The Young Turks - What A Relief

Episode Date: March 12, 2021

The House voted for Biden’s COVID relief bill, and progressives didn’t hold their vote for a minimum wage hike. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker promotes himself with a provision from the relief bill that he voted against. 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, well, we're young church, Janky, Granite and Consparing with you guys. Are we going to have a preposterously good show? I guess. Okay, so we're going to have fun.

We're gonna go after politicians and the powerful as always. You know why? Because we do news. And that's what you're supposed to do in the news business. Okay, but you're also supposed to do something else, which is correct your mistakes when you have them. So yesterday we talked about Brooklyn Dad and how he's being paid by a really American pack. And the essence of that story about watch out for trolls and bots on Twitter is of course true. And we've covered in in many stories. But the specifics in that case need to be corrected. So really American PAC is not a pro-Biden pack. It's actually run by a guy who's very progressive and is a Bernie Sanders supporter. And we've actually had them on the show before. And they're good guys.

They were just helping in the election against Donald Trump once Bernie lost the primary. And they had started using Brooklyn Dad for graphics and social media, yes, but only after the primary. So they didn't have anything new with this anti Bernie Sanders posts. And so I just want to make sure that we corrected the record on that. Because guys, look, people make mistakes, but unlike Fox News, Republicans, etc., we don't just keep doubling down and pretending that there's an alternate reality. So I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that. Really, American PAC is actually good guys. Brooklyn Dad's opinions are his own. I don't agree with him on Bernie, I agree with him on Biden, and probably don't agree with him on.

on Biden anymore, but that's neither here nor there. He was not a great case of buying influence on social media, though there is a lot of that, and we will continue to cover that story overall. All right, but we got tons of stories for you guys, including the COVID relief bill, where we had some role to play, and I want to ask you guys one more question about that. So Anna, take it away. President Joe Biden has officially signed the coronavirus relief bill into law. Just recently, the House also voted to pass the amended Senate version of the legislation. And only one Democrat voted against it.

So to give you all the details, by a 220 to 211 vote with no Republicans voting in favor, Democrats handed Biden a crucial first legislative vote. victory. One Democrat joined Republicans in voting against the measure, and that was Representative Jared Golden of Maine, who had cited concerns about the cost and scope of the legislation. So, you know, the House had already voted in favor of passing the amended version of the bill yesterday before we went to air. But I really wanted you to be on the show with us today, Jank, to talk about it, because you really spearheaded this effort to try to get progressives to fight back since this amended version of the bill clearly does not include the $15 an hour minimum wage. And, you know, there was pressure for the Progressive Caucus to withhold its vote

until a $15 an hour minimum wage was included. Obviously, they didn't do that. And clearly they made a political calculation indicating that it's just smarter to vote in favor of this bill because of how overwhelmingly popular it is. You know, polling indicates that upwards of 70% of voters wanted to pass this version of the bill. So with all of that said, with everything in context, what are your thoughts? Yeah. So first, it's important to be honest and give the full context. So we desperately want a $15 minimum wage in this bill. I'm going to explain why in a second. But as it turns that it wasn't. So does that mean the bill is terrible? No, actually the bill is really good in many

different areas. And we've talked about this throughout the coverage, and we were honest with you guys throughout the coverage. Some of the compromises are totally unnecessary, like bringing down the size of the checks for the unemployed and for people in general, limiting the checks to less people. Those compromises were bad and unnecessary, but there's wonderful parts of the bill. You know, $20 billion in COVID vaccine manufacturing, $50 billion in testing, $25 billion in rental and utility assistance, $10 billion in mortgage aid, $350 billion in relief to state local and tribal governments, $120 billion, K through 12 schools. I mean, on and on. We've told you all about these. And Bernie Sanders is right, for example, when he says that that's actually

very progressive. And the size of the bill, which is one of the largest ever in American history, $1.9 trillion, and the fact that it was geared mainly towards average Americans and not business interests. All that is wonderful. But, okay, both of these things are true, but they could have, in my opinion, had a real fight over the $15 minimum wage. I don't know that they would have won it exactly this time around, but they certainly would have, one, they would have had a real, real chance at it, and number two, they certainly would have gotten a lot further in the processing and could help to pass it next time.

But it's not in my opinion, it's a fact that they chose not to fight on that. And that's progressives in Congress. So Bernie Sanders was not going to introduce it in the bill at all, and thanks to the pressure that you guys put on. That is no exaggeration, nearly 100% you guys, the Young Turks audience that did that. He introduced an amendment, which was great progress because that means we got to find out who the eight Democrats voting against it are. Now we could apply political pressure.

