The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - March 30th, 2020

Episode Date: March 31, 2020

Larry Kudlow spewed lies on ABC News and was called out for it. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur, 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. All right, welcome to the young Turks. Jake Ugrat and Kasparian with you on a good Monday afternoon. All right, so have we got controversy on the show for you guys today? Yes. Will we take on the usual suspects like Jared Kushner and Donald Trump?

Yes. Will we also talk about a controversial story within the Democratic Party regarding AOC? Yes. So buckle up. Race for Impact. Okay. So as usual, let me start these coronavirus shows by saying we need to also keep TYT healthy. So tYT.com slash go. If you're in a tight situation, which a lot of Americans are, be careful, okay? So I don't mean just with your health, but also with your financial health. So don't give something you can't give. Okay. On the other hand, if you're in an okay situation and you could help TYT stay healthy, it would be tremendously appreciated. TYT.com slash go. We're trying to get the 250 by the end of the month. Well, that's in a day and a half. So wish us luck. I think we're at 224 now.

And thank you to everyone who's participating. You guys are the best of the best. You make this show possible. Having said that, let's do the show. All right, let's do it. So over the weekend, White House Economic Advisor Larry Cudlow was speaking to Martha Radditz about the pandemic. And if you can recall early on, he was a little dismissive of the pandemic, of coronavirus

overall, and he didn't think that he was sharing these talking points about how strong the economy would remain, regardless of coronavirus. Well, I've always wondered, how do people trust Trump administration officials when they just lied to the American people and then change their commentary depending on whether or not it suits them or is convenient for them? Well, luckily, Martha Radditz asked about that. Let's take a look. This virus, nobody expected this thing to come down as far and hard and widespread as it did,

but it did. And we are America. Mr. Cuthow, I want to stop you there just for a second. including you. It was also just a month ago you told CNBC that you thought the virus was contained in the country, even though doctors were warning otherwise. You also downplayed the threat of a long-lasting economic tragedy. You have since said that was based on facts at the time. But why should people trust you this morning with your prediction? Look, I'm as good as the facts are. And at the time I made that statement, the facts were contained. The president had just put the travel restrictions on China. of people agree with me. In fact, at the time, a lot of people felt that the flu was worse than this virus. But as soon as the facts changed, we changed our whole posture and our whole strategy, and we've gone full bore, as I said, no package like this has ever been past Congress

before. And look, as President has said, we will do more if need be. Yeah. We will, go ahead, Jake. Yeah, sorry. There's just two things there that's noteworthy. One is I don't disagree with him on, look, if the facts change, then, you know, you're going to adjust those facts. But I do disagree with them on what the facts were back in the day, because we were on the air. We were reading the stories. And at the time, contemporaneously, we knew that they were massively underplaying the coronavirus.

I remember when Trump said, it could be just 15 cases, and then soon it'll be zero. And we were saying, that's nonsense. That's not even close to true. That's absolutely ridiculous. Look at how contagious it is in China, Italy, that had already happened. It got way worse in Italy after that. But when they say that it wasn't at the time, it was, and nobody thought it was a big deal. That's not remotely true.

Everybody but them thought it was a big deal. And at the time, they were trying to be, they were busy trying to cover it up so that the markets wouldn't fall. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, he really did downplay coronavirus when the general public already understood the severity of the pandemic. And you know, what he's specifically commenting on there is his previous comments on the economy and how it's strong and he's not worried about the pandemic hurting the finances of Americans

and the economy overall. But the truth is, I mean, this is the thing that drives me crazy. And you've talked about it in detail, Jank. It's not just coronavirus, like coronavirus ended up being the catalyst that sunk the economy, but the markets were already in a precarious situation where all it took was one catastrophe, like one issue. And in this case, it was coronavirus for everything to start to fall apart, right? So, and I bring up this point, while we're being means tested as Americans to determine

whether or not we qualify for a stimulus check, you know, there was no discussion in the in Congress's stimulus bill about how these massive corporations that were supposedly so healthy and they were doing so well and their share prices were so high, was it all just a house of cards, right? Why did it take a minute for a coronavirus to completely destroy the markets? Now right now the markets look decent because of the stimulus bill. But overall, I mean, we've been talking about how fragile the state of the economy was. And Larry Cudlow never told the truth about that.

He remains, he continues lying to the American people about that. So first of all, let's just be clear. The Dow has lost 7,000 points from its peak. So it's stabilized now, but it is not in good shape. Look, on the one hand, I totally understand and empathize with a lot of businesses, small and large dealing with this. We got to deal with this. And then that's why we are doing t.yt.com slash go to help us stay healthy and

sustainable. If you're running a restaurant, God help you. I mean, Jesus. You name a business where people normally go to, hairdressers, et cetera. And those are a lot of them are small businesses, and they're absolutely devastated, way more devastated than the large businesses. But if you get a large business and you run an airline company, let alone cars and other things that are affected by it, I get why you'd be in a lot of trouble. And it's hard to plan for a pandemic. At the same time, we are told nonstop about the benefits of unregulated capitalism. So I say all the time to the frustration of some of you guys that I'm a capitalist. I'm going to coin a new term here.

