love me. Well, he's, it's interesting because he could actually attack his political opponents. It's just that he needs to avoid doing so in a personal way, right? So if he wants to attack them on policy, how about it? That's what the election is all about. And by the way, Anna, I don't even, you know me, I don't even mind attacks personally. But it depends. It depends.

Right. So if you're saying, hey, Trump's not that bright, that's a personal attack, but it's true. George Bush wasn't that bright. It's a problem when the president's not that bright, right? And you could make, by the way, Joe Biden can't talk. Personal attack, but true and very relevant, right? So, but when you get into crazy lunatic things like, nobody shows up at her rather.

She's faking it with AI, right? And then you, oh, she's not even black. She just turned black. Well, that's both personal and maniacal. And the problem is the maniacal part, not so much the personal part. And it's especially when you do the, sorry, I know. One last thing about that, especially when you attack her based on gender and you do it in a dirty, ugly way, it turns off other women voters. That's going to jump into on because, you know, I've realized that the personal attacks, whether they're true or not, doesn't matter.

What matters is whether or not the voters, the slice of voters that you're trying to persuade like the personal attack that you're engaging in. And the type of personal attacks he has engaged in ever since Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee are the kinds of attacks that turn a lot of people off. And then you couple that with the stuff that's popping up from J.D. Vance's previous interviews about how, you know, childless individuals in America don't care about the future of the country, how they're just sad cat ladies, that kind of stuff, those types of personal attacks. By the way, not just on your political opponents, but on the American people not going to play well. You know what I'm saying? So I just want to be clear, there are personal attacks that might not even be true at all, but could be appealing. to the voters that the politician is trying to appeal to. So I don't think the truth matters at all in unfortunately this arena. Yeah. And so again, if I'm advising Trump, I tell him, listen brother, you want to attack her on X, Y, or Z, that makes sense. And I don't want you to lose your aggression. And I don't want you to lose your authenticity. Those are actually advantages for you, right? But if you attack her in a way that makes it seem like you think all women are on

intelligent, that's a disaster. But then you have to talk to him like he's a child because how do you not already know that? So how do you not, how can you not control yourself in such counterproductive attacks? Because when you say she has no record of accomplishment and she slept her way to the top when she's been a district attorney, attorney general, senator, vice president, et cetera, you're not insulting her. You're in women will feel like you're something, all of them, that no matter what you do, it's never enough and you slept your way to the top and you're not smart and we don't respect you. And it's nails on a chalkboard for female voters. So can we actually engage in a moment of self-reflection? Because I think what you're saying is

100% right. And I think that on our side, you know, we've unwittingly engaged in some missteps in attacking Donald Trump. So a great example, in my opinion, is attacking you him on the bankruptcies. I know you're going to disagree with me on that. Remember, when you attack Trump on the bankrupts, there are a lot of Americans, ordinary Americans who have gone bankrupt. And so they think about themselves and they feel like they're being attacked. Do you get what I'm saying? I get where you're coming from because he was literally handed hundreds of millions of dollars by Papa and he lost it. I get the urge to attack him on that. But you have to think about how that comes across to ordinary Americans, who, many of whom have gone through a lot of

financial hardship. Anna, I will not debate you because you have made a good point. Thank you. So what I'm going to do going forward is, it's not that I'm not going to talk about the bankruptcy, so I'm still going to kick his ass out of now. Okay, but you're right. And what I'll start with is a preface. You'll now see me do this a lot, not just on this show, If you watch me on other shows, I'll start with, like, a lot of people have personal bankruptcies and oftentimes in America because of health care issues. So, you know, I run a small business. I know how hard to run a small business. I'm not hanging on anybody who went through bankruptcy. But this brother was handed $400 million and bankrupted six giant companies, including casinos, which previously seemed unimaginable.

Right. So with a preface of, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about spoiled little Donnie Trump. Yeah, I think being precise in the rhetoric and ensuring that you are not coming across in a way that would turn off ordinary people is really important. And that is a skill that at least you're receptive to, whereas, you know, Trump's trying right now. But I agree with you. I think that if there are enough insults toward him by the Democratic Party, he's not going to be able to resist. Yeah. Now, I thought of something funny as I was smiling, if I was Trump and you gave me that good. advice i'd be like i'd go in front of the crowd and make man it says i shouldn't talk about these big's bankruptcies okay but what do you think and then the crowd roars it again and so by the way for young turns audience that's watching this now or whatever you watch it when you see me on another show start with now i get it there's bankruptcies in this country

from health care etc you'd like i want you to think for yourself and i did that Book Club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too.

