The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - February 24th, 2020

Episode Date: February 25, 2020

Bernie Sanders earned a huge victory in Nevada. John Iadarola, Emma Vigeland, and Jayar Jackson, 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. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. Hello and welcome back to another week here at the Young Turks with Emma Vigland. What?

You're not in a Skype box at all. No, I'm not. I'm here for the week. Thanks for having me. I'm filling in for some person named Anna. She's getting much needed vacation time. And J.R. Jackson is here as well. LA's on a test run to see if you actually want to leave the Bastion of East Coast.

Oh, well, I do not, but the weather's kind of convincing. Oh my God. Although I haven't even been outside today because I'm working. Yeah, that's how we usually describe it. I'm John and Rolla, by the way. by the way, both Jenka and Anna are obviously out. And they will be for the week. We're going to actually be holding things down, not only for the regular main show, but also

for Tuesday's debate coverage. We're going to have a full panel there for you. And so lots of look forward to, honestly. So this week, the show will be called The Young Damage, the Young Report, maybe. Yes. The Damage Turks, no, that doesn't sound as good. But anyway, look, we've got a lot to look forward to you. In the first hour.

We've been damaged since we started. Okay, that's true. Yeah, no, I'm trying to, by the way, just a heads up for the rest of the show. I'm trying to severely cut back my caffeine intake and I'm feeling it. But anyway, but there is something here. But anyway, look, I'm gonna be doing the first hour, but the second hour is all Emma, and that's very exciting. What?

I hope I don't mess up. This is your first time presenting on the main show. Yeah, but you know. She's got a little bit of experience. I'm an experienced broadcaster, esteemed by many in. all walks of life, so I should be okay. Wow. Okay. Now, look, before we jump into the news, though, I do want to give you an idea of what's coming up soon on the Young Turks. I briefly mentioned this, but let me give

you some more details on the South Carolina primary debate. We're going to be covering that. It's Jenk, myself, JR, and Emma. We're going to be giving you highlights of the debate starting at 10 p.m. Eastern Times, 7 p.m. Pacific on T.Y.T.com slash live. That is Tuesday, February 25th, also known as tomorrow. And it's gonna be a pretty big debate. We're gonna be talking about some of the expectations for it a little bit later because there were a few developments even as of today. But before we get to that, let's start off with the big news of the weekend. This weekend was the third contest in the Democratic primary, that being Nevada, and it was expected going into it that Bernie Sanders was going to do pretty well. He was polling

in first. And it turned out he did even better than the poll seemed to indicate with him taking 46.8% of one of the metrics of the final result, giving him 24 pledged delegates. Now, we do also want to mention that Joe Biden did come in second. I believe that's his best showing so far this year. Ever. Also, also any other year. So all years, basically. Pete Buttigieg in third, Elizabeth Warren in fourth, and then it descends from there to Tom

Steyer and Amy Klobuchar. And that means that only Bernie and Biden will get pledged delegates out of this context. because Buttigieg did not, or is that not true? I believe Buttigieg is getting three. Oh, sorry about that. So the way that it's- Warren isn't getting any. There's both the threshold for the entire state, but then there's also by congressional districts, and because of his strategy, his rural strategy, Buttigieg is going to get a few

of those. Gotcha. Three. But by the way, can we bring that up for one more second? Because I think it is a demonstration of something. Well, let's go back one. So everybody is talking obviously, but the fact that you have so many candidates who are going to be splitting the vote. That's one of the reasons why we have this fear that the lead in the delegates will only

have a plurality, not a majority, going to the convention. But what you're seeing here is the possibility that if you have enough candidates, like, you have a good chunk of the vote. Elizabeth Warren got 9.7%. She didn't get any delegates. Tom Steyer is at about five, Amy Klobuchar at four, and even Pete Buttigieg. For the most part, not getting any delegates, even though he has 14% of the vote. I mean, what if Bloomberg was also there around 10%?

12%, like, that would mean that in that case, an even higher percentage would go to the only people who qualified Biden and Bernie Sanders. But if you combine all of the other candidates there, Bernie only got 46.8%, so actually that's more, right? That's higher than 50%. So Bernie actually lost Nevada, by my calculations. Exactly, I think you've got a job waiting for you on MSVAC, which we'll get to later on.

But yeah, so look, it was a surprising result in terms of the gap between first and second. And if you look at the demographic breakdown in terms of age categories, the racial breakdown to the vote and all that, Bernie Sanders has the sort of coalition he has been working on building and wants to build the same sort of coalition that the Democratic Party has said that they've wanted our entire lives, suddenly not particularly interested in it when it's Bernie Sanders who they're supporting. But it is the sort of coalition that he wants. It's the kind of thing that's happening now, it's becoming more and more unexpected,

even though it's expected. So, you know, this is the first time I believe, at least I read this, that a candidate has won the first three states by popular vote at this rate. So then it wasn't expected because things kept bumping. We're not sure. It could have been Al Gore too. I got corrected on Twitter, so that could be a- Yeah, I read this somewhere.

Right, right, right. It was like something I did some research and looked into a notice, but this is what I heard. So regardless, the ideas that this was not something that the political opponents and actually other politicians and campaigns saw coming, even though they still saw this lead. was happening this way. So what this, now it's become like a shock through the system of everyone, even, especially with Nevada, we were looking how it was even done even better, but then the culinary union came forward and there was this dispute and this spadden and this bumping of heads.

And even that didn't slow down this kind of momentum, which then pumps even more fear into the hearts of folks that are looking to oppose what Sanders is trying to do here. Because we'll get to this when we go to Carville, but there's the normal political think that people have, and it's just getting busted, and no one knows what exactly to do in response. Well, I mean, yeah, the Democratic Party has said that they care about diversity in the party and representing people of color and all of those voices. Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won Latino voters in Nevada, and, you know, that I'm not hearing too much about the Bernie Bro narrative right now, even though it was brought up in the debate,

when Bernie Sanders clearly has the most diverse coalition, and in some polls he's already now taking black voters nationally and overtaken Biden there. So if you wanna talk about a candidate who can bring all these different groups together, it's Bernie Sanders clearly at this point. But it's inconvenient for the Democratic establishment to acknowledge that. Now for them, they do have a champion potentially who's going to sweep in with the fury of 500 billion more dollars. And that is Mike Bloomberg.