As Bernie is a Democratic socialist, I'm a Democratic capitalist. And what that means is that I believe that capitalism should be checked by democracy. Corporations are going to look out for themselves, and the government is supposed to look out for you, the citizens. But we hear from the right wing, and especially Larry Cudlow when he was on CNBC, that we're supposed to have unregulated capitalism. Regulation is horrible, terrible, democracy is not a good thing because it checks in these poor, poor corporations who otherwise would give you endless goodies and save the world.

Well, where are you at? So now you run into trouble, and all of a sudden, Cudlow is saying. saying, hey, isn't it great, that we're all socialists and the government saved all these big businesses who had no chance of survival without the United States government? Right. So you're saying that you live your life like a capitalist every single day. Like a democratic capitalist, yeah. All right. Well, look, Cudlow answers a question about how Americans can trust him when, you know, he wasn't necessarily telling the truth in the early days of the pandemic. Well, after he answers that question, he then proceeds to lie to the American

people about what the Trump administration is doing to protect them economically. Take a look. Don't forget also, please, regarding things like rent payments or rental home loans, all that evictions, let me add that, all that will be put on hold. There will be no evictions during this period, principle and interest on loans, if they're federal loans, can be suspended. There's a moratorium on student loans. We've tried to cover every single base. So he is not telling the truth there. He's leaving out an incredibly important component of the protections.

And it's that if you have housing through the federal government, right? So through HUD or something like that, then you will not be evicted. But the truth is, for private loans, let's say you have a student loan through Bank of America. I'm just giving you a hypothetical. There is absolutely no indication that your student loans will be deferred, interest-free. You have to call the bank, the private lender, specifically, and work out some sort of deal with them. Same goes for rent. Same goes for mortgages.

And the way that they're selling this, members of the Trump administration, is specifically meant to make it seem as though they've gone above and beyond to protect Americans from being evicted or really suffering through this pandemic when they're forced to stay home. And the truth is that that's not the case, right? If you have a private lender, then you have to work something out with your private lender. And I am hearing stories about people in California, for instance, where you're not supposed to be evicted. They're getting eviction notices because of issues prior to the pandemic, right?

So they're able to evict people if, let's say, they were delinquent on their rent prior to the pandemic occurring. It's just gross. And what they're claiming is happening is not really true. Yeah. So first a fun point, then a couple of serious points. Somebody made this point online, so I'm just borrowing it. But why does it look like everyone defending Trump on television looks intoxicated?

No. Jake, Jake, he's like slurring his words. I mean, I don't want to go there. But come on. Come on. We're going to, you can't, we're not going to evict anybody. So yeah, look, I don't know if they're actually intoxicated, I really don't know. But Cudlow, Giuliani, and Janine Piro constantly at least give off the appearance of being intoxicated

on air. We've got a segment on Piro that we're going to do for our members first in the postgame, t.com slash join and become a member or just click the join button if you're watching on YouTube button-me-to-video video, that's going to be a fun story. But back to now serious stuff, you know, when they first started giving out the stimulus package, they're like, oh, no, it's okay. And even before that, when the Fed started doing quantity, to be easy again, they started to say, oh, no, no, it's okay. The Fed gives it to the banks, and then the banks gives it to the businesses, because now there's loose credit,

loose credit. The banks are just going to give out loans. I knew that was instant nonsense. And then, of course, we looked into it, and I asked, you know, folks in the financial industry, and we asked around to different banks, really, is there loose credit now? They're like, no, no, all the businesses are in trouble. We're not going to give money to businesses that are in trouble. You're going to get nothing. Right. We're going to get the money from the Fed, and we're either going to give it to the large businesses that we have relationships with and at great rates, et cetera. But small businesses, no, we're not going to do any of that. Now, later, the CARES Act did look out for small businesses. We're

fair and honest on this show. But the money that Cudlow is talking about that went to the Fed did not help any small business, not 1%. Okay? And then the second series point is we have more on this later in the show, too. Private landlords like Jared Kushner and his family, they can still break your back. And that's what they're trying to do right now. Again, if you remember, t.com slash join, you can get the whole show whenever you want.

