The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - December 12th, 2019

Episode Date: December 13, 2019

Democrats gave Trump his space force. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five star rating. Thank you.

Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Kasparian, and we have an awesome show ahead for you today. In fact, later in the show, I will be conducting a special interview with a candidate for California's 25th district, Jank Yugar, who is the CEO of this company, but he will be appearing on that portion of the show as a guest. We're gonna hear about a giant update to his campaign. He has some news to share with you, so we'll be doing that later in the show. Now with that said, I'd like to welcome my co-host, Jake Yugar.

I get to call you a co-host. I know, I know. So, look, I know it sounds funny at times, guys, but Anna's the executive producer of the show. And we got a great show ahead for you guys. As a host, I can tell you about the wonderful stories that we have. We got news on Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden. Joe Biden is adjusted, course adjustment. Yeah.

Is it good enough or not? We'll discuss that. Some drums. Yes. And then, well, the Space Forces here, thanks to the Democrats. And that's probably the most frustrating story. So let's start with that and maybe get some rage out of the way. All right, so the House of Representatives has officially passed the National Defense Authorization Act,

and they did so with ease, 377 votes to 48, and many of the no votes actually came from progressives, which is exactly what you can expect. There were some Republicans who voted against it, but this is yet another example, in my opinion, of Democratic weakness, because there were a number of concessions. from Democrats, and it's unfortunate. So let me give you all the details. First, about 41 Democrats, many of whom are progressives, voted against it, and six Republicans voted no.

Representative Adam Smith described the process as difficult. He said, quote, this was not an easy process. We have a divided government. We have a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and Democratic House who do not agree on a lot of issues, and those are the issues that tend to get focused on. But what this conference report reflects, for the most part, is that we do agree on a lot. Now, what do they agree on? Well, obviously, increasing the federal budget toward the military.

And the House passage of the NDAA comes two days after the compromise bill was unveiled following months of negotiations between the Democratic-led House and GOP-led Senate and the White House. Yeah. So first of all, news stories I refer to this as a compromise bill are just doing propaganda on behalf of the Democratic Party in this case. There's almost no compromise at all here. In fact, on the issue of defense, there's literally zero compromise. Trump got everything he wanted and more. In fact, he bragged about it right afterwards. He wrote, wow, all of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA. He said, I will sign this historic defense legislation immediately.

So Trump is over the moon, maybe out of Space Force, saying, yeah, I can't believe the Democrats gave me everything in the middle of impeaching me. It's unbelievable. So theoretically, the one thing they got in return was paid family leave. But that has nothing to a defense and would have passed easily on its own. In fact, Trump in that same statement, bragged that. He is now responsible for paid family leave, and that was his priority. Jake, what, like, come on.

Democrats are, look, the Democrats who agreed to this, Democratic leadership, which of course agreed to the ridiculous trade deal by Donald Trump, like they do not understand political strategy, they don't understand political optics, they don't understand political theater, they don't understand anything. They have been clobbered by the Trump administration over and over again. They keep showing up to play patty cakes with Donald Trump, and Donald Trump slaps them across the face over and over again. Yeah, well, so huge caveat to that.

So if they're really trying to win, they have a curious way of showing it. But it depends on what you mean by win. Like for you and I, winning might be, wait, don't give Trump everything he wants, and we need a defense department, we need to be strong, but do we really need to add $120 billion on top of what we were spending just a couple of years ago during the Obama administration. And is, how about any compromise at all on any of our issue? No, but wins for a lot of the Democratic politicians are, what do you mean? I got all the donor money I wanted.

Exactly. And so do the Republicans. They are paid to lose. They're not paid to represent the best interests of the Democratic voters or progressives, right? All they do is go along with what establishment corporate Republicans want because They're corporate Democrats. They have many of the same donors, especially when it comes to the defense industry. I mean, look at the quote you read from Adam Smith.

So Adam Smith says, you know, we don't get enough credit. We actually agree on a lot of things. You do. Every time the donors want something, you guys all agree with Trump and the Republicans. So he's actually telling the truth about that. But the part they're not telling the truth about is when they run elections. Oh my, we're gonna do resistance. When Trump asked for something, we're gonna give him $120 billion extra, right?

I mean, Jesus Christ, so look, anybody who doesn't cover the core of why these bills get passed in these outrageous ways is not doing their job as a political analyst because you're missing the whole story, the whole reason this bill passes in a way that appears inexplicable to everyone else is because of the money, Lobowski, it's the money. So I want to go to all the different things Democrats pretended to care about but didn't fight for, right? Because remember, Democrats control the House. So if they wanted to hold this military funding bill hostage until they got what they demanded, they could have done that easily, but they refused to do it. So every time, I just want to note, every time establishment Democrats

pretend to care about social issues, like the transgender community or DACA recipients, just understand that they're being disingenuous about it. Okay, so let me tell you what they gave up on. The main stumbling blocks were provisions related to Trump's border wall. The original House bill would have blocked Trump from dipping into Pentagon funds for the wall after he tapped $6.1 billion from the department for his signature project. Ultimately, negotiators, meaning establishment Democrats, decided to leave out wall-related provisions, kicking the issue to the ongoing appropriations process. So we'll see how that plays out.