If we don't know who they are, we can't put on political pressure, that's why they're constantly hiding and never actually want to hold votes on these progressive policies because they don't want to get caught with their hand in the corporate cookie jar. So the fact that we pressured them to have that vote was great and you should be incredibly proud of that. Now, having said that, they could have blocked it in the house. It only would take six. In fact, since Jared Golden voted against it, it would have only taken five progressives in the house to block the bill. When you block the bill, does that mean all these wonderful things wouldn't have happened? No. But is there an actual price? Yes, there is. Now, if they thought far enough ahead, they could have done this without

a delay. But asking politicians, including progressives, to think ahead in Congress, seems like an unrealistic ask. I'm being harsh, but they've earned that harshness. They have no planning at all. They still don't have a plan to pass minimum wage, okay? So, okay, at the late date, it would have delayed the bill a little bit. Okay, that's true. You don't hide around that, these are not black and white issues, okay? So I'm curious what you guys think. That's why we have a poll on it. Would you have delayed the passage of this otherwise really important bill to try to fight for the $15 minimum wage? So go to t.com slash polls slash fight for 15 or you could just go to slash polls and we have all our polls there. I'm genuinely curious

because it's a legitimate opinion to say no, this is so important. We cannot delay the passage. Folks got to get their unemployment checks, etc. But I think that if they had fought on this ground, they would have had a chance to put the minimum wage in this bill. And honestly, they just chose not to. And they chose not to delay the bill. They chose not to plan ahead. And they chose to give up on it. Now, Bernie and others would say, and I'm sure the progressors in Congress would say, Jake, there's nothing we could do. You got the eight Democratic senators who were going to vote against it. We knew they were going to vote against it. We told you they were going to vote against it. Yes, but I need their names. Otherwise, you're never going to create pressure

and you're never going to win. And if we had actually demanded this as part of the negotiation, maybe we would have had a shot. It's a must pass bill. They can't not pass it. We would have been at the table. Instead, we got honestly nothing on that other than the thing that the Young Turks audience forced. So I vote that they should have blocked the bill. I'm curious what you guys think. But overall, of course, the media doesn't say it like that at all. They say if Joe Manchin and Chris's cinema block a bill, that's wonderful and strategic and moderate and great. If progressives ever blocked the bill, I'm not unaware that the world would collapse in on them. And the media complicit in the corporate rule in this country would blame progressives for

everything, right? But all that notwithstanding, they should have actually gotten themselves to the negotiating table. That's my position, Anna. Yeah, I agree with your position overall. And to be honest with you, part of the reason why I didn't come out, you know, breathing fire on yesterday's show is because at this point, I've just become pretty disillusioned with electoral politics and thinking that there are saviors for us within Congress. No one in Congress is going to come out to serve our best interests unless we have power behind us. And we might have people overall in a bipartisan way who want a $15 an hour minimum wage. The issue is that those people are not organized. And so if progressive lawmakers

sit back and make a calculation, they know that there's a double standard in how the media covers Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema versus how they would cover them if they decided to be the ones who held up that bill over even an incredibly popular provision to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. So the reason why they made that calculation is because what are we going to do? If you have unorganized people who are just maybe for a week straight tweeting mean things to them, that's not really power, just keeping it real, right? So electoral politics is certainly a part of the puzzle in my mind. But the more I study this and the more I look at other models in other countries and what actually works in increasing, you know, the minimum

wage on a regular basis to not just a living wage, but to something that's actually a little more equitable to what managers or executives would make. You need to have organized unions, organized labor. Every single Nordic country has no federal minimum wage. They don't have the government set the minimum wage for them. They have trade unions, labor unions that literally negotiate on behalf of the workers, which is why they not only get paid far more than Americans get paid for work. But more importantly, they get weeks and weeks and weeks off, paid time off in order to rest, in order to spend time with their families. Their working conditions are a lot safer, a lot more enjoyable to work in. And people in Nordic countries don't live to work. They work to

live. And so I think that we just have this very narrow mindset about, oh, if we just elect the hero, if we just elect our savior, if we just elect the right person, that doesn't go far enough. We can't just get involved in election cycles and then back off and get angry on social media when these lawmakers don't serve our best interests. They don't do it because they don't fear us. And the reason why they don't fear us is because we're not organized. Yeah, and two really important points to think about going forward. So number one, all Democrats, unfortunately, including progressives in Congress, are always throw up their hands and go, well, there's nothing we can do.

No, if you make your case, there's a lot you can do. But it takes that, yes, I'm going to use the word courage, I know they get deeply offended. It takes the courage to challenge your own Democratic colleagues, because here's how you could win. So you force a vote, and then you say, wait a minute, the $15 minimum wage is incredibly popular. Even a majority of Republican voters want it, incredibly popular, incredibly popular. It's immensely popular in Arizona and West Virginia. Why is Mansion blocking it?

Why is Mansion blocking it? In Delaware, it's through the roof popular. Why are the two Delaware senators blocking it? But that would require Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rokana, all of them, Giant Paul, who's supposed to be the leader of the Progressive Caucus, to call out other Democrats. And they just don't want to. Let's be honest. Let's be honest about it.

They don't want to. It's going to create discomfort for them. Now, look, I'll be honest on a second thing with you guys. When we critique them, they get very offended. But good, who cares? No, no, but they're supposed to work for us. We're not supposed to work for them. We're not their PR agents. I don't care if they're progressives. I don't care if they're conservatives. I don't care. On any particular issue, if they lack the courage to do the right thing. And more importantly, if they go back on their word of representing our best interests and increasing the federal. I mean, how many Democrats campaigned on increasing the federal minimum wage, not just progressives, corporate Democrats as well? And then when they don't follow through on their promises and they get critiqued on it, they act as though they're the ones who are aggrieved.