You can listen to it while you're jogging. That's still allowed these days, doing laundry, et cetera. But yeah, I want to get to the Jared Kushner story later because a lot of this that Cudlow is saying is total hypocrisy. Absolutely. Well, let's get to our next story because it has to do with Fox and its messaging early on and how they've changed their tune. But they're worried about some consequences. So in the early days of the coronavirus, Fox News certainly decided to pretend as though. coronavirus wasn't an issue, that it was nothing more than a Democrat talking point in order

to destroy Donald Trump's chances of getting reelected. And then once Trump started taking COVID-19 seriously, they changed their tune. And so there was an interesting conversation on MSNBC of all places with Gabriel Sherman from Vanity Fair. And he shared a little bit of insight regarding what's happening internally at Fox News. Take a look. You know, what I've been talking to Fox Insiders over the last few days, there's a real concern. inside the network that their early downplaying of the coronavirus actually exposes Fox News to potential legal action by viewers who maybe were misled and actually have died from this. You know, I've heard that Trish Regan's being taken off the air is, you know, reflective of this

concern that Fox News is in big trouble by downplaying this virus. And the New York Times reported days ago that the Murdoch family was privately taking the coronavirus seriously. The Murdox, of course, own Fox News. So they were taking personal steps to protect themselves while anchors like Trish Regan and Sean Hannity were telling viewers that it's a hoax and putting themselves potentially in mortal danger. So it's so gross that the Murdox were doing what was necessary to keep themselves safe while on their air on Fox News and Fox Business, you had people like Trish Reagan arguing that this isn't something to take seriously. It's all a And by the way, Gabriel Sherman referenced this. But Fox Business did take her off the air. Fox

Business announced Friday that it has, quote, parted ways with Trish Reagan, a primetime host who gained notoriety for suggesting on her March 9th show that the COVID-19 coronavirus was a politically motivated scam. And this has negative consequences because whether we want to believe it or not, cable television does have a lot of influence, especially Fox News. Yeah. Super interesting story. And I'm fascinated by how responsive Fox News is to the idea of getting sued. And they realize, look, the government's a joke. We control them completely. That's not going to be a problem. The rest of cable news, they'll tweak us from time to time, But we dangle that carrot or maybe one day we'll hire you too.

And they'll bow their heads and be fine. But lawyers, they ain't nothing to mess with. And if somebody dies because they heard one of your idiot hosts telling them that coronavirus is no big deal, well, you could be in for a world to hurt and a giant settlement. And they would know a thing or two about settlements having paid out so much money to the women that they sexually harassed over and over again. So they're understandably concerned, at least financially concerned about the misinformation they put out, because this is not a normal political story where you could lie as a regular

course of business, which is what Fox does. In this case, if you lie, people might die, and then you're going to have a world of hurt. And of course, that's in the language that the Murdox understand, which is a world of hurt financially. And that's the incredible part about it. This isn't about doing the right thing, the moral thing, you know, the, you know, the pro-life route of informing people so they don't risk their lives in the middle of a pandemic. This is all about the financial ramifications of the misinformation. And so I wanted to talk a little

bit about just how influential Fox News really is. Because recently Pew Research did a survey on this, and they asked respondents, you know, what percentage of U.S. adults who say Donald Trump is doing an excellent job at responding to the coronavirus outbreak? you know, watch television news and which percentage watch which networks and which cable channels, right? So if you break it down, it's actually devastating and shocking. So 63% of Fox News viewers believe that Donald Trump is doing an excellent job handling this pandemic. Then you go to CBS and that number drops to 24%. NBC, 15%, ABC, 14%, CNN, 7%. It's probably why Trump picks on CNN the most. MSNBC 2%, NPR 2%, New York Times, 1%. So unsurprisingly, if an audience is watching

Fox News, they come away from those so-called newscasts thinking, oh, yeah, Trump's got this. He's doing a great job. Yeah. The word used in that poll was doing an excellent job. So don't think that 1% of people reading New York Times think that he's doing a good job or fair job and 99% think he's doing a horrible job. No, the question was excellent, right? So in that context, the number of 63% of Fox viewers thinking that Trump is doing an excellent job of handling the coronavirus is, I mean, it's not stunning anymore, but it is amazing. It's, and look, I'm not sure I've ever seen a poll more indicative of the strength of propaganda than that poll. So if all of your host and everyone on air tells you, oh, this one guy, he's awesome.