Okay, let me give you more. But understand that that is not something we want. on, the original bill had a provision that blocked spending on the wall. The Democrats, in another concession to Trump, took out that block, and now it's going to be debated later. Let me give you more. The final bill also dropped a slew of other Democratic priorities that were in the House bill, including language to reverse Trump's transgender military ban, blocked Trump from taking

military action against Iran, and all U.S. support for the Saudi-Lexamination. war in Yemen, forced the cleanup of cancer-linked forever chemicals, block the deployment of the low-yield nuclear warhead, and ban new transfers to the Guantanamo Bay detention center. They got nothing, nothing. Democrats who control the House didn't even really put up a fight, okay? 100%. In fact, Adam Smith then later went on to say that these are Orwellian, and Roe-Conna

literally called it Orwellian. Smith said, this is the most progressive defense bill in the history of the country. Oh, come on, man. I mean, that is alternative facts. That's pulling a Trump to take everything Trump wanted. And how do I know that? Trump right afterward said, oh my God, I got everything I wanted. It's stunning, right?

And calling that the most progressive bill? No, you're the worst. It's totally, utterly unbearable. So I want to also give credit to the strong progressives who voted no. As I mentioned earlier, Rokana is one of the progressives, a Justice Democrat who said, no, I'm not gonna vote in favor of this. And AOC joined him, which is unsurprising. This is why it's so important to focus on congressional races.

We need to get Congress members who are progressive, who are gonna fight people like Representative Kana and Accio Cortez. So AOC tweeted, proud to join Representative Kana, Rokana, in voting no on the NDAA. As Roe says, when President Obama left, the U.S. defense budget was $618 billion a year. It will now be $120 billion more than that. No pundits ask how we pay for it or blast it as free stuff. We just accept it, pay attention. Two legends, two just Democrats, 100% right.

Everyone that hears the story understands that they are right. And if you're scratch, like if you don't get it, it's all money in politics, you're probably scratching your head going, why? When you have a historically unpopular president in the middle of being impeached, 70% of people think he did something wrong in Ukraine, 51% of people in every poll taken say that he should be impeached and removed from office. Historically unpopular. The Republican Party is in shambles. And the Democrats come in and say a total and complete surrender to that pathetic party in shambles that is deeply unpopular. It is absolutely inexplicable except for the goddamn donor money.

Well, let's move on to Joe Biden because he's apparently releasing some plans that are weak sauce. So let's talk about it. Joe Biden has released his plan for immigration reform. And as you can expect, as someone who is centering himself as a moderate Democrat, he is not going as far as, let's say, Bernie Sanders, when it comes to reforming immigration. So what does his plan include? According to the New York Times, Biden would roll back Trump administration immigration policies, including its practice of forcing migrant families to wait in dangerous areas of Mexico

for the duration of their immigration cases and limiting the number of asylum seekers who can apply for protection at entry points along the border. Now, this isn't a bad thing. This is just the bare minimum. Rolling back what Trump has done is not really something to applaud. It's just something that should be expected. What else would Biden do? Well, Biden would also reinstate the deferred action for childhood arrivals, or DACA, which Trump

has moved to end. So so far, he would reverse everything that Trump has done related to immigration. He also vows to end a slew of Trump's toughest anti-immigrant policies, the public charge rule, making it more difficult for low-income immigrants to enter and settle in the United States. By the way, a federal judge has recently blocked that public. charge rule by Trump, so we'll see how that goes. I'm sure the Trump administration will appeal that ruling.

Biden's travel ban on, Biden would also reverse Trump's travel ban on individuals from seven countries he deems to be a national security threat and restrictions on asylum, including the migrant protection protocols under which Trump has sent tens of thousands of migrants back to Mexico to wait for their court hearings in the United States. So again, so far he would just reverse what Trump is done, which is the bare minimum. But he would also, to his credit, increase the number of refugees that the United States would be willing to take in. Biden would set the annual cap on refugees admitted to the United States at 125,000, far more

the limit of the 18,000 by the Trump administration. But let's also keep in mind that there have been other candidates who have offered more refugees into the country. So he's not as progressive as, let's say, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders when it comes to the refugee program, but at least he would increase the number to 125,000. His plan also calls for doubling the number of immigration judges, which is incredibly important, court staff members and interpreters in an effort to address the immigration court backlog. He would also end the use of for-profit detention centers. So look, there's a lot of things in this plan that are very positive. I really like doubling the immigration judges and other parts of the process because we have a backlog.

It's true. Well, the way to work through that backlog is not to ignore the law, but to actually put judges in there to speed up the process. So I like that he's being thoughtful about that. The ending of using for-profit detention centers, wonderful, exactly right. So if he had come out with this plan first, I would say, hey, kudos, because Biden recognizes they made some mistakes. Obama administration, and when it's going to be his administration, he's going to do it differently. But here comes the giant butt. So as all the news articles explain, he's about to go into campaign in Nevada, California, and other states that have heavy Latino populations.

Right, yeah. So Joe come lately, realizes, oh, right, I knew I was forgetting something. I was appealing to white voters and even African American voters of South Carolina, but oh, Latinos, damn it, I guess I gotta come up with a plan for Latinos. Now in one of the debates, he defended Obama's deportation record very aggressively. Now he's turning around saying, oh, Mia Kulpa, did Obama deport three million people? I didn't know that. So it comes across as significantly disingenuous.

It comes across as disingenuous, not only for the reasons that you outlined, but But there was a video featuring Biden responding to an immigration activist that went viral. And I just want to remind you of what that looked like. Take a look. Over those eight years, there were three million people that were deported and separated from their families. We had this classification of families. You should go for Trump. No, no, no.