So I saw an interesting tweet. Now understand this is coming in the context of Bernie just won. in Nevada, that as you pointed out, is three for three, the popular vote. We have the clearest front runner than we've ever had at this point. And so Mike Bloomberg is apparently preparing a media onslaught against Bernie Sanders. Opposition research, more digital ads, op-eds, and surrogate TV appearances are all in the works to attack the Democratic frontrunner. Now, understand what this is.

Almost everyone believes at this point barring something huge happening that he is going to end this process with the most delegates. Bernie Sanders. Unless it is undemocratically stolen from the obvious frontrunner at this point, he will be the nominee. And yet a billionaire is going to come in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to hurt him. It's not going to be enough for Bloomberg to get the most delegates.

Bloomberg's not even making that case, but it will hurt Bernie Sanders, who is likely to be the nominee. So it'll hurt him before he goes in the general election, which is all I've heard for years from the DNC and the Democratic establishment is, how could you possibly try to hurt the person who's going to be the nominee. And so Tom Perez and all of them, Nebrew Wasserman Schultz, should pop her head up and should all be speaking out against this. Can you imagine if it was Biden right now who'd go on three for three and Bloomberg

was planning to spend a half a billion dollars or more to try to cripple them before they take on Donald Trump? Hashtag unity, I mean, but the reason it's acceptable is because Bernie Sanders represents a genuine threat to the way things have been going and the corrupt system. could be any other candidate. Elizabeth Warren included, who's a strong progressive in many ways, but she does not represent the same overhaul that Bernie Sanders does, and it terrifies all of the people in power because they know he's not playing around.

He's not going to make concessions. He's going to take his case to the American people if he were to be president and have a popular swell behind him and not go behind closed doors, do beer summits, and, you know, give away the American people's tax dollars just to acquiesce to some interest, some special interest behind the scenes. Yeah, it feels like a good rule of thumb. This is what I go with. Whenever you're looking for, things that'll pop up about a candidate, like we're talking

about how Bloomberg is going to start running all these ads and try and take out the knees from Sanders and its momentum, fine, hey, that's what we expect. So let's at least lay that out. No one is to say, hey, you should not lay any fingers on Sanders just because certain folks support them. But so the rule of thumb, even when I've seen folks that I have come to oppose. The things that come out, you have to connect it to whether or not this will affect them as president.

So I've said this a million times. When Trump was running in 16 and all the things came out about him from grabbing them by the peas to doing this and doing that and their business ties and your bankruptcies and all the lies that were coming out about him and his hatred and his racism, those transfer into policy. So when you see something about someone's character, they'll transfer into policy, that's when you need to have a reason why to oppose them. If you say, hey, this one time Bernie said this, oh, and this one time this happened, how How will that turn into something that actually changes way he would be president?

So you can have your issues about who he was and who he is, but if all you're saying is he can't win, oh, you know he's a socialist, hey, you know this, hey, you know that? Those aren't things that actually lead to what you would see him do as an actionable as a president. So I mean, what do you think is going to implement socialism in the country and then we're going to turn to Venezuela? No one really believes that those are scare tactics. They throw those out there, so you can go, oh my God, Venezuela, we're going to become

That doesn't make any sense. You have to think it through before you find out, before you really think about who you're supporting from these attacks. Yeah. Yeah. And I think one of the scare tactics that I want to briefly mention is I saw all over cable news today was, and by the way, in op-eds too, it's all over the place. You've seen it on social media was the, it's the bad thing about Bernie becoming the nominee

is just that he'd have no chance whatsoever. Let's ignore the years of him beating Trump and head-to-head matchups and all that. And having a better game than other than Biden, all of the other Democrats that are currently pursuing the nomination, I don't think that they're doing all of that coverage, those op-eds, those appearances, because they are actually scared that he'll lose to Donald Trump. I think that they want you to believe that he will lose to Donald Trump. And unfortunately for them, the people are, they're moving in the opposite directions. So let's briefly look at this.

It's going to show you the percentage of people who think that Bernie will win the nomination after New Hampshire or after Nevada, the percent that think he will win is gone up 11 points after Nevada from before, and in terms of thinking that he will beat Trump, that also has jumped up five points with 52% now saying he will beat Trump, and only 30% saying that he won't. That is going up, by the way, as he is winning elections, which I think is a great way to prove electability. I know that that's like the minority opinion, you're supposed to say that you're electable, you're supposed to have a lot of money or whatever, but actually winning elections, getting

people to vote for you, I think is an important part of it. Biden, the person who's never won a presidential primary or caucus, despite running now three times, he's clearly the most electable. That's what we would hear. That's my take. Yeah, and anyway, so at this point, it looks like he has a pretty good chance, certainly of getting the plurality of the delegates. If you have a little bit of time, maybe during the break that's coming up soon.

My most recent op-ed is up on the hill, it's what if Bernie Sanders has already won this thing, I lay out not only the case for how strong of a position he has right now in comparison to some historical examples, but also the likelihood that they might try to steal this thing at a contested convention. And what we can possibly do to ward that off. So feel free to take a look at that. We're gonna take our first break. When we come back though, MSNBC and other pundits weigh in, both as the results were coming

in, they started to pull their hair out of their head. And also, what should the moderates do in the face of Bernie's continued wins? We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional 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.

More after this. Welcome back to the Young Turks, everybody. We got some members' comments that I definitely want to read. Somewhere, unfortunately, both positive and also not about me, but I'm going to read some of them anyway. Gabby and Maria says, I love when Emma is on the damage report, Emma on the main show. This is better than her to Trump emotional support. wine rally. For her and for the rest of us too, more please.

Thank you so much. There go. Wimsy says this was my first caucus. Thanks to TOT, I was able to intelligently make the case for Bernie Sanders. There was some chaos in trying to figure out how to deal with the early voters. But all in all, I think it went well. If you were on the caucuses on the strip, I heard those were insane. Yeah, from when I was there.

But it all worked out for Bernie this time. And let's see, I also wanted to read a couple of the hashtag TOT lives. 202 lives. So Bernie is not too old, says yup, Al Gore had a clean sweep in 2000. He won all 56 contests. And I looked and yeah, he demolished the competition. It's the whole blue map with Jeb Bush going on. Exactly.

Yeah, yeah, Al Gore won, but for some reason Jeb is the winner. Always. Let's see. And Kate Shea says, remember when Bloomberg was all, I'm gonna do everything I can to see that Donald Trump is defeated? So now that means smearing the Democratic frontrunner, a popular in legitimate candidate, GT, and also F.O. I agree. He used to just want to see Trump lose, but now not so much. Yeah, it's tax cuts for him. That's the most important thing.