He's, oh, he's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Trump's the best, best. Everything he handles is so great. If he told you coronavirus was no big deal, then he's excellent. If he later changes mind and told you it was a big deal, he's excellent. Then flip-flop back to saying it's no big deal and we should open up, but he's excellent. If you do that, yeah, 63% of your viewers go, I guess he must be excellent. That's what everyone's saying. Hannity said it, Ingram said it, Carlson said it, Trish Reagan said it, he must be excellent. And look, I don't think, I don't love and trust everyone on that list of the rest of the media. Let's keep it real. But at the same time, a lot of those folks certainly share way more facts with you than Fox News does, including facts of what the scientists say and the doctors say,

which is not what Fox News does often. And look, one more piece of context that's important. It's a good thing, but it's kind of hilarious in how they're backpedaling now. Fox just put out a PSA, a public service announcement with Chris Wallace, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity, all telling everybody to be careful about the coronavirus and stay safe. Oh, I see. This PSA brought to you by the Fox News Legal Department. 100%.

definitely. And by the way, the influential nature of the propaganda on, you know, not just Fox News, in media in general, it's just important to keep in mind that it doesn't just play into what's happening with COVID-19. It also plays into what happens in elections, for instance. So if there is this united front in the media against a particular candidate, to act as though, you know, every candidate is on a level playing field, and they all have the same chance. And let's say the American people have rejected a certain candidate. You can't really argue that if there is a united front against that particular candidate.

You guys know what I'm talking about, right? Yeah. Okay. Well, let me just be a little bit clearer. So first of all, on Fox, I'm glad that their legal department made them turn around. because, you know, they do brainwashed their audience. And so if they're going to do that, they might as well at least give them some facts and tell them to be careful about coronavirus.

So I'm glad about that turnaround. But let's also note the hypocrisy that Sean Hannity said things that were very, very similar to Trish Reagan. But since he's a much larger host on the much larger channel of Fox News as opposed to Fox business, no consequences for Sean Hannity. He gets to keep doing what he's doing because they like that money. and Hannity makes more money than Trish Reagan, so they make an example out of Trish Reagan, so later in the courts they could say, we took it so seriously, we fired one of our prime-time

hosts from Fox business, right? So that's how that game is played. But, you know, the New York Times and the MSNBCs of the world, I mean, I don't know what's more dangerous. If Fox News lying to their audience 24-7 will probably win that contest. But what's interesting about MSNBC's of the world is, from time to time, they do good segments, like the one we just showed you from Jorye. Right. And Gabriel Sherman gives you good information, and we appreciate that. And thank you to Jorye for putting that on.

But if you notice, half that panel, as usual, with MSNBC, was Republicans. And so they'll give you information, information, correct, correct, correct. And then when they turn to politics on the Democratic side, then all of them will agree, the Democrats and the Republicans, it cannot be Bernie Sanders. So that trick is actually a little bit more sophisticated and a little bit more dangerous in that sense. Because once they give you three quarters real information, then they switch it up and then give you their political bias posing as real information in facts, that becomes harder

to overcome. Yeah, I totally agree. It's kind of like what happened in the early days of Alex Jones. You know, he had all his crazy conspiracy theories, but every once in a while there was some truth in what he would talk about. And people would latch onto the truth and cite that as, hey, this guy isn't crazy. He's actually pretty credible. So, you know, it's a little reversed with Alex Jones because most of what he had to say was crazy. But those little kernels of truth made his little operation a lot more sophisticated. So I totally get what you're saying.

All right. We got to take a quick break. When we come back, the controversial topic that we'll discuss. It's nuanced, but there's a new piece in Politico regarding AOC and how she's shifting to more of a establishment-friendly ideology. Is that true? We'll discuss that and more when we return. 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 not learn 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. All right, back on a young Turks. Let me tell you quickly about a sponsor of ours aspiration. So I tell you often about how do a business with them as a win-win because they're progressive, they don't put your money in fossil fuels, et cetera. They're taking into the next level now. They say that with every

purchase you make on your Aspiration account, they're going to plant a tree. I'm going to double check that for you guys and have more information tomorrow because that's a lot of trees. I go to Aspiration.com slash TYT to sign up, obviously, and signing up makes a giant difference too. But obviously, I have an aspiration account. And, As soon as I saw that, I was like, really? Because then, I don't know, I probably make 10 purchases a day. I feel pretty good if I'm planting 10 trees a day by using Aspiration. So check it out and we're the only goofballs that do sponsor reads like this.

Like, I don't know. It's probably true. I'll get back to them all. Well, the one thing that we do know about aspiration for sure is that they do not invest your money in the fossil fuel industry and other companies that we have issues with as progressives. So for me, that's more than enough reason to bank with them. Just keep it in real. And they're definitely planting trees based on your, every time you use it.

I'm just going to double check that if I, can I buy 50 cent bubble gum and plant a tree? Because I'm going to buy a lot of bubble gum. We'll leave the planting of trees to aspiration. They plant trees. We'll smoke trees. Just kidding. Okay. Oh, that's funny.