Because with regular comprehensive eye, exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexavers.cavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Iexams provided by independent optometrists. All right. Well, let's move on to the next story. There's a lot more to get to, including this. This is probably one of the top five food scandals of the 21st. century and we can't underplay it. People need to go to jail. People need to go to jail for this is among the most widespread scandals and not only food pricing, but food availability that I've actually ever heard of. We have been talking about price gouging by corporate

America, quite a bit on the show, and that's after the media decided to attack Kamala Harris, alleging that she wants to do price fixing or price controls in response to inflation. She has argued that there has been price gouging, which has led to that inflation at grocery stores. And there's been a lot of denial about corporations doing price gouging at all. And guess what? We've provided evidence before. Now, more perfect union has done an investigation that has found alleged price fixing specifically in the meat industry. And just like in in the rental housing market, they're using tech to do it. So let me give you the details.

The scheme revolves around a software called agrostats. So let's watch more from the More Perfect Union Report to understand what we're talking about here. Let's watch. Agrostats is the heartbeat of the meat industry. It tracks everything, product prices, the cost to raise an animal, worker wages, and market projections. This info is then turned into reports bought by companies that effectively control all of the chicken, turkey, and pork markets. So for each item in the grocery store, whether it be chicken thighs or chicken wings, eggersets, they create a report. The report outlines the price the company charged, the national average of what its competitors charged, and the top quartile.

In fact, it goes deeper than that. It tells meat processors where their price ranks nationally. then the gap between what they're charging and the national average. And the gap between that and the top 25%. But I think most importantly, you can actually see the economic impact dollars. Or how much money the company is leaving behind. The way the data was set up was an incentive for them to raise prices. Like you have to catch up to the market here. Why are you when you're selling?

You're making us all look bad. Once all these suppliers knew what they were each selling and what they were are selling for, it's really just the matter of determining what they wanted to be selling it for. So look, this is super important to understand everyone. And we've talked about this in a different context before. And I'm so, so heartbroken to see that this type of predatory activity is now being utilized by other sectors of the economy, namely the meat industry here. So we've talked about this in the context of the rental housing market. And it's essentially a way of sellers, or in the case of the housing market landlords, to collude with one another and raise their prices and keep

their prices high. Anyone who goes against that model is basically like punished for it and ostracized for it. So what I'm talking about with the rental housing market, it's basically something called Real Page. And so let's go to the first graphic here. An e-book produced by Real Page says that the company allows corporate landlords who are technically competitors to actually work together to make us all more successful in our pricing. Real Page brag the landlords that use its software continually outpaced the market

in good times and bad. And so I'll give you a specific example when it comes to Real Page. So in Phoenix, according to an Arizona lawsuit, 70% of multifamily apartment units listed in the Phoenix metropolitan area are owned, operated or managed by companies that have contracted with Real Page. And according to a lawsuit filed by DC, 60% of large multifamily buildings, 50 units or more, set prices using Real Page's software. Do you guys understand what's happening here? They're using technology to do price fixing. okay, like in a way that will price gouge you. They're doing it when it comes to apartment units and things like that. And now that has unfortunately transferred over to the food industry,

primarily the meatpacking industry. Yeah, so I think that there's an answer for this. But first, it requires significant nuance. So number one, what is happening here is natural, logical, and actually inevitable. So eventually, whenever you're a business in any industry, you always want to know what your competitors are doing. And among the different things that you want to know is price. And so you're always trying to get what they call business intelligence, which tells you, again, where the entire industry stands to the best of your ability to know it. And a lot of folks, of course, hide a lot of what they're doing because they don't want their competitors to find out.

All that is logical, but your price are public. So eventually there was going to be an app that collected the prices. And if you're running a company and you don't check where your competitors are charging, you're nuts. So if there's an app that tells you what everybody's charging, you're definitely going to use it. And in fact, it would be a little bit negligent if you didn't use it. So since that is pretty much baked in in every industry, what it winds up creating is oligopoly by app. Okay. Yes. Yes. So those in the problem with oligoplies, of course, is that like monopolies, they limit competition instead of one company. It's a small number of companies. And that's basically describes an enormous percentage of the American economy now in almost every industry. Consolidation because of deregulation, there used to be rules against this kind of consolidation because the power that the consolidation brings. And then once you have a few number of companies and you're checking the app for what you're, what you're, you're all charging, you're going to set prices and move them based on what people, the

maximum of what people can afford. So what's the answer to that? You can't say to the companies don't check your competitors prices and don't use this app. I don't think that's productive or helpful in my opinion. But what you can do is, well, now we're going to need an app for the consumers to check prices on all of these in a kind of an industrial scale for all the different and things that we buy. And it's harder for us because we have full-time jobs, right? Whereas this is the job of the company to track these prices. But we're going to have to even the playing field here a little bit and kind of force price competition on them. Yeah, that ain't going to work because what happens is all of the sellers, in this case,