Trump loses, but got to keep my money. 100%. Okay, they're freaking out. Let's talk about some other people that were freaking out. Oh yeah, no, I do want to let you know about that, though. It just occurred to me. I didn't hear it in my earpiece or anything. So did you know, that Jonathan Larson has been doing some amazing work of the past year. He has the latest in his series on Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his secret police tapes. The headline on that is cops. Buttigieg could have prevented tape scandal. So now the police on these recordings tell us they never wanted an FBI investigation.

And that's why they first asked Buttigieg to handle it internally quietly. As you know, Jonathan does great work. His series on Pete is among his best. And you could read more on the latest at t.yt.com slash investigates. And you can support independent media at t.com slash join or tuit.com slash yes. And with that, back to the news. As the results were rolling in from Nevada, CNN and MSNBC were reacting very differently to what they were seeing. MSNBC personalities were not having a great time.

And Chris Matthews is probably number one on that list. Let's take a look at how he reacted to some of the news. I'm with Carville all the way in terms of the dangers of what alerts, what lies ahead November. I'm very much aware of them. They're sitting on so much opo research on Bernie what he said in the past about world affairs, how far left he is. I'm not sure how far left he is, but they're going to make the most of that in terms of world politics. They're going to kill him. But I think it's a little late to stop him. And I think that's the problem. I was reading last night, Brian, I know you're a history guy too. I'm reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940. And the general

Renault calls up Churchill and says, it's over. And Churchill said, how can it be? You've got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over? He said, it's over. So I had that suppressed feeling. So he had that suppressed feeling, but he got over the suppression, and he vocalized it on live TV, that Bernie Sanders win in the Nevada caucuses was like the Nazis rounding

the Maginot Line. He's a history guy. He's a history guy. A little light reading before bed, right? He wants to read about- I like that fine fine but he's clearly not grasping like 95% of it just remembering the events and not any of the context the fact that Hitler was an extreme right winger among them but what I do think is interesting is that there is some blowback to MSNBC's barrage of hatred towards Bernie Sanders the Democratic voter base even though yes they're older if they're watching MSNBC they're not going to be like Fox News sheep that just respond to the messaging and the legs and everything that they're seeing on that

program and do whatever they're told there, they're going to have an independent thought more so. And the number one thing that Democrats want is to defeat Donald Trump. So as Bernie Sanders keeps racking up these victories, I guarantee you the audience, no matter how moderate centrist older, they're going to get frustrated with the host just constantly attacking him because they don't want them. They want to have a strong candidate against Donald Trump in the general election. The leadership and the elites don't want Bernie Sanders to win and will tear him down no matter

what it doesn't matter. But the regular viewers, it's different. And I think they're going to get blowback from their viewership on this. The grasping of straws is getting extreme. I mean, not that it wasn't before. And I'm not sure if he was, you have to sometimes rethink your approach to where you're going to say something and what this comparison could sound like. Because I don't think there's in a forefront of his head about how ridiculous this comparison

was going to sound once it came out. He was just thinking, oh, man, I've been against this guy the whole time, which he mentioned in that clip. He goes, yeah, I agree with Carville, and I do think there's going to be a problem to come, but he's accepting finally, at least on air, that this seems to be going this direction. And that's hard to swallow already, but then he feels like he's already being open about even admitting that because they wouldn't do that before. So when your opposition to Bernie Sanders' campaign has gone from, he's a socially

to, oh, man, what about his health? Or, you know, those Bernie bros, they're so mad. I hate the tone. Why is he yelling all the time? Look at his hair. Oh, my God, look at those glasses. And then you go to, he can't win, and then he keeps winning. So now that's been dispelled.

The only thing left is start comparing it to really horrible things throughout our history. Let's not repeat that now. Okay, let's not repeat that. And in a way, it's all, it's, again, it's the same scare tact as we've been going with. And you mentioned the history guy, I think, this is one of those, like, broadcasting little cues to make it seem like you've been always up to that. You're constantly, every time I go home, and it was 11.39, I was falling asleep.

And I said, let me go out and break out this book about World War II. Yes, you're very aerodynamic and smart, right? And it's fine, not to say he never read that before, but no, last night you didn't crack open the book and then check out that one section right before Bernie Sanders won Nevada about how the Nazis went and took over France in the summer of 40. Calm down. Just say, hey, remember, say it in that way, but I don't know, I guess it works. Because Luke Gingrich talks about how he's a historian.

Bill O'Reilly, I'm a historian so you can say whatever you want. And we're leaving out the context that Bernie Sanders, as much of his family died in the Holocaust, and it's extremely offensive to make that comparison. And Matthews has been a broadcaster for years and years. He should have had the foresight to not say something like that. Yeah, but to be fair, his reputation is just he opens his mouth and just, wah, stuff comes out. Let me ask you each question.

I don't think we have the TYT Supreme Court, but let's do an informal TYT Supreme Court. He said what he said, we showed you the video, you probably remember when Chuck Todd quoted the author and didn't correct it or finested or anything, the digital brown shirts. I took that to be, no, you know at least to some extent what you're trying to do. With the Chris Matthews comment that he just made, is he guilty in that like this is, is it an unfortunate thing that he said or is it like, oh come on man, you're calling Bernie Sanders a Nazi or a hate- He's not calling him a Nazi, but likening his movement to that is really offensive in so many ways, not just because Bernie Sanders had family that died in the

Holocaust, and that's such a horrible thing to compare it to, but too, because the movement is antithetical to exactly what he's talking about, a military style takeover of France where, with the Third Reich, are you kidding me? All Bernie Sanders says is talking about giving you health care and college and love. That's insane. Love, he's like, he's a Mary Williamson endorses him, the politics of love, right? He's a hippie. That's the kind of presidential campaign that he's running.

It's crazy. It's nuts. And partnering it with what he said about that he was going to get hung in Central Park or hanged, excuse me, that's weird, the English language is bizarre. But, I mean, it just goes to show that his perception of the politics of Bernie Sanders and the politics of the Democratic Party is. So out of whack and tied up in his emotional reaction to his taxes going up and feeling like he's losing grip on power.

No, this, yeah, the illustration, the comparison was supposed to be there to show how big of a deal this is that he's taken over. In reality, it illustrated how big, how much people like Chris Matthews are fearful of this happening. So he's like, this is so big, it's evoked in me the feelings of wondering how bad this could be for the world because of how bad that was for the world. If anything, that shows your fear of normal things happening. And usually like, you know, I talk about how Buddha just doesn't say anything.