I don't know if you just heard Brett, but because the first comment. I was going to read is from the member section, Gabby Marita, writing in, I feel like Edwin needs to be on speakerphone somewhere, just to laugh off camera at Jenks, dad jokes, and non-punns. We do miss Edwin, Gabby. We do. And what do you mean non-puns? Okay, anyway, I love our members. Coyd Vaughn Thunder muffin is next. And he writes, I want to, I'm going to give T.Y.T. something extra within the week. Love you guys. Cloid, love you right back. Thank you, brother. J-Lose-N-1 makes a really interesting point. Jank, if corporations are considered people, shouldn't they be limited to $1,200 of the stimulus package? That's a good point. People are

getting $1,200. So the multinational public corporations, if they want to be considered people, I guess they should just get $1,200. And we're done with it. Man, do we say, a lot of money there. Jayluse, thank you. I appreciate you thinking, brother. So those are our members. Let me give you one from the YouTube super chat. We always appreciate when you use YouTube super chat. L.D. says, just join TYT as a member. Finally, two, keep finding the good fight guys. Much love to you from South Carolina. L, right back at you. We appreciate it, sister. So there's a couple of different ways to join. TYT.com slash join. Get you all of our stuff. You could also join, join us, on YouTube by hitting the blue button underneath kind of blue underneath the video. And

for all of you guys watching in all these different places, because now I'm watching us on YouTube TV where we have a 24-hour channel and on Roku as well, where we have a 24-hour channel. We have another place as well. But those are the two that I have at home. It's super neat. I just turn it out anytime. I'm like, look, damage report. Happy half hour, all of our shows. But if you want to get it in one package, t.yt.com slash join in that way you can listen or watch anytime you want to all of our shows. All right, Anna, what's next? All right.

So there's a pretty provocative piece in Politico, and it has to do with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's often talked about as a firebrand, progressive in Congress, a freshman Democrat. The piece is titled, AOC breaks with Bernie on how to lead, or I'm sorry, breaks with Bernie on how to lead the left. And then the sub headline is, the Congresswoman is declining to back primary challengers following in her footsteps and working within the system in Congress. So there have been some, you know, some decisions that Representative Ocasio-Cortez has made

recently that kind of made me raise an eyebrow here or there. But, you know, I think it's important to give her credit where credit is due, which is what we did last week when she spoke on the House floor about the massive bailouts to corporations that certainly don't deserve it in the stimulus bill. But there have been some tweaks in the way that she handles the so-called establishment and also some of the progressive primary challengers in the upcoming election. So in the piece, the writers at Politico argue, gone are her plans for a corporate-free caucus modeled on an uncompromising tactic of the conservative freedom caucus. The goal then was to force leadership's hand to go further left. Then they write, after

starting some high profile fights with Speaker Nancy Pelosi early in her tenure, Ocasio Cortez has dubbed Pelosi mama bear of the Democratic Party. And then there were other issues. So there are, you know, things that she says. For instance, she was at one point somewhat critical of Bernie Sanders supporters and their behavior online. That made me raise an eyebrow. And then for me, it's also the actions, right? So there were two members of her staff that were incredibly progressive. They were firebrands themselves, people that she worked with through Justice Democrats, and she actually let them go.

So Choycott Shakur Bhardi is one of those people. And then Trent Corbin is the second person she let go. So I want to have a discussion and I wanted to be nuanced because I think that it's wrong to just blow her off as someone who folded. But there are some decisions that she's making that are noticeable, right? And so is this a smart strategy to try to change the system from within the establishment? Or is she better suited to, you know, fight the way that she did early on in her tenure? Yeah. So there are definitely upsides and downsides to the strategy. And so, but I want to clarify something right from the get-go.

This is not a conversation about whether AOC is progressive enough. On all the issues and the policies, so far, she has been very progressive and also aggressive in both her questioning in Congress, her speeches in Congress, and the legislation that she pushes for. So I don't want to get into not only not purity test, that's nonsense. talk to the mainstream media and establishment Democrats say. But into actual discussion of who's more progressive. I don't know if AOC is more progressive than Rishita Telib or vice versa, et cetera.

So the most important thing is what do you do in Congress? And so far, AOC has still been, I think, largely terrific on that. So important, really important context. Now, there is a difference of agreement, differences on strategy. And within that context, there are things that are important and not important. So she calls Nancy Pelosi mama bear. She did it once. She did it on the view.