I'm not going to do that. But I want to make sure that immigrant families and people like Sylvia are not afraid. And you have the power as a candidate to actually commit to stop all deportations from they want to executive action. And we want to hear you say that. I will not stop all deportations if you have a, if you commit a crime that's a philippine. So in that video, he just famously said vote for Trump, vote for Trump. Like if you're not happy with it, vote for Trump.

Which is incredibly dismissive when this activist Carlos Rojas has a legitimate concern about what's happening to migrants right now. That just happened. That happened, what, about 10 days ago or so? So in 10 days you went from, when he challenged Obama's, Obama Biden's record of deporting three million people, you went, I don't care, vote for Trump, and you turned your back on him, right? Now you all of a sudden found Jesus, or maybe Jesus, on your way to Nevada and California,

and you were like, oh, my God, oh, did I say vote for Trump? No, I meant, oh, I love immigrants, let's you. Oh, yeah, I totally, and he talks about how they made a terrible mistake under Obama. You realize in the last week that you made a terrible mistake under Obama and deporting all those folks? Come on, nobody believes that. I mean, it's so brazen. This is old school politics, and this is what Joe Biden does all the time. Like, he just thinks that time got frozen in the 1970s.

In the 1970s, there was no YouTube. There was, every event was not taped. Like, when you found a tape of somebody's event, you're like, oh my God, listen to it. what Joe Biden said. I found tape of it. Everything is taped, Joe. We saw you see it just like a week ago. And now you turn around and go, oh my God, I am so concerned about what we did on the Obama administration. I'm changing my whole policy. Yeah, but in the past, in the past, I want, this is a direct quote about his time with the Obama administration. He said, quote, I stand with Barack Obama all eight years, good, bad, and indifferent. But he also, not only in the debates,

the video that you saw, specifically on this issue, said we didn't do anything wrong. Turns around about a week later and goes, I can't believe what we did, that's my bad. He said, when they said, would you do anything differently? He said a lot. And he said the deportations caused, quote, incredible pain. Well, so what happened? I mean, reporters, you gotta ask him, what happened in the last week? Did you meet a Latino for the first time in your life?

Did you meet an immigrant for the first time in your life? What made you change your mind 180 degrees other than going to campaign in Latino heavy states? Maybe it's because his Latita staffer decided to quit because of his rhetoric on immigration. 100%. And look, you see him changing on this issue. You see Buttigieg changing on fundraisers, et cetera. Do you see Bernie changing on a single issue? No, because he's been right for the last 40 years.

And he's saying the same thing he said in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, et cetera. Meanwhile, politicians being politicians, politicians got a politic, right? So they're like, oh yeah, oh my God, man, oh, did you know what was going on under the Obama Biden administration? Yeah, the one you brag about, the one that you were part of. But last thing, guys, overall, this is really good news, why? Because look at how progressives are able to push the entire political spectrum to, I'm going I'm gonna say to the left because it is further left, but really towards the middle of the country.

Because the polling indicates our positions are incredibly popular on all the issues, including this one, intensely popular. And we're pushing the Democratic Party begrudgingly against their true interests into being actually more decent, more humane, and going to the right place. So Biden's still leading in the national polls. So you can't dismiss that. If Biden becomes president, that political progressive pressure made him come up with a policy that is honestly way better than the one he had just a week ago.

So in a sense, mission accomplished. But okay, sorry, super last thing, when he said vote for Trump, well, we're not in the general election, Joe. That's the tactic all corporate Democrats using, hey, look, hey, you gotta vote for me, you don't have a choice, because other guy's even worse, okay, that's true. But we're not there yet, we're in a primary. So why don't you pick the best Democrat who's been right all along, and then you might have someone who actually wins the election and does the things that you're looking for and means it.

Bernie 2020. All right, we got to take a break, so let's do that. And when we come back, we will discuss a viral hashtag refund Pete. People want their donations back from his campaign because of some of the disappointing news that's been breaking lately about him. 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-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional

wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. I'll be right back.

All right back on the young Turks, so many comments here. So I'll do the best I can. Chipmunk PDX in the member section says corporate Democrats are not dumb and don't have bad strategy. They're playing for the same team as the Republicans. These quote unquote bad strategies are on purpose. Perstein says, Anna, you just made a fantastic argument. Why we need aggressive, progressive, as House Speaker, and not Pelosi. They always get what they want when it comes to military spending and conservative social

policies. That's right. Nipple Pierce Jenkins Skinny Jeans writes in. Burgundy will read anything in the Twitter. Anyway, Anna is wearing Jenks shirt. Next will be his jacket and then bye-bye to his office. We were kind of talking about that yesterday. Oh, yeah, that's true.

That's true. Okay, James Williams Jr. in YouTube super chat says, I'm done, this is too much. If a progressive does not win, I'm not voting for a moderate. Well, look, context matters, okay, I've said this a million times. Yes, when Biden says, what are you gonna do vote for Trump? When he gets to the general election, that is true. But we're not in the general election. We're in a presidential primer where you have dozens of choices.

So pick the one that agrees with you and fight for them. This moment in the election matters more than any moment. Like making sure you have the right Democrat to represent your best interest, someone who isn't bought, just choose wisely. That's all I'm saying. Yes, not only one that agrees with you, but it has a chance to win. And don't panic and listen to Joe Scarborough on who has the chance to win. Yes, if you listen to Main Street media, they're like, only Biden can win.