Everyone talks about how Buddha just doesn't really say anything. But that's what flies perfectly for these types of pundits. It's fine, like it sounds good, we're still Americans. Throughout our history, Americans have said lofty, beautiful, golden things about the country while doing horrible things behind those same closed doors. And so when someone exposes it, they go, hey, shish, you're making us look bad. And here, you're gonna change it? This has been working pretty well for us.

So once that gets challenged, we're worried about how we look exposed, how it's always kind of been this way, and also that people are, enough people are following the same moment and are also identifying it the same way. And they don't want any of those things to come out. So that's guilty? Well, not guilty that he was trying to call him a Nazi. But, you know, I mean, it's kind of an illustration of how he feels. I don't think he's saying he's a Nazi, he's going to start rounding up certain groups

of people and doing this and that. For a history buff, he's making an emotional connection with some. something that's quite horrible with something that's quite horrible to him right now. And so that's the connection. He's making a political movement that was horrible in history and the political movement that's horrible to Chris Matthew's pocketbook. Yeah, like it's crazy like- Pocketbook, not wallet, pocketbook. Yeah, like Republicans will call black Democrats, will compare it to slavery.

But I don't think they're really in their mind are thinking that they're going to be enslaved, put on a field, and not allowed to work, and not paid for their work. What they mean is that they think that they're mentally enslaved. So they like that comparison, it's still horrible, and it's still comparing to a genocidal act that we had in this country, but it's not actually physically calling them that. Yeah, I guess, look, I found your arguments pretty persuasive. I guess I can't really, I can't necessarily explain how, but it feels less intentional than Chuck Todd's comment to me.

It feels like Chuck Todd wanted to make the comparison. Yes, that's just the way it feels. Chris Matthews, like, he just, he is this sort of blundering guy who says a bunch of stuff. With Chuck, it felt more intentional. I don't know exactly why I could be wrong, but that was how I felt. No, you're right, you're right, but we're comparing it to that. Right. Yeah, I just want to catch up on all of the references to Bernie being a Nazi.

My question out of the audience is which pundit will do it next week. So one small quick question, I guess, that I have then, because there's calls for Chris Matthews to resign to be fired. Where do you guys fall? When I, okay, so I had read it at first and I tweeted he should be fired. I hadn't like seen, I'd read the quote. I would agree that maybe I should delete it, right? I would agree with John.

No, it did well. I'm joking. Moral social media relevance. Right. No, but look, I think it's borderline, but it sounds less bad than it, you know, than it reads. Plus he's smiling. It seems less threatening if the person's smiling, I guess.

When I read it, I was out, you know, more outrage than when you see him actually said. So no firing, no resignation. I don't know. Yeah, how about this? As a general rule, how about, say, the next person who compares the Jewish presidential candidate who lost family members in the Holocaust to a Nazi, that person suspended for six months. Well, let the first two go free. Severe warning. Severe warning for Chris Matthews.

Okay, let's turn now from Chris Matthews to another. Another face on the news. Sorry, the picture really threw me up. The centrist, oh, sorry, the centrists are wondering now in the wake of this third victory for Bernie Sanders, what are they going to do? How are they going to assemble someone that is going to be able to stop him? I mean, they can add up the different moderate percentages and graphics all they want. That's not going to do it. But Joe Scarborough has a bit of advice for them.

Amy Klobuchar finished a really disappointing, I think she was at 4% in fifth place, sixth place. People are talking about how as well as she has done, as good of a campaign she's run, it is time for her to get out of the race. Also, a lot of people starting to talk about Elizabeth Warren, who finished week again. Is it time for Elizabeth Warren? If she keeps finishing in fourth, fifth place, is it time for her to get out of the race to help consolidate effort? against Bernie Sanders. So they sort of take it as a given that obviously something needs to be done.

I mean, the Democratic Party shouldn't be excited about the fact that there's a clear front rudder. They should do whatever it takes to get rid of him. And he has suggestions, people need to start dropping out. A lot of people have noted that the two suggestions were two of the remaining women in the race. Seemingly arbitrarily, because Elizabeth Warren, why would her dropping out consolidate Bernie Sanders' efforts when she's way more akin to his politics than the other ones? But like Buttigieg and Klobuchar should drop out, that makes more sense, or Biden, I don't know. Yeah, and I think similarly, the argument could be made that at least going forward, where is Pete Buttigieg polling well?

I don't know, Elizabeth Warren is polling really well in California. That's a ton of delegates. He was benefited by the fact that the first two states were some of the white estates in the country. And everywhere else, he doesn't do well. Yeah, yeah. So maybe when the Alaska primary rolls around or Utah or where, I don't know. Honestly, but it is interesting that he chose those two. But here's the point that I want to make.

I just think it's amazing that their starting point is he has to be stopped, obviously. Now we can debate this strategy, but obviously he has to be stopped. You just saw earlier on the show Chris Matthews was like, this is a disaster akin to a defeat in World War II. How are they going to stop him? Isn't it weird that there's not one network that doesn't see it is a disaster that he's won these races? that unless you go on the internet, if you just have TV, there's nowhere you can turn

where barring maybe Alexandra Rojas is on, where you're going to hear anyone even neutral, really, to Bernie Sanders' current lead in this race. It is all going to be doom and gloom apocalyptic speech. Yeah, well, they're trying to make it like common knowledge in a way, with false common knowledge, that no matter what, this guy doesn't have a chance. So whether or not you believe or not, whether or not you like the policy is not, which again, there's someone else we'll get to later that says this, whether you like all that stuff, It doesn't matter because you can like it all you want, but he can't win.

That's supposed to be secondary in your head, so that when you go to vote, you see his name and think, can't win. It's a synonymous, put this phrase synonymous with his name so that you won't be part of that loser group. Number two, remember maybe a couple weeks ago now? So when Bernie won, but then they said, oh man, but if you combine Buttigieg and Klobuchar's numbers, then they beat him, Chris Matthews said. And Biden, I think, but yeah. Yeah, and they said, so tonight, the moderates, like, dismantled Bernie Sanders in the primary. So, and that didn't make sense. And then they saw the pushback from that for many people who saw the ridiculousness.

So I think Scarborough's approach here is, yeah, that it makes sense. Not that he said it originally, but now he's like, man, but if we get a couple of folks to drop out, we can make it a reality. Maybe those numbers will go this way. They need to find a way to turn that hope into a reality. And they're like, well, we can't do it as long as they're in the race because they keep splitting up all the votes, but you don't have a guarantee that those numbers that are going to say Klobuchar and Warren, as you pointed out, obviously, especially with Warren, are going

to just run straight to Buttigieg and or Biden. And again, you have to give me some facts or reason to believe that those people say they voted for these other two that he wants to drop out, and they went, yeah, but my second choice was definitely Buttigieg. Enough of them would say that, that they all go and change the whole game. I'll see it. I think we like to assume that it's like, okay, I like this candidate because of these five policies.