It was nails on a chalkboard for me, couldn't stand it, but I think overall largely irrelevant. Okay, she said it once, who cares? Let it go, right? Now, changing her staff, relevant because those folks were people who were, you know, more in the revolutionary camp. Are we going to change the party? Are we going to take over the Democratic party? Or are we all going to get along? So is that relevant? Yes. Have I worked with those folks? Yes. Are they real progressives, but also real, you know, we say revolutionaries. What do we mean by that? Really change the system so that it's uncorrupted. It doesn't run

on corporate money. It runs on people power. Did shortcut and corporate and believe that? Do they still believe that? Absolutely. Would I have kept their counsel? I would. of, and I have through hard, hard times when we have disagreed at times vehement, right? So I think that's real. But the most real thing is primaries. So if you, and here, Politico was actually too fair to Bernie Sanders. Bernie doesn't often support progressives and primaries either when they're taking on Democratic incumbents. Now, I'm in a tough position to say that because Bernie did endorse me when I ran for Congress, which I deeply appreciate. There was a whole nonsense of the unendorsement, but I honestly don't care about that at all. I thought Bernie took

was courageous in taking a chance on me. So I deeply, deeply appreciate it. But I was not running against an incumbent, right? And so when you look at it, AOC and Bernie's record are fairly similar in the primary challenges that they support. And I disagree with both of them. So it's not personal. I love Bernie, and obviously AOC and I had a great relationship. I don't know if my critique of her is the offender or not, but that's her issue to deal with. But it's the wrong strategy. It's if you, in my opinion, saying, well, you know, we're going to work with our incumbent friends. Your incumbent friends are never, ever, ever going to agree with you on Green New Deal or Medicare for All. And just trying to coax them along hasn't worked. And in my

opinion is never going to work. What really matters is power. Primaries matter because it challenges their power. And yes, it makes them uncomfortable. And yes, it scares them. It's supposed to, so that they vote the right way, meaning not my way, but the way of their actual constituents. Almost all their constituents in these Democratic districts want Medicare for all. Almost the great majority of them want Green New Deal. If you don't challenge them with primaries, they're never going to change because they're just going to listen to their corporate donors and ain't no amount of tea or beer that you could have in Washington that's going to change that. So the way that I see it is we are in this unprecedented situation where we have a perfect

opportunity as progressives who want to fight for single payer health care, for instance, to really highlight how the system has failed us. It's made us more vulnerable to something like a pandemic, right? This is a moment where we can make our case strongly for Medicare for all, for an economic system that's more equal. And instead of doing that, what I'm noticing is that progressives are kind of starting to like, I guess relax. And this is not the time to relax.

Joe Biden, I did a live video on this today. Joe Biden was being interviewed by MSNBC and he was asked, hey, you know, do you think that if we had single payer health care, we would be in a better situation to combat COVID-19. And he argued, no. But keep in mind that we have people right now, right now in America, who are being turned away from urgent care hospitals because they don't have health insurance. There was a story about a teenager in California who got turned away due to a lack of insurance. He later went into cardiac arrest. He had COVID-19, and he died. So those stories are real. And we should be highlighting them to point to just how incredibly flawed this system is.

I feel like this moment is not being used at all right now by progressives. And it's like it really blows my mind because you're right, Jank. I think that the policies, if you poll the electorate are popular, but we need to think about the right strategy to pursue in order to really get that message across and let Americans know, hey, you don't need to be afraid to vote. for the candidates that want to champion these policies. Instead, we're having this ridiculous conversation about trying to change the establishment from within. Look, the corporate money and the Republican Party has been so successful

in shifting the Democratic Party to the right. We talk about the Overton window all the time. And guess what? Change is not easy. So pushing the Democratic Party to the left is going to take a lot of difficult conversations, a lot of fights, right? And a lot of intimidation, I'm sure, from the so-called establishment. But this is our moment. And if we don't take advantage of it right now, and if we don't primary people who support this broken system right now, then when do we have an appropriate time to push forward with progressive ideas? So look, let's make both sides of the case one more time. But in this context, different issue, which is legislation. So, and it affects electoral politics as well. So, for example,

Bernie Sanders, there was an argument to be made after 2016 that he should have reached out to the moderates a lot more, not in changing any of his policies, but they care about personal relationships. So this is making AOC's case for her, which is, look, these relationships matter, and at the end of the day, whether they endorse you or not matters, and whether they are going to vote with you or not matters. And so maybe Bernie should have had 20 lunches with Jim Clyburn between 2016 and 2020. And not promised them anything in terms of policy, but just been a friendly guy. And maybe it might have made a difference. Maybe it would have not necessarily gotten Clyburn endorsed Bernie Sanders in South Carolina, but at least stopped him from endorsing

Joe Biden. I don't know if that's possible, but a case could be made for. And then Bernie could have maybe changed his rhetoric against same policies, but in a way that comforts. moderates. There's a case to be made for that. There's also a case to be made to say, no, he should have gone to war and been much tougher against the establishment. I think those are both interesting cases to make. And if AOC is pursuing that path of being more open to the moderates in order to get them

to our side, I get it, and I think that there could be value in it depending on the situation. But now let's look at what's actually happening. Is there any vote for Medicare for all or a Green New Deal? I don't mean who's voting for it. I mean, are they actually going to vote? Now, this is what I've been saying from day one in this congressional term, which is, guys, they're never going to vote on it. And at the beginning, people were like, oh, no, Jake, don't be silly.