No, you're the one who lied to the American people. You're the one who lied to your constituents. And when push came to shove, when they had an opportunity to fight, they didn't do it. Yeah, look, I don't know that I would go as far as saying that they lied, okay? But I will say this, look, to finish the point I was making, Anna, if you're a progressive legislator now and you're getting offended by legitimate critique based on facts, well, how does that separate you from the rest of the elite and the rest of the establishment? I remember when we ran those campaigns against establishment candidates with these exact

individuals, they didn't seem to mind offending the incumbents we were running against. They didn't mind offending the establishment. At that point, they loved it. Now that they're in office, some of them, not all of them, some of them are saying, how dare you offend me? Well, that doesn't really separate you from the rest of the Democrats. It just doesn't. So you could spare your offense. I don't care. I'm with Anna. So like some of them are deeply offended at me. No, I'm offended at you. We worked our asses off. We worked our asses off. You at least owe us a plan. So the last thing is, guys, yes, if we fight and we embarrass people with the wrong positions, that's how politics works. Then you can win by pointing out how popular

our positions are. If our own people don't dare to point out how popular our positions are and fight for them, well, obviously we have a 0% chance of winning. That is obvious. So we must, You and I together, and I don't mean Anna, I mean you guys out there in the audience, if we continue to put pressure on them in a thoughtful strategic way, and not in an over the top way, not in a burn down the house kind of way, but in a thoughtful strategic way, then we can create the pressure on them to create pressure on their colleagues. Otherwise, it looks like for the moment being they're going to choose a comfortable route. Guys, at a bare minimum, we have every right in the world to demand a plan to pass $15 minimum wage. Because no such plan exists right now.

I am positive of that. And you're not, don't give me loose talk about, oh, maybe one day we'll end a filibuster. Okay, then what's your plan for ending the filibuster? So if they don't have a plan, then they can spare getting offended. They can actually get to work and do the thing that they said they were going to do. Saying you're in favor of it is not good enough. That's what Joe Biden does, that's what Kamala Harris does. That's what every establishment Democrat does. You must actually pass them. No excuses. If you don't pass them, then yes, it's on you. We got to take a break. So let's do that. And when we come back, more news for you, including GOP senators who are trying to take credit for the coronavirus relief bill,

even though they voted against it. We'll be right back. called Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by,

the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it. You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training

or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. I'm going to be able to be. All right, guys, as you've seen the graphic there, we got Biden's first primetime address to the nation tonight. We're going to cover for you guys live, of course.

So right after this show, no, well, the post game's going to be delayed. So after the show, we're going to the prime time address, we're covering that, and then we'll do analysis immediately after that, and then a little bit of extra post game for you guys. So stay tuned right here for that. And then right after that, it's Thursday. So it's deep dive with Jordan Yule over Twitch. That's gonna start at 9.30 p.m. Eastern after our coverage ends. And so that is at Twitch.tv slash TYT.

And he's organized, he's joined tonight by labor organizer Jonah Furman. And he's talking about the pro act. No, not named after my son, but an important act. So check that out the TYT program. continues on Twitch tonight. And then speaking of Twitch, another exclusive featuring Dr. Rashad Richie starts next Monday, March 15th. Rashad is amazing. His show is called Indisputable. You're gonna absolutely love it. This guy's on fire in a good way, okay? You've seen him on TYT before, but he's literally hard to argue with. So check him out on Mondays, 2.15 p.m.

Eastern, I know these are very specific times, but Monday, 2.15 p.m. Eastern, And they'll talk about the tops news stories, read your tweets, engage in debates. And guys, if you're, everybody can watch those shows for free on Twitch when they're live. But if you're a member on Twitch, then you can watch them anytime you want. So, and of course on Twitch, if you have Amazon Prime, it's free for you, but we get the revenue. So that's a great and easy way to watch these Twitch exclusive shows like Jordan, Yule's Deep Dive and Rashad Ritchie's Indisputable. Okay, Jolly Good writes it in our member section. Do you think members of the Progressive Caucus even understand when they have power, like forcing inclusion of $15 minimum wage on a must-pass bill? They appear clueless, like unaware they have the same power as Mansion. Well, see, again, they would be deeply offended at that Jolly Good. But overall, you're generally right. So are they unaware of like normal rules of the Senate and normal rules? Rules of politics? No, they're not unaware of it, but they've never used their power.

And they've been beat down so mercilessly in D.C. So that part is definitely true. I'm not minimizing it. If they blocked a bill, any bill, any must pass bill, if any progressive blocked it, every Republican, every Democrat, and everyone in the national media would rain down holy hell on them. But my point to the progressive caucus is, A, who cares? I got news for you. They don't like you anyway. You keep thinking that they like you. Maybe they like you as a person now that you're in Washington, but they don't like any of your positions. And they're never going to agree to any of your positions. Power does not concede without a demand. And you can't, and you must demand. If you don't demand, you're never going to get it. So are they unaware of that slightly?

But more of it is just, it makes them uncomfortable. And they get gaslit into thinking that they shouldn't act and if they do they'd be terrible. No, you're terrible if you don't act. That's the reality. All right, back on a young church. Jane and Anna with you guys, tons of stories to get to, so let's do it. Anna, what's next? When it comes to the recently signed coronavirus relief bill, not a single GOP senator voted in favor of it. But it's really a strange situation when they go ahead and brag about it when they fought so aggressively against it. One particular example is a Republican senator from Mississippi named Roger Wicker who decided

to tweet about all the wonderful things in the bill. Again, he voted against it, but on Twitter, he argued independent restaurant operators have won $28.6 billion worth of targeted relief. This funding will ensure small businesses can survive the pandemic by helping to adapt their operations and keep their employees on the payroll. But again, he voted against it. Now he and disgraced Senator Kirsten Cinema proposed an amendment that would include that funding. And so after he voted against it, reporters wanted to know why. And the argument that he made was one good provision in a $1.9 trillion bill doesn't mean I have to vote for the whole thing. So apparently he didn't care about helping small businesses and keeping people employed that much.