So if that candidate was gone, I'm gonna find the candidate who has the closest to those five policies. When really, like, look, I don't even, I barely go outside. You've probably talked to a lot more voters than me, you'll talk to them and they'll be like, who do you like? Well, I like, Bernie's pretty cool, who's your second? Klobuchar, I don't know, like it really does seem like there's some wild leaps. I can back that, well, you can back it up with data.

One, there's a huge crossover between Biden and Bernie Sanders voters, which is inexplicable, but polling data shows that they share a lot. And also, that was part of why I think he distanced himself from the Zephyr Teachout op-ed, which criticized Biden and talked about his corruption problem. I think Bernie made a political calculation there and was a little afraid to, you know, get bad will with Biden voters. But also when I go to these events, I went to a Bernie Sanders event in New Hampshire, and one woman said Bernie's my first choice,

Klobuchar is my second choice, and Buttigieg is my third choice. There's something that they like about them. And another woman said that, yeah, the judge was her second choice after Bernie. So she said that she thought Klobuchar should be Bernie's VP to secure the moderate vote and get the Midwest. It's just people have a lot of opinions. And it doesn't fall along a strict left-right spectrum. There's this orthodoxy in D.C.

And when you're talking to just regular voters who don't think Bernie can win, right? because they think, well, there's the left, that's the Democratic Party and their voters, there's the right, that's the Republican Party and their voters, and the independents, they're in the center of those two. So Bernie Sanders can't win them over. It's just not possible, but that's not the reality. Independent voters are largely more populous and will vote on, do I rep, does this person represent my interest?

Do I trust them? That's an old political reality that cable hosts and old media people and they're stuck in it, and it's wrong, and that's why they're missing the Bernie Sanders movement. And that's why Scarborough is so desperate in part because he's protecting his own interests. But if he genuinely thinks Bernie can't defeat Trump, like that's his mindset. But it's so outdated. And you have to wonder if their analysis was correct, then how could Donald Trump have won a far-right candidate in 2016? It's not about that anymore.

That's a very old-school way of looking at politics. This isn't Civics 101. This is the new era. Get used to it. And people are missing, maybe even like there's a, it's policy based versus just identity. So you have your identity where you, rah-rah is my team, I'm this kind of candidate. I'm a progressive, I'm a far-right candidate, conservative, super conservative. So that works to a degree.

Then you have to get the people who actually want, who have this, their fluidity to their thought process. So that's when you give enough of your policies and the things you want to achieve that'll give people a reason to vote for you. And oddly, it's kind of what Trump did once he was going through all the craziness of 2016, and that's where he fooled up people to thinking that he actually cared about them. He threw out enough little terms to make people think he cared about him, even though he had nothing to back it up. But they bought it in because they're like, oh, it's a different guy, he's saying something different, we'll take it.

Ellie and he's racist, and I can look by that. So that's kind of the weird part about 2016. So I think it's working for burning up because you stick with the same thing. We watch them every day. So we've heard it a million times. How many times I heard him say what he's, what his plan? lines are and then taking the wealth from a certain level of people who've been overrunning us in a working class, all that we've heard it, but you gotta say it a million times that

people can think that's just where you are rather than, oh, I'm an old white guy with white hair and messy glasses and everything, that's fine, I'll vote for him. It's not just about your identity, it's about the policy. So since I think that we've made it clear that we don't believe that Bernie becoming the nominee is like a harbinger of the apocalypse, I want to briefly engage in what they're trying to do, probably from a more productive from their point of view perspective, because The difficulty that those hosts, including Scarborough or having, is that they don't realize, and Matthews especially, they're incredibly biased against Bernie Sanders and have avoided at all

costs understanding what his support is based on, why he is rising in the way that he is. Like they always say on air, I don't get it. And that is true, they honestly don't because they don't want to. I think us as outsiders to their bubble can perhaps be a little bit more objective. So I'm curious from your point of view, if it was going to come down to just one person who was, like everyone else going to drop out, you're going to have one person up against Bernie Sanders, who would you least want to see go against him because they'd have the best chance? Oh, wow, like in the Democratic field, if they were going to consolidate behind the person? Yeah, like, they're trying to give advice to the moderates and probably they don't know what they're talking about. If you were actually advised them, perhaps because I don't know, they're going to pay you or something.

Who do you think would have the best chance of taking up, Bernie, if it was taken down to a one-on-one? Warren? You think it was him and Warren? Okay. Or Biden. I don't know. So Warren, maybe Biden. But I don't know.

You go, JR, I'm thinking about him, Warren. Biden. You think it'll be Biden? There's enough, again, and the way that we see, I said this when Biden was about to get in originally, the way we see the old establishment, even old Democrats, we won't even call the establishment, just like the people who've been involved with the political system for so long that are, like, in the old establishment. like enthusiastic voters, I think a lot of them will coalesce behind Biden because that's just the comfortable, the normal, and that's what we've always liked, it's been fine for me, this is what Democrats are, there's enough of them still there. And the same way that many establishment people overlook the progressive wing of the party,

a lot of the progressive wing can't overlook that old establishment wing that just really feels it's a normalcy, and not that they want this corporatist, but they just want normalcy. No, you're right, and that's the biggest obstacle, I think, too. One, can Bernie defeat Trump? but he's already changing that narrative. But secondly, there are a lot of risk-averse Democratic voters in the party that the donor class has built for a really long time. You know, coastal, upper-middle class, donor class, etc.

The kind of base that the Democratic Party has built for years and years, they're risk-averse, they're scared of Bernie Sanders, they're scared of his politics. So that's why I think he has a harder path to the nomination than he does the presidency because the Democratic voter base is so skewed against him. So you said Warren and Biden, and you said Biden. So here's the thing. We do actually have some polling data on head-to-head matchups. If it was down to just two, I don't know if you see this.

No, see. But here is what we've got. So we're going to jump ahead. We're going to skip that next graphic. And so in head-dead contest, the closest race would be Bernie Sanders against Joe Biden, followed by Elizabeth Warren. Okay, I didn't even see this yet. So Bernie, look, Bernie still, even against Joe Biden, he's up four points.