Of course, so many people ran on Medicare for All and Green New Deal, they'll at least have a vote on it because now the Democrats control the House. No, they won't. And if a Biden wins, do you think they're going to have a vote on it? Nope, it's gone. It's gone for four long years. Will AOC and the others force a vote? So far they haven't.

So far they haven't done anything to do that. And now because they have fans that are actually progressives, now I see people pushing back and saying, oh no, Jake, the smart thing is to not ever have a vote. We gotta have a vote, but it's later, later, wait a minute, that's the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. That's what I hear from the establishment. That later means never. That's what that code and language means, right?

And that's not tough to decipher. So just as a matter of strategy, do I believe that AOC wants Medicare for a green new deal with all of her heart? Yes, I do believe that. Do I think she has a right strategy? And by the way, it's not just about her. All these folks that I love, Rokana, Rashida Talib, Pramila Jayapal, I believe that they earnestly, genuinely, definitely want those things with a passion.

But where is there strategy for forcing votes? And if you're not going to force a vote this time and you're not going to force a vote next time if Biden wins. Wait a minute. When do we have a goddamn vote? And that is a slow path to oblivion. And look, I'll just- Yeah, I have to add one thing to that, Jank, because keep in mind that right now, I mean, we did a story last week about how 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment in one week, right? And I'm sure that number is going to continue increasing. And we've been sold snake oil by corporate media about how, oh, no, no, no, Americans love their employer provided

health insurance. Well, now that all these people have been laid off, they've lost their jobs. How do they like their employer provided health insurance now, right? And the reason why I bring that up is because now is the moment. If we don't take advantage of this moment, then it's just never going to happen. Because we see, like people feel it on a very personal and visceral level. And if we can't make our case now, then we'll never make our case. That's where I'm coming from. 100%. I actually think it is a great moment for Bernie to do a massive policy speech on Medicare

for all. And if AOC is going to be the next leader as folks are saying, great, then she should make the speech. And by the way, I believe she can and she will and she probably do a fantastic job at it. And so look, if I wanted to be savvy politically and cared about my own career, reputation, et cetera, I'd play ball. I mean, if you don't have progressive allies, then you don't have any allies. You think I don't know the consequences of if I offend anyone, including progressives,

but I do it anyway because my job is to push them. And if I don't push them, nobody's going to push them. And so it's our job collectively to say, as we did with Obama, if you remember, right? And a lot of people were mad at us after Obama. We helped Obama get elected. We had a very small, tiny role in it, but we did our best, right? And then we turned around and held them accountable. That's what our job is.

And people said, you shouldn't hold them accountable, no, because Fox News attacks them, you can't also critique them from the left, wrong again. So that's our job to do that. And look, in that light, I'll do one, say one more thing. If people are saying, hey, AOC is smarter than you in politics, and maybe that's very, very true, right? And so she's being judicious with how she does endorsements in primaries. Well, that's also true.

She is being judicious, and I'm never judicious. I will endorse and help progressive primary challengers, even if I think they have no chance. Because I do it on principle, and I do it because I think, well, sometimes there's a young woman taking on the fourth most powerful Democrat in the country, and everyone else thinks she has no chance, but I think she has a chance, and I'm going to help her. And so, again, I don't know how much I helped, we helped, you guys helped as the Young Turks audience, but we tried and we tried our best. And so after you win a race like that because people believed in you and they thought taking

on democratic incumbents could make a difference for progressives, I got to be honest, I think you have an extra responsibility to then do likewise after you cross that bridge. If after you cross the bridge go, hey, man, these are my beloved cherished colleagues, well, That's the same rationale that would have prevented anyone from helping AOC. That is Joe Crowley. That is their cherished colleague. They've got to do business with Joe Crowley. They've got to compromise with Joe Crowley.

You can't upset Joe Crowley by running a primary challenge from a progressive against them, especially one that has no chance of winning. Young Turks, you're so unsavvy. It's not that we would have heard that. We did hear that. So I'm hoping that AOC gets on a path that helps other progressives. She does help some, no question. Jessica Cisneros and Marie Newman, she endorsed, even though they were running against

incumbents. I have to be honest, I think that was fairly easy. Those two incumbents are pretty much Republicans posing as Democrats, and everyone knows it. Even Emily's list was on their side. And she's helped people that I love like Cara Eastman and then Georgette Gomez as well. And those are really important progressives, but they're running against non-incumbents. There are many others that need her help. We could, and if you, and if people want to critique us and say, oh, Jake, you're not strong

enough, powerful enough. I say, guilty is charged. You're right. I want to help Morgan Harper more. I want to help Jamal Bowman more. These are wonderful progressive Democrats who are Justice Democrats. We need to get them as much help as possible. And could Bernie Sanders help them more?