Yeah, no, look, you can't brag about a bill you didn't vote on. didn't vote on. You just, that's not a thing. In fact, it's the opposite. Oh, now this provision is so good. It helps restaurant odor so much. And that's why voted against it to make sure you'd never get it. But that would be correct. That would be correct. You voted to make sure they couldn't get that great provision you're bragging about. That's not disputable. That is a stone cold fact. Now, Anna, why would he say something so absurd? Because they're not used to the media holding them accountable. Normally, lies like this by politicians were never called out, ever. Five years ago, the Roger Wicker would have gotten away with this, no problem at all, okay?

But things have changed, partly because the media got more aggressive with Trump, but this is the one upside of social media. I've been saying this for a long time. The internet's going to catch you. And so now when the internet catches somebody in an obvious lie like this and then they blasted out all over social media, it makes the Democrats go, oh yeah, I guess we could call out their lies, couldn't we? And so the head of the DNC, Jamie Harrison, did that in this case. And then the media goes, oh, he said, she said, now we could actually say something. Now the Democrats say he's lying. No, it's not the Democrats say he's lying. He is, he didn't vote for the bill. In fact, you should write an article about Roger Wicker is proud to have voted against

a provision that he thinks is great and would have helped you. Your senator brags about killing a bill that he thinks would have helped you so much. That's the correct title. What's that? I hear what you're saying. It's a little clunky, it's a little lengthy, but I hear what you're saying. That's true. Yeah. And look, this senator and his decision to vote against the relief package has been written about by reporters. Obviously, that's how we know about it. And I think that they're framing as far as I've read so far is correct. And look, the reason why he's doing this is because he doesn't want to be held accountable by his Republican constituents who more than likely find this bill to be incredibly popular.

In fact, Morning Consult recently did a poll and found that 75% of all U.S. citizens favor this bill passing. That's three of every four Americans polled expressing support for this massive relief bill. So, you know, Republicans certainly engaged in a miscalculated maneuver here, thinking that they would somehow spin this as, well, we're being responsible and we care about the deficit. But it doesn't matter if you're a Democratic voter or a Republican. voter. We've been hearing about how bad the deficit is from Republicans when they're not in power over and over again. But they never have an issue with the deficit when it comes to voting in favor of massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich. So this talking point doesn't really

go over well anymore. And when you look at the polling and you see how many Americans wanted this bill to pass, well now Republicans find themselves attempting to spin their actions in some sort of positive way. And Wicker, you know, did this in such a clunky, awful way. Other Republicans have decided that they're gonna downplay the success or some of the more popular provisions in the legislation. But so far as I've seen, Roger Wicker is the only one who's like, I'm gonna vote against it, but then I'm gonna brag about it. Yeah, it's crazy. Well, look, last two quick things on this. Number one, the press still gets, one, gets pressure to cover these stories after they get supernova hot on social media. Number two,

They're still making a thousand mistakes, including saying that asking the Biden administration over and over again, why didn't you get a bipartisan version of this bill? They did, 75% of the country, including a majority of Republicans like this bill. Hence, it is bipartisan. If the actual question you should be asking logically is why didn't Republican senators vote for a bill and Republicans in the House, why didn't they vote for a bill that 59% of their own voters want? What is wrong with them? Why are they so against bipartisanship that the American people actually want? And the last quick note is, and this almost never happens, so you

have credit where credit is due. Pelosi was right. She said after they vote against it, they'll attend ribbon cutting ceremonies and try to take credit for it in their districts. And that's exactly what happened. Well, let's move on to the other strategy we're seeing with GOP lawmakers. Now that President Joe Biden has signed his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill into law, Republican lawmakers are trying to downplay the success, or more importantly, the more popular provisions in that law. For instance, there is a child credit of $3,600 per child under the age of six, and then $3,000 for every child between the age of 6 and 17, which means that

families of four can expect quite a bit of money deposited directly in their accounts every quarter as a result of this child tax credit. It's a pretty big deal. There are other popular portions of it as well. And already we're starting to see the benefits of the incoming money reflected in the stock market. For those of you who think the stock market is the only metric that matters, but more importantly, this is expected to lift at least a half of children, half of children living in poverty, out of poverty. So again, there are good provisions, although we've been highly critical of the fact that it did not include the $15 an hour minimum wage and all of that. Now, with all that said, here's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell doing

his best to pretend as if this incredibly popular bill is not going to save people, is not going to have the positive benefits that economists are predicting it will have. Take a look. All the signs are that we're on the way out of this, and this is vastly more expensive than should have been approved at this juncture. The economy is coming back. People are getting vaccine. We're on the way out of this. We're about to have a boom. And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion. So if you have a boom, where is the boom coming from? I mean, we certainly didn't see an economic boom after you and your crony signed off on Trump's tax cuts for the rich. All they did was go off and

buy shares of their own stocks with that money and pay their investors dividends. We didn't see job creation. We didn't see an economic boom. We did not. But, you know, all of a sudden, no, this transfer of money to people who desperately need it, no, that's not going to have an effect on improving people's lives and lifting them out of poverty at all, according to Mitch McConnell. Someone who fought against the bill. So here's how you know that it is going to lift the economy and Mitch McConnell thinks so. Because McConnell would not give that speech if he didn't think it was going to help the economy. Let's say that they passed a bill to rename a post office. Would Mitch McConnell give a press conference going?