meat sellers, are colluding with one another and all of them agree to keep their prices high. So if the consumer has an app that shows them, oh, what's the best price, they're not going to find the best price because all of them have agreed to charge incredibly high prices. So that's, of course, a good point. And so let me just, that requires a second level of nuance. So if let's say that the price of something, let's say banana is a 25 cents a pound to make up a number, right? And if they check the app or whatever they check, and for six months straight, none of the four major banana producers are making that up is just as an example, have moved. from 25 cents. That means they're colluding. Because normally what would happen at a free market is somebody would move to 24 cents. Right. And see if they can grab a bigger share of the market and still have enough margins, right? That's how free markets normally. So if there's some price movement and we have that information as consumers, we can then go to the company charging 24 cents and force the price competition. But if they have not moved for some period of time, that means

they have de facto collusion. Yeah. And that is when the government can say, no, wait a minute. No, I'm not going to accept this, that you guys are, none of you are moving on price ever. And then it's very hard to prove that, but it's provable. I mean, it's so out in the open. So going back to Real Page for a second, so real page is so incredibly strict about enforcing its price fixing scheme that it even deploys pricing advisors to make sure.

that its landlords are complying with their pricing recommendations and get a load of this. Let's go to Graphic 4. Jeffrey Roper, who created the Real Page algorithm explains that if you have idiots undervaluing, it costs the whole system. See, that one. Yeah, that one gives it away. Because, guys, if you, if you're a competitor is doing something wrong, you don't want to stop them, right?

In this case, they're undervaluing. And if you're at that company and you're a sharing. shareholder or whatever it might be, I can see you getting frustrated. That's why it pushes towards collusion, right? Because they will all naturally say, hey, if competitor Bob over there is charging 20% more than us and has the same number of customers, you're doing it wrong. That means you can charge more, right? And then shareholders get mad that you're not maximizing profit. And that's how it works. But in that case, he's mad that the other guys are not colluding on price and that they're actually doing price competition. in a free market, wittingly or unwittingly, right? And when you say, hey, I want to know, I want to prevent that guy from doing that, that's like textbook pollution. Yeah. Look, this example is a little different from what we're talking about, but it does remind me about Senator Joe Manchin's daughter when she was the executive of a pharmaceutical company that made the EpiPen. When the patent was about to run out and Pfizer was about to put out a generic

version that would be cheaper, thus allowing for competition in the pharmaceutical market, she actually colluded with the CEO of Pfizer to prevent him from putting out the generic version. She hiked up the price of the EpiPen and promised to do profit sharing with Pfizer as part of the agreement. It is disgusting. That is the kind of stuff that's going on. And so, by the way, no consequences for what she did, which is also incredibly disgusting. But real quick, I do want to go back to how this is being implemented in the meat industry. Is anyone doing anything about it? Does anyone in government care about it?

And it turns out that Attorney General Keith Ellison is paying attention, which is good news. So why don't we take a look at what he has to say about it? And he says, this is illegal. And he says that he wants to do something about it. Let's watch. We're at the state capital of Minnesota, where Attorney General Keith Ellison has his offices.

He's leading the lawsuit against AgarStats. Attorney General Ellison, thanks for joining us today. Really good to be with you, thank you. What is this complaint allege? It alleges that under the Sherman Act, you can't share critical information that would have a tendency to reduce competitiveness in competition. They're essentially sharing information in a way that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits things like conspiracies, collaboration, collusion, things like that. The goal of the lawsuit is to have fair competitive pricing. It's lower grocery prices.

It's grocery prices that people can afford. That's the goal. But again, it's tricky. Last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of meat companies and agrostats in a civil antitrust case. He wrote, just because Agostats provided a convenient form to transmit the information did not mean that Agostats itself joined the conspiracy. So what's different with this one? Well, the facts are different. Here in Minnesota, the court has already found that there is a cognizable legal interest.

There is a claim to be made. It's hopeful, but it's also not guaranteed. Most of our antitrust laws were written before mass electricity, let alone streamline information sharing. In fact, most laws were passed before the monopoly man even made his debut. So look, judges are not always going to rule in the way that you would expect. You would expect that they would want to uphold and enforce the laws, primarily antitrust laws, laws against price gouging. And so elections do matter because you have to consider the fact that when it comes to federal judges, whoever's president gets to nominate and appoint the federal judges who make these types of decisions. But this story is important to me because it really does highlight who the good guys are.

And the fact that Keith Ellison, a Democrat, of course, is paying attention to this issue and wants to. to do something about it is tremendously important. Yeah, a couple of funny things here. Right before the show started, Keith Ellison walked by, we said hi. So it was pretty neat that he's in the show and he was just here. Maybe we'll get him on later in the program, but to the core of it, look, to be fair, this one is kind of tough. Like the judges overall in this country are very conservative, very pro-corporate, so I'm not surprised at all that in a tough case they are going to lean towards

corporations, but the reason I say it's tough is because a lot of the pricing information is public. You can go to, you know, depending on the situation like your meat, you can go to the grocery store and check out what the meat price is from your competitors, right? So you can't, so a judge can go, brother, the information is public. And so, and they wrote this act 100, over 100 years ago when it maybe wasn't as public as it is today, right? So on the other hand, that's why that quote that Anna read you that we emphasize makes a big difference, Because when you're supposed to be having price competition and one of the people in Bob says, hey, idiot, don't keep dropping your price. We're all keeping our price at this level to charge as