Yes. Could AOC help them more? Yes. All right. Well, we got to take a break, but when we come back, we're going to share a new story about how much Jared Kushner sucks. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to, trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three

extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXP-R-E-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. All right. Back on a young Turks. Time for just one YouTube super chat comment. Christy Aiken-Smith says, I'm an essential health care employee. I will continue to donate to T-Y-T when I can because you're vital too, for real. Thanks for being enlightened these are times. Love you guys. That helps my soul, man. So, Christy, you're the best.

Thank you for saying that. Thank you for contributing. It is t-y-t.com slash go to keep Young Turks healthy as well. And we got a giant post game for you guys today, guys. I'm going to save the member comments on AOC because I want to read it in the post game. I think they're really interesting. They're on all sides. We're also going to talk about Janine Piro's wild, possibly intoxicated appearance on Fox News

over the weekend. Donald Trump admitted voter suppression in a stunning way. That's all in the postgame today. Members get that t-y-t.com slash join to become a member. All right, Anna, what's next? We keep hearing from the Trump administration that there are protections for renters in order to prevent them from getting evicted in the middle of this pandemic. But the truth is, if you look at the Kushner family and their own practices when it comes to rent, they are not allowing COVID-19 to stand in the way of demanding their tenants pay their monthly rent. So there were actually a few different notices given to the tenants who live in Kushner

properties. On Thursday, March 19th, for instance, and this is according to Mother Jones, Westminster Management, which is owned by the Kushner companies and boasts a holding of more than 20,000 apartments across six states, sent residents in at least one property and notice about rent collection. So it read important changes to billing and payments. So you might be thinking, oh, maybe they're letting people know, hey, you can defer your rent, but that's not the case, before outlining a new online platform that would accept credit or debit card payments for a fee or by e-check without additional charge. Two days later, on March 21st, the company sent

another email to residents while it acknowledged the global pandemic by saying the company hoped, quote, quote, you all stay safe and healthy in these challenging times, it went on to tell tenants to sign up for the new payment platform ASAP. And then on Wednesday, March 25th, the company again reminded tenants of the new rent payment platform this time via paper notices slipped under apartment doors. The messages had no mention of any rent breaks or a willingness to work with tenants facing financial hardship due to the coronavirus. Okay. And then by the way, one of its properties, 18 Sydney Place in Brooklyn, has at least two ongoing code enforcement violation actions from city housing inspectors, one related to mold, the other to roaches.

So some of these people are living in not so great conditions, and they're also not getting a break at all due to COVID-19, and it's pretty gross. So, Anna, are Kushner property is looking for a break from the government, though? They absolutely are. So, you know, we've talked about the stimulus bill that was passed by Congress in great detail. And one of the provisions that Democrats succeeded in passing was that the Trump administration would not take advantage of any of that stimulus money. However, the provision was written in such a way that it actually allows for Jared Kushner

and his family to take advantage of that taxpayer money for their business. So let me tell you exactly how that would work. So while the provision expressly bars such funds from going to companies controlled by the spouse, child, son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the president and other officials, in order for the prohibition to kick in, the person in question would have to, quote, directly or indirectly own or control 20% or more of a company. Now here's the thing. Jared, Cushner rarely owns that much in his family's firm's, family firm's various real estate projects, according to a person familiar with the family's business arrangements. The ownership is usually divided between Cushner, his three siblings, his two parents, and various outside

investors. So he certainly does qualify, and you would be crazy to think that he wouldn't try to tap into it. Yeah. Of course, the company will and say, oh, it's got nothing to do with Jared, but there's all these other Cushner that need to be taken care of. let alone that outside investors. So look, on the one hand, if all you care about is numbers, I understand you'll ask for the most amount you can get, the Kushners will for all their properties from the government, and then you'll give the least amount to your own tenants. But shouldn't that bother you on a human level, I mean, at a bare minimum, and shouldn't

our government not allow people to do that? And so those tenants, they're also being told, by the way, we're not going to, as Anna pointed out, not going to take care of your mold. We're not going to come in due maintenance because of coronavirus, but you still have to pay us ASAP. Exactly. And I want to talk about this a little more in the postgame show today, become a member by going to t.yt.com slash join.

My father's actually a landlord. And I want to share a discussion that we had recently about this whole stimulus package and how it would impact him. So again, become a member. Go to t.yt.com slash join. For everyone else, thank you so much for watching. Hope you enjoyed the stories we did today. And we'll see you tomorrow.

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 at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger, and I'll see you soon.