Now remember, renaming this post office is not going to lift the economy. Of course. No, he only gives that press conference and gives that speech when he thinks, oh, oh, this is really going to lift the economy. And I want to do a talking point now ahead of time to try to blunt it and pretend that it was our, it should be our credit that the economy was lifted, even though we voted against a thing that I know is going to lift the economy. But why do they know that? Because all the legislators know that progressive policies actually are better for the economy. That's why Mitch McConnell, near the end of his election, not this time, but the one before, argued in favor of Kentucky's version of Obamacare.

Because he knows progressive policies are super popular and they work. And he knows the tax cuts for the rich doesn't work because they don't inject the money back into the economy. They do savings with it, which does not help as much. So that's why he's in a cold sweat panic. His donors made him vote against all of his voters, 59% of Republican voters and 75% of overall voters wanted this bill. But his donors told him, hey, bitch, I mean Mitch, get out there and vote against it and have every Republican vote against it.

And he said, yes, sir, yes, sir. So then he has to come out and go, okay, this deeply popular bill that is definitely going to work in lifting the economy won't work in lifting the economy. And we'd like to take credit for the economy for no reason at all instead. Well, you know, in the old days they would have called that 50-50. I hope the media has the courage now to say that's obvious nonsense. Well, why don't we check in with conservative media, including Fox News, which has also tried to put out its own narrative for why this $1.9 trillion relief package is just not the way to go. Let's change gears and talk about when many people are calling a victory for Joe Biden,

the president of the United States, because the unifier got his party solely only except for one congressman in the House, Democrat, to vote for a $1.9 trillion aid package. If all the money would just go to families, restaurant owners, and it really went to COVID relief, nobody would have a problem with this because we want to help people. And not one Republican voted for it. And, you know, they just said, Biden kept saying he's going to be the unifier in chief. Yeah, I just think it's a joke. They're saying, Senator Schumer's a brilliant negotiator with his own party.

He had trouble getting his own party to vote for this. Congratulations. He's even alienated Susan Collins, which is the most centrist, I would argue, the most centrist Republican out there. So good luck with that. Well, it looks like we don't really need the help of Republicans to pass this kind of legislation. And in terms of bipartisanship, who gives a damn? about bipartisanship within Congress. These are people in positions of power. I don't really care about them singing kumbaya together. I care about Congress passing policies that have

bipartisan appeal among the electorate. And the $1.9 trillion relief package certainly did, according to a morning consult poll that found that 75% of United States citizens favor the bill passing. That's three out of every four Americans polled expressing support for the massive relief bill. That's bipartisanship right there. And the only type of negotiating that took place that should not have been taking place was the negotiating between progressive Democrats and conservative Democrats. That didn't even need to happen. We need to pass policies that actually benefit the people and happen to be incredibly popular with the people. And this coronavirus relief bill fell under that category. Look, main credit goes to the

Democrats were passing it overall, although it's a layup. They control the House, the Senate, and the White House. And Anna's right, they didn't even have to negotiate with the Republicans at all. And the realities, they were negotiating with their own donors. Let's just keep it real. But credit in passing a very, very popular bill and one that will be effective. Should have been better, but at least they pass. Okay. So for the Democrats, though, on the messaging part of it, can you please go on the offense for the first time in your life? Look to frame. Every time they ask you about bipartisanship or Fox News makes this point, the Democrats should go and say, why did the Republicans all vote against bipartisanship?

75% of the country wants this bill passed. Why are Republicans against bipartisanship? Why did every single Republican vote against, even their own voters? Fifty nine percent of their own voters wanted it. See, if you do that, then they have to play defense. And then they have to explain why they voted against their own voters. Guys, I swear to God, politics is... 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 VATs. your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. 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 E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-Y-T. Check it out today.

It's not that hard. The Democrats just nine out of ten times choose not to do simple tactics. I don't know. I don't know if they're afraid of offending Mitch McConnell and the Republicans and media. You don't have to wait for them. You could actually tell people the truth without waiting for Democrat or a Republican to say it because then you'll be waiting a long, long time. And one more note for the media, when they say that they want something to be more targeted and focused, which is what every Republican said, and yes, some corporate Democrats like Mansion, targeted and focused means less. You should clarify that for your audience. Almost none of the hundreds of articles I read on this clarifies, focused means less. You make it sound positive. You're using their talking points. Oh, they're going to make this really focused. That sounds really positive. No, that means they're going to give you less.

Less assistance, be honest with your audience. Now, just to further reinforce the point that we're trying to make about passing legislation that's popular with people overall, regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum, I give you a little piece of evidence from West Virginia, notoriously red state, where reporters asked one particular individual what he thought about the fact that the GOP, overwhelmingly voted against passing the relief package. Let's take a look. Shear-on-ray justice has a disability and hasn't been able to find a job. How do you feel about the fact that no Republican senators voted for this COVID relief bill?