much as possible. That's textbook collusion. And that's why we're saying, obviously there's some effort here to not have a free market and to charge the maximum to the consumer. And that's exactly when you need the government to step in and go, no, we've got evidence, A, B, and C here of you guys actually colluding and we could win this case. Yeah. So that's why I love what Keith else is in Minnesota. And look, Republicans get up in arms about, you know, climate activist because they think it's going to impact their ability to eat their burgers and grill and have a good time. This story should get you fired up. They're coming for your meat. They're coming for your

meat. Okay, all right. Don't let them touch your meat. No, no, no, no, no, no. All right. We got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including a pretty giant feud between Kentucky governor, Andy Bashir, and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. It's an interesting story to say the least.

Come right back. We'll give you that more. All right, back on CIT, Jack Hanna, with you guys, but also Phil Shepard, Dalton Pierce, Shudeshna, Gangoli, and Justin Walkie. Thank you for Jordan and premium. We kept our prices consistent through inflation. So if some of you guys want to upgrade or join at the higher levels, it makes a huge difference. And we appreciate you. It also operate through the same join button. And Tanya Dodgers, thank you for your thing five-dollar first memberships. We're coming to all the speeches, and we got interviews coming up later today. Anna, what do you got? Well, the reproductive fights on reproductive rights continues this time in the form of a feud between Kentucky governor, Andy Bashir, and Republican vice presidential candidate, J.D. Vance. Let's take a look.

Cheney Vance calls pregnancy resulting from rape inconvenient. Like inconvenience is traffic. I mean, it is, make him go through this. Make him go through this. You just heard from Kentucky Governor Andy Bashir, who is disgusted with Jady Vance's previous statements about reproductive rights and whether or not there should be exceptions in abortion bans when the woman who's pregnant became pregnant as a result of a sexual assault and rape.

And so we're going to get to Vance's response to what Bashir said there in just a moment. But I do think it's worth reminding ourselves of what J.D. Vance said back in 2021, this is when he was running for a Senate seat. And he was asked during an interview in September of 2021, this was a podcast interview, you know, what he thought about exceptions. And look, I want to give you this politifact fact check before we hear the audio for ourselves. But they write that Vance didn't directly say rape is inconvenient. But when he was asked in an interview whether law should allow people to get abortions, if they were victims of rape or incest, he said that society shouldn't view a pregnancy or birth resulting from rape or incest as inconvenient.

Which, by the way, that's terrible. Like you don't need to make anything up, you don't need to put words in Vance's mouth. Arguing that a pregnancy that results from a rape is not a big deal and shouldn't be viewed as inconvenient is an insane way of looking at it. But with that in mind, let's take a look at what Vance said. Let's not put words in his mouth. Let's hear it out of his mouth. I asked Vance if he thought anti-abortion laws should include exceptions for rape or incest. Look, I think two wrongs don't make a right. End of the day we're talking about an unborn baby.

What kind of society do we want to have? A society that looks at unborn babies as inconveniences to be discarded? Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term after she has been the victim of incest or rape? My view on this has been very clear. And I think the question betrays a certain presumption that's wrong.

It's not whether women should be forced to bring a child to term. It's whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of a child's birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society. The question really to me is about the baby. We want women to have opportunities. We want women to have choices. But above all, we want women and young boys in the womb to have the right to life. No, but you don't want women to have choices. You don't want women to have choices. If she is pregnant after getting raped, you would force her to have the rapist baby. And it's not just that she would have to, you know, bring that pregnancy to term and deliver that baby.

She would be forced to take care of that baby or give it up for adoption, which is also an awful thing to do. And, you know, you want to talk about how society shouldn't see it as an inconvenience. We have so many children in foster care right now, so many children who need to be adopted, the idea that we should, Increase the number of children who need to be adopted is insane to me. And the foster care system is a complete nut or mess, as we all know. But think about if the woman is forced to have the baby and is forced to raise that baby. Okay. I mean, first of all, I feel like that in some way rewards the rapist. Right? Because what if the rapist is a complete nutter loser doesn't have children and knows,

Hey, I could just rape a woman and have kids that way. Yeah. So look, that's true. And I don't know how, I don't know how most rapes were. I'm not a criminal prosecutor, et cetera, and I don't know what drives people to do and say things like that. But it is absolutely true that if someone, like, let's say, has an obsession with someone else. Oh, my gosh. You can do that and then be like, ha, ha, not only did I violate you that way, but now,

you're going to have to take care of my kid for 18 years and look at my face potentially for 18 years in the baby. So look guys, this is a deal breaker. I mean, there's no fact pattern on earth where I say, oh, this woman has been raped. Big government should force her to carry the rapist baby to turn. And potentially raise a rapist baby. Every time she looks at that child, she's going to think of her rapist. And I think about the kind of potentially household that that child would be raised in. And if the mother is unable to get past it, which by the way, I wouldn't blame her at all. If that child is raised in a home where he or she does not feel loved, that will end up being a societal inconvenience.