And there's a little bit more uncertainty when it's Elizabeth Warren, where he'd be up. Actually, though, that, in that case is just two. Okay, so I guess that's the closest. So two points against Warren, but more uncertainty, four points against Biden, less uncertainty. And then it starts to drop from there where, like, there are a lot of people who really think, no, Mike Bloomberg, if he could just weed out Pete Buttigieg and them, he'd have it. He's down 15 points to Bernie. Buttigieg even more.

Klobuchar is down by 21 points. And honestly, look, I just saw a speech from her today or quotes from it drawn today where she was saying she is the person to take him on. Maybe, maybe you can swing people's opinion, but that is a gigantic gap in comparison of the others. Wow, okay, yeah, no, I hear. I'm sorry for saying that out loud I was in my head. But yeah, no, that's unbelievable, but she, it doesn't really need to matter.

Most people aren't going to see those polls, right? You just have to create the perception. But clobiture is not that effective anyway. So I guess then the question becomes say that was the narrowing down matchup. And I think it's where Elizabeth Warren went a little bit wrong. She was looking to appeal to some of the old wing of the party. And I apologize for consistently saying old. So it sounds like I'm just talking about just old people.

But there's plenty of people who aren't just old and elderly that have this thought process. She was looking to appeal to that part of the party that seemingly was being ignored by the progressive wing and the Bernie Sanders wing. And she's like, I think I can bring more of them and be like the half, Bernie and the half Biden, and then I get both of them, and it didn't work out at least so far. Well, look, it's not a coincidence that when she hired these former Obama advisors, former Kamala Harris people, she started just talking more about her gender, she started talking

about unity, she started going after Bernie Sanders, and she was successful before she went with that strategy. But I will also say, I think it's kind of a, it was more of a desperation move. She probably had internal polling that, you know, when I went to her rallies, her, her, voter block was just further right than she is, I think, and they were more identity politics voters, you know, more college-educated liberal types. And so I think she was trying to appeal to them, but that changed who she was or changed what made her successful, changed her what, you know, made her one of the most well-known senators in the country, which was being aggressive

and progressive in many ways. And so she didn't have a lane anymore. And Bernie took all the progressive voters. And then she was in no man's land. So why I think she'd be strong against Bernie if it was a head to head was because maybe she could have still a slim margin of progressive support, but then everyone else would rally behind her. But this is a hypothetical. It's not going to happen because she hasn't really won anything at all. Yeah. Okay, with that, we're going to take a break. When we come back, though, some late breaking news leading into tomorrow's debate. Who will be on the stage? It's actually expanding. We'll give you that information. we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives,

constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices.

But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash. t-y-t. Check it out today. 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-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. Welcome back, everyone. Lots more news to get to, but before that, you guys have been setting in members' comments, which is the exclusive privilege of TYT members. It's not that exclusive. It's not though, you can become one by going to t-y-t.com slash join. And then you too can send in messages like this from Hercules. Nevada is like the Battle of Trenton, which, while a small battle, was important for giving morale to the Americans during the revolution after a number of skirmishes.

How's that for a historical comparison? Hell yeah. That seems more appropriate. And Trenton's from New Jersey, where I'm from. There you go. Trenton's from New Jersey. Okay, so. Yeah.

We also had some super chat comments. Nicholas Webb says, I'm calling on everyone watching to donate anything they can to Bernie before Super Tuesday. Let's not just win. Let's overwin phone bank two. Yeah, when I did my article, what if Bernie's already won this thing? There is that slight bit of like, well, let's not lead anyone to apathy or complacency. Because look, in the polls I've seen in South Carolina, he's down to Biden. So the thing is not over necessarily. Ann Munor says, I like TYT, but I also like Trump. I occasionally address Trump supporters. I hope that there are some here, and I guess they're in fact, hello.

This tweet didn't elaborate on that thought process? No, that's what it had. And, oh, there was one other one that was taken out of the document, but I wanted to make sure that I read this from Trent, San Amorto, who says, I would like to lodge a formal member's complaint against John Adirola and Emma Viglin. I was promised an hour of Lord of the Rings talk. I donned my cloak and opened a box of my best pipe weed for news. So that was on the damage report. We are in the state of pipe weed, so very apt.

Exactly. The problem is, is I wasn't on that. And so when they decided to try and do that here, I nixed that hole. Yeah, no, there was no shot. I know not going to happen. I wouldn't know what they're talking about. Exactly. God, how awesome would that be.

Then I was talking about the news, just talk about like John Wake or something. me and J.R. are talking sports. But would it be hockey? No. Yeah, no, you'd never be able to agree. Okay, with that, why don't we get back into another group of people who can't agree on anything? And that's, those are gonna be debating soon. Tomorrow night is the pre-South Carolina Democratic debate, which follows just about a week since the last one, which was a fiery showing, the best debate so far.

And there's only 24 hours or so to go, and there's still developments. Tom Steyer qualified for the debate after hitting 18% the CBS News, YouGov poll in South Carolina released on Sunday morning just one day before the DNC's deadline to set the stage, which means that this debate is gonna have seven people. So after three contests, the debates are still getting bigger than they were a week ago. More opportunities for someone to go after Bernie Sanders, like they're gonna just drag people off the street at this point, like anybody, anybody, you gotta defeat this guy. The qualifications are so bizarre and so weird.

I mean, is it 18% in a state? That's a serious- No, no, I get it, but he shouldn't have been excluded from the last one. It doesn't make any sense. It's weird. It's back and forth. I'm trying to, well, we saw the last debate was like the biggest in history as far as viewership. It was, the biggest Democrat anyway. Absolutely blew up.

Because Bloomberg came in and everyone was ready to see what they were going to do and what he was going to say. With Steyer coming back in and back and forth, I get if you add someone because it, I don't think anyone was against Bloomberg being added, except for the fact that he bought his way in, but the fact that he then became a viable candidate, no one said, hey, yeah, he was viable, but he shouldn't be on this debate stage. Because many people, even one who opposed him, knew that he would catch it. Well, they, a lot of people made the argument that they needed, he needed to be held

accountable. Right. And accountable, he was held. So at this point when you get, I mean, the only question is every time there's another candidate that comes back in, in this case comes back in, what is it that it's going to be added to this debate? Like at least with Bloomberg, that was added. We knew that he was going to get attacked.

So what is added here? What do we not know about Steyer or what is it that the Tire can potentially bring to this particular debate about South Carolina that we didn't know before? Bernie hugs? Yeah, I doubt Steyer is going to try to torch Bernie. He hasn't really. I hope he tries to torch Bloomberg and say, you know, I'm the billionaire that you should trust, not. See, that's actually my worry is I don't want to muddle the, like, the billionaire targeting.