They all said no to it. Yeah, that's some bull, that's some hogwash bullshit there. I mean, they should, I mean, I apologize for my language, but they should loosen up a little bit. You know what I mean? Kevin Johnson, the late-off minor, says he voted for Donald Trump and usually supports Republicans. But this agrees with how the GOP has handled this. With this aid, he says he will now be able to pay up the rent and pay up the bills because we're behind, you know, as well as everybody else. I'm sure I ain't the only one that's got a tough time. That is the kind of reporting that I appreciate. That is the kind of report, kind of package.

that they should be putting together because far too often, I think that because of the ideological bubbles that we find ourselves in through social media and all that, some people just aren't exposed to the truth. Like there might be Republican voters who have no idea about the obstruction that takes place by Republican lawmakers when it comes to passing incredibly popular legislation that would actually benefit their lives. So that kind of report is just so important because it bridges this divide between the left and the right in this country. Overwhelmingly, we agree on how this economic system is not set up in a way that actually benefits people. And there are areas in which we can work together. And this is a perfect

example of that. Yeah, Anna, you're totally right. And I want to give credit to both CNN and Gary Tuckman in particular, the reporter in that situation, because I'm tired of hearing Walde elite sign cable news. So in this case, they actually went and talked to real people. And the real people that Joe Manchin was pretending were against more assistance, let alone the Republicans pretending likewise. And it's lo and behold, it turns out when you talk to real people, Democrat or Republican, yeah, the polls are right. Seventy-five percent are in favor of it. They love it. And they're wondering, wait, why did the Republicans all vote against it? Yes, why don't you let people know how they voted? Otherwise, they don't know. Those guys might

all vote Republican again, based on Dr. Seuss or whatever nonsense, if the press doesn't do its job and tell people, you know the Republicans voted against the thing that you really, really love. And so there they got the memo and they showed it to the rest of the country. So a great job on that report. When we come back from the break, Biden is still moving forward with some pretty terrible decisions regarding immigration and unaccompanied minors. In fact, he's thinking about reopening a detention center that's built on a toxic waste area. We'll give you the details on that story and more when we come back. All right, back on TYOT during the break here.

So many of your comments to read, let me dive in, member section first. Cousin Mini says, Democrats gave concessions to Republicans without even demanding that they vote in favor of the bill. It's their MO, preemptive, unilateral disarmament. If I was a Republican and I could make my opponents concede without needing to do anything in return, I'd brag about it too. And so that goes to the wicker point. And cousin Vinnie's right. So workers saying, ha ha, I got this provision. I wanted in the bill. And then I voted against it. Well, no, the whole point of getting your provision in the bills is that you're supposed to vote in favor of it. But Democrats, it's not that they don't know politics. It's, you know, it's all a shell game to support the

same donors. But if you knew politics at all, you'd be like, no, I'm not putting your amendment in the bill and letting you take credit for it. If you're voting, no. It's politics 101. Ricardo Rister Shelley writes in, breaking news, New York lawmakers have taken the first step in impeaching Andrew Cuomo. Okay, we're going to look into that because that is breaking news and check that out. Thanks for letting us know, Ricardo, because we are live on the air here. JLR 1951 writes, progressives must learn how to message their agenda not only to urban and suburban voters, but rural voters too. It's actually really easy. Just Democrats, if you're wondering why Why don't they? If I keep claiming it's easy and I keep telling you and you keep going,

well, yeah, that is actually, that makes sense. That's fairly easy to do, right? Why don't Democrats do it? Well, it's because their donors get uncomfortable at certain things. So if they had a populous message that would appeal to rural voters, their donors would veto it. They go, no, no, no, no, no. That's not the direction I want you to go in. And they would funnel their money to someone else. And that's what's ruining our democracy, honestly. So Colorado Blue laser regular rights in, and these are all our members, tyt.com slash join to be among these folks doing the show with us. Sadly, he explains, I don't expect Biden to hammer the Republicans tonight in his address. Remember that Dem leadership publicly and explicitly said that they want

and will support a strong Republican Party. They will avoid blasting the Republicans for their scumbaggery because reasons. And so that's true. That's Joe Biden 101. Our leader on the so-called left-wing side is supposed to make our case. But our leaders, Barack Obama, Joe Donnelly, McCaskill, Manchester, or you name it, constantly make their case. Well, my Republican friends are such good friends, are wonderful, wonderful, wonderful people. They didn't vote for this, but I'm so sorry about that, but we'll work with them on the next bill. No, no, it's a shug game. That's the reason you never make your own case is because you want them to block progressive legislation that you're pretending to be in favor of.

That's how this game is played. Okay, big Jerry writes in, who cares about bipartisanship? We elected the Democrats to pass the bills and change the country, not suck up to bipartisanship. Look, that also is such an obvious point. That's why, isn't it incredibly frustrating that the rest of the media and the Democrats don't make the most obvious points? What's a bigger priority for Democrats? Did they, is it bipartisanship or is it actually helping the American people with the bills that you pass?