Because we don't know what ends up happening with that kid. Does that kid end up turning to drugs or crime or other things to cope with the fact that he or she was raised in a household where he or she did not feel loved? Yeah. So, of course. And everybody reacts differently. And maybe some people are angels. And they say, you know, I'm okay with it. And I'm not going to think about the person who did this. And I'm going to love this baby. And I love you if you think that way. But I 100% get an immune. Don't feel that way. And I wouldn't feel that way. And so look, guys. we'll get back to the semantic argument that they're having between Bashir and J.D. Vance, but at the very core of this issue is the so-called pro-lifers say, the minute it says I go, we think it is that absolutely equivalent of a child. And now we're going to be super fair to them. If you thought that,

like so for example, let's say that a woman had suffered rape or incest, and then they had the baby and the baby is now, A month's older, a day old, right? Every one of us would agree, too late. Of course, that baby exists. Of course, you're not going to do anything about it. And I would agree in the third trimester as well, right? But we have this fundamental disagreement we just can't get past where they think the zygote is already a full grown human being.

And, you know, when you, if you throw away a petri dish, that means you murdered someone. And if you throw away three petri dishes, you're a serial killer, right? And the rest of us think that's just nuts, man. We make so many contraception decisions. We make so many decisions about our reproduction in so many different ways. And that is the single most personal decision. So when you come in and say, I don't care what your personal philosophy is, and I don't care what your personal situation is, I don't even care if you were raped.

I don't care about you. The government decides you don't. And from now on, that Zygote will be the most precious thing on our. By the way, when it's born, well, of course, the government's going to abandon it if you listen to Republicans and never, ever help it. No child tax credit, no help with children at all, etc. To be fair, Vance is supportive of a child tax credit, but I don't care. Like that, that to me doesn't matter. What matters is that he's advocating for something that is incredibly cruel and will, in fact, lead to societal issues. It will. It just will. And he's not thinking about that because he's an extremist on this issue. And by the way, Jack mentions the petri dishes. That's not an exaggeration. That's why the state of Alabama tried to do away with IVF because they view, you know, the fertilized egg that's meant to be used for the IVF treatment, the fertility treatment as like a human life.

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast tree, Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Yeah. And also, look, for J.D. Vance, I couldn't be fairer than saying, like, I get it from their perspective. the zygote is a fully grown human and you're slicing its throat, right? But brother, even if you thought that, which I, again, 70% of Americans think is not only wrong,

but mental, okay? Like, are you nuts? No way. And in fact, when you talk about petri dishes and the zygotes, etc., 90% or 95% of the country thinks that's crazy, right? So, but on top of that, when you say it in the, use the word inconvenient within that context. It's not a little inconvenience. And I'm not talking about the rape. We're being fair, right? He didn't say the rape was inconvenient. He said, oh, carrying the baby to term might be an inconvenience for society and presumably for the woman. That's not a little inconvenience. Yeah, it's not a little inconvenient. You're absolutely right. Now, let's get back to this feud between Bashir and J.D. Vance, because you heard what Bashir said. Now, listen to how, you know, J.D. Vance and his spokesperson are twisting what he said.

and clutching their pearls after, remember, what sparked this whole thing was the incredibly cruel, you know, thing that J.D. Bantz said during that interview in 2021. So let's start with William Martin, who's the communications director for J.D. Vance. He argues that the Harris campaign surrogate, Governor Andy Bashir, went on national television and explicitly called for a member of Senator Vance's family to be raped. That is not true, obviously. We're going to play the tape again. His comments are disgusting vile and should not be tolerated in American politics. We call on Kamala Harris to immediately repudiate Governor Bashir's comments and demonstrate that regardless of partisan disagreements, this kind of violent rhetoric had no place in our public discourse. And by the way, the same line was repeated by Vance himself. He tweeted about it saying, what the hell is this? Why is Andy Bashir wishing that a member of my family would get raped? What a disgusting person. Why don't we roll the table?

tape again. Let's play that cold open again so you can see for yourselves and judge for yourselves whether Governor Bashir called for a family member of J.D. Vance's to be raped. Jady Vance calls pregnancy resulting from rape inconvenient. Like inconvenience is traffic. I mean, it is, make him go through this. Make him go through this. He's trying to get J.D. Vance to do something that seemingly he's unable to do in this. which is try to put yourself in the shoes of a woman who's just been raped, became pregnant as a result of that raid and has no choice but to carry that pregnancy to term and potentially be apparent to that child. So if you're going to get