Like, we've got a good billionaire to target. We don't need two, especially one who's like, he's like kind of nice and I feel bad for him. Yeah. Like, I don't feel bad for Bloomberg. Let's attack him. And Steyer, yes, he's going to criticize Bloomberg. that like if you had a list of the characteristics of Tom Stock, look at it, look at him. He just looks so nice.

I met him, he's so nice. He's not going to warn Bloomberg. He's just not, which means we're going to lose 10 to 15% of the debate time to Steyer, who is as nice as he seems, probably is not long for this race. And instead of another round of knockout punches against Bloomberg, some of that is going to take it away. Like you experienced the last debate, Warren would torch him, and then Biden would start to criticize him and it slows it down and less effective.

You're hanging on to every syllable. You're just like, just get it out, Joe. I know you're trying. I mean, he said monitors instead of, or moderators instead of monitors and, oh, it's just a struggle. It's like walking through molasses with every phrase. Now, Bloomberg, it's not lost on him that he did not do great. Like the messaging from his campaign out of that debate was that he's warming up, which is a side

effect of being set on fire. But anyway, he's apparently taking this more seriously because I saw news today that Bloomberg will postpone a CNN town hall that was supposed to take place tonight to prepare for Tuesday's debate in South Carolina. And that's interesting because you would think the town hall environment, which is less confrontational, would be more to his liking. But I guess, is he really gonna take it seriously? Is he really gonna prepare?

He's not using tonight to prepare. He doesn't want to be on stage to be held accountable anymore. It's not working out for him. It's not going to work out for him on Tuesday. He's got nothing. He's spending all of his money, I mean, it's not that much for him, but so much money to just have his reputation be ruined because there was all of this fawning media coverage about him in New York, even though it was contrary to the reality and how terribly he treated poor

and middle class people made it in a very unsafe, gentrified city for lower class and poor people and of course, you know, stop and frisk, all of these things. There's nothing he can stand on with his record, in my opinion, that's going to appeal to Democratic voters. Oh, I, you know, I deregulated Wall Street and let them run rampant in New York City. Oh, that's awesome. Like, he has nothing to fall back on except the perception of electability. And when people hear him talk, there's just no chance.

Anyone is going to hear that guy and think he's going to do well on stage with Trump. None. None. He's got no political skills despite being a politician for so many years, really none, except for his money and what he can throw with other people and buy them off. I wonder what the plan was, because as you're saying, I was thinking that, I said, man, they canceled a town hall event? Why did they plan that?

That's not, way less camera time, way less, way fewer questions need to come towards him because we saw what happened. Maybe it was slated before the last debate. And then after that debate, they said, hey, Mike, we also have a time. I'm sure it was. I'm sure it was. And he's like, yeah, let's find a way to not do that. Yep.

And just say I was preparing. It's potentially a double positive, be like, I'm not just skipping out on you guys. I'm actually taking this next debate very seriously and I care about this. And I'm gonna make sure I'm on point. So we'll see. Yeah, that also in theory raises expectations for your performance. Exactly. If he is taking it more seriously.

Well, the bar could not be any lower. Any lower. I wonder, but he's gonna- Sorry, Glenn. No, what are we're gonna say? It's, okay, they laid into him. I'm not sure what else there is you can lay into them about. I have a few things. But unless they hit those points, unless they've been consulting with you, it's going to be a repeat,

which almost turns into people then saying, because I don't know, this is, we know how generally the wealthy get off without having to require for it, have to have to answer any of their consequence for what they've done. But then maybe in this case, he's thinking no one's going to attack me anymore because they've already done it, and now they can go to me getting cover on camera. I worry that the effects will be, that the attacks will be less effective. I do. I think that there was a lot that was not brought up, that hopefully will be, but just saying

the same lines won't be quite as effective. But in terms of will they attack him, I mean, Elizabeth Warren got more praise and more money, by the way, that day than any other day, including for people like us who are predisposed to kind of be frustrated with her at this point. And so I have a feeling she has got to want to do it again. Like she feels, I think, that the translation of the Nevada debate into results in Nevada didn't really happen in part because of the large amount of early voting. But now with South Carolina and Super Tuesday so close, I think she wants to hit him even harder.

And so everybody loved it. I mean, it was sort of almost a gamble at the time. Now it's like a sure thing if she can hit him hard that she's going to benefit from it. So I would say that they have probably spent the time between then and now coming up with the most devastating lines imaginable. I hope. On something new material? I hope so.

I mean, I think there's a lot of new material. I mean, the fact that he's said that a living wage is like a dream out of communist, like the Soviet Union. The fact that he said that the minimum wage should never go up. Lots of comments about- What we're about to cover. What we're about to cover. Or that too, or look, we're not gonna be able to go in depth, but a tape was just apparently leaked from someone possibly working for his campaign. of him back in 2016 saying that he endorsed Obama in a backhanded way, and he wished that

in retrospect, he wished Mitt Romney had beaten Obama, which would be a surprise to all the people seeing Bloomberg ads filled with Obama, but also him saying that he's going to run to defend the banks. Like he said that in 2016, talking about eventual run. I have a feeling Warren is probably going to love that part. Well, obviously, I mean, when she sees bankers, corrupt bankers, she returns to her old form. It's like something triggers in your brain. Yeah.

So, but why don't we turn to this last topic just briefly because it gets into another area potentially that he could be criticized on. Back in 2019, Mike Bloomberg was speaking at an event and when he does that, bad things happen for him. In this case, references that he made in particularly callous fashion to two people who had overdosed on drugs. Here he is. 72,000 Americans died in 2017 from overdoses.

New York Post had a, or Daily News had a picture on the front page of a father and a son. They both OD'd at the same party. I mean, it's not a good family. You know, it's craziness. Yeah, it's craziness. The reference to the fact that many people in New York die of overdoses, it's great for a mayor or a former mayor to talk about, joking that because these two had died on the same day, not this is a tragedy that we should empathize with the survivors in their family, but that

They're a bad family because there is still that family. The younger of the two had died, it was a father and his son. Jasmine Santos was the wife of the younger that had died. And Carlos Andrade, the younger of the two that died, he had an 11-month-old and 4-year-old sons that remained. And imagine hearing that the former mayor of your town is mocking your family as being bad after two people died? Well, later in that clip, he talks about how we shouldn't legalize marijuana because it's

an addictive drug as well, something that's completely out of whack with the country. 70% of Americans think we should legalize marijuana, and it's way higher with the Democratic voters as well. So yet another issue where a Republican is out of step with the voters that he's trying to win over in a Democratic primary. But this speaks to the overall problem with Mike Bloomberg, of which there are many, he's a paternalist. He's an old school conservative in many ways, or an old school paternalist in many ways. He's a conservative as well, but he wants to rule over people.