If you say it is a bigger priority for you to work with your Republican friends in Washington than to deliver for your voters, you obviously have the wrong priorities. How could everybody not realize that? Well, that's why we do the Young Turks. All right on the Young Turks, I want to thank Michelle Miro for hidden that button below and becoming a young Turk. You guys are the ones that bring change into the world, so we appreciate it. And Al Smith on YouTube super chat wrote in Jenkin, TYT, here's $10 for calling Mitch McConnell what he is. All right, we'll take it. There was a lot of oomph behind that. I liked

it. Anyway, we have other dues. Let's get to it. Yep. The number of unaccompanied migrant children detained along the southern border has unfortunately tripled in the last two weeks. Now, again, these are children who are coming to the border without parents, without family. And as a result, the Biden administration is looking for more facilities to detain them in. And so as a result, the Biden administration is thinking about reopening another one of the detention centers that the Trump administration actually got quite a bit of criticism for. The Biden administration is planning to reopen Homestead, renamed Biscayne influx, care facility to make room for a growing number of Central American migrant children

arriving at the southern border. So immigrants rights and social justice groups say that it should be illegal to use this facility because it actually sits on top of land that has toxic chemicals. So among other waste, the land contains arsenic, lead, and mercury, which are known to cause immune problems and increase the risk of cancer and children. The nonprofit environmental organization, Earth Justice, also expressed concerns about metals, pesticides, semi-volatile, and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater around the detention center. And the EPA also indicates that the facility is safe to use after cleaning it. But despite the EPA's reassurance that the Homestead Superfund is safe, by the way, Homestead Superfund is a super creepy name. Let's

keep it real. It is located on wetland, which would have to be retested after every storm, something the EPA does not do. So I talked about this when Ryan Grimm was on the show, Jank, on one of the days when you weren't here. And Ryan Grim, you know, talked about two real solutions to what we're experiencing at the border. One of them is a long-term solution, of course, and that's, hey, maybe maybe we don't get involved in the governing or the politics of Latin American countries and then dis-disabilize them and lead to situations where people are fleeing their countries looking for safety here. So obviously that's a long-term solution because the United States should be helping to financially support these countries to make them safer and better for people to live in.

The other part of it, though, is there is this overwhelming bureaucracy that needlessly keeps the children detained when in reality they have sponsors, they have family members in the United States. United States and we need to find ways to expedite the process of getting those kids out of the detention centers and into the homes of these sponsors and family members within the United States as they await whatever hearing they need in front of a judge. Okay, first of all, I want to acknowledge that it's not a super easy situation, because as more people come in, you do really struggle with getting them out in three days like you're supposed to, according to a judge's order, where are you going to put them? And that becomes a hard question. And then if you start running out of space, you start thinking

about opening up old facilities. Okay, so I understand that dynamic. We all do. Now having said that, are there some facilities you should not reopen? Well, of course, logically, of course there would be. Is this one of those facilities? The answer seems to be an overwhelming yes. The Superfund site creates significant health issues so much so. Now there's a lot of debate about, Hey, is that contained to the Air Force base? Or is it broader than that? And what is the EPA rule and which administration was the EPA under when they ruled that way? All that stuff.

But there's a simple way to understand whether they should or not. This area is zoned in a way that says it is so dangerous, you're not allowed to put residential property on it. That's because you can't have humans living on this land. It's too dangerous for humans. But we're allowed to put for-profit detention centers on it. But that's actually more people, not less people, than residential. So what are you telling us? You're telling us you don't value those people.

If there are people who have homes and maybe middle class, whatever they might be, they have value and we don't want to endanger their lives. But if they're prisoners or their immigrants in a detention center, we don't value them. So we'll put them on land that might be poisonous. Now, are we sure that that's the case? Well, let me quote Kamala Harris. In 2019, when she was running for president, she said, quote, I will tell you, when I am elected, one of the first things I'm going to do is shut down these private detention facilities, just shut them down. She was in front of this same exact homestead facility.

She was referring to this facility and she said it was, quote, horrible and that people were lined up. up like prisoners. Look, I didn't say it should be shut down. Kamala Harris said it should be shut down. And now they're reopening that same facility. There's got to be accountability for Democrats when they huff and puff about Republicans and do the same exact thing after they get into office. Yeah, that's exactly right. And I actually want to read you the exact statement from Kamala Harris. This is reported in a BuzzFeed News article from June of 2019. And it says they were lined up like prisoners, it was horrible. I will tell you, when I'm elected, one of the first things I'm going to do is shut down the private detention facilities, just shut them down.

You paraphrase that, jank, but I wanted to make sure the audience had the exact quote, because this is what probably frustrates me the most about our current political climate, especially as it pertains to democratic lawmakers. They make those types of declarative statements. They engage in, for lack of a better phrase, the type of virtue signaling that appeals to good-natured voters who want to make sure that we treat people in a humane way and then think that we're just going to forget about it. But we don't forget about it. And then when you come at them with valid criticism for not actually fulfilling the promises that they made, well then, you know, I know certainly in the case of Kamala Harris, don't criticize her on Twitter

because you'll immediately be called racist by K-Hive folks who don't want you to ever call her out for any of her wrongdoing as a politician. But aside from Kamala Harris, any Democratic politician, hands off, don't criticize. They're better than Trump, they're better than Trump, they're better than Trump. But if Trump is the standard, it's the lowest possible bar for any lawmaker in Congress. And it certainly is an incredibly low bar for Democratic lawmakers when they spent the last four years complaining about how awful Trump is. If he's so awful, then don't use his same tactics, don't implement the same policies he did, and don't treat children in a cruel and vicious way as they're seeking refuge in the United States

as unaccompanied minors. I mean, think about it. They traveled to the United States without adults, without family. I mean, that is an incredibly dangerous, like, that's dangerous travel to do. I mean, think about how desperate that situation is. For them to be, you know, detained in these talks, literally toxic facilities is absolutely egregious and ridiculous. And I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican. If the administration is doing it, they deserve the critique. Yeah. And so last two things on this one. Have Kids gotten sick there? Yeah, of course they have. And so, and I don't mean just regular sickness, they've had a lot of that too, and I don't know if that's related to it. But specifically,