proclaimed about Andy Beshear's word choice and say that, oh, he's being unfair and he's framing it wrong, you can't then turn around and frame what he said 200% wrong, right? to use drop math and do the same thing you're accusing of them, but way, way worse, right? So no human being that watched that clip thought that Andy Bashir was like, hey, I hope somebody and JD Vance's family gets right. You'd have to be just an insane person to come away with that conclusion. It was clear that what Bashir is saying is like, if you had to go through that pregnancy, you wouldn't think that it was convenient. But of course, J.D. Vance can't go through a pregnancy. That's the reference there. And so look, that's why Republicans, they had, they work

in such bad faith that even when Democrats make mistakes, it's, I give them a little bit more leeway because they're not such horrible bad faith actors like the Republicans. Yeah, like, and I guarantee you, sorry Anna. Yeah. I guarantee you in social media, I will hear for weeks on and maybe months on out, maybe for the rest of my life. Oh, yeah, Andy Beshear wanted J.D. Vance's wife raped. Oh, yeah. Andy Bishir wanted J. Vance's wife raped. Oh, yeah. Andy Bishir wanted J. J. daughter rape and they'll really believe it. They'll believe for the rest of their lives. Yeah, look, the response from J.D. Vance, I feel, is disingenuous, intentionally so. And in regard to Bashir, I hear what you're saying. I mean, look, he could have been

more precise in his language, but any normal human being watches that and understands what he's saying. Imagine if you were in her shoes, please try to empathize with a woman who's going through that. But again, this very serious issue that would have a tremendous impact, a lifelong impact on a woman's life, apparently is something that's just thrown around like a political football and it disgust me. It disgusts me that rather than taking responsibility for the incredibly insensitive statements that J.D. Vance has made in the past and is now coming back to haunt him as he's the VP pick, instead of saying, sorry, hey, I should have been a little more considerate about the consequences of what I'm proposing. He's instead trying to twist the words of

Andy Bashir. And I think that's pathetic and incredibly weak. Yeah. And last thing on this is how does the politics at least play out? Big win for the Democrats. Because now we're talking about how J.D. Vance thinks that, you know, getting pregnant from a rape is inconvenient. And he did- Simply inconvenient. Yeah, and he said that. And he looks like a madman for saying that. And it's getting a lot more press coverage. So this is, look, I can't do these things because my job is to be honest and deliver the real news to you guys. But if I was advising and I didn't care about dirty tricks or anything and just wanted to win, I would tell Democrats, misspeak a tiny bit on the worst things they've ever said. The Republicans will then blow it up out of proportion. And then the whole country

will talk about the terrible thing that they said. I mean, that is what's happening now with this particular story. So I think for Bashir, it was on accident. But mission accomplished. Yeah, and look here, I'll do a free one here for you guys, and then we'll see if they ever use it. And I used to say this about Dick Cheney because they had the same, I think the same exact number of deferments as Trump. They're always pushing for war, especially Cheney, obviously. And he had five deferments from Vietnam. And Trump had five deferments from Vietnam. So if I was just being Machiavellian and I was a Democrat, I would say Trump had seven deferments from Vietnam. That would force him to come out and say, no, Only five.

Exactly. Only five. I had the strong deferments from Vietnam. I had bone spurs in my elbows. Oh, it was my feet. It was my feet. You know, and then I would say, oh, by the way, that just gave me another idea. If I was the Democrats, I'd say, yeah, he had bone spurs and his elbows.

So that he would come out and go, no, both spurs in the feet. Which feet? I don't know. Both of them. Anyway, all right. We've got to take a break. When we come back, more news for you. Tim Walls, a little bit of a misstep.

I think it's worth talking about. So we're going to get into that more when we come back. All right. with you guys, but also these are going to be Lenny, Devin, no, not Alan, fact, Davis, Jen and I, 3,4, and then someone who used their handle, created a handle called Moneybag, and they gave a lot. So thank you, Moneyback. Thank you to all of you guys. I know everybody gives what they can. And I don't love asking guys, but it's super tough times for digital media. That's why we ask. Hopefully we'll get past this and never asking. Yeah,

I hope, I hope, I hope, but I appreciate all of you for making this happen. And you sent us here to the DNC. We appreciate you. And then at YouTube, Benjamin, Michael Keith, and yeah, boy, Zach EG. And thank you for signing up for pregnant. Love you guys. All right, Ann. Well, why don't we get into a discussion about a mistake, potentially damning mistake that Walls made. So let's get into it.