Also Buttigieg, we love Buttigieg. Okay, but the progressives definitely can't win because no one in our cocktail circuit It likes them. So that's not true, look at the polling, Bernie can win. In fact, he's in a better position than almost any candidate on that. And also, look, if you agree with him, he's got the policies you agree with. And with Biden, if he doesn't have the policies, and Buttig's as you're about to see, doesn't have the policies you agree with, hold, maybe they will next week.

Okay. And one more thing, guys, in a little bit, I'm gonna, not in this segment, probably in the next I'm gonna tell you guys about a super exciting program for you guys. So don't miss that. It's really important. Also, just a quick announcement about one of our partners. If you are interested in trading in the stock market, one of the best options out there is one of our partners, Doe.

Doe actually does commission-free stock trades. Seriously guys, like some places, like eight bucks, 11 bucks. But here at Doe, they do commission-free stock trades. So check that out, go to Doe.com slash TYT. All right. All right, what are we got, Pete next? Yes. The hashtag refund Pete has been going viral, and it's in response to new revelations about Pete Buttigieg's time as a consultant with McKinsey.

Now, during that time, and this is a story we've been covering since it broke, he had clients that included Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, and he was part of this consulting group that led to Blue Cross Blue Shield, increasing, premiums and also laying off some of their workers so they can increase their bottom line, their profit. And so now people who actually donated to his campaign are upset and they want a refund for the donation that they gave to him. So amid this scrutiny, some have taken to Twitter to push the refund Pete hashtag to express their disappointment with Buttigieg and ask his campaign to return their donation, encouraging others to do the same.

What's incredible is that Buttigieg's campaign is actually complying. actually giving people refunds if they demand it. Kristen Hill, who is a volunteer community leader for Elizabeth Warren's campaign, was actually one of the first people to kick off this viral hashtag. And so let me give you an example of one of her tweets. She put out pro tip, if Pete Buttigieg fooled you into thinking he was a progressive at the beginning of his campaign and you donated what he thinks is pocket change, you can ask for a refund by emailing your receipt to info at Pete

for America.com, hashtag refund Pete. So what's that pocket change thing about? Well, he tried to call out Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for only taking small dollar donors. And he said, oh, they're going to try to change the world or change the country with pocket change. Oh, God, that's so demeaning. Oh, my God, that's terrible.

So let me give you the exact details, because I don't want to, I want to make sure we're detail-oriented with this. In October, Buttigieg criticized his progressive opponents, Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders for running their campaigns on pocket change by accepting mostly small donations of under $200. Buttigieg has raised 52% of his $500 million campaign. No, 50. I'm sorry, $50 million campaign dollars through large contributions and has so far been

outraised by Senator Sanders and Warren. I say, look, that last part's really important. Because even though they have rejected high dollar donors, right, super PAC money, all of that, they don't go to these big fundraisers, they're still able to outraise Pete Buttigieg. Why? Because they have policies that resonate with the American people. That's what matters most. Pete, what happened?

I thought it was pocket change. How come they've got more money than you? Oh, it turns out if you try to appeal to real people, there are more real people than the, you know, big corporate donors and lobbyists that you're talking to that fund more than half of you. your campaign. So look, the reason I have told people for years now on the youngsters, ever since we started just Democrats, to not donate to corporate Democrats is because they have their corporate friends. What do they need you for?

So go ask your corporate friends for more money. Go ask the lobbyists for more money. That's the decision you made. That's the road you travel down. So if you're a progressive, save your pocket change, as he calls it. It's not pocket change to you, right? A lot of folks I give to Bernie Sanders, they say, hey, look, you know, I just got my check and I, you know, and a lot of people are literally giving their lunch money, et cetera,

because they're so desperate for change. Meanwhile, Pete looks at and goes, your money means nothing to you. Okay, good. Then that's why they're doing refund Pete. If it doesn't mean anything to you, I guess they'll take it back. So while hashtag refund Pete is going viral on social media, people who come across him during campaign events have been calling him Wall Street Pete. Here's a quick example.

Wall Street Pete, Wall Street Pete, Wall Street Pete, Wall Street Pete. Look, I just, people are paying attention. That's really important. There's a lot to be down about, and as you guys know, I'm down on this show quite a bit, because these stories oftentimes are very depressing. But the thing that gives me life, the thing that gives me energy is the fact that right now, voters are paying such close attention to everything, to every word these candidates speak, to every donation these candidates receive.

People are aware. I mean, this is the best kind of woke culture, for lack of a better word, because it's about the actual policies, it's about what these candidates bring to the table. And more importantly, it's this hyper-aware culture that we're in when it comes to money in politics. I'll go a little further. I think Pete Buttigieg is the test case for mainstream media versus the internet. So if it was the old days, mainstream media would tell you, Pete Buttigieg is a wonderful

progressive. He's as strong a fighter for the left as you will find an American hero, et cetera. It doesn't have to be the old days, that's what they're telling you right now. And for guys like Buttigieg, which is change on the outside continuity, a change on the outside continuity on the inside, the mainstream press loves that. He's gonna protect the status quo, et cetera. So they've almost never written anything critical about him. They've never said anything critical about him on cable news.