it appears things that are coming from the water. Now, you'd have to do long studies to prove definitively that it was because of the contaminants in the ground. But people that were all at a different facility in the same area had a number of ailments, including, by the way, women who had miscarriages. There's just so much hypocrisy in the in America that never gets called out. So all the pro-life people, well, that was a person, that was in your mind, that fetus is a person, and that person wanted to carry the term, the mom wanted to carry the term. And the baby didn't make it because of how toxic this land is. Yet the Republicans cheerily led for it when Trump was doing it. Now Democrats are okay

with it because Biden and Harris are doing it. Nah, it's our job in the press to call it out as it actually is. And I remember, Anna, when they went and did that photo op, it was right before the Miami debate, and we were there. And I remember the campaign is asking us to go cover it. And I thought, it's a photo op. They're going to look at a facility and say, tut, tut, tut, it doesn't really mean anything. And here we are, they're now in office, and if we call them out for that photo op, just like we just did, right? I guarantee you, they say, how dare you? Just like you said about K-Hive. But it's not just, I wish it was just K-Hive. It's most of the national media who also says, how dare you say that about Kamala Harris?

And then, of course, hide behind identity politics. Look, we're not the ones who made a big show in front of that facility pretending they were going to shut it down. So it's our job in the press to ask her accountability. So reporters in national media, why do you ask Kamala Harris, why she's reopening a facility, she guaranteed would be shut down. Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about the George Floyd case because there are some positive updates. Didn't really expect to share positive updates with you guys, but luckily there are some. So a federal judge has reinstated an additional criminal charge of third degree murder in the George Floyd case. Now, of course, this third degree murder charge has been

reinstated for the cop who decided to kneel on George Floyd's neck and suffocate him to death. And that's Derek Chauvin. Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin already faced charges of second degree unintentional murder and second degree manslaughter. And now that third degree murder charge, again, has been reinstated. And I'll go through why in just a minute. But if convicted, Chauvin could face up to 40 years in prison for second degree murder, up to 25 years for third degree murder and up to 10 years for second degree manslaughter. And he's pleaded guilty to all. three charges. Now, he had initially been charged with third degree murder. However, a judge had ruled that that charge, which is also known as the depraved mind murder charge, did not apply to this case. However, prosecutors fought back pretty aggressively, and they won in getting that same judge to reinstate that charge. And before I get into the nitty-gritty of all of that, Jank, why don't you jump in? Yeah, the main thing I want to tell you guys here is why this

is important. Because if you have only one charge against anyone, but especially against the cop where they fortunately or unfortunately, and in our opinion, unfortunately, get a lot more leeway from a jury than a regular citizen does. If you only have one charge, it becomes yes or no, right? And oftentimes cops win those cases. But if you have three charges, it allows the jury to compromise. It says, okay, well, maybe it wasn't depraved, heart, which is third degree murder, and he acted without regard for human life, maybe he was unintentionally causing his death while committing a third degree assault, which is second degree murder. Okay, I mean, look, I want all three are definitely right of the charges based on what we've seen

with our own eyes. But if at the end of the day he got the second degree murder charge in 25 years, that would be a better result than we get in 90% of the situations. So the fact that there are three different charges now is actually an excellent thing for justice overall, for our ability and our chance of getting justice. Now the Minnesota Attorney General decided to fight back after the judge had initially done away with that third degree murder charge. And the way that Keith Ellison in this case, that's the attorney I'm talking about here, did that was by pointing to precedent, which is why precedent is so important.

So there had been a different case involving a cop who was acting recklessly, and the third-degree murder charge applied to him. The charge was most recently used in this trial against former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor. He was convicted of the charge after prosecutors said he fired his gun at a person outside of his squad car's window, killing a woman and endangering his own partner. So the state, in response to Derek Chauvin, under the leadership of Keith Ellison, filed a motion saying that the former Minneapolis police officer, Mohamed Noor's sentencing, is precedential and now provides this court with clear guidance regarding the elements of third degree murder. And so Noor was convicted of the charge after prosecutors said that he fired his gun at a person outside of his squad car. So that precedent stands. And once that was presented to the judge, he felt that he had no choice,

but to reinstate the third degree murder charge. So that's actually some pretty great work by the Minnesota Attorney General. And as Jenk mentioned, it's good news overall in terms of increasing the chances of Derek Chauvin, actually suffering the consequences of what he did that day. And we'll give you the updates as we learn more about the case. Yeah, and last thing here is, you remember who Keith Ellson is? He was a very progressive member of Congress. He was the first Muslim member of Congress. And he had run for the head of the DNC and barely, barely lost.

And then they pretended he was going to be a co-chair and then didn't listen to a word he said, usual establishment stuff. And then he went and decided to be a run for Attorney General of Minnesota and won. And people thought, how that's curious. I wonder why he's doing that. Will that be of any use? Well, we have our answer. It turns out, thank God he did that. Because it wound up having a giant effect in probably the most important racial justice case in a long time in this country.

So Keith Ellison, a progressive delivery here. Let's take our break. And when we come back for the second hour, Senator Gillibrand is getting a lot of criticism for having a double standard on issues involving sexual harassment. And Tucker Carlson has some strong words against the military. And he's getting backlash for that. We'll give you that and more when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content,

and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.