Some of you might have heard this. This is very personal for my wife and I. when Gwen and I decided to have children, we went through years of fertility treatments. And I remember each night praying that the call was going to come and it was going to be good news. The phone would ring, tenseness in my stomach, and then the agony when you heard the treatments hadn't worked. So it wasn't by chance that when we welcomed our first child, our beautiful daughter, we named her hope. Democratic vice presidential candidate, Tim Walls, has been very vulnerable, publicly, very candid and open about the difficulties that he and his wife had in conceiving their children. He talks about the fertility treatments that they needed in order to conceive, but now new reporting indicates that he might not have been telling the truth and it has to do with the type of fertility treatments that he and his wife. relied on. And as a result, Republicans are now using this, of course, to attack him. So before we

get to the Trump ticket and Republican supporters and how they're attacking Walls, let's actually back up a little bit and give you the context. So during an interview with CNN, the first lady of Minnesota, Gwen Walls, of course is Governor Walls's wife, revealed that she underwent a different fertility treatment, not IVF, called intrant uterine insemination, And so intrauterine insemination, like IVF, is a common fertility procedure that's used by couples who are trying to get pregnant, but it's a different method entirely. Okay. So during intrauterine insemination known as IUI, sperm is placed directly in the uterus. The process is sometimes combined with ovulation induction when or where medication stimulates the release of eggs. People experiencing infertility often start with IUI and then move on to. to IBF if needed. Now in her statement to CNN,

Gwen Walls described the process as an incredibly personal and difficult experience and then said this. The only person who knew in detail what we were going through was our next door neighbor. She was a nurse and helped me with the shots I needed as part of the IUI process. I'd rush home from school and she would give me the shots to ensure that we stayed on track.

And then she went on to explain that she and Walls only started publicly sharing their fertility treatments after Alabama's decision in regard to IVF treatments. They see the embryos that are used in IVF treatments as sacrilege because they consider those embryos like the same as a viable human being, which I think is crazy. Gwen Wall says in regard to that, after seeing the extreme attacks on reproductive health care across the country, particularly the efforts in Alabama that jeopardized access. of fertility treatments, Tim and I agreed that it was time to formally speak out about our experience. But their experience didn't have anything to do with IVF, obviously. And I don't think that the right wing is going after intrauterine insemination because that is, it's about putting an embryo, a fertilized egg into the woman's body. It's about having her ovulate and ensuring that the sperm gets to her egg, if that makes any sense.

Yeah. So genuine question. When he explained how many different times they tried, et cetera, was that part of the story as far as we can tell true? Well, why don't we take a look at this compilation of Governor Walls talking about this issue and you'll see for yourself. J.B. Vance knows nothing about that. And then he keeps going into all of these things. Today's IVF day. Thank God from IVF, my wife and I have two beautiful children. He thinks he needs to dictate that. And I've been saying this, the golden rule that makes small towns work. So we're not at each other's throats all the time. And a little town is, mind your own damn business. That includes IVF. And this gets personal for me and my family.

When my wife and I decided to have children, we spent years going through infertility treatments. And I remember praying every night for a call for good news. The pit in my stomach when the phone rang and the agony when we heard that the treatments hadn't worked. Yeah, first of all, it was up to him. I wouldn't have a family because of IVF and the things that we need to do reproductive. My kids were born through that direct, you know, that way. And also I make sure that I'm the guys and our folks are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are there for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals at this. I'm not going to back down one bit on this whole family values thing and it's us.

So obviously I agree with Wals and the Democratic Party in wanting to protect IVF. And by the way, IVF treatments are also incredibly popular with Republican voters. They want to protect those treatments as well. But obviously campaigning on this issue as though he and his wife relied on that treatment. And then it turns out that that's not the treatment that they relied on is something that's now going to be attacked. or Republicans are going to use to attack walls. I don't know how much it's going to hurt the ticket, but he should have been careful and he wasn't. Yeah, I'm 50-50 on this one.

So on the one hand, don't say IVF if it was IUI. And there is a real difference because they're actually, as Annaport now, they're actually opposed to IVF because of the way that it's done. And they probably are not opposed to how you. But the reason why I say I'm 50, 50 is what I always do is I look at this in any given issue like this, how would I react if it was on the shoes on the other foot? And a Republican made this kind of mistake, lie, whatever you want to call it, right? And I would think, is it material? Like, am I outraged by this? And I don't think it's that material.

And so, and maybe I'm biased and we could talk it through. But the reason why I don't think it's material is, to me, the most important part was, wait, did he make up that story about infertility treatment and the years they went through and the struggle, et cetera? Because if he did, then I'm worried about it. That's a significant lie, right? But if it turns out, yeah, they were doing infertility treatment and all that is true. It was just a different infertility treatment. And he was kind of saying it because people know IVF and they don't know IU. why as much. Yeah, it still shouldn't have done it, no question, but a lot less severe.

Okay. Like, I'm not overly worried about it. I'm going to speculate on something, and I know it's not going to come across as overly kind to Wals or men in general, sorry. But I think there's some chance that Wals genuinely didn't know the details of the treatment. That's more embarrassing, yeah. But it's true, right? Like, I just feel like, I don't know, I just feel like men aren't like super involved in like the specific details of like what the fertility treatment is. They just know that a fertility treatment is happening and they're trying to see if the pregnancy will happen as a result of that treatment. Obviously like because here's the thing. His wife is obviously in the know about the campaigning.

And so she wouldn't like blow like she wouldn't blow his cover like that. You get what I'm saying? like in an interview. Yeah. So, look, it's super hard to tell. I agree that might be the case. We don't know. We're speculating on why he said it wrong.