But it's not the old days. So the internet is now fighting back. So those are real people without gatekeepers going, no, he's taking a lot of Wall Street money. He's Wall Street Pete. He says our money's pocket change. When asked flat out, do you wanna get big money out of politics, he said, no, okay? And people can't stand that.

So it's not just about Buttigieg, it's actually the internet versus mainstream media. Who's stronger? And so we're gonna find out because if Pete doesn't get caught, if the mainstream media is as strong as it used to be, they'll just steamroll the internet and they'll tell everybody, Pete Buttigieg is a wonderful progressive, et cetera, and then he'll win. Whereas if the internet is stronger, no matter how much the media does a blockade on critique of Pete Buttigieg, No matter how much they overwhelmingly support him, if people find out what Pete Buttigieg is really about, then the internet wins.

So it, this is everything. Yeah, well, I wanna go to another story involving Pete Buttigieg, and it has to do with examples of the media asking him some tough questions and how he struggles, okay? Yeah, he's just a video. Because he's not used to it. Right, well. So Pete Buttigieg was recently asked some tough questions on a new show, and I want you to pay close attention to the actual substance or lack of substance in what he says. Take a look.

You have talked about a new generation of leadership. And if you became president, you would be the youngest president in history. And yet you don't have a majority of young voters in this country according to polls. Is there a way in which you're out of touch with your own generation? No, but it is certainly the case that often younger candidates tend to attract more support from older voters. But we are building a coalition that's going to draw voters from every part of this country. Now, certainly... You're at three and four percent among people under the age of 44 in South Carolina. It's almost as bad as minority voters. What explains that gap? Look, there's going to be a continued process to earn support across the coalition. But it's certainly the case

that many of the younger voters are more attracted to, for example, the Sanders campaign definitely has more young voters. I was a big fan of Bernie Sanders when I was 18 years old. It's also the case that we are pulling together a coalition to talk about issues like climate, to act on issues like climate and guns and the economy that the longer you're planning to be here, the more you have at stake. And young voters have to mobilize in a way that hasn't happened before if we're going to be able to defeat this president. Wow, did you catch that? So why aren't younger voters hoarding for you? Well, I guess because they're naive. When I was a young 18 year old, I supported Sanders too. But then I grew up and realized it's all about the money

I need the money. So that's why I went to corporate PACs and lobbyists. And if you were an adult, you would realize how much we have to serve the donors instead of these young people who are so naive and go to Sanders. Okay, nice little dig there, I don't think that's gonna work. It's not gonna get you a lot of younger voters by insulting them. Right. And insinuating that they're naive for supporting Sanders as you did when you were younger.

That's actually when you were, honestly, we read it yesterday, a more decent person and certainly far more honest. And also, speaking of not honest, he said in the beginning of that answer, well, it's just it's a well-known fact that younger candidates get older voters. No, it's not. Yeah. I've never seen that. That's totally made up.

He totally made that up. 100% made it out. Like where's the data indicating that older voters immediately gravitate to super young candidates? There's no evidence of that whatsoever. I mean, so he straight up lies about it. Then there's a bunch of him saying things that don't mean anything, there's no substance. And then in the very end, yeah, there's a dig toward Bernie Sanders, right? And remember, the thing that he wrote in his essay, this is when he was a high school senior,

he wrote an essay that won an award. He mentioned that the most admirable thing about Bernie Sanders, and the whole essay was about Bernie Sanders, was that he was a man of conviction. He was a man who had deeply held values and beliefs, right? I'm paraphrasing, but this is like the gist of it. And he was unwilling to hide what he believed. He was unwilling to avoid calling himself a socialist. He was true to himself and he was honest with the American people.

And Buttigieg said that that was courageous, okay? You know what's not courageous? Pandering to centrist and pandering to corporate donors. And that's exactly what he's been doing. And part of the reason why that's such a terrible answer is he must have been shocked that a mainstream media outlet actually asked them a tough question, because it might be the first one of the campaign. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

And so he apparently, you know, and he's known for being really smart. And I actually think he is, to be fair to him. But apparently he didn't do his homework on that one, didn't have an answer prepared, because he's not used to mainstream media ever asking him a challenging question. He's like, wait, what's going on? And so he had to scramble with a nonsense, non-fact about. older voters loving young candidates, I can't get over how made up that is. Okay, you remember how older voters carried AOC to victory? No, neither do I.

Okay, anyway, there's the most important part of this though, guys, don't lose focus on this, is the issues as always. Yes. So why do younger voters support Bernie Sanders? Because he's right on the issues and they get most of their information online. They could look it up. And so they So they look up all of his issues. When they look up Pete Buttigieg's record, there's not much to look up and he has changed his positions and they can see that. If you're, I'm gonna keep it roll, look, we have plenty of older viewers and I love them, but- Who are strong progressives, definitely.

Yeah, wonderful progressives. But a lot of cable news and the prime time news, their viewers on average are above 65 years old. So and so they're- and now a lot of those folks are online. But generally if you're getting your news from TV, it's pulp. It's just generalities, it clearly has an establishment bias, you don't look things up, and then so you think like, oh, Pete Buttigieg's a progressive, when that's just not the case at all.

And so, and then secondly, they look up things and see how consistent Bernie is, how progressive he is, and how he matches the things that they are concerned about, canceling student debt, the affordable housing, and you go down the list, there's a dozen priorities in Bernie's programs match up with theirs and Buttigieg just doesn't. Why? Because Buttigieg didn't build his policies based on younger voters or any voters. He built his policies that cater to donors. That's why most of his money comes from large donors.