And that's what he did, kind of did with his soda ban. That's what he did with violating constitutional rights with stop and frisk. He thinks he knows what's best for people. And he thinks that if you're a drug addict, you're fundamentally a bad person. And so that's why he wants marijuana not to be illegal because, you know, it's a bad, illicit thing. And he is an elitist who looks down upon people without any understanding of why people are turning to drugs and the horrors of addiction as a mental health crisis. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't even call it that mocking was used, joking is used. No, he's been completely serious.

This is how, again, you're saying how he likes to look down on people, but that's how you have this feeling of, I mean, him even jumping in this race right now. We talk about how pompous it is and thinking you can actually do this and it would work out for you. It's because his entire life he's seen himself as being above these other folks because of what he's got and what he's built and his companies and all that stuff. So because of that, he's like, oh, I mean, they're just a bad family. Which also, by the way, it's very reminiscent, sounds a little bit like Donald Trump, but he likes to talk about certain people's families.

That family's not a good family, but my family is this kind of family. It's this hierarchy of positioning in your family life. So everyone else in that family is garbage. not a good family somehow because these two related men both overdosed at the same party. Because no other people's families, no rich people's families have drug addicts, no other people's rich families have been affected by it with death from drugs. No, this doesn't happen. So he's retelling the real story, which allow us to continue to think that only those poor, dirty

people die of drug overdoses or even become addicted to it. There was a doc I watched before about the spread of opioids and many times in states like West Virginia, those blue collar working towns, and people are overworked, and they end injured and hurt, and they go to the doctor, and they give them these kind of medications, that leads to these kinds of drug addictions. Because they're bad people? I thought we praised the coal miners. They're the grit of America, the Midwest, the heart of America, they work their butts off

to create what we've got in this country. Those are people that are addicted to these drugs because they've been overworked, and then our health care system just throws them some pills, and they get addicted to them. And that's one aspect of it, but you know, but we don't have, he's not going to talk about that part because we need to use them. They're bad people, but his buddies, Jeffrey Epstein. Man, because he did no drugs. Harvey Weinstein, they're, you know, they're, right exactly.

Those parties were dry events. Obviously, yeah. No listed substances. Just to skip ahead briefly, I want to just mention, this is a first pass in some of what he's previously said about marijuana as well, because as I alluded to, he goes on to talk about marijuana in the clip. He was asked about medical marijuana at the time. This is back in 2013, he says, medical my foot, there's no medical, this is one of the great

hoaxes of all time, asked about potentially legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. He said, drug dealers have families to feed. If they can't sell marijuana, they'll sell something else, and the something else will be something worse. Medical my foot, sounds like a band name. That's pretty good. Exactly. Again, I'm sorry.

So drug dealers have families that can feed them, so they're going to start selling things that are worse than marijuana. Again, so we're- Making an industry. Make it legal. There's an industry of that bad stuff already, as I alluded to a minute ago, so that people end up on opioids because of the prescription pain medications, they get prescribed by who a drug dude on the street, who has an RX card? He's like, hey, so come to the corner, because I'm a doctor with a jacket on, and I'm

I'm gonna prescribe you some drugs. That's not where it starts. Yeah. So, but we exclude that part. Yeah, so he said those things. Now, bear in mind back in 2002, he responded to a question of whether he had ever tried marijuana by saying, you bet I did, and I enjoyed it. So here's the thing, so in 2002 he admitted that he had done it.

He went on to say that he's a believer that we should enforce the laws, and I don't think that decriminalizing marijuana is a good idea. And certainly not from his point of view a necessary idea, because of his wealth, and privilege, he'll be able to try it, and there will never be any consequences. Anyone around him, relatives, friends, all that, they can do whatever, marijuana, that's the bottom floor of what they can do and never have to worry about police. But it also makes me remember the tape that Benjamin Dixon found, of him talking about the Xerox thing and the, and he talks about all that, he says, well, so if black and brown people

get caught with marijuana, that's only because that's where the cops are, because that's where the crime is. And so what are you gonna do? But like you said that knowing that you've done marijuana, you know that it's, you enjoyed it. It wasn't a terrible thing, it didn't ruin your life, it didn't set you on some sort of downward spiral, it was just marijuana. And yet when you had more than a decade to do something about making sure that everyone

else suffered no more consequences than you did for doing that substance, you didn't do anything because he didn't care because people like you were already doing just fine under the status quo. And he says now, by the way, now he says he's in favor of decriminalization, woo, bold stance. But is he or is it just convenient to say that during election when this is a guy who has done it and demonized it for decades throughout his life? And when your illegal activities aren't and aren't act, don't come back to haunt you, you don't see them as illegal anymore. You're like, yeah, I mean, I did it, but nobody bothers me about it. Like it's an internal, you start to to develop a thought process that, yeah, that's not illegal for me.

You won't say that out loud, but you think, yeah, I mean, I'm Mike Bloomberg, my families are Bloomberg's. Calm down. Yeah, I smoked it, and it's fine. But if someone else did, they're on a downward spiral, I'm never not going to get to the video, but he talked about how it changes your, where are we going to get to it? How changes your IQ? It's going to destroy the workforce. Companies are going down because they can't have a good, rich environment to hire people

from. So that's where it comes back to. Oh, I'm gonna have a bunch of dummy podheads working for me, and that's what I don't want. That's his problem. And by the way, we should note that it doesn't lower your IQ. So he thinks that he has dumb workers because they get high. when they're not working.

It's nonsense, not found in any science, but that's what he thinks as a business owner himself. What do we think about people who get drunk on weekends and then come back to work on Monday? Because there are studies about what alcohol does to you. Forget the weekend. He's on Wall Street. What about the people that go off and have their martini power lunches? I'm sure that raises IQ.

It sure does when I'm drinking. Anyway, so that's some of what we've discovered about Bloomberg today. I have a feeling we might get more before tomorrow's debate. Hopefully, Warren and Bernie's debate prep teams are keeping track of the news. Okay, with that, we're going to take a short break. We come back the second hour, led by one Emma P. Viglund, after this. P. Interesting. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

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