Right, total speculation. Yeah, on why he said it wrong. But look, number one, it's super important not to be like the Republicans and not to be bad faith actors. So just call them out for being wrong. Yeah. Okay. And so and then when I look at it as like, is it material?

And it would be material in one or two ways. One is it genuinely affects a policy. that I care about and is important to the public. In this case, no, he's in favor of all fertility treatments, including IVF, and I'm in favor of that it doesn't affect policy at all. In fact, I think that this whole story, including the attack on walls, does one thing and one thing only, remind everyone that there is some faction within the Republican Party that wants to do away with IVF, and J.D. Vance happens to be one of them.

Totally right. There is one fact pattern, which would be really problematic for Tim Walts, is if I sense that he is inauthentive. Yeah, exactly. I agree. Right. So that's not a policy thing, but that would be a little bit heartbreaking because we're hopeful that he's one of like a very literally a handful of politicians.

I don't know if it's past three or four in my lifetime that is honest and authentic. And if it turns out it's a little bit of an act, then that would be both heartbreaking. But again, I'm not naive. Yeah, not heartbreaking. Yeah, I would say, all right, well, another one. No, but what I mean by heartbreaking and the relevant part of that is, well, that means maybe he is not going to get things done. And so that affects how I view the chances of them passing those bills on a national

level. But again, the fact that he already passed him in Minnesota is overwhelming evidence that he is not full of crack. Yeah, I agree. And hence. Okay. So I've been talking about the attacks on walls over this and I haven't even given you the attacks yet.

So I just want to quickly do that. So J.D. Vance tweeted about it, saying today it came out that Tim Wals had lied about having a family via IVF. Who lies about something like that? And then Vance further elaborated that when he was elaborated on this when he was stopped by reporters in Wisconsin yesterday. So let's take a look at that. You have attacked him for not being clear about his military record. Do you think this is becoming a pattern, him using ambiguous language, either through commission or omission we're talking about? you know, his record. Yeah, I do that. I mean, look, I saw that this morning. And it's just such a

bizarre thing to lie about, right? There's nothing wrong with having a baby through IVF or not having a baby through IVF. Like, why lie about it? I just don't understand that. And having, you know, had people who, you know, friends of mine who used IUI and then some of them worked out and some of it didn't. And then some of the people who didn't work out, they then used IVF. Like, you know the difference, right? Anybody who's had a friend or themselves gone through fertility treatments. You know the difference to why lie about it. I just don't understand it. My basic read on Tim Walls, and I don't know the guy, but my basic read, if you look at his military record, the lies about the rank, the lies about serving in combat, the lies now about IVF, even lying

about like his food preferences, my read on him is that he's a guy who likes to just barely cross the line. The 2004s attacks on Tim Walls over his, you know, military record. I haven't commented on it publicly. Like, you've got to do better than that, J.D. Vance. But, you know, this issue, I don't know how much of an impact it's going to have, but I lean in your direction, Jank. It's not really material. And if anything,

it does remind everyone that there is a group of Republicans who want to do away with the fertility treatment, IBF, that people desperately rely on when they want to conceive and they want to have children. And then finally, I also need to note that the president and CEO of Resolve, That's the National Infertility Association stated that the group regrets elevating suggestions that Walsz used IVF. So they kind of took what he said at face value and they promoted it. And so Barbara Kalura, who's the president of this organization said the following,

resolve regrets if our organization contributed to any confusion about how he became a parent. We support all paths to parenthood and have welcomed Governor Walses' support for our community. and our advocacy issues since the federal advocacy day in 2017 during his tenure in Congress. Okay, I have one last comment here. If I heard of my, J.D. Vance said, you know, he has a habit of going barely past the line, right? That's actually a really fair thing to say. Because I think that is what Tim Walz is doing. But he is going barely past the line.

And, you know, when you add up a couple of these things and most of them are on fair, especially when they make a federal case out of it. But there are a couple of things that are fair, including saying, hey, it wasn't IVF, it was IUR, right? I get the sense that Tim Walls, in order to tell a good story, is the kind of guy who embellishes around the edges. And so look out for that, that'll probably happen a couple more times, because if you're the story embellisher guy, you do that on a fairly consistent basis. So it's not lethal. Being a phony, and lying regularly and lying egregiously is lethal, like politically. And so so far not too bad, but I am a little bit on the lookout for the embellishments now.

Yeah, 100%. And that's okay. I think that's important to look out for. Look, I'm literally wearing a balls of the wall shirt, shop T.OAT.com. Nevertheless, I'm fair about it. Fairest show in America. How many times are you to do this on the show today? To be fair, probably 20 or 30 times. Then, follow it up with shop tyt.com and the link is in the description box. Okay. I don't know, maybe 40. We'll see what happens. I'll try to prepare myself mentally for that.

We're going to take a break for now, though. And when we come back, we're going to get into a discussion about the fates of RFK Juniors political campaign, presidential campaign. We'll be right back.