So that's his base of strength and power. But of course he's not going to own up to that in the media because it doesn't play well. Look, Bernie offers us a future, right? And that's why young people find him appealing. Buttigieg, in the very beginning, pretended that he was going to push for a better future. And then later decided, no, I'm gonna take the centrist route. I'm going to fight for the status quo. And that's not something that young people are inspired by, sorry.

If you tracked our coverage throughout this campaign, in the beginning, we're like, oh, Buttigieg, interesting, let's see what he's got, right? Because we didn't know anything about him. For all we know, he was a progressive giant. And then a lot of our viewers emailed me, sent in comments, et cetera, say, hey, I I kind of like Buttigieg. And we started to get some doubts. We read his book and we gave you some of the policies, et cetera.

And then our investigative reporting team went to South Bend to find out his track record. And I didn't know what they were going to get. They didn't know what they were going to get because they hadn't investigated yet. For all they know, they could have found wonderful things. Well, they found a pretty troubling record, especially when it comes to African Americans. So the jury started coming in and then you guys started emailing us and sending in comments going, nah, I changed my mind. It turns out that guy's not a progressive.

Okay, so I think he's in the middle of getting caught, and the mainstream media just turn on him a little bit, as in ask him fair, challenging questions that they repeatedly ask Sanders and the others, right? Then he's gonna be in a world of hurt, because he can't back it up, no matter how much flowery language he uses. When we come back from the break, Donald Trump decides to go after a teenager because he's jealous that she was on the front page or front cover of a magazine, and he's He wasn't because he's a child.

At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eaves,

and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXP-R-E-S-V-P-N. dot com slash t yt check it out today we back we hope you're enjoying this free clip from the young turks if you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media become a member at t yt.com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free second

all right back on a young turks um so lots of comments from the member section t yt com slash Join to become member. Little Lieutenant Mac G writes in, I'm a veteran, Pete disgust me. I don't know what more to say than that. John also in the member section says, I'm a veteran too, but everyone is eligible to be disgusted by Pete. He's an equal opportunity disguster. Anna's publicist writes in.

Oh, hey. It's not like Peter was leading in the field in small dollar donations. This guy would take money from the coax if he thought it would help him win. 100%. My publicist is so smart. The publicist is so smart. Knock writes in, if Buttigig drops, I'm really not looking forward to MSNBC pushing AB Klobuchar at us even harder. I swear that network's coverage is the only reason she's above 0%.

Does it really matter anymore? I mean, we're really down to four candidates. Let's just keep it real, okay? Could you imagine Klobuchar from behind? No, I cannot imagine it. Can we just- Here comes Klobuchar, inconceivable. All right, as EP, I am now making an executive decision about that.

that phrasing. I know that it's used in politics all the time, but coming from behind is just unacceptable, we're not gonna say it anymore. Oh, I see. Yeah, it's just like, I just hate that way of saying it. Okay, all right, got it. Let's go to YouTube Super Chat real quick. Andrew Gruz says, me and my wife constantly talk about investing to save for our future. We both agree donating the standards and others as investing in the future we want. Wow. Thank you, Andrew, and thank you for using YouTube Superchat. We appreciate that too. And Kitty, The last one says, people worry that Buttigieg will be shoved down on the throats every four years by the mainstream media. I say not to worry because we'll have hashtag AOC 2028 and hashtag Omar 2036 to follow in Bernie's footsteps.

Is it time to begin to whisper of that dream? So I like it. I like it. I think that if the internet wins on this one on the Buttigieg story, I think it's over. So I don't know what happens to mainstream media after that. It'll be interesting. All right. Now, all right, super exciting announcement.

We are launching a new program. It's called TYT's affiliate program. And the whole point of this is win-win. We win, you win, okay? So we have a membership program. It's what it sustains us. We could not do the show. We'd have to shut the whole thing down if it wasn't for members.

So we were thinking of, well, how do we get this to be larger and at the same time provide something for you guys? Because what's ideal in our world is if we win together. So now what this does honestly is it reduces our margins and does make it harder in some sense, but it also is great because it motivates all of us to work together, okay? So what is it? We're gonna ask you guys to sell membership and if you do, you get commission. So anytime someone signs up as a member under your link, we make money, but so do you, okay?

So go to t-y-t.com slash win-win, okay? And it's actually more wins than that, because then you're also helping to spread the progressive message at the same time as making a little side money, right? And look, if you're good at it, you could make hopefully a lot of money. And plus you're helping the progressive moving, you're helping TYT. Now, this is very non-traditional, so welcome to TYT, okay. And a lot of people will say, or have said before we started the program, oh my God, no, no, those are not professionals.

The professionals don't know how to sell things unless people who are professionals don't know how to sell things. No, I trust you guys, I believe in you guys. So now I know what you're thinking, well, how do we do this? No, it's actually really simple. We did a pilot program, about 50 people tried it for about a week, and they're like, oh, yeah, holy cow, it really is simple, okay? So you gotta set up your free account, receive your free personalized link, and then begin

sharing your link to help bring in more members. But don't worry, when you go to tyt.com slash win-win, we're gonna walk you through it, okay? And you'll see how easy it is, and we'll show you all the different steps. And then after you've crossed a certain threshold, please, please read all the details. I want to make sure that you know what you're signing up for and that you totally agree to it and consent to it. And because we want to make sure that it's something that works for you and it's positive for you.

That's the whole point of this program, okay? And I want to, I'm excited because we got our first sale. And when we did, I was like, da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Okay, so who is it? Dana Manning, she is a TYT member. She participated in the pilot program and she made the first sale ever in the affiliate program. So Dana, you're awesome.

In fact, I think I have it here. Let me see if I can do this from memory, yeah. That's for Dana, okay. And I want to give you her quote real quick. She said, our newest member, referring to the person she sold it to, is someone I knew I'd been a long-time viewer of TYT. I've been trying to get him to become a member for a while now, and I finally convinced them by explaining how important memberships are to keep being TYT sustainable and the low

cost of membership, and that the additional members' only content makes it completely worth the price. Also, he loved the thought that the members are essentially Jenks' boss. It's true. And I say it all the time when I run into members. I say, oh, you got to tell me what you think, because you're my mind. boss. So let's get more membership for everybody and look, if you can make a little money on

the side and it helps your family, God, I love that, that's exactly what we want. Okay, we win together, so let's do it, check it out at t.t.com slash win-win. And if you have questions, our customer service will answer it as well, and we'll give you updates as we go along. Thank you. All right, well, let's move on to the rest of the news. Today, Donald Trump demonstrated that he is ready and willing to do what he does best, attack children.

In fact, a day after the conservative community went after a teenager because she was chosen as Times Person of the Year, Donald Trump decided to tweet this, so ridiculous Greta, meaning climate activist Greta Toonberg, must work on her anger management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend, Chill, Greta, Chill. Again, Grattoenberg is 16 years old, and I bring up her age because first, no matter what, even in politics, it's unacceptable to go after children, right? In fact, just a few days ago, Republicans would have agreed with us on that because during the impeachment hearings, a constitutional expert, Professor Pamela Carlin, brought up

baron Trump in the most benign way possible and conservative. has lost their minds about it. So here's what the professor said. One example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son Baron, he can't make him a Baron. So what she did there, again, was benign. She didn't attack Baron.

But what she did do was draw a comparison between what you can and can't do based on the U.S. Constitution, right? Now, with that said, how did conservatives respond to what that constitutional expert had to say? Again, they all had meltdowns. Take a look. I just heard that at the hearing today, one of the Democrats' witnesses actually used the President and First Lady's 13-year-old son to justify their partisan impeachment. Democrats should be ashamed. When you invoke the President's son's name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Baron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean.

Well, I thought it was tacky and classless. She made a pretty disgusting repulsive joke about the president and Melania Trump's 13-year-old son. We just basically got a grown woman who was acting like a Twitter troll. The minor child of the president. A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Corlin, who must be just an embarrassment or a profession. I thought it was incredibly unbecoming.

Pamela Carlin, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it. She did make fun of his name. There's no way that you can spin it otherwise. And it's just, that's the last refuge for people who either lack the capacity intellectually to make a good argument, or they simply just can't make a good argument no matter what they have before them. She just came off as somebody just had an agenda to get across. And maybe, you know, maybe let's not go after kids. I never like going after a politician's kids, period.

Because I think political kids, unless they're out on the front lines, I think they're off-livedments. I'm the only one at this table that has been a political child. Then, you know, let's maybe not talk about kids, especially minors. Let's keep them off our, let's keep their names out of our mouths. They have no comments about Trump's attacks against Gretaud Tuneberg, by the way. Yeah, I was going to say, I mean, I'm sure they're all over Fox right now going, I cannot believe Trump said that about a child, a minor, a 16-year-old.

Trump is, he's just despicable. It's shameful. No, nothing. Come on guys, you heard Professor Carlin's comments. It had nothing to do with Barron at all. She was making a word play on the word baron having nothing to do with the kid. Whereas Donald Trump, that fake outrage is so sickening. Who watches that fake outrage and pretends to go along?

Even if you're again, if you're conservative, you know that outrage was fake, you know that. Isn't that virtue signaling? I mean, that is actual virtue signaling. That's right. And then when you have a situation where the, my God, the president of the United States, The United States is so hurt that a 16 year old beat him in what he perceives to be a contest, right? Right.

That he turns around, he's like, yeah, I'm gonna talk you, Greta. You're so angry, you need to get anger management. Are you kidding me? Look at what you just did. Look at the tweet you just said, who needs anger management? And yet the conservatives say absolutely nothing about it. They don't care, they like it. In fact, the conservative commentary I've seen has been in agreement with Donald,

Trump and they attack her along with him, right? So look, again, the difference between what the constitutional expert said about Barron was she didn't insult Barron Trump. In the case of Donald Trump and a large group of conservatives on social media, and I'm talking about public figures, I'm not talking about random MAGA guys, they insult a 16 year old simply because A, she's a climate activist, okay, so they disagree with her because they don't believe in evidence or science or protecting the environment. And B, in the case of Trump, he's jealous that he's not on the front cover of Time Magazine.

It's okay, I heard that he's good with Photoshop. You can go ahead and Photoshop himself on that cover and put it up in one of his resorts. In fact, his campaign put this out. Oh, they're so sad. Oh my God, they're the most pathetic people I've ever seen. Why would you put that out? That's so embarrassing. He's literally crying over the fact that he lost to a 16 year for person of the year.

It's so petty. He's so petty. And no, no, no. Magga, guys, that's your alpha male? Wow. Holy cow. He got triggered because he lost person of the year to a 16 year old. He's a kidney tanker, man.

I don't like her. Absolutely pathetic child. And that's Donald Trump. And by the way, I'm sorry for making fun of a child. That's mentally, that's Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, yeah, his mental age is certainly- Way lower than 16. Yes, but okay, I wanna give you guys Greta Tuneberg's response.

Tuneberg brushed off the commander-in-chiefs, oh God, it's so sad he's commander-in-chief. Oh, God, he's president, Jesus, this man child. She brushed off his attacks by changing her Twitter bio to this, a teenager working on her anger management problem, currently chilling and watching a good old-fashioned movie with a friend. Hashtag, be best. Yeah. I mean, his wife's campaign is to stop bullying online. There's no end to this comedy slash tragedy.

It's so sad. All right, well, let's move on to something very serious. And luckily, there are some conservatives in the country who haven't lost their minds. Chris Wallace, who is notably a conservative on Fox News, has been fair in his coverage of Donald Trump. He criticizes Donald Trump when it's appropriate, and he asks difficult questions when some of Trump's defenders in Congress agree to an interview. Now, he also recently gave a speech at the museum in D.C. and talked about the First Amendment violations of Donald Trump every time he attacks the press. Take a look. I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history.

He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try to de-legitimize us. And I think his purpose is clear, to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted. Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us. Quote, the fake news media is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. When the president says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy. Let's be honest, the president's attacks have done some damage. A Freedom Forum Institute poll associated here with the museum this year found that 29% of Americans,

almost a third of all of us, think the First Amendment goes too far. And 77%, three quarters, say that fake news is a serious threat to our democracy. I thought that was a powerful speech, and it's important for a conservative to bring this up. No, Chris Wallace really establishing his reputation here. Because the question isn't what happens when things go your direction. It's what do you do under adversity? and when you are have to challenge someone that is on, quote unquote, on your side, right? And he's passing the test in flying colors.

He's very tough on Democrats, but now he's also tough on Republicans and tough on Trump under enormous pressure. Trump has tweeted about him and said his dad should be embarrassed of him, has mocked him in every way that has turned his audience against him. and that potentially dangerous his job, which was, I'm sure, quite lucrative. So that's profile and courage. You've got to keep it real. And look, he makes a great point about the polling.

Jesus, 29% of the country thinking the First Amendment goes too far. They're really doing damage to the core of our Constitution and the idea of America. And let's note for the conservatives that are in that 29%, which I would guess is the overwhelming majority, these are the same guys yelling, freedom of speech when it comes to hate speech. When they're talking about, when they want to be racist, they go. PC culture. They say, oh, it's PC culture. I have my First Amendment rights to say racist and bigoted things.

And then when you turn around and go, how about criticism of your dear leader? They said, no, no, I don't believe in the First Amendment. Look, this is why, and it's a little bit of a tangent, but it's related. This is why I want comedians to pay closer attention to what's happening in the country, right? Now, some of them do, but others feel like, oh, all of this, all of these violations to freedom of speech comes from the snowflake left, right? And while I grant you that there are people on the left who want to police comedy, and I don't think they should, right?

I think that comedy is a form of expression and it shouldn't be censored in any way. You also have to keep in mind that when it comes to the fundamental assault on the First Amendment, it's coming from the right, it's coming from the top. The president of the United States is guilty of that times a hundred. And so just be focused on who the real threat is. It's not, you know, a few members of the left wing who don't like maybe something that might be perceived as transphobic or racist or whatever. And guys, I wanna be super clear about this.

That doesn't mean that you can't criticize the press, of course you can. So that number, the 77% say there's fake news is a serious threat to democracy. I'm sure that there's a lot of Trump followers. It's probably also the progressives and Democrats who were originally worried about actual fake news that affected the 2016 election, the fake news that helped Donald Trump. He then later adopted that term and flipped it on its head. So that's part of why that number is large. But there's another contingent there that the press should be concerned about, which is that the press does not acknowledge their establishment bias. So they say, no, our perspective is the correct perspective. It is the objective perspective.

Anyone who disagrees with us is not objective. And so they do often privilege that perspective to the disadvantage of the populist right and the populist left. And they never, ever acknowledge it. And so hence, we do critique of the press, but it is our effort to make the press better, not worse, whereas the right wing says, no, you got to get rid of the media. They're the enemy of the people. That's because they don't want you to have information. Whereas we want you to have information that's actually more accurate, right? And it doesn't mean that agrees with us more, and they don't have to agree with our ideology.

I don't want that at all. We've got plenty of opinion and perspective here. No, we want them to actually do objective journalism, not based on political correctness. Hey, I can't upset my Republican viewers. I can't upset Republican politicians because then I'd lose access. No, don't care about that. Care about actual objectivity. Oh, you know what?

I think all progressive plans are radical and cost too much, but I think tax cuts for the rich are logical and fine and everybody in Washington accepts them. No, no, no, that's your establishment perspective. So critique is great in order to improve the press. But an attack to destroy the press means that you know the facts are not on your side and you're trying to replace it with your propaganda. And the fact that Chris Wals is standing up to it and the bastion of propaganda at Fox News

is more credit to him. We got to take a break, but when we come back, I will tell you which ladies running for Congress are attempting to become the conservative squad. Oh, this one's hilarious. You're going to love